New street and redevelopment for Dublin ?

Whats a ‘New York’ style development. Will it be ‘a stunning new development’ full of ‘luxury’ retail units and offering a ‘unique retail experience’ to the shoppers of Dublin. Honestly hyperbole knows no bounds these days.

My smart remarks aside the plan sounds very interesting. I noticed Arnotts already have a bargain shop in GPO arcade. The redevelopment of the Abbey street area in particular would be ver welcome. The construction of Luas was a bit if a missed opportunity to redefine the street and make it into a more pleaseing thoroughfare. Likewise for Liffey Street.

It will be very interesting to see what plans Arnotts come up with for this major site. This whole area is indeed being radically altered. Anyone see the film on RTE2 last night about Moore Street in 1974. What a grim place! All those vacant lots pre-Ilac centre. It really highlights how low things went and how much they have improved.

Though I’d have to say I thought exactly the opposite walking down there the other day under the Ilac canopy – what a monument to human failure that whole stretch is, built with such hope an optimism in the early 80s but now nothing but a decaying pile of grim concrete and grotty brickwork, the traders’ storage units a crude and unkempt backdrop to what could be a lively and pleasant market street. It’s only in hindsight you see that the workability of the Ilac in relation to Moore St depended almost entirely on the usual ‘blinding newness’ ploy – most of which wore away inside 5 minutes.

But yes, the marketing babble aside on the Arnotts proposals, it sounds like a very exciting scheme from an urban improvement perspective; it sounds like a great opportunity to finally address the hole in the bucket that is Liffey St Upper, and the deadness of Middle Abbey St – what could be two fine spaces, Abbey St in particular.
You’d wonder if Arnotts wanted Penneys too – what a foothold that would give them in the north city centre.
Indeed it’s possible they did, as a revamp of the whole BHS store as per Mary St was apparently planned two years ago now, but seems to have been put on hold…….

Interesting about the acquisition of the Chapters building. It would be a shame to see it disappear – a decent shop where for once the staff know what they’re about 🙁

“A MASSIVE redevelopment of Dublin city centre”

I think this story is being exaggerated – Arnott’s could not be gaining that much extra space above what they already have just by buying up the remaining smaller shops on the block. A new street might be good to break up the length of Middle Abbey Street and energise it a bit, but not just to generate more and more shopping…

Will be interesting to see the plan. Watch out for the obligatory ‘tower element’.

On the grapevine…

I was chatting to a Senior exec in Arnotts who told me all about this prior to the news being revealed in the Indo. What they told me was quite dramatic…

According to the info I got, the 1960s block fronting onto Henry Street would be demolished and replaced by a street linking Abbey Street. The teneants they are seeking for this development include many US retailers who have never been to Europe before. The intention is to break from the British imported High Street which is repeated ad nauseum throughout Ireland and replace it with stores that will make Henry Street the ultimate shopping destination. The assembled site is much bigger than you may think – it means that on the block surrounded by O’Connell, Henry, Abbey and Liffey Streets, the only major tenants are Pennys, Easons and the GPO – with preactically everything else now in the posession of Arnotts.

Other pointers to the development:
The Car park is to be demolished – all car parking to be replaced to basement level for the entire site.
Arnotts will be redeveloped completely into one of the worlds largest department stores (at present in the top 5 of Britain and Ireland).

I think the new street is a great idea – Henry Street suffers from having few steets feeding into it, as opposed to Grafton Street. The plan would undoubtedly spread the city centre from its current dominant Grafton St/O’Connell Street/Henry Street axis.

@J. Seerski wrote:

On the grapevine…

I was chatting to a Senior exec in Arnotts who told me all about this prior to the news being revealed in the Indo. What they told me was quite dramatic…

According to the info I got, the 1960s block fronting onto Henry Street would be demolished and replaced by a street linking Abbey Street. The teneants they are seeking for this development include many US retailers who have never been to Europe before. The intention is to break from the British imported High Street which is repeated ad nauseum throughout Ireland and replace it with stores that will make Henry Street the ultimate shopping destination. The assembled site is much bigger than you may think – it means that on the block surrounded by O’Connell, Henry, Abbey and Liffey Streets, the only major tenants are Pennys, Easons and the GPO – with preactically everything else now in the posession of Arnotts.

Other pointers to the development:
The Car park is to be demolished – all car parking to be replaced to basement level for the entire site.
Arnotts will be redeveloped completely into one of the worlds largest department stores (at present in the top 5 of Britain and Ireland).

I think the new street is a great idea – Henry Street suffers from having few steets feeding into it, as opposed to Grafton Street. The plan would undoubtedly spread the city centre from its current dominant Grafton St/O’Connell Street/Henry Street axis.

this sounds excellent not only do we get a new street … a major redevelopment but the demolistion of one of the ugliest buildings in the city

Got this the other day if it’s of any help – from the Roches smoking area balcony on the fourth floor. Great views of the city from up there – pity it’s wasted on manky smokers:

That’s the 1960s part in question Maskhadov.

Great stuff J. Seerski – yes they’ve been pursuing a rigourous acquistion programme for some time now; every so often in the Property pages you’d read of another unit on Henry St being snapped up by them. It seems they own pretty much every building along Henry St at this stage.

I don’t really see the point of punching through to create a new street though – sure Liffey St is only about 5/6 units further up! And it will involve a demolition of a large part of their flagship 1990s extension, only finished 6 years ago! Also building a new street merely consumes what would otherwise be valuable floorspace :confused:

But the opportunities are great – that British high street rubbish on the corner of Henry/Liffey St can be demolished (ever notice how crappy UK High St heritage architecture seeps in over here via UK stores like H. Samuel and Pamela Scott and Clarks on Grafton St?), as well as make Liffey St into an actual street for once, and hopefully spur on the improvement of M&S across the way.

Also, if a street is to be built through, without a doubt it affords the best opportunity ever to reinstate the last two bays and end tower that were demolished from the original building, forming the perfect corner for a new street, while restoring the Victorian composition as originally built.

The Henry St area is already the best shopping location in Dublin – Grafton St/St. Stephen’s Green just cannot compete at this stage. Were Hodges Figgis and other good stores not on the southside, the place would have little at all to offer on the retail front.
A vastly upscaled Arnotts coupled with the new Roches, Penneys, Ilac, Jervis and potential Carlton development pulls one heck of a punch for the Northside.

Well I would say one reason for builing a new street would be the added bonus of having (a) a corner building and (b) an enormous stretch of street frontage which would not be possible.

Corner buildings tend to be more valuable and attract a higher premium – bizarre but true – Im sure a property economist would agree. Arnotts re-instating its missing tower would enhance the prominence of the building – as well as correcting an architectural imbalance. Also, a corner tower would also add to the buildings prominence.

As for the building only being extended less than ten years ago, the nature of the business seems to suggest that tearing down and re-building will be a constant feature in retail from now on.

The intention of Arnotts seem to be not only to expand the store, but act as a landlord for new chosen tenants to enhance the value and image of the area, with subsequent impact on the value of Arnotts itself. It is my understanding that the new street would consist of new stand-alone units, with Arnotts being the landlord. It is interesting that Arnotts are doing what should have been done by Dublin Corporation – namely exercising strict controls over what type of store should open at certain loactions. Not only will this improve the tenant quality of the area, but will be in Arnotts long-term commercial interest.

In a simialr way, it always baffled me why Clerys never exploited its frontage on Earl Place – a windswept strecth only yards from O’Connell Street – it has enormous potential for development yet it lies as a service depot, a complete waste of space. In a way its similar to Clarendon Street, however there the former service area for Brown Thomas has become a shopping street in its own right.

According to the info I got, the 1960s block fronting onto Henry Street would be demolished…

Grrrr! I knew the ’60s bit on Henry Street would be first to go in a new Arnotts development 😡

You can’t beat a bit of ’60s curtain walling!! 🙂

[align=center:mx00tsel]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:mx00tsel]

On a related note, here are the Middle Abbey Street buildings demolished in the mid-‘90s during the last big Arnotts redevelopment, including the Lighthouse Cinema, precursor of the IFC (now IFI). The bit of a building on the extreme left is the current Chapters bookshop, and the bit of blank wall on the extreme right is part of the Adelphi Cinema, which currently forms the entrance to Arnotts’ car park:

it would look amazing if arnotts was rebuilt to look like the image on there bags with towers and all…

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Also, if a street is to be built through, without a doubt it affords the best opportunity ever to reinstate the last two bays and end tower that were demolished from the original building, forming the perfect corner for a new street, while restoring the Victorian composition as originally built..

Graham, i think there is only the end tower missing, there are five bays between the central tower and the 60s block which mirrors the other side and the image here
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=8597&postcount=10

Sorry, you’re right – got mixed up with the highlighted three bays you drew out on the ‘bag picture’ in the other thread. Yes only the end tower is missing.
The central one should be rebuilt too as part of these proposed works.
Indeed it’s very disappointing Arnotts did nothing at all to their main facade as part of the late 90s extending; they spent nearly €60 million doubling the size of the store, which was a vast sum at the time, yet did nothing to their flagship exterior save some minor works around the main entrance.

They really ought to make an effort in opening up their upper windows like Clerys have done to make the facade less dead and improve the store’s interaction with the outside world, as much as retailers hate doing this.
The facade could be spectacularly floodlit, and the glum brickwork cleaned up. There’s lots of bits and pieces tacked on about the place that could do with removal too.

And as much as the canopy has become something of a landmark, and has attractive bronze banding, were it to be removed it would reveal the magnificent original display windows with carved limestone dressings and Arnott & Co lettering. The canopy also seperates the ‘consumer world’ that is ground level from the upper facade in the worst way possible.
A vast, grand, turn-of-the-century building would suddenly emerge in the middle of Dublin were it to be removed.

In this pic taken through the dirty windows of Roches (don’t think they factored in the fact they wouldn’t be able to clean the exterior of that restaurant) – you can see how grand the windows are, and how they’re crudely cut in two by the canopy, not to mention the highly elaborate entrance surround:

I’ll bet you a 20 that it will be removed as part of this scheme.

What!? Classic Christmas crap – where would we be without them? Well, Henry St might actually be navigable, but that’s beside the point – you won’t get a selection box cheaper anywhere else, although the reasons behind that are perhaps best left undisturbed…

Here’s the Arnotts central tower as taken just after 1916 – also not forgetting that the still-standing left-hand pavilion’s mini tower is now missing too:

And here’s an image from Google Earth that I’ve attempted to put some shape on, displaying the mammoth scale of what Arnotts now appear to own.

White: Site Arnotts appear to now own.
Red: Current store.
Green: Original Victorian building.
Blue: Penneys/BHS Building
Yellow: Easons
Orange: Proposed Street?

Provision has been made for a corner tower rebuild 🙂

You can clearly see what a coup it would be to acquire the Penneys site with access to O’Connell Street, but as they can name their price I wouldn’t bank on a sale any time soon…

You can also see just how close any proposed street would be to Liffey St (think I have it running through the Chapters building :eek:) – particularly pointless I would have thought if Arnotts owned all of Liffey St anyway, including two prominent corners.

Also an 80s aerial image that offers a different viewpoint (red Arnotts site, blue Penneys):

http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com

Interesting to see the central dome part under construction (the black roofed part), and the scale of the Independent building and printing works, as well as the lovely buildings Devin posted earlier – never saw them before :(, and the Adelphi cinema (apparently there were 2300 seats in that shed :eek:).

All of this a far cry from the small beginnings of the Victorian Arnotts facing Henry St on the far left.
There’s great views to be had of that rear elevation from the upper floors looking through the glass dome.

Just on a point of interest, the Lighthouse didn’t turn in to the Irish Film Institute.
That is an entirely separate state-sponsored venture.
The Lighthouse owners were looking for another site, at the time of the last Arnotts redevelopment, but with the tight margins they were operating on couldn’t find somewhere appropriate.
Last I heard, they are going to reopen in the new Smithfield development, the West Side.
Apologies for going off the point.
As regards Chapters, I wonder have Arnotts promised them premises in the new street of shops that they are going to create.
Although, they are over three floors and need a fairly sizable shop floor. You could see them move directly across the street.

Ok right – but I meant it loosely as well – Light house were the precursor in spirit to the IFC. Glad to hear they might be back.

[align=center:2x5yx741]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:2x5yx741]

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Yes only the end tower is missing [the ‘bag picture’]
The central one should be rebuilt too as part of these proposed works.

This is funny: In the book Lost Dublin, a 1949 newspaper piece is quoted, describing the removal of the central tower, which it was claimed ‘served no useful purpose. Its style accorded with no know known style of architecture, it was utterly useless from a utility point of view, and was always regarded as a piece of misconceived Victorian decoration’ 😀 . Interesting question though]have[/I] to be done), should the central tower with its domed roofs & viewing gallery be reconstructed as well, and should the small domed roofs be put back on the terminating towers, and should the missing egg-urned parapet balustrade along the whole front be reinstated?

Here’s what will have to be replicated at the west end of the facade – any takers?!

Excluding the lovely Office shoeshop building, all of the buildings from Arnotts down to the Liffey Street corner are utter rubbish (above). Do Arnotts definitely have all of these? – Great! Can’t wait to see them go – mid-‘80s tat!
The only one of perhaps any interest is the white-painted one 2nd from the corner. It probably dates to the original 18th century layout of Henry Street, but has an Edwardian orange brick refacing, now painted. It’s probably heavily altered and featureless inside as well. You couldn’t get worked up about it.

There’a great view of that Office shoeshop building from the Roches restaurant – it looks like a cardboard cut-out you’re so high up! Alas the windows are just too dirty up there to get any decent image of it.

Its style accorded with no know known style of architecture

You can say that again :D. A most bizarre yoke that doesn’t even seem to be derived from Islamic architecture as is perhaps initially suggested. Indeed the entire Arnotts building is very strange – the central parts of the wings are standard enough, but the use of towers and pinnacles and crenellations and all the rest of it is quite bizarre.
A big masculine Edwardian-style building with Eastern fancy bits stuck on top!

The terminating towers should definitely be reroofed as a matter of necessity – the building must be more clearly demarcated in that red brick streetscape. The central tower would certainly be more contentious, not least as consideration for the building ought to be just as important today as in 1896 or 1949.
I’d like to see it rebuilt, though it is difficult to make out its impact without seeing the colourings and textures of the materials used in the above depictions. Similarly the view above simply does not exist, so that doesn’t really count as any sort of credible indicator.

It will also have the Jervis plant room to compete with :rolleyes:

Green: Original Victorian building.

Orange: Proposed Street?

… You can also see just how close any proposed street would be to Liffey St …

Would it not be better to have the new street run to the other side (east) of the original building? At the Abbey Street end it would probably then come out at the Adelphi cinema – where the cars now go in! – don’t know about that …

Another question is raised, though, in relation to the new street running either immediately to the west or east of the original building: Will the facade of the relevant terminating tower facing the new street need to mirror that of Henry Street? If it doesn’t, it’s going to look like a fake tack-on with no volume. If it does, the building still won’t be symmetrical because the other end will be terraced into an adjoining building. Gaahh!!

This is better quality and more up-to-date than the DigitalGlobe imagery above.

That image is a lot sharper and does display how an eastern alignment would provide a more orderly street pattern than what may be proposed to the west.

However given the fact that the Eastern frontage to Henry St is probably protected and probably not held by the company it is probably not a viable option for them. I would however like to see them develop a link from Abbey St to the GPO arcade via Stewarts Lane at some point in the future.

In relation to what appears to be the most likely proposal; The devil will be in the detail of this one but subject to heritage concerns being met in relation to the Adelphi this could possibly be the most exciting proposal in Dublins retail history. The idea of a company with the capacity to gaurantee occupation of a project this size self developing gives reassurance that a speculative proposal cannot.

The Abbey St area has been going downhill for decades and it is clear that Middle Abbey Street is the best chance of reversing this, late last year I walked the entire City Centre Retail area and in all of Dublin only Marlborough St compared badly to this area.

The Luas stops at Jervis and Abbey have had little impact on the Street with passengers simply alighting and entering the Jervis Centre going North or Quartier Bloom going South.

Only a development of this scale can I feel make a sufficient impact on the area and act as a catalyst to sp[ur other developments on sites such as the surface carpark to the rear of the M & S site on Upper Abbey St. Given the title/legal delays that have mired the Carlton site this probably represents Dublins best chance of a significant increase in both class A retail provision and the rates base in the medium term. I just hope they get it right in all respects.

You really couldn’t ask for a better arrangement – a quality, Irish-owned, long-established, reputable department store, with a generally strong architectural track record, expanding in a comparitively rundown area of the north inner city by acquiring a land parcel piece by piece in a fashion that did not result in dead frontages and derelict sites for years on end.
All in comfortable economic circumstances, and without the pitfalls (usually evident in the end product) of speculative activity.
AND offering the distinct possibility of righting an architectural wrong made four decades ago, the restoration of one of the city’s most distinctive buildings, and not forgetting a large stock of older buildings on Henry St and Middle Abbey St too.

Thanks for the picture Morlan – now he tells me :). It also shows a very interesting detail relating to the missing tower – note that the 60s frontage is much wider than that to the rear, as if it’s going out of its way to replace a previous structure. Whereas the vast white domed part didn’t exist in the 60s, the footprint of it would have been filled with another building, which seems to extend out almost exactly to the width of the end tower…..
It does seem a bit wider than the surviving end tower, but that could be down to any number of reasons. May or may not be significant….

Nice moment captured here by fjp 🙂

http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/city/0codeb/building-henry-st-arnotts.html

Breaking through the eastern side of the store would be as good as impossible – it features a magnificent collection of early 20th century ‘Dutch Billys’ that make Henry St what it is. They form one of the most impressive terraces in the city and are all protected:

Cutting through the 60s part to their recent facade on Middle Abbey St seems the only option – it’s a pity we may also lose what are excellent pieces of inflll, here and on Liffey St.

Extraordinary they paid €11 million for the Chapters building – they were taken to the cleaners on that one!
Surprisingly it isn’t protected as far as I can make out – nothing exceptional but the bay window and shopfront are fine pieces.

Very interesting picture that last one, as it makes it look as if O’Connell Street has disappeared or is at best very narrow. An illusion I’m sure.

Just a fanciful suggestion :rolleyes: . But if Arnotts did want to do something on a ‘New York’ ,ie BIG scale, perhaps the new street could run east west from the cul de sac that is Nth Princes St right through to Liffey Street.
Imagine if you will a Milan style ‘Galleria’ running through terminated by a spanking new building on the liffey street end (already having Clerys terminating the Other end). A monumental entrance on Nth Princes, A giant dome in the middle with the Henry St- Abbey Street Mall running North south at this point.
Dont Know how much it would mess up their current layout but look at the advantages:
Princess Street Regenerated.
Arnotts Get Direct Link to O’ Connell Street.
Dublin gets Shopping Landmark.
New Street gets a roof 🙂
Again just a dream, have a feeling this is just a little bit too New York.

I’ve been thinking along those lines as well, and maybe arnotts have too

@Maskhadov wrote:

Arnotts in New York-style plan for city centre

Do you know of the development plans for Broadstone to connect with parnell St / Middle Abby Street or the
H.A.R.P. development plan?
Jacinta

@Maskhadov wrote:

something like this ?

I know the Dublin City Planning Officer has been pressing for that type of Milan Galleria too.

If the rumour about the new street to the west of the original building (& so close to Liffey Street) is true, the feeling I’m getting is that they don&#8217]not [/I]protected (welcome to the Dublin scheduling system!).

Looking at that image, the one thing that jumps out is how disposable current shopfronts are designed to be.

Cut n’ paste – was thinking just the same thing, not to mention how inappropriate too. How does an off-white box in any way reinforce the design of that building? All it serves to do is undermine it, reducing the upper floors to a bit of ‘fun’ decorative fluff from the ‘olden days’.
The very least that could have been done is a ground floor execution in brown to match that magnificent feature window on the first floor – even if it does look suspiciously just as recent…

Do ye really think so?? I must say I really like the shopfront. The door on the right upsets the balance a bit but otherwise it’s a lesson in simplicity and good proportion, and sets off the upstairs very well. It’s a commercial street so I don’t mind the white colour.
Each to their own I suppose …

It’s sturdy alright, and ‘supports’ the upper floors well, but the colour is way off, and the offset door a shame.
The ‘oh well it’s modern, we have to have a contrast’ arguement is getting a bit tired by now I think – carried out on an astonishingly crass scale recently on one of the city’s most significant buildings without so much as a peep from anyone! Have a pic soon……

I wouldn’t want every shopfront on every old building to look like this, but given that the original is long gone I think it’s fine – smart lettering too. I don’t agree that it’s a ‘modern contrast’ for the sake of ‘modern contrast’ shopfront, or that this approach is overused. There are plenty of examples around town of where a well-detailed and proportioned traditional shopfront has been recreated in the spirit of the original building (but avoiding pastiche) – Dunnes grocery store on George’s Street would be a good example.

The only barometer, be it traditional or modern, should be quality (including appropriateness), and the Office shopfront fulfils that for me.

The real problem as far as I’m concerned is the continuing plague of cheap nasty traditional-style plywood shopfronts being fitted to handsome town buildings all over the country, and sometimes resulting in the destruction of good old shopfronts. I did a study recently of shopfronts in Longford Town and it’s quite mind-numbing the way that town has been smothered almost from one end to the other with badly-detailed and badly-proportioned shopfronts with stuck-on brackets and lurid colours. I would love to see some of the design attention of the better modern shopfronts found in cities reaching these places.

But even in the cities there are problems. Some people may have noticed, in the past few months, the majority of Spar shops in Dublin city centre have been fitted with an internally illuminated box fascia which hangs over the existing fascia, completely destroying the relationship between the various parts of the shopfront. The addition of this fascia absolutely cannot be an exempted development!! I’m compiling evidence at the moment for a complaint … As if the convenience stores are not enough oif a problem already! :rolleyes:

From Business Interview in The Sunday Business Post on January 1 with Simon Kelly.

re:Arnotts
“It will be a spend of €300 million to €400 million on construction alone so it will be a billion euro development when it’s finished,” said Kelly.

“Our goal is to do a huge street-based retail scheme providing big box shops for retailers who can’t get housed at the moment. Retailers nowadays want big boxes and it’s not available on any of the streets in Dublin so the only way to provide it is in new developments.

“The biggest problem on Grafton Street is there’s no shops that are of any use. We’ve been trying to get Mango on the street for a long time.

A planning application for the first phase of the Arnotts expansion is likely to be lodged in January. The partners plan to demolish some buildings on Prince’s Street, a small street between Penneys and the GPO, and redevelop them into new shops that will link O’Connell Street to Henry Street.

“Hopefully then all the footfall on O’Connell Street will start turning left after Penneys.”

I didn’t write it in the piece but they’ve bought a unit in the GPO Arcade to facilitate this

Just to give an update, application now likely to be lodged before beginning of September and street will emerge between GPO Arcade and the River Island part of Arnotts. Contact wouldn’t be drawn on exactly where but “not as far up as River Island”.

That is great news

I like the aidea of an east west street as this proposed linkage would most likely reinvigorate Princess St North.

The one point I would like to see clarified is that if there will be a new linkage between River Island and Abbey St. More ITZA would equate to more €€€€

Hmmm – but River Island is the 1960s block is it not? Where else could they possibly knock through given the rest of the terrace is protected?
Or do you refer to a street between Princes St and Liffey St jdivision?

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Or do you refer to a street between Princes St and Liffey St jdivision?

That won’t happen or at least won’t on its own, they want the footfall to travel up Prince Street along double height fashion units and then turn right onto Henry Street – they basically want to usurp the part of Henry Street between O’Connell Street up to near Roches. Otherwise they won’t get the rent roll they want – they have to take away some of the dominance of Henry Street – a single street through to Liffey Street won’t achieve that.
If you look at your overhead image from last page marked with red, white, orange and green lines, I think that between where Princes Street meets red and green block it will turn right (completely my opinion). I have heard from a retail source who’s not involved that Arnotts will eventually only occupy the bottom left hand corner of that picture. That’s not been confirmed by the principles however.

I’m amazed that if they are atempteing a dog leg that they don’t try to do something with their holdings on Abbey St to try to expand the Henry St core into what is a very dead area in retail terms.

An arcade with units in both the indo offices to the East and towards the Adelphi on the right could be a real winner in every sense as existing values are lowest in these buildings.

@jdivision wrote:

I think that between where Princes Street meets red and green block it will turn right (completely my opinion). I have heard from a retail source who’s not involved that Arnotts will eventually only occupy the bottom left hand corner of that picture. That’s not been confirmed by the principles however.

Agreed about what you say about capturing the footfall of eastern O’Connell Street before it reaches Henry St, but to make a right turn where Princes St ends below as you seem to suggest (may be wrong), is simply not possible given the fine terrace of protected buildings that would have to be swept away in part to allow the new street to break through:

..unless of course Arnotts propose demolition regardless…

Alternatively, emerging through the 60s frontage on Henry St still brings the pedestrian out opposite the main doors of Roches, so that’s still an option.
Dunnes Stores would not be pleased with that proposal though, with the potential for this new street to cut the footfall of eastern Henry St substantially, right outside their massive new store. Suppose it’s only a 30 second back-track though.

@jdivision wrote:

Just to give an update, application now likely to be lodged before beginning of September and street will emerge between GPO Arcade and the River Island part of Arnotts. Contact wouldn’t be drawn on exactly where but “not as far up as River Island”.

Anyone hear / see anything on this of late?

Details have finally been released on Arnotts redevelopment:

Arnotts today unveiled plans for a €700 million development based around its current department store in Dublin’s north city centre.

© 2006 ireland.com

@jdivision wrote:

Details have finally been released on Arnotts redevelopment:

Arnotts today unveiled plans for a €700 million development based around its current department store in Dublin’s north city centre…An artist’s impression of the aerial view of the proposed development…

Here are those artist impression from the article above, looks quite impressive, although artist impressions usually do! At last it appears that the dead end nature and wasted use of Prince’s Street North will come to an end. Not sure what is gonna happen to The Adelphi facade on Middle Abbey Street, hard to make out from these images as well as other buildings in this re-development.

Thanks for the pics JJD.

Well from what can be made out in the right-hand picture, Arnotts as we know it is has effectively vanished, especially with the new hotel and apartments which could be any number of those large bulkheads.

Also it would appear that the new street punches through onto Henry Street via the 1960s extension, given the apparent new green facade depicted, and not directly behind the GPO – would this be the case? Perhaps not, as even the far side of the Victorian store appears to be missing! 😮 – so it could be anywhere really. Any chance of a larger image anyone – can’t find one anywhere!
Also are we to assume that Arnotts have acquired the Penneys/BHS building on O’Connell Street? Major opportunities retail and architectural there if the case.

The only thing is that Princes St is quite narrow and also quite dark, though I see an attempt has been made to widen it as soon as practical. I wonder therefore will it ever hold the appeal of Henry Street?
It does have an identical orientation, but Henry St is a bit wider and lined with bright brick buildings – not dominated by the sombre deadpan granite facade of the GPO as with Princes St. Also the GPO facade will really have to be redeveloped into retail to make the street a success. At least this lovely side of the GPO will now garner a wider audience – it has a ‘wholesome’ charm to it and distinctive limestone dressings etc on the ground floor that rarely get seen.

Sorry to say but the image of the square looks a little bit like a 60’s shopping precinct in a British New Town like Stevenage or somewhere, just blown up to city scale. The Arnotts facade isn’t great, mainly because of the apartments overhead which break up the scale of the building far too much, but also because the blue element basically cheapens the whole look of the image. This elevation should really be much more monumental and capable of forming a strong vista stop to the Princes St. Route.
Also, the only other example of an external escalator/travelator I can think of in Ireland is the one at the old Dundrum shopping centre, currently rusting away. I never saw it working and I can’t see the ones on the left of the image being hugely practical in our lovely wet climate!
However, nit-picking aside I think the proposals are funndamentally sound based on the information here, and I’m hoping to have a closer look at the plans soon. The idea of a paralell shopping hub to Henry St, but feeding into it will give a fantastic critical commercial mass to this part of O’Connell St which can hopefully be replicated further up on the “Millennium Mall” site…
I do wonder though, should they have bitten the bullet and proposed a roof over the square… I’m thinking Sony Centre in Berlin where the roof becomes an architectural and tourist sight in itself…
Anyway, First impressions are reasonably good, let’s hope that it comes to fruition sooner than later!

i hope they take the opportunity to restore the orginal facade and replace the dome that was removed

@BTH wrote:

The Arnotts facade isn’t great, mainly because of the apartments overhead which break up the scale of the building far too much, but also because the blue element basically cheapens the whole look of the image. This elevation should really be much more monumental and capable of forming a strong vista stop to the Princes St. Route.

The Kelly family are involved in the redevelopment so I suspect that the purple element (I think it’ll be purple rather than blue) will be like the Clarion hotel at Liffey Valley (which the Kellys own). I hate that facade and don’t believe it’s appropriate for city centre.

A fashion retailer that rarely makes any public utterances about its business, Penneys managing director Seamus Halford broke with convention yesterday to say that it will invest €45-€50 million to double the space of its current store to 100,000 square feet.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

A fashion retailer that rarely makes any public utterances about its business, Penneys managing director Seamus Halford broke with convention yesterday to say that it will invest €45-€50 million to double the space of its current store to 100,000 square feet.

Is that the Mary street outlet?

No it’s the O’Connell Street outlet

Penneys first preposed a major revamp of this store at least two years ago from what I heard at the time – perhaps they were waiting for this Arnotts plan to get off the ground. Here’s hoping indeed that they invest a significant sum on their principal facade – I won’t stir it by suggesting what I’d put there 😉

Overall the Arnotts square alas looks a complete mess of conflicting design concepts and building usage – and all worrying wallpaper-like, in a way that facades can be peeled off and replaced every decade or two. Maybe it’ll stand up better in other renderings. Agreed the store itself ought to be more ‘monumental’ if that’s the word – certainly more distinguishable and coherent anyway.

Needless to say the 152 bedroom hotel is availing of the Independent Building according to yesterday’s IT, which is nicely appropriate. If this doesn’t set the Gresham’s and RDH’s refurb wheels in motion nothing will!
I’m very curious to know exactly where this proposed car and service tunnel “at the junction of O’Connell Street and Middle Abbey Street” is going to go. Bulldozing through Manfield Chambers is hardly on the cards, and Eason’s wraps the whole way around this corner, meaning the entance will have to be substantially further down, maybe on the current small Penneys frontage?

The full IT article:

Arnotts seeks approval for €700m project
Arthur Beesley, Senior Business Correspondent
13/9/2006

Department store company Arnotts is seeking planning permission for a massive redevelopment of its extensive properties behind Henry Street in Dublin, where it aims to create a new shopping, entertainment and residential zone akin to the fashionable SoHo district in New York.
The €700 million Northern Quarter project, which is being led by Arnotts chairman Richard Nesbitt SC, includes proposals for a new central plaza between Henry Street and Middle Abbey Street.
If planning approval is granted, construction work could continue for the remainder of the decade.
The aim is to attract big-name mass market international retailers such as the fashion chains Abercrombie & Fitch and Armani Xchange and Apple Computer into the Henry Street zone, a retail hub which has largely stolen the march on Grafton Street in recent years.

“We believe this project is exactly the kind of ambitious, visionary development the area needs. The Northern Quarter will write the next chapter in the evolving history of Dublin city, retaining the charm of an open-street environment by overlaying it with the dynamism and diversity of a modern European capital,” said Mr Nesbitt.
In preparation for the scheme, Arnotts has spent some €100 million in the past two years buying up most of the buildings between Henry Street, the GPO Arcade, Middle Abbey Street and Liffey Street.

The central plaza will comprise 47 new shop buildings, 17 cafes, restaurants, bars and 189 apartments. A 152-bedroom four-star hotel will be built behind the old Independent Newspapers building on Middle Abbey Street.
The plaza will be connected to O’Connell Street through an extension from Princes’ Street, an underdeveloped thoroughfare which Arnotts hopes to revitalise as a pedestrianised central route into the plaza. Car-parking and service bays will be located in an underground complex, which will be accessed via a tunnel at the junction of O’Connell Street and Middle Abbey Street.
In addition, Arnotts wants to build two new streets to connect the plaza with Henry Street and Middle Abbey Street. Princes’ Street North, off Henry Street, and Abbey Lane, off Middle Abbey Street, will be roughly parallel to Liffey Street.

While Arnotts’ department store has been a central feature of the Henry Street scene for generations of shoppers, the plan will see the focus of its building moved southwest towards Liffey Street. Such a move will reduce its iconic shopfront on Henry Street, but it will provide frontage directly on to the plaza and increased frontage on Middle Abbey Street and Liffey Street.

Mr Nesbitt, a barrister who led the takeover of Arnotts in June 2003, said the initiative will create a “renewed sense of pride” in the north city area. He suggested it could act as the catalyst for further development of the Lotts Street area next to the Liffey.
A new pedestrian bridge over the river between O’Connell Bridge and the Ha’penny Bridge was also possible, Arnotts said.

5/10/2006

I thought this would fit better on this thread if that’s okay.

The new Arnotts 😮

As Stephen says, the entire western wing is to be demolished to create the new street!

However, because an extraordinary development, not all is quite as it seems. Obviously they’re not going to get away with demolishing part of a protected structure, let alone a prominent one, so what is proposed as far as I can gather both from the model and the site notices (didn’t have time to inspect app :() is that the deconstructed wing will be rebuilt on the new street, forming one of two facades of a new ‘Victorian building’ with corner tower!

Will this also involve a new tower oriel window and other replicated features?!

The frustratingly evasive nature of the planning application is telling. The existing store is referred to elsewhere on the document as Arnotts, but when it comes to the deconstruction of half of the principal building, it suddenly becomes “No’s 7-15 Henry Street”, even in spite of it being central to the current complex. It is not a secondary independent building like those of Abbey Street.
And DCC can’t spell either: its not Penny’s (Pennys or Penney’s), nor Arnott’s :rolleyes:

Not sure what to make of this – evidently they want to do it to 1) link in with Cole’s Lane across the road leading to the Ilac, Roches and new Dunnes, and 2) to bring the new street as far east away from Liffey Street as possible. It’s difficult to argue which would be better when considering the current castrated Victorian affair versus a signature corner building and invigorating new street, but comparing the new ‘building’ with a fully restored original design as almost currently stands is a different matter entirely. What appears to be proposed is meddling with history, but then again it is also very much compatible with the enterprising nature of Victorian business and engineering that originally brought Arnotts into being….

It certainly appears to be causing waves within DCC – while I was there a couple of suits marched over with one almost whispering to the other “look what’s happening to Arnotts”, as if also told by someone else. Gasps and tut tutting ensued.

The development as we know is huge:

Down on O’Connell Street the new Penneys is crisp but ugly next to the GPO:

Expansive glazing is a cheap and lazy way out of having to respect the solid to void ratio on the Lower street, and is a slap in the face to the post-1916 reconstruction efforts. What is the point of redeveloping an out of place building with an equally incongruous one? Penneys’ fashionability is not its greatest problem. Eason’s mansard roof is also being used as an excuse to further increase the height of this terrace – nowhere on the Lower street is this rule broken.

Shimmering in the midst of O’Connell Street:

It makes a mockery of the Georgian terrace-to-landmark concept – the GPO is now isolated.

The extraordinary car access tunnel near the centre of O’Connell Street, reducing the pavement back down to single width on the busiest part of the street:

Minus attendant railings, lighting and signage of course.

A massive new apartment development is planned to the south-western corner of the site, containing 97 apartments stacked like curious pods on top of the presumably retail element below, and rising to 12 storeys at the corner with Liffey and Abbey streets…

…including a retained Chapters and the extensive late 1990s infill to the right:

A further 51 apartments are going in behind the GPO that you can barely see sticking out there.
Obviously most apartments are a few floors above ground level.

The view of the new tower over the Ha’penny Bridge looking up Lower Liffey Street:

The present hideous view:

As seen rising over the north inner city from the Clarence perhaps:

And the view from Lower Abbey Street with Manfield Chambers in the foreground:

As Stephen noted, the entire hideous Henry/Liffey corner is remain intact:

And the new streets punching through to Middle Abbey Street look decidedly narrow and dank. At least they’ll be south facing.

The planning notice:

I think the Arnotts facade is safe.. there isnt a snowballs chance in hell that DCC or the public will let the developers “reinvent” what is one of Dublins signture landmarks….do you think the developer is chancing his arm a bit?..

That new Penneys building is one of the most problematic parts of the proposal – especially its glass, canopied setback roof storeys. There are several montage views of it in the planning application, but, tellingly, there is no proper view of it seen with the GPO from the north – i.e. from the Nth. Earl Street junction area.

The 12-storey tower at the corner of Abbey Street & Liffey Street is probably ok – an example of somewhere that could take such an addition.

The jury is still out on the proposal for the main Henry Street Arnotts building (though the emoticon: 😮 is appropriate)

Yes agreed about the apartment element – for once it would appear that a decent architectural standard is to be set above the city’s five story parapet level instead of the north inner city’s ugly concoction of mansard roofs, multi-storey car parks, plant rooms and air conditioning units. Indeed their views of the Lotts or westwards over M&S/Jervis are not going to be pretty! Particularly the latter – frankly it’ll be terrible looking directly out on that first thing every morning.

But the new view up Liffey St towards the tower looks impressive, and it is a suitable nodal point for such a structure too I think. The only concern is the increasingly tunnel-like street network being created here. Should M&S be developed soon, it no doubt is going to reach to 7-8 storeys on that side too, as well as the H. Samuel corner with Henry St. Setbacks should help though, as is planned with Arnotts:

I also like the detached nature of the apartments in how they ‘float’ over the existing streetscape. Hopefully that will turn out as imaginative as it appears to look.
Slight reservations about how the (excellent) 1990s facades are going to gel with the new infill – again it should be doable…

Here’s the current disaster zone – squat 1900-1920 buildings, some seemingly older too, that no doubt would be charming if cleaned up, but are equally knockable, along with 80s rubbish on the corner:

And the terrace to the other side, including one of the most remarkable structures in the city to term itself a building:

It’s like a sophisticated cardboard box.

All of the latter pic is going to go, sadly including this grand early Victorian building with original window to the top right (left seems to be later). Presumably the interesting glossy red brick is c.1900.

Regarding the principal Arnotts fa

so the ramp on o’connell street: they can’t be serious can they? that is the worst idea ever, moving the facade, while regretable, can maybe be justified, but using o’connell street as a back lane?

Hmmm – the ramp in renderings is very discreet indeed at street level, even in spite of what appear to be toughened green glass railings around it. Not as bad as you might expect – it’s very steep so it disappears quite quickly. Unfortunately Luas precludes Middle Abbey St from being used…

Saw the planning application today, all eight stone of it. The elevations to Liffey St are quite pleasant, as are various parts on Abbey St. The 1990s infill is being retained throughout – it’s funny, just like one of Morlan’s photoshop jobs, they’re simply going to be stretched upwards to take in an extra storey on Liffey and Abbey streets. Talk about the transient nature of modern retail architecture.
The new street and square elevations are pretty typical commercial stuff, with an emphasis on deep modelled, layered facades. The new vista from the rear of the current Hector Greys (which will be the westernmost part of the square) all the way over to the GPO and beyond is most impressive. There’s a real sense of permanence and solidity – not gimmickry, with old running into new and the odd fully matured specimen tree.

The new street from Henry St is also aided hugely with this by virtue of the ‘new’ Victorian Arnotts facade – it wraps round and extends down into the new street like the street has always been there, just as the GPO does linking the square to Princes St. And I have to say the remodelled Arnotts looks exceptionally well. It is well proportioned, wonderfully sturdy and solid in stance, and projects an air of confidence on its new corner site. The limestone oriel window and dressings will replicated on the new tower elevation, while the current five western bays will be dismantled and re-erected on the new street, terminating in a new-build small tower to match the one on Henry Street. It is expected that in excess of 80% of the five bays’ material can be salvaged, while bricks required for replication will be specially commissioned to match the Victorian stock, and the limestone dressings (presumed to be Ardbraccan but no longer quarried) will be sourced elsewhere and sandblasted if necessary to match the original. A grand stone pier matching the pilasters either side of the main entrance will stand on the corner supporting the tower (like a traditional Dublin pub entrance). I presume the store’s water tank is no longer housed at the top!

People might be interested to know that the application authors clearly sourced information from the Arnotts thread on Archiseek, and indeed lifted a few images directly from the site, including Paul’s tower montage. However they have come to what can only be an entirely incorrect conclusion regarding the western tower, claiming the tower presented in this image to be ‘fictitious’:

It is claimed the building on the bag was the intended design, including a ‘second phase’ that was to be added on later, and hence the small western tower was never built in order to accommodate this extension at a later date. However we can be nearly certain that that tower was built, because:

1. The original interior cast iron columns extend into the 1960s part to the depth of the tower.
2. The 1960s part is wider at the front that the back, to the depth of a tower.
3. Various photographs we’ve seen suggest the tower as being there.
4. A photograph in the IAA to the best of my knowledge clearly shows the western tower fully extant.
5. This map from 1936 included in the same feckin application shows it as existing!

There’s little doubt that this tower was built, albeit at a later date when it was realised the funds wouldn’t be there to construct the full scheme. It is mentioned in the application that the store was extended in 1904: its probably safe to assume it was built then.
And yet oddly in another document in the application, presumably written by someone else, reference is made to the ‘demolished’ western part of Arnotts and to the 1960s curtain wall, when referring to the Henry St elevation – indirectly acknowledging that the tower had been built. Hmmm…

The new 12 storey residential tower is clad in zinc. At first it suggests that hideous grey cladding of Ivy Exchange on Parnell Street in renderings, but presumably it’s a quality material with a depth and texture to it. Anyone know of comparable examples?
Also to clarify, Arnotts as we know it is gone. The entire store migrates to the south western corner of the site at the corner of Liffey and Middle Abbey street in the form of a giant building over six levels in places. The Victorian Arnotts will become an independent retailer of some kind, presumably still owned by Arnotts.

@notjim wrote:

so the ramp on o’connell street: they can’t be serious can they? that is the worst idea ever, moving the facade, while regretable, can maybe be justified, but using o’connell street as a back lane?

happens in a lot of european cities – here is an example from Barcelona – look at lower right corner of photo
http://spain.archiseek.com/catalunya/barcelona/casa_calvet_lge.html

But it is O’Connell Street. I can’t see this being given easily.

The council planners and architects who sweated for years over every detail of the remaking will see this like red wine being spilt over their new cream dinner jacket.

Besides, wasn’t the final traffic management phase of the O’Connell Street IAP to remove all private traffic from the street?

A few pics of the Abbey Street buildings.

Graham, thanks for the model pics. Can you enlighten me as to where exactly on the new street the façade will be moved to? Does it wrap around the corner from the original? I can’t see it in the models. 🙂
I’ve searched with no avail – Can someone tell me what happened to the top of the tower?

PAUL. There’s a typo on the Arnott’s page : “Thje top of the tower…”

Yes Morlan it wraps directly around the corner. The tower becomes a new central feature, with its current elevation with oriel window etc being replicated on the newly exposed corner.
It is proposed also that a brand new replica terminating tower/pavilion will be added to the end of the repositioned facade, mirroring the current arrangement on Henry Street to the left of the tower.
I’ll send you a pic.

Goodness knows what happened to the tower after it was removed – indeed sledgehammers were probably used to get it down 🙁

Thanks for the pictures GrahamH and Morlan. This scheme has some really good points. The apartments and tower can only enhance a north inner city skyline that at the moment is dominated by the appalling jervis centre. The new streets and square look fine (except for the green paving 😮 in the earlier pictures: is this still part of the plan?). I agree with Graham’s comments too about the changes to the Arnotts building. The reinstatement of the tower and the role of the building with respect to the new street justifies messing around with what is anyway nothing more than a (not particularly special) facade.
The bad points are the changes to Penneys and the ramp on O’Connell Street. If this is possible, the renovated Penneys will be worse than what is already there. The giant glass panel will grab attention without diminishing the ugliness or incongruity of this awful building. Is a modern design that acknowledges the proportions of its neighbours beyond the wit of the architects? And the ramp? Surely the developers are chancing their arm. If there is no space for it on Abbey Street then perhaps space could be made for it on Princes Street North (around the corner from the planned location). I don’t think a few cars on this street would do it any harm: giving the feel more of a real street and less of a shopping mall.

This will give you the idea Morlan.. though I assume they will not replicate the previously removed portion of the tower?

Nope, nor the pavilion spires, but that image if pretty spot on Paul, including the new corner pillar (though obviously a single pillar). A setback storey needless to say is also proposed for behind the parapet. It is very low indeed, so presumably won’t be noticed from steet level.

more like this so… it’s a pity that they wouldn’t replace the spires, as then it would look fabulous (even wrapped around ther corner)

Yes, that’s it exactly. It immediately transforms it into a blocky Edwardian affair, with strong flat-topped projecting tower. Very sturdy and surprisingly purpose-designed in character – it will work very well even minus the spires. It’s bizarre how the removal of the spires turns it from a Victorian into an Edwardian building!

Unfortunately the new building proposed for the opposing corner is really going to compromise it, being taller than Arnotts’ tower. If that gets through there’d be absolutely not point in erecting the spires at all. Indeed even as planned the tower’s prominence on the streetscape is swallowed up.

Of course, if the ramp was on the meridan it would be better; this is supposed to be a service area, putting it on the footpath is the crazy part.

is there any way they could be forced to re-instate the spires the building would look fantastic

Hey guys,

I’m actually doing a project on Arnott’s for college. I’ve found this thread to be incredibly useful and interesting so thanks to all.

Does anyone know where I could get some information on Arnott’s past? Like when it opened etc

That would be great

there are some new pics of the development on HKR’s site

See the plaza is all very nice and pretty in the sunshine but imagine your average Irish day….

One slight concern with this space and the development that lines it is the potential for it to feel like a ‘novelty area’, detached from the grid pattern around it, with the walkways and mutli-faceted buildings lending it a temporary, almost gimmicky air rather than that of a solid urban space. Not that this difference doesn’t have its virtues, but it would be a shame for the visitor to feel completely lost in this ‘lifestyle experience’ in what is currently a coherent area. The combination of the GPO elevation and the remounted facade of Arnotts however should blend the area into the city quite effectively.

Indeed I’d be interested to know who will own this space upon completion: will DCC or Arnotts maintain the streetscape and walkways? And will this be a semi-private space with security gaurds and photography protection squad?

Very curious development taking place last week on Henry Street, Dr Quirkey-style:

Presumably the entire facade is now covered. This for the planners? If so it’s clearly being given active consideration.

Also the lovely simple Christmas lights on the original building were lit for the first time in years, all the bulbs newly replaced 🙂

Indeed looking at the above photo, you can really imagine how impressive the orginal facade concept would have been if executed, stretching way into the distance with its two giant towers piercing the skyline.

One odd feature of the current application is the express statement that the current domed centre of the store “will not be affected by this application”, accompanied by photographs of the space. And yet this part clearly overlaps the tower by a substantial degree:

Unless it’s going to go and they just haven’t proposed anything to replace it yet.
It’s a very odd experience walking through the vast hall at the moment buzzing with people – akin to the Grand Staircase on the Titanic, thinking little do they know that soon all of this is going to be under water 😀

Again in the above picture you can see the 1960s elevation to Henry Street is wider at the front almost to the depth of a small tower.

Decision details available now: AI requested unsurprisingly. If this link doesnt work, the file no. is 5170/06

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHA … 2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=416185%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=Search%20Criteria‘>Search%20Results

@GrahamH wrote:

One slight concern with this space and the development that lines it is the potential for it to feel like a ‘novelty area’, detached from the grid pattern around it, with the walkways and mutli-faceted buildings lending it a temporary, almost gimmicky air rather than that of a solid urban space. Not that this difference doesn’t have its virtues, but it would be a shame for the visitor to feel completely lost in this ‘lifestyle experience’ in what is currently a coherent area. The combination of the GPO elevation and the remounted facade of Arnotts however should blend the area into the city quite effectively.

Indeed I’d be interested to know who will own this space upon completion: will DCC or Arnotts maintain the streetscape and walkways? And will this be a semi-private space with security gaurds and photography protection squad?

I think in reality this is going to be more like an open air shopping centre than anything else, as Arnotts will no doubt still own it and be responsible for its maintainance.

I like your ‘photography protection squad’ term.

ye it sounds like a big shopping centre even the paving looks like something out of a mall and the streets in the model look alot narrower than in that image?
also i hope they dont get away with having 31% of the residential units as one beds thats insane and it happens too often in new city centre developments,its time we started planning for a city people can have proper homes in and get more familys into the city to keep it alive instead of letting developers maximise profit at the expence of a sustainable comunity.

Absolutely archipimp, and it’s great to see DCC are on the ball in this respect: “The applicant should be advised to note that in a development of this scale it is reasonable that the majority of all new housing shall be family friendly. In this regard the applicant is requested to justify the following: (i) The unacceptably high proportion of one-bed units at 31%. (ii) That just 15% of the overall housing provision is three bedrooms or more. The Planning Authority is of the opinion that it is unreasonable that the proportion of units with just two bedrooms or less constitute over 85% of such a large-scale housing development.”

It continues in requesting an amenity value assement of each apartment, and even addresses the entrance area in no diplomatic terms: “The applicant is requested to clarify and justify the location and size of the primary proposed entrance to the residential units. The proposed 3m wide and extensively long corridor residential entrance to Block B is unsuitable for a primary residential access. The applicant is advised to note that an important component in identifying successful urban apartment living – and a critical component in the quality of life of those who live there – is the generosity, and imagination of residential entrances. The proposed development, in this regard, manifestly fails to demonstrate that imagination or generosity. The lobby entrance to the proposed units require significant improvement in terms of their, scale, design and relationship to the street.”

An unequivocally hard line being taken there. I imagine this concern for living accomodation is prevalent with all proposed developments of late.

Current state of play on the adhesive backed school of symmetry. Excuse the dodgy camera phone quality.

If you’re going to create a novelty space, you might as well go all the way.

I think somebody mentioned that this looked like some UK post war new town. I lived in Coventry for a while and had a love hate relationship with its once groundbreaking precinct. By 1998 The precinct was a sad example of faded crumbling modernism.

http://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/nowandthen/precinct-west.php

Those are exactly the kind of images I was thinking of alright – I can just imagine how miserable and overshadowed the arnotts plaza will actually be considering that buildings rise to about 8 storeys to the south of it… And the general architectural language really reminds of the sort of soulless postwar stuff that litters British high streets… A few trendy motifs and elements repeated over and over again – in this case the studied “randomness” which seems to stand in for any sort of grace or elegance in elevations at the moment.
The Arnotts facade to the square is particularly awful and hopefully will be re-considered in the further information. Why squander the opportunity to give the shop a meaningful presence to the square and back down to O’Connell St. It should be vertically emphasized and powerful instead of the sub-roches stores glassy horizontals with a few slits thrown in. There’s a total over-reliance on the signage to give it any sort of presence or meaning. And the mess of housing plonked on top… Surely theres some way of at least making them look like elements of the same building rather than two completely conflicting ideas rammed together…
Anyway, enough ranting! I think the scheme has wonderful potential. However the current proposals on show look woeful. The elevations make the 90’s interventions along Liffey St. and Abbey St. look positively classy – at least the designers there seemed to have some sort of eye for rhythm and proportion…

Won’t somebody ever realize that modern style geometric buildings have a shelf life of about 30 years? It’s never a good idea to put experimental designs in a city centre. Years from now, people will wonder what in the world were the architects thinking as over time these fads change and taste differs. What will happen is they will replace a 1960’s building (remind you that at the time they thought these buildings were great) with another ugly monster that our kids will be anxious to see torn down. It would be amazing to see the entire development done in a classical style. Why do architects shy from this?

Arnotts AI is in. If you made an original submission, you have until June 29th to comment on it. They’ve substantially bumped up the size of the corner tower at Abbey Street/Liffey Street, apparently as there were no major objections to it – quite incredible!! Where previously no objections might be a sign that you’d get to build what you applied for, now it’s a sign that you can go for something much bigger instead! Get out of it, Arnotts / HKR architects! There is scope for a slender tower of max 10 or 12 stories at that corner, but certainly not your latest proposal!

Still loads of problems with the design otherwise – gratuitous canopies riding horizontally across distinct individual building plots and the like …. but what do you expect from HKR?

So it appears that this has been granted by DCC. I haven’t yet seen the details. What are the chaces they amended that stupid ramp off O’Connell Street?

(5170/06 if you’re searching the DCC website.)

“The following requirements of the Roads Department shall be strictly complied with during the course of this development. i) The access and egress to the car park shall be off Abbey Street. Full details of the revised access arrangements shall be agreed in writing with the Roads and Traffic Department.”

Hurray!!! Now some tool will appeal it and the Bord will grant but forget to condition this!!!! hah hah, what are the chances…

also “iii) The new pedestrian streets shall be public rights of way and taken in charge by the City Council.” So i presume they can’t and owon’t be locked off at night

Not so fast alonso. That Condition concerns site access during construction – not the final access arrangements for the carpark. See Directive 1 for that:

(1.0) Transport and Traffic: (1.1) Notwithstanding the submitted Mobility Management Plan the applicant is requested to submit further justification for the location of the proposed underground car parking access arrangements on O’Connell Street. In this regard the applicant is requested to itemise all those reasonable alternative design solutions that were considered. These should be clearly set out in a detailed matrix, and assessed accordingly having regard to the following (amongst others) criteria – Traffic implications for O’Connell Street – Traffic implications for extended local road network – Impact on LUAS operations – Possible impact on Metro operations – Visual impact on O’Connell Street – Impact on Dublin Bus operations – Impact on pedestrian flows immediate at Easons (directly opposite access dip) – Impact on wider pedestrian movement (including intersection Princess Street/O’Connell Street) – Impact on those with disability and impaired mobility. – Impact on sustainability of proposed retail development itself. (1.2) Having regard to the above, the applicant is requested to submit further information with regard to the detailing of any proposed vehicular access onto O’Connell Street. This should include extensive examples of imagery and drawings (including detailed materials of thereof) of similar such successful underground car parking arrangements elsewhere. The submission should also include a comparative analysis as to the rationale of the preferred design solution having regard to alternative access arrangements considered, for example access off Abbey Street or via Liffey Street. This should also include an analysis of differing depths of gradient etc, and innovative and alternative architectural solutions that would add rather than substantially detract from the public domain. The analysis shall also show how the proposed car park access will affect the level of service for pedestrians along O’Connell Street. This should be accompanied with a safety audit based on peak pedestrian congestion levels.

Is that not the AI request? I read it that the items numbered in parentheses were the RFI items and the rest were today’s decision, which is now here

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00160990.pdf

The ramp was wholly and utterly beyond ridiculous, so I hope I’m right 🙂

mea culpa alonso, misread it – the ramp is dead.

Sense prevails!

So Arnotts is literally to turn a corner ?
My enthusiasm for this project waned when I saw the proposal for Arnotts original facade – I understand its little more than that, a facade, but its stature provides Henry Street with some of the consistency i think it needs amidst so many one offs.

There is no reason, other than squeezing the maximum out of the site, that the street could not have punched through the 60’s block instead, half of which is all that would have been required.

The proposed reconfiguration has some merit, but its impact is lost facing on to such a narrow street together with the massing & bulk of its proposed opposite number, which will dominate, where once Arnotts did.

You’d literally have to plant yourself half way in to Roches to take in its reconfigured facade in one eye shot, or one camera shot for that matter !

There are many good points to this project, particularly giving Princes Street a purpose, but I’ll be sad to see half of the fine Arnotts facade turn on to what will be a very narrow side street.

30th July 2007

RTÉ
22nd June 2007

The Irish Times reports that department store Arnotts is to take over rival Debenhams’ lease on one of the biggest outlets in Dublin’s Jervis Street shopping centre. Arnotts said yesterday it was acquiring the lease on the 7,400 square metre store from early next year.

The paper says London-listed Debenhams bought Irish chain Roches Stores last year for an initial €15m payment and an earn-out deal worth up to a further €14m. The sale meant Debenhams got a bigger premises close to the Jervis Street shop in what was Roches Stores’ Henry Street branch.

The Irish Times says the deal with Debenhams opens the possibility that Arnotts will use the Jervis Street outlet when it goes ahead with the planned redevelopment of its existing store on Henry Street, part of the same key shopping area in Dublin’s city centre.

King Sturge Property
19th July 2007

The oldest department store in Dublin, Arnotts, is to take over Debenhams’ lease which anchors Jervis Street Shopping Centre fronting Henry Street.

Henry Street is Dublin’s equivalent to Oxford Street being one of Europe’s highest performers in terms of footfall, clocking up an impressive average hourly footfall level of 15,000.

The store provides 108,000 ft² GIA with a net retail area of 86,579 ft² arranged over basement, ground, upper ground and first floor.

Speaking about the acquisition, Richard Nesbitt – Executive Chairman of Arnotts, said “We are delighted to acquire this important retail site at a time when we are embarking an ambitious development plan which we believe will revolutionise shopping in Dublin City Centre. Over the longer term, this additional space will consolidate Arnotts as the leading retailer in the area”.

King Sturge and Savills Hamilton Osborne King advised Arnotts.

Ends

At last – a half decent use for this store. And hopefully it will also signal the reconfiguration of what has to be the most appallingly non-street accessible, disorientating, inward-looking store in the capital – not to mention the elimination of all those frumpy UK high street fixtures and fittings. This store dated exceptionally quickly; the contemporaneous late-90s Arnotts refurbishment is positively cutting edge by comparison.

Arnotts buys two Abbey Street pubs
29 July 2007 By Neil Callanan and Michelle Devane
Arnotts, the Dublin department store, has bought Kielys bar on Abbey Street and the adjoining K3 pub.

The retailer is believed to have paid as much as €10 million for the pub, which closed two weeks ago. The property is likely to be redeveloped.

The Kielys group will continue to own its pubs in Donnybrook and Mount Merrion. It opened the two bars on Abbey Street in 2000 after it acquired the former Coopers pub in 1999 and redeveloped it.

Arnotts has spent more than €100 million in recent years on buying up properties in the Abbey Street area, ahead of the redevelopment of the department store and adjoining properties.

Planning permission was recently granted for the €700million redevelopment, dubbed the Northern Quarter, which will create large shops to cater for the retailer’s expansion plans as well as leisure facilities, offices and apartments.

Arnotts is also planning to appoint a partner for the project in the coming months.

In order to continue trading during the redevelopment, the retailer bought the lease to the Debenhams outlet in the Jervis Street shopping centre. To help fund the expansion, it is selling two sites on Dominick Street, each of which has a guide price of more than €4 million.

Nobody was available at either Arnotts or Kielys for comment about last week’s deal.

ABP have announced an oral hearing for Arnotts. No date yet.

From the Independent..

Arnotts in €1bn move to allow for urban revamp
Plans include a four-star hotel, 175 apartments and 47 shops

Arnotts and its development partner British urban regeneration specialist Crentros Miller will break ground at the €1bn, eight-acre Northern Quarter development in Dublin’s north inner city in September.

The project, due for completion in 2011, is currently before An Bord Pleanala, the planning appeals board, with a go-ahead expected to be given shortly.

Yesterday informed sources said that Arnotts, which is 45pc-owned by Niall McFadden’s Boundary Capital and Anglo Irish Bank, is confident about the future of the development against the backdrop of fears of a recession in the US spreading across the Atlantic.

The source said that Dublin’s Henry Street has the highest footfall rates in Europe and that the Northern Quarter development is a long term project.

Arnotts is already talking to a number of household names like Abercrombie & Fitch and Armani as anchor tenants.

The development will include 47 shops, 14 cafes, restaurants and bars, 175 apartments and an 149-bed four-star hotel.

The Northern Quarter also features mixed-use urban development, with an integration of retail, residential, leisure and hotel/spa facilities.

The main feature of the development is to recreate Prince’s Street as an urban street and pedestrian thoroughfare connecting the centre of O’Connell Street, through to Henry Street with a new public square at its centre.

It is expected that the development could act as a catalyst for further development in the Lotts Street area which is adjacent to the River Liffey.

According to the most recently filed accounts for Arnotts, the company boosted its balance sheet by almost €150m in 2006/2007 period on foot of a January revaluation of its property portfolio.

Additions

The retailer engaged estate agents CB Richard Ellis Gunne to revalue its assets in January of 2007 resulting in the uplift.

As a result of that revaluation, and a handful of additions, Arnotts’ fixed assets came in at €535.5m for the year ended 28 January 2007, up from €328.5m the previous year.

The 2006/7 financial year marks Arnotts’ third full-year results since the company returned to the realm of private business in 2003.

The accounts also showed a slight lift in net sales to €145m while operating profit slumped by €7.3m to €861,000 as administration and other expenses soared prompting annual losses to double to €5.1m.

They also took a €500,000 hit for the elimination of “non-profitable business”, and investing a lot in modernising IT systems.

– Ailish O’Hora Business News Editor

There are some great buildings along abbey street what will happen to these? It would be a shame to see them go

I think this is a very promising development especially for liffey and abbey street.liffey street really has some horrible stores on it from the 2 euro place to all them small stores selling the type of clothes you’d see at a teenage disco with loud music blaring out on the street.plus abbey street, for such a central street is a bit dead at times.all ive ever done is pass through the street and nothing else.hopefully they do get some high quality retailers and not the usual UK multiple.

It’s good that this plan would bring some life to these streets and Liffey Street in particular can only get better, but given the importance of this area I think the standard of architecture in what is proposed is too low.

It will be very interesting to see how this development will affect the neighbouring streets and this part of the inner city..particularly at night.
Im talking in particular about liffey street, the lotts, great strand street and abbey streets upper and middle.
While the potential of liffey and middle abbey streets is obvious, the potential of a street such as great strand street is, in my opinion, just as great.
unlike a lot of people, i dont consider temple bar a failure or a vision of all thats wrong with the new ireland. As such, i can see huge potential in developing strand street, the lotts and a possible link street to middle abbey (adjacent to jervis luas stop) as a pedestrianised area of restaurants, bars and speciality shops. If the idea of temple bar north is off putting think more of a continuation of the small italian quartier bloom which cuts across strand street.
The bigger picture of this may be the creation of a lively / multi purpose(?) area day and night straddling the pedestrian friendly quays…but thats another story

There is a large development planned on Middlke Abbey Street including a bus station nof all bizzare things. The main part of the development is a hotel. Also in planning at the moment is a development beside Zanzibar with a link bridge across to the proposed bus station/hotel

I agree about further down Abbey Street. Its so dead and I blame Luas for not creating a more positive environment here. Its sterile and useless

Decision on Arnotts site delayed

A planning decision on a revamp of one of Dublin city centre’s busy shopping areas has been delayed.

An announcement on the scheme spearheaded by Arnotts was expected yesterday but An Bord Pleanála said the deadline had been put back due to the volume of work, with a new date not yet fixed.

The department store aims to transform the area in a proposal backed by Dublin City Council but appealed by a number of objectors.

If successful, the €750 million plan would create a new shopping, entertainment and residential zone, called the “Northern Quarter”, on a 5.5-acre site with new shops, restaurants, apartments and an hotel.

A spokesman for An Bord Pleanála said: “I don’t see that decision being made this week, and I don’t see it being made next week under any circumstances. I don’t see anything happening for the next five to seven working days.

“It’s the volume of work beating the board at the minute,” he said.

Under the plans, it is intended an area bounded by Henry Street, O’Connell Street, Abbey Street and Liffey Street will be regenerated as a shopping and entertainment zone in a three-year redevelopment plan.

Eight appeals to the planning have come from various parties – including An Post, An Taisce and the Railway Procurement Agency.

theres been some noise on the Metro letters page this week about the impact of this development on the GPO.

Am I right in saying that its only a small section of the GPO that is involved here, and it not a publicly accessible area anyway?

Metro has a letters page?

Are they all written in crayon?

Snob

@StephenC wrote:

Snob

You’re not really…?!? 😮 It’s a rag. I mean, if you told me the sole purpose of that paper was to litter Luas stops I could well believe it. It’s news designed for people who aren’t awake yet.

If that makes me a snob, then consider me proud to be branded thus.

Twas a joke of course

@shweeney wrote:

theres been some noise on the Metro letters page this week about the impact of this development on the GPO.

Am I right in saying that its only a small section of the GPO that is involved here, and it not a publicly accessible area anyway?

It’s the GPO arcade not the GPO.

The GPO is planning its own retail centre which will open the building to the public and which I think is great. Richard Nesbitt suggested they demolish the crap (later addition) in the middle and turn it into a public square within the building – it could be the Smithsonian of Dublin in his own words. The building could also open onto the redeveloped Princes St

@StephenC wrote:

Twas a joke of course

Aah. Oops. 😮

Eh… as you were.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Aah. Oops. 😮

Eh… as you were.

Puts handbag back on ground 🙂

And don’t even get me started on Ballsbrige

I agree,They want to build this ‘Rockafella’type centre,but why?New York and Dublin are 2 Totally different Cities.For starters New york and its hinterland has a poulation of like what 14 million people?Dublin has 1 and a half million.You can’t duplicate the ‘Buzz’ of An International City in the guise of a Building and is that not the reason behind all these New Modern edifices going up left,right and centre?..they think if they erect a structre that in any way resembles those of ‘canary Wharf’ in London,’La Défense’in Paris or Manhattan NY that the building will bring with it that Cities ‘Vibes’and ‘energy’.I really don’t think it works that way.Dublin was Once one of the most beautiful Cities in the world and it is well known that Queen Victoria thought it more ‘Charming’than London,so much so that when London was building and the Question of whether Dublin should follow suit she refused.And as a final point It’s interesting when we go abroad and we gaze around at us in whatever City we’re in,It is the Architecture that makes us do so,we don’t look at them as buildings but as Art as it had such a different underlining vision when it was being built,Buildings such As The central bank,The 4 courts,the Georgian terraces and Victorian Villas,these were bulit with Art In mind,Most Modern Architecture is built with Fashion in mind and we all know what fate fashion enjoys!

Maybe a bit long-winded but Im 19!

decision on Arnott’s due today?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/mhojcweyqloj/

It’s just been put back to the 14th of May!!

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/224640.htm

Can I post date this post to the 15th May when I can say it’s been put back to the 28th July?

dammit this is a development that I’m really interested in

Today’s times: not what I expected.

Arnotts plan for ‘Northern Quarter’ rejected by board

OLIVIA KELLY
Artist’s impression of the planned “Northern Quarter”: 47 shops and 14 cafes, restaurants and bars and around 175 apartments and a 149-bedroom hotel were planned
Artist’s impression of the planned “Northern Quarter”: 47 shops and 14 cafes, restaurants and bars and around 175 apartments and a 149-bedroom hotel were planned
Photograph: The Irish Times

PLANS FOR a new “Northern Quarter” on the site of Arnotts department store in Dublin will have to go back to the drawing board following the rejection by An Bord Pleanála of several major elements of the development, including a 16-storey tower.

The board has told Arnotts that the plans could not proceed in their current form and has directed them to reduce the height of the tower by nine storeys and ensure that no other building in the development was higher than seven.

In its letter to Arnotts, the board said the development would be “unduly obtrusive on the skyline” and would “seriously detract from the balance and architectural coherence of these streets”.

The wording of the board’s letter is a powerful signal that it will not allow any high-rise buildings in the historic core of the city. While it is sure to come as a major blow to Arnotts who had its plans passed almost in full by Dublin City Council last year, it also sets a marker for future developments in the area, including the redevelopment of the Carlton site a short distance north of Arnotts.

The company is proposing a €750 million redevelopment of a 5.5 acre block bordered by Henry Street, Middle Abbey Street, Liffey Street and O’Connell Street, into a new shopping, entertainment and residential zone, called “Northern Quarter”. The quarter would include 47 shops and 14 cafes, restaurants and bars, around 175 apartments and a 149-bedroom four-star hotel.

In addition to limiting the height of the development, the board has told Arnotts to significantly scale back its overall plans, ordering it to reduce the footprint of the buildings, half the number of parking spaces sought, restrict entrance to the car park and completely eliminate its plans for redesigning the facade of the Penney’s building on O’Connell Street.

The board is particularly scathing in relation to the plans for Penney’s.

Arnotts was seeking to introduce large projecting glass screens over the existing facades of the building on O’Connell Street. These would “seriously detract” from the design and character of these streets, but particularly the GPO building, the board said.

Most significantly for any future developments in the street, the board said the facade alteration would detract from the “architectural heritage value of this nationally important streetscape”.

Arnotts had sought 683 car parking spaces and to have access to the car park from both O’Connell Street and Middle Abbey Street. The board has said this was excessive and has ordered Arnotts to keep car parking at its current level of 350 spaces and restrict access to Middle Abbey Street only. The board also said inadequate public outdoor space had been provided and directed that the footprint of two of the four blocks included in the scheme be set back by 10m.

The company paid €26 million in 2003 for Independent House, the former premises of Independent newspapers, and is understood to have paid in excess of €100 million to acquire all the property required within the 5.5-acre site. Arnotts has until June 5th next to submit all the amendments required, but it is unclear whether the project will still be economically viable.

The Arnotts situation is likely to be watched very closely by Dundrum shopping centre developer Joe O’Reilly, who owns the derelict Carlton site at the other end of O’Connell Street.

Mr O’Reilly is shortly expected to seek planning permission for a development which is to include about 6,503sq m (700,000sq ft) of retail premises with restaurants, bars and other leisure facilities, a 150-bedroom hotel and apartments. He has also signalled that he will be seeking tall buildings on the site.

As with Arnotts the Carlton development is likely to find favour with the council’s planners. City manager John Tierney has repeatedly said that he wanted to see a far greater intensification of use of land in the city centre. However, given that most projects involving height and major redevelopment are appealed to An Bord Pleanála, it is the board that will have the final say.

Dublin City Council don’t have a comprehensive vision for this city, or if they do, they’re not communicating it properly.

Bord Pleanala don’t know what the vision is, or they don’t share it.

Developers are trying to fill in the blanks themselves.

If this was another profession and the patients were dying like this, someone would have their licence to practice revoked.

Something is deeply wrong in Dublin City Council planning department. Scheme after scheme after scheme – I could list dozens – that it puts through is being substantially changed or refused outright when it goes to An Bord Pleanala.

@Devin wrote:

Something is deeply wrong in Dublin City Council planning department. Scheme after scheme after scheme – I could list dozens – that it puts through is being substantially changed or refused outright when it goes to An Bord Pleanala.

Some thing is deeply wrong with ABP also – what is their problem with this development. Fair enough on the car spaces but the rest – o dear, dispair is all that comes to mind—16 stories inside an entire city block !!
No vision in ABP either – as said before poor planners in a shockingly poor system. Protection of the city centre skyline or lack of at 7 stories is ridiculous when the the sprawl is approaching 30 miles out. Most worrying is that the board want the project scaled back – Dublin is an international city not some country town. There is an entire generation growing up who think the shopping area of dublin begins and stops at Dundrum. There is a real risk that the city centre could end up dying a slow death like Dun Laoghaire town if current restrictive planning is not reconsidered.If the press is correct there are numerous large retailers waiting to locate in the city but cannot find large enough floor plates.

A bit disappointing – was looking forward to seeing this area regenerated. Pity the board couldn’t have knocked a couple of floors off the tower, reduced the car spaces and went with the rest.

What did the board make of the plans to knock and rebuild half of the original Arnott’s facade?

I guess given the board’s obvious conservatism it’s clear what the decision will be on Dunne’s Ballsbridge 18 storey planning permission – probably the neighbouring vetinary college site too.

@CC105 wrote:

Protection of the city centre skyline or lack of at 7 stories is ridiculous when the the sprawl is approaching 30 miles out.

Oh CRINGE:o, I thought this was cleared up by now!! The reason we have sprawl is because of 2-storey semi-d houses with front and back gardens extending for 30 or 50 miles, not because of heights in the city centre. The city centre is dense and compact at 7 storeys, at 4 storeys or at 3 storeys.

@JoePublic wrote:

I guess given the board’s obvious conservatism it’s clear what the decision will be on Dunne’s Ballsbridge 18 storey planning permission – probably the neighbouring vetinary college site too.

This part of the city centre is not really suited to a 16 storey building (but the view looked quite good coming over the Ha’penny bridge) and im surprised that there wasnt the usual fuss made around these pages, but i dont think Ballsbridge can really compare

@CC105 wrote:

No vision in ABP either – as said before poor planners in a shockingly poor system.

Devin pulled you up on your other incorrect generalisation, but this one shouldn’t go unchallenged either. What cases are you referring to here? What planners? Why ‘shockingly’ poor?

You may be right, but groundless sweeping statements like this do your case no favours.

(I get touchy at slurs on my profession. What can I say? I’m human.)

Maybe I was a bit too general, the shocking system I am referring to is the fact that DCC and ABP can have such different views on the development of the city and the fact that every major planning decision has to go through 2 hurdles which not always but regularly have different outcomes. These bodies need to start talking to each other.

Poor planners -no names here – perhaps it is not their fault but somebody is responsible for the fact that Dublin stretches out for mile after mile. Maybe the brown envelope people.

Devin – What ever about building heights nobody could say Dublin City is dense.

Oh groan why do you come back on something that was already covered in the last post. YES Dublin city is dense. 3 or 4 or 5 storey buildings joined to form terraces forming streets as we have in Dublin is dense. Dublin city within the canals is dense.

The issue here in relation to this Arnotts scheme is that Dublin City Council is not upholding its own Development Plan – An Bord Pleanala is. The inner city is protected from high buildings; the Development Plan says so. But time after time DCC have granted permission for high buildings which are subsequently thrown out by ABP for not complying with the Development Plan. More on that here: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2007/1025/1193238272990.html

In regard to the scaling back of the scheme, CC105 or JoePublic have you seen what was originally proposed and what it has been scaled back to? The problem was that the site was being HKR-ifed; given a gargantuan Smithfield-Market-style scheme bearing no relation to the scale of the surrounding area. What ABP have stipulated it be scaled back to remains a very substantial scheme.

Thought this might interest people

http://www.tribune.ie/business/news/article/2008/jul/13/council-to-use-cpos-to-help-arnotts-with-750m-henr/
Council to use CPOs to help Arnotts with ¤750m Henry Street plan
Neil Callanan

Dublin City Council (DCC) is planning to use compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) to forcibly acquire properties to facilitate the development of the Northern Quarter retail scheme planned by Arnotts for Henry Street in Dublin city centre.

The council said its is proposing to initiate a CPO to allow Arnotts acquire “some properties not yet acquired by the developer, the perfection of title where required and the extinguishment of rights of way over certain laneways/ roadway. The CPO will have regard to the final decision on the planning application. All costs incurred by DCC will be underwritten by the developer.”

The €750m Northern Quarter plan is currently before An Bord Pleanála, which has told Arnotts to lower the heights of many of the buildings proposed and halve the number of proposed car spaces.

Arnotts had originally proposed developing a new department store, 47 shops, 14 cafes, restaurants and bars, around 175 apartments and a 149-bedroom four-star hotel on the 5.5-acre site it has assembled by buying surrounding properties. It has also bought properties on nearby Liffey Street, including the K2 bar, for about €10m.

Arnotts had planned to relocate to the former Debenhams unit in Jervis Street shopping centre during the redevelopment but it is now looking at moving to another location.

The decision to use a CPO for Northern Quarter will revive memories of the council’s decision to CPO the nearby Carlton cinema and adjoining sites which held up development of the area for seven years.

Developer Joe O’Reilly has since bought the site and a large number of surrounding properties and is planning a major rival development to Northern Quarter on the site.

Last week he secured planning permission for the part of that €1.25bn redevelopment when he was granted plan*ning permission to demolish the Royal Dublin Hotel, which he bought for €30m.

He will now be able to develop more than 1,100sq m of shops, a gallery and more than 2,500sq m of office space. His scheme, currently dubbed Dublin Central, will be anchored by Dublin department store John Lewis

When does construction start on the site? I read somewhere that September was the start date but that’s probably different now because of incompitant staff at pleanala

Ha ha ha: “incompitant” [sic].

Do you have a clue what you’re talking about? What incompEtEnce are you referring to? Care to back up the accusation? I hear CC105 is looking for a new best friend…

I’ll put this as simply as possible: the case has not yet been decided. ‘Kay? Do your bloody homework. The case reference is 224640. Put it into the ‘Search’ box on http://www.pleanala.ie if you want the latest news.

I am of course refering to the fact that a decision was due a long time ago but the board said they needed more time because of all the paper work and as a result, the decision was delayed.

‘of course’? It wasn’t apparent to me. Say what you mean. ‘Incompetence’ is a very serious accusation.

a decision was due a long time ago but the board said they needed more time because of all the paper work and as a result, the decision was delayed.

Seems like the essence of competence to me. What do you want? A rushed judgement?

The problem with the Board is not incompetence, its capacity. There simply arent enough members to deal with the number of appeals within the specified period so the decsions get deferred.

I understood the Board had sought a redesign of significant elements of this scheme,

Took a stroll around the new library area out in tallaght yesterday afternoon. Very impressive indeed.

ABP has given the green light: http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0728/arnotts.html

From Breaking News section of The Irish Times:

Last Updated: Monday, July 28, 2008, 15:16
Arnotts gets go-ahead for ‘Northern Quarter’
JASON MICHAEL

An Bord Pleanála has today given the go-ahead for a major redevelopment by Arnotts in Dublin city centre.

The company is planning a €750 million redevelopment of a 5.5-acre block bordered by Henry Street, Middle Abbey Street, Liffey Street and O’Connell Street into a new shopping, entertainment and residential zone, called “Northern Quarter”.

An Bord Pleanála gave the green light subject to 26 conditions, including the preservation of several protected buildings in the area.

An Post, An Taisce and the Rail Procurement Agency were among the parties that had appealed planning permission for the scheme, which was granted by Dublin City Council last summer.

Among the conditions laid down, an Bord Pleanála has ruled that the developer has to provide for 24-hour public access to all of the proposed new public streets and spaces, including Abbey Square.

The board also said there must also be a year-round festival ticket office at ground-floor level, appropriate childcare facilities, and an archaeological appraisal of the site.

An independent road safety audit must be done, and a parking-management plan prepared and agreed with the planning authority, the board stipulated.

Details of shopfront design – including any associated signage, lettering, lighting or security screens – is subject to a further application for planning permission.

An Arnotts spokesman said: “We are delighted with the news. It gives certainty to the very ambitious Northern Quarter project. We will work with the city council to deal with the various conditions An Bord Pleanála has made.”

The retailer refused to comment on a previous announcement that 580 of its 950 staff will be let go when the store moves temporarily to Jervis Street Shopping Centre, which is one-third the size of Henry Street site.

Boyers on North Earl Street will also be converted to an Arnotts furniture and home store.

“The news has come a bit faster than expected, so Arnotts will now sit down to assess the detail of what will happen next,” the spokesman added. “Over the next few weeks, management will also work to bring clarity to the workers.”

Linda Tanham, an official with trade union Mandate, which represents most Arnotts’ workers, said staff are still unsure as to what will happen next. “We are expecting to meet with management this week to get an update on a timescale for trading and intended job losses,” she added.

When completed, the Northern Quarter – bordered by the Middle Abbey Street, Henry Street, and Liffey Street – is expected to employ over 5,000 people, with one-fifth of those working in the new Arnotts store.

It is envisaged one of the main features will be the re-creation of Prince’s Street as an urban street and pedestrian thoroughfare with a new public square at its centre.

Gina Quin, chief executive of Dublin Chamber of Commerce, said the massive redevelopment will reinvigorate the heart of Dublin city centre.

“Not only will it have a significant impact on the city’s retail variety and range of offerings, but this development will also help to transform the Henry Street area into a vibrant residential, leisure and entertainment hub,” she said.

“The Northern Quarter will offer residents, shoppers and tourists a wide range of activities in the evenings and will play an important part in the transformation of Dublin’s city centre into that of a world class city with a quality of life that is second to none.”

The Construction Industry Federation said the scheme will make a huge contribution to the sector.

“There are a number of large scale projects in the pipeline or which have already begun and the Arnotts redevelopment is a huge construction opportunity, particularly for those in commercial construction,” a said spokesman.

In April, an Bord Pleanála had rejected several aspects of the development, which is planned for the site of the department store in Dublin – including a proposed 16-storey tower.

The board told Arnotts to cut the height of the tower by nine storeys and ensure that no other building in the development was higher than seven.

In its letter to Arnotts, the board said then the development would be “unduly obtrusive on the skyline” and would “seriously detract from the balance and architectural coherence of these streets”.

Additional reporting PA

What’s the plan with Penney’s on O’Connell street now?

is this still going ahead next month?

Where did you hear that in the first place cgcsb?

This was a well considered case by the Board. They turned what was in essence a good urban-minded scheme but very much over scaled, into a palatable form that would sit comfortably with the wider environment of the north inner city.

Chief amongst the alterations was a reduction in height across the board, most noticeable on Liffey Street and Middle Abbey Street – the former of which was nothing short of a towering cliff face as originally proposed. The facade treatment along here, which is so dependent on the limestone cladding used, appears very elegant in renderings, as do the shop units at ground level. The uppermost floors of the building occupying the 1960s curtain wall site on Henry Street are to be lopped off and the remainder pulled back to protect the view from O’Connell Street.

The 16 storey tower at the Liffey Street-Middle Abbey Street junction has been completely removed, reduced down to the seven storey height of adjacent buildings. To be honest I think this came as something of a surprise to everyone – not even a nine or ten storey punctuation was permitted here. However this is a highly constrained corner – not a location that heralds or warrants a signature building. The corner building is to be clad in copper.

Penneys has mercifully been ditched outright, with the Board refusing it at an early stage. Their response to the proposal, and by association DCC’s decision was:

“The Board considers that the proposed modifications to the existing retail premises are unsatisfactory. The proposed addition of two floor levels of accommodation (stock room and administration offices) and the introduction of the large, glazed, projecting screens onto the existing streetfront facades would seriously detract from the civic design character of the eastern end of Middle Abbey Street and O’Connell Street generally, but with particular reference to the GPO building. Accordingly, and having regard to the overriding need to protect the architectural heritage value of this nationally important streetscape, the Board concluded that this part of the overall redevelopment (Block D) would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

So a pretty emphatic rejection. Penneys did not resubmit revised proposals other than a minor single storey addition towards the centre of the site. Clearly their involvement was driven by garnering maximum street impact and nothing in the way civic improvement. Croydon on O’Connell Street has thankfully been avoided.

The 1890s Arnotts building itself is going to be altered as proposed, with the western wing dismantled and re-erected as a facade on the new Prince’s Street. The balustrade as removed in the 1940s is to be reinstated as a condition, as is the concealed limestone entrance arch to be conserved and exposed.

The central Abbey Square is to be substantially increased in size, with the building line on the Abbey Street side pulled back by a considerable ten metres to enlarge the square. Also Arnotts which moves entirely to a new purpose-built department store building at the western Liffey Street-Middle Abbey Street corner of the site is to have its entrance forecourt substantially enlarged.

The apartments of the uppermost floors across the board are of an extremely high standard and will without question set a new benchmark for urban living in this city. Beautifully arranged roof gardens and terraces create nothing short of a garden suburb floating above this development.

Some minor modifications to glazing patterns and solid-to-void ratios were also made in respect of the Arnotts facade within Abbey Square. The mini-tower within this square has also been lopped in height.

From what I have seen of the two proposals, I find the Arnotts scheme head and shoulders above the Carlton development.

@GrahamH wrote:

The central Abbey Square is to be substantially increased in size, with the building line on the Abbey Street side pulled back by a considerable ten metres to enlarge the square.

From what I have seen of the two proposals, I find the Arnotts scheme head and shoulders above the Carlton development.

That central square in the Arnott’s proposal is a key difference between the two schemes. In this regard there is an interesting, and puzzling, comment in the Planner’s Report on the Carlton site.

Where Kearns is talking about the merits of the opening onto O’Connell Street, (the supposed ‘new square’, or ‘room off a room’, that he wants the developers to go off and make more formal), he summarily dismisses the Arnott’s type solution, favoured by several posters to this forum, of a generous square within the body of the site as an alternative to hollowing out three existing streetscapes, O’Connell St., Henry St. and Moore St, to create three half-assed ‘squares’ with the loss of a considerable amount of decent building stock. He states:

Whether it’s commercially driven or not, the making of an entirely new square ‘at the heart of the scheme’ is exactly what is most appealing, and most civic minded, about the Arnott’s scheme, and you would have thought that the bigger Carlton site would have had even greater scope for the creation of something even better again.

I believe when the story first appeared on headlines, the construction was aimed to begin in September. Also the store was supposed to move in September but that has probably been delayed now. But Arnotts are hopeful that construction will begin “before the end of 2008”

It was initially mooted for September based on the original plans and timelines, but due to the planning delays it will be post Christmas before they move – why move anywhere until after your busiest trading period!

And the have retained all the staff they were due to let go.

This early ‘80s map shows the network of streets & lanes that was eliminated for the Ilac Centre, in red.

We’re all talk these days in planning of ‘breaking down large impermeable city blocks and integrating them into the urban fabric’, but the impermeability of the Ilac block (after shopping hours) was further increased just last year with elimination the L-shaped route between Henry Street and Moore Street by Dunnes building over the west end of Sampson’s Lane, in blue above.

@Devin wrote:

This early ‘80s map.

Its really quite shocking how many cinemas have gone from the area from the time of that map. Ambassador, Carlton, Adelphi, Regent, Curzon/ Lighthouse, and Odeon – all gone 🙁

EDIT – going to post above comment over on the O’Connell Street thread as it’s probably more relevant there…

only 11 bus routes on O connell Street!
when was henry street pedestrianised? I don’t think i recall traffic on it in my lifetime

anyway city centre malls really are a silly silly concept. I wonder if you could accommodate the same retail floorspace and retain that urban grain?

Well, at least there’s only a few in Dublin.

Compare it to some UK cities, where the city centres are just massive shopping centres.

@alonso wrote:

only 11 bus routes on O connell Street!
when was henry street pedestrianised? I don’t think i recall traffic on it in my lifetime

anyway city centre malls really are a silly silly concept. I wonder if you could accommodate the same retail floorspace and retain that urban grain?

I don’t recall traffic either but i do recall a time when there was tarmac on the street and a sidewalk which was quiet dangerous as you can’t see where the sidewalk begins on busy shoppig days when there are hundreds of people there. They are not a silly concept they help fight global warming and help prevent urban sprawl. If there were no shopping centers in town, there would be no people there at weekends they’d all be stuck in traffic jams in their cars on the fifth ring road going to suburban shopping center number 937

@Devin wrote:

This early ‘80s map shows the network of streets & lanes that was eliminated for the Ilac Centre, in red.

We’re all talk these days in planning of ‘breaking down large impermeable city blocks and integrating them into the urban fabric’, but the impermeability of the Ilac block (after shopping hours) was further increased just last year with elimination the L-shaped route between Henry Street and Moore Street by Dunnes building over the west end of Sampson’s Lane, in blue above.

I don’t think anyone would’ve walked down Sampsons lane after shopping hours. It was a narrow dark alleyway full of dumpsters.

Sorry I meant that the Ilac has some permeability during shopping hours in that you can walk through it, but Sampson’s Lane is now cut off day & night.

cqcsb: I’ve heard the ‘global warming’ argument cried in defence of just about everything, but shopping malls…? There is a long-established city centre tradition of the ‘galleria’ and the covered mall is perhaps just an extension of this, but – whisper it – you can’t have a mall and an attached carpark in the city centre. If the developers want to develop inner-city shopping it can work only if it provides minimal or nominal (or no) carparking. Unfortunately, modern shopping patterns (along with school-runs and other nonsenses) will ensure that out-of-town centres will continue to flourish. Ask yourself why Ikea (a purveyor of cheap but useful furniture) requires a whole motorway connection before it will even open on the periphery of a major city.

Ikea also has to provide a bus service to Ballymun. So you think there should be no city center shopping centers? why? So Dublin should just be for work, no recreational facilities, that’s a very car dependant americanised point of view

I didn’t say that – try reading my post – alonso’s point was that developers try to replicate the scale of the suburban centre in the city and you just can’t do that and retain the urban grain. If you add carparks, you just add to congestion. The real answer is for local authorities to refuse permission for any out-of-town centre that meets more than local need and to encourage more shopping in town, dependant on public transport not cars.

I’m not defending shopping centres or opposing them because they most definitely serve a purpose in the right circumstance.
but , in New York , Manhattan specifically, which is a pretty urban place to say the least and whose inhabitants generally dislike the whole suburban way of life
there is only one shopping centre that i can think of (manhattan mall) and from what i can see it is not a huge success ,pretty dead somewhat dismal place.

@paul h wrote:

I’m not defending shopping centres or opposing them because they most definitely serve a purpose in the right circumstance.
but , in New York , Manhattan specifically, which is a pretty urban place to say the least and whose inhabitants generally dislike the whole suburban way of life
there is only one shopping centre that i can think of (manhattan mall) and from what i can see it is not a huge success ,pretty dead somewhat dismal place.

1. Dublin isn’t New York and a pile of sick would be better than the current northside.
2. It rains a lot more in Dublin than it does in New York.
3. In Calgary in Canada, the whole city centre is made up of indoor shopping malls because the weather is not suitable for outdoor shopping. It’s actually quite impressive.

The problem with the type shopping centres we generally have is that they turn their back on the streets and the city they occupy. One only has to look at the monlithic walls of M&S and Jervis to understand the tendancy. This is why they are repugnant.

I have no problem with centres in the city but they have to be an extension of the street. We can look to Helsinki to see how this has been achieved with centres having connection to streets, metro etc. This is a city, giving up whole blocks that can be closed in the evening destroys the very idea of a living city.

Whilst it is a smelly place at times and the redevelopment had very questionable build values Temple Bar attracts people precisely because of the great mix of street, retail and residential. LIkewise Grafton Street survived with small streets and arcades as an extension of the street.

Rain is no excuse for letting developers build blocks that add nothing to the urban streetscape.

@cgcsb wrote:

Ikea also has to provide a bus service to Ballymun. So you think there should be no city center shopping centers? why? So Dublin should just be for work, no recreational facilities, that’s a very car dependant americanised point of view

How about making it a place to live in? And not just for transient 20- and 30-somethings.

Anyway, on topic (sort of)- it’s possible to make good covered city centre retail facilities: Cork’s English Market, Dublin’s Market Arcade on South Great George’s Street, etc. Any bigger and the problems of permeability come to the fore.

ctesiphon:good examples of what I meant; is there any news of what could potentially be the best chance at present – the Iveagh Market? Has it just gone dead?

Is this still progressing with the current state of things?

@ihateawake wrote:

Is this still progressing with the current state of things?

Apparently so – from today’s Sunday Business Post:

Northern Quarter close to signing up retailers for prime central Dublin site

Sunday, October 12, 2008 By Gavin Daly

The owners of the planned €750 million Northern Quarter in central Dublin are close to sealing deals with retailers for the scheme, according to the project’s manager, John Laker.

Earlier this year, Centros shelved plans for a town centre scheme in Dumfries in Scotland.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=36653-qqqx=1.asp

This is good news and no real surprise. One would have imagined they had the finance secured long before the current mess, while this is also the best possible time to be building with construction costs at record lows for the past decade. Added to that is reduced consumer spending generally in the medium term, making it the ideal opportunity to literally demolish your on-street presence!

This is great news especially for the Building industry. The bravery of going ahead with this development will no doubt encourage the Carlton Site to go ahead.

Excellent, cheers for that. Does make alot of sense when you put it like that graham.

M&S Mary Street have lodged plans to replace their loading bay area on Abbey Street Lower with a 10 storey building. And it doesn’t even incorporate the 2-storey shed at the corner of Liffey Street, which is crying out for redevelopment! – <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2121/09&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 2121/09

Also a separate application for the same site to reclad the department store building – <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2120/09&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%202120/09

Jaysus thats dire. Just the kind of thing that’ll get planning on economic grounds and we’ll regret so badly down the line.

Actually looking at it now it looks like a blatant shot at seeing how many floors the council will lop off.

In its documentation it claims that it’ll provide a bookend to the tall building that will form part of northern quarter on the other side of the road.

Ditch that. Should be half the height with the corner resolved and external treatment that supports rather than conflicts with existing urban character… Knock some heads together and get M&S to cop on!

Utter junk. One would have hoped that it would be the better architects that might be able to swim to the top in these difficult times… But possibly not!

Ive just realised – it’s actually an airport hanger in the wrong location :rolleyes:

@jdivision wrote:

In its documentation it claims that it’ll provide a bookend to the tall building that will form part of northern quarter on the other side of the road.

Ah “bookend” – up there with “landmark” and “destination” in terms of required words when embarking on a course of justifying the indefensible.

There must be a market out there for putting together a “Developer’s Dictionary of Mandatory Language”.

Just looks like they are using the height of the Jervis car park as reference for the ten storey treatment, so I don’t blame them for trying. I’m glad to see this hole in Abbey Street being plugged (although the sheds on Liffey Street definitely need redevelopment now) – what height is the proposed bus interchange opposite this site?

(Convenient that film house went on fire there isn’t it)

Accident

But of course

Project scrapped. Or as they like to phrase it “implemented in stages starting 2013”. After the planning expires like.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0508/1224246116339.html