O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
This end of O’Connell St was always dead, even when the Carlton and Aer Lingus office gave some reason, other than reaching a bus stop, to walk up it in the 1950’s/70’s.
Foot fall more or less stops dead on this side at Henry Street (or Mc Donalds), and on the other side, even when Findlaters were active, persons venturing above the Savoy were in the great minority. O’Connell Street is really two differing streets, from bridge to Henry Street / Talbot street it is busy with pedestrians, beyond that is fairly dead and always was in my memory.
So will this scheme change things, I very much doubt it, with pedestrians turning left or right at the Spire:eek:.
I think it will have impact, but with the change in pedestrian patterns caused by Arnotts and the new Carlton ‘grand entrance’ to Henry Street, perhaps it won’t be as great as it might be were the new street opened in the morning.
Agreed Upper O’Connell Street has always been quieter dc3, essentially because since construction it has been a commercial street leading into a residential/small business zone. Really my point was that in using the street all the time, you can’t help but be struck at the extent of dereliction that has blighted the west side for so long. The difference a department store in the Carlton alone would have would be enormous. (Of course the counter-arguement would be that such a store wouldn’t survive without other elements).
Incidentally, on this ‘grand entrance’, I don’t understand from what can be gathered why an entire terrace of post-1916ers have to be demolished on Henry Street for this scheme. This is regeneration on its head if the case.
Frankly cant see those females that currently alternate between Dundrum Shopping Centre and Grafton Street being lured that far away from their comfort zone. It may depend on the tenants, of course, but a standalone Department store there may well struggle. Not to sure what anchor would go there and work there.
A long extract from your gospel, GrahamH, but your Word is true nevertheless.
Q: why couldn’t a version of your analysis been conducted between the planners and the developers before this hit the streets and their being quietly told to go away and redesign?
A: the planners are secretly in favour of this.Discuss.
@dc3 wrote:
It may depend on the tenants, of course, but a standalone Department store there may well struggle. Not to sure what anchor would go there and work there.
Perhaps John Lewis
@johnglas wrote:
A: the planners are secretly in favour of this.
‘Tis not very secret 😉
Think about it – its got all the superficial baubles that may appeal to a glic dick; ski slopes, cable cars… in fact I can almost hear the words “and is there a monorail too, Joe?” :rolleyes:
@GrahamH wrote:
Right.
On the new builds, the southern corner of the new street is absolute rubbish – incoherent, gimmicky, cumbersome and thoroughly ugly. And why is what will be a single structure being expressed as two different buildings?
The northern corner is welcomingly ambitious, but makes the opposite mistake of going overboard with its oversailing ‘veil’, as per the (emphatically) rejected Penneys further south
I think you’re being a bit harsh on that little red sandstone number. The white lever clamp top might be a bit stupid, but, I’m inclined to think the more low key with less glass approach is the way to go for multi-storey shops. I’d sooner it was a bit superficial and understated, that a bit superficial and overstated. Personally, I’d be more worried about the northern corner. This is South King Street all over again! Where did they get the idea that a transparent 5 / 6 storey facade will ever work on a department store?
Agree with you that the Carlton facade should be slid back south by one plot. I do not like the look of those vaguely illustrated additional storeys above the carlton, with more oddly angled blocks appearing through glass? canopies behind.
The width of the proposed opening onto O’Connell Street looks about right to me, although calling it a ‘square’ seems barely justified.
It seems strange that images of the other side of the ski slope haven’t emerged, or indeed, any views looking north on O’Connell Street. I suspect there is more fun to be had with this yet.
This is partly online now: it is application 2479/08, just the text, the documents aren’t scanned yet: 44 and 43, The Garda Station and next door, are facade retentions, 42 retained in its entirity.
from the application:
Works to protected structures to include the following: change of use of no. 42 O’Connell Street Upper to use as a gallery, to include refurbishment works involving the blocking of openings connecting to the adjoining nos. 40-41 O’Connell Street Upper, the removal repair and reinstatement of existing windows, the reinstatement of the original layout, repair of the roof and raingoods, the removal of a concrete stairs and their replacement with timber stairs, temporary supporting works, repairs to brickwork, plasterwork, metalwork, stonework and woodworks, the installation of a solar reflective structure to the rear, the demolition of non-original additions to the rear and relocation of the interior of O’Connell Hall; the interior of O’Connell Hall to be relocated to level +4 for use as an assembly hall, refurbishment works to include salvage and re-erection of original decorative plaster and timber elements, repair of timber and plasterwork and timberwork, the creation of a new doorway;
the facade of no. 43 O’Connell Street to be retained and integrated into the proposed elevation, facade to be cleaned and repaired, windows and doorways to be removed, repaired and reinstated, all other elements to be demolished new shopfront to be provided over retained stone plinth;
the facade of no. 44 O’Connell Street Upper to be retained and integrated into the proposed elevation, facade to be cleaned repaired, windows and door to be removed, repaired and reinstated, all other elements to be demolished, new shopfront to be provided within existing opes;
facade of nos 52-54 O’Connell Street Upper (Carlton Cinema) to be relocated c. 58m north along O’Connell Street and to be integrated into the proposed facade, facade to be cleaned and repaired, windows to be removed, repaired and reinstated and replaced if necessary, all other elements to be demolished, new shopfront and structural glass facade to be provided at level );
facade of no. 57 O’Connell Street Upper to be retained and integrated into the proposed elevation, facade to be cleaned and repaired windows to be removed, repaired and reinstated, new shopfront to be provided, all other elements to be demolished:
facade of no. 58 O’Connell Street Upper to be retained and integrated into the proposed elevation, facade to be cleaned and repaired, existing windows to be retained and repaired, new shopfront to be provided, all other elements to be demolished;
No. 60 O’Connell Street Upper to be used as offices, refurbishment works to include removal and replacement of windows with sash windows to historical detail or repaired as appropriate removal of existing modern parapet and replacement with sandstone coping and cornice as original, removal and repair of front door, creation of openings into no. 61 O’Connell Street Upper, the blocking of openings into no. 59 O’Connell Street Upper, temporary supporting works, clearing and repair of facades, repair of plasterwork, metal work and roof, the demolition of non original additions and the installation of a solar reflective structure to the rear;
facade of no. 61 O’Connell Street Upper to be retained and integrated into the proposed elevation; facade to be cleaned and repaired, windows to be removed, repaired and reinstated or replaced with timber sash windows to historical detail’ as appropriate all other elements to be demolished, original window proportions to be reinstated, removal of modern shopfront and restoration of underlying stonework, new shopfront to be provided and all ancillary structural services and development works.
Works to the national monument at nos 14-17 Moore Street, which are subject to Ministerial consent under the National Monument Act, include the following:
works to no. 14 Moore Street to include demolition of non-original additions and partitions, lowering of basement floor level, extension at basement, ground, first and second floor levels of 319sqm to rear, repair of timbers, roof, windows, doors, plaster, stone, brick and metal, change of use to a cafe/restaurant with ancillary offices’
works to no. 15 Moore Street include demolition of non original additions and partitions, lowering of basement floor level, 34sqm extension a basement level with lobby provided to the rear, repair of timbers, roof, windows, plaster, stone, brick and metal, use as retail with ancillary offices;
works to no. 16 Moore Street include demolition of non-original additions and partitions, lowering of basement floor level, extension at basement level (33sqm) repair of timbers, roof, windows, plaster, stone, brick and metal, change of use to a commemorative centre;
works to no. 17 Moore Street include Demolition of non-original additions, lowering of basement floor level extension at basement level and two storey extension to the north-western elevation (81sqm) provision of new stairs, repair of timbers, roof, windows, plaster, stone, brick and metal, use as a retail unit, and all ancillary structural services and development works
All this ‘facade retention’ on O’Connell Street is a direct product of the decision to permit the Clarence scheme, IMO.
I hope Clare Hogan is sharpening her pencil!
To the best of my knowledge, Claire Hogan has left the building.* Her replacement, I think, is Patricia Hyde who, according to my sources, would have… eh, a ‘broader understanding’, of conservation philosophy and principles. (And in case that’s too ambiguous, I mean ‘lack of sensitivity’.)
If anyone knows more, please confirm/correct my statement.
*Oh look- two Elvis references in as many posts!
@notjim wrote:
This is partly online now: it is application 2479/08, just the text, the documents aren’t scanned yet: 44 and 43, The Garda Station and next door, are facade retentions, 42 retained in its entirity.
Just to be clear on this, part of the garda station is in fact getting the chop right? It is spread over two buildings only one of which is being retained? Also Dr. Quirkey’s is getting to chop, and it seems practically an entire block on Henry street.
A completely unnecessary amount of destruction.
@JoePublic wrote:
Just to be clear on this, part of the garda station is in fact getting the chop right? It is spread over two buildings only one of which is being retained?
I think, someone might correct me, 44 is the building I think of as the Garda Station, the one with Garda written on it, 43 is anonymous and could well be more Garda Station, both these are facade retentions. 42 is the Georgian which is part of the Royal Dublin. The Carlton Facade will be next to 44 and the Fingal Building, the Dublin Bus building and Dr Quirkeys are going.
@notjim wrote:
I think, someone might correct me, 44 is the building I think of as the Garda Station, the one with Garda written on it, 43 is anonymous and could well be more Garda Station, both these are facade retentions. 42 is the Georgian which is part of the Royal Dublin. The Carlton Facade will be next to 44 and the Fingal Building, the Dublin Bus building and Dr Quirkeys are going.
It must be no. 45 then which is the 1920’s granite building grahamh referred to which is proposed to be demolished (for no good reason). I don’t know if it’s garda station or not, but it’s there now, and it’s not in the renders!
Yes it is this fine solid building – looking worse for wear back in 2005.
Lots of original glass up there too.
Absolutely no excuse for demolition, and even more so regarding this terrace on Henry Street, which would appear to be for the chop given the vacant upper floors and short term letting boards.
An absolutely outrageous proposal should this prove be the case.
It is a fine commercial terrace, we’ve already irreparably lost stock here, and have more than our fill of sticky-backed ‘grand entrances’ with the Ilac & Dunnes thanks very much.
@GrahamH wrote:
An absolutely outrageous proposal should this prove be the case.
It is a fine commercial terrace, we’ve already irreparably lost stock here, and have more than our fill of sticky-backed ‘grand entrances’ with the Ilac & Dunnes thanks very much.
The planning application makes reference to No. 37-41a Henry street which are to be demolished (inferred by lack of it saying anything else about them, and saying that everything not otherwise mentioned is to be demolished).
It also says one of the three public squares is on Henry street. So which of these buildings are included in 37-41a to make way for this public square? Why can’t they just use Henry place as their link to Henry street, it’s a tiny distance from O’Connell street to Moore street anyway, another break in this terrace is not needed.
@JoePublic wrote:
The planning application makes reference to No. 37-41a Henry street which are to be demolished (inferred by lack of it saying anything else about them, and saying that everything not otherwise mentioned is to be demolished).
It also says one of the three public squares is on Henry street. So which of these buildings are included in 37-41a to make way for this public square? Why can’t they just use Henry place as their link to Henry street, it’s a tiny distance from O’Connell street to Moore street anyway, another break in this terrace is not needed.
They kept that facade on the river front of our “Italian Quarter” (ha!) as well as opening up that new street to the river so it’s not impossible, no.
@ctesiphon wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, Claire Hogan has left the building.* Her replacement, I think, is Patricia Hyde who, according to my sources, would have… eh, a ‘broader understanding’, of conservation philosophy and principles. (And in case that’s too ambiguous, I mean ‘lack of sensitivity’.)
This cannot be true, ctesiphon!
Why can’t they make the bad stuff disappear?
You can’t just replace a dynamic conservation action figure with a planning officer. How is that legal? This is a wind up, right?
@JoePublic wrote:
It must be no. 45 then which is the 1920’s granite building grahamh referred to which is proposed to be demolished (for no good reason). I don’t know if it’s garda station or not, but it’s there now, and it’s not in the renders!
Sorry; 43 is the sports club, 45, which is obviously slated for demolition is the anonymous one, I was getting mixed up.
The application is so much easier to read with paragraphs and bold, so here is some more of it:
7 year permission for development at an overall site of c 2.17 hectares, at nos 40-41, 42 (a protected structure), 43 (a protected structure), 44 (a protected structure), 45-51, 52-54 (protected structures), 55-56, 57 (a protected structure), 58 (a protected structure), 59, 60 (a protected structure) and 61 (a protected structure) and 60a (otherwise 5 Henry Place) O’Connell Street Upper, Nos 37-41a Henry Street, nos 1-13, 14-17 (protected structures and a national monument) and 18-25 Moore Street, nos 71 and 71a Parnell Street, nos 1-8 O’Rahilly Parade, nos 1-15 Moore Lane, Nos 4-13 (including 3 Moore Lane) and 15-18 Henry Place, nos 6-8 at the junction of Henry Place and Moore Lane and including Clarkes Court off Moore Street, Moore Place off Henry Place, Murphys Court off Moore Lane, part of Moore Lane from the junction of Henry Place and Moore Lane to the junction of Moore Lane and O’Rahilly Parade and part of Henry Place from the junction of Moore Street and Henry Place to the rear of no. 61 O’Connell Street Upper (a protected structure), Dublin 1.
The site consists of the majority of a city block bounded by Parnell Street, Moore Lane, O’Rahilly Parade, Moore Street, Henry Street, Henry Place and O’Connell Street Upper, but for the avoidance of doubt excludes nos 70 & 72-75 Parnell St, Nos 37-39 & 62-69 O’Connell St Upper, Nos 31-36 Henry St & Nos 1-3 Henry Place, Dublin 1. The proposed development has a gross floor area (GFA) of 158,026sqm; including
*109 no. retail units and an anchor store, 110 no. retail units in total (c 56,155sqm);
*17 no. cafe/restaurant/bar units (c 5,372sqm);
*108 no. residential units;
*office space (c. 2,893sqm);
*a gallery (c. 903sqm);
*a visitor attraction or ‘Sky Lift’, viewing deck and ticketing area (c. 435sqm);
*a drop in facility (c. 157sqm);
*a commemorative centre (c. 268sqm),
*an assembly hall (c. 320sqm);
*2no. new public streets,
*3 no. public spaces at street level,
*a roof garden ( c1258sqm);
*an outdoor performance space (c263sqm);
*communal residential open space, (c2554sqm);
*1115 no. car parking spaces,
*560 no. bicycle parking spaces,
*a c30m high ‘green wall’ or hydroponic vertical garden with feature lift on the Henry Street frontage, and ancillary uses,with a minimum height above ground of 3 no. storeys, a maximum height of 13 no. storeys and 5 no. basement levels. The sloping element which rises from level +4 to level +12 and is located at the junction of Henry Street and Moore Street is described as ‘The Iconic Building’ and has a roof level above street level, with a glass screen of 59m above street level at its highest point.
The details of the proposed development are as follows: The proposed development results in the creation of 2 no. new streets, which are to be sheltered by a canopy structure located at level +4 to +6 .
The proposed c. 117m long east-west street connects O’Connell Street and Moore Street and the proposed c.147m long north-south street connects the proposed east-west street with Henry Street.
3 no. public spaces are provided at street level: at the junction of the new north – south street and Henry Street, at the junction of O’Connell Street and the new east-west street and to the rear of nos 14-17 Moore Street (protected structures and a national monument).
A roof garden, a ‘Sky Lift’ and viewing deck are to be provided at roof level. The ‘Sky Lift’ is a public attraction in the form of an inclined glass lift, which travels along the eastern parapet of the ‘Iconic Building’ from level +3 to level +13/roof level. The roof garden rises from level +4 to level +12 and the viewing deck is located at level + 13/roof level. Walkways are provided at level +1.
At level +3 a triangular walkway, performance space and terraced seating associated with the restaurants at this level are provided. Restaurant terraces with outdoor seating are also to be provided at level +3 along O’Connell Street and Moore Street and setback at level +4 along O’Connell Street.
Retail development of 110 no. retail units (c. 56,155sqm) consisting of:
- an anchor store of c. 21802sqm, located to the north of the site from level -1 to level +3;
- 32 no. units at level -1, 22no. of which have a second floor at level -2;
- 41 no. retail units at level 0 / ground floor level, including a kiosk to the rear of nos, 14-17 Moore Street (protected structures and a national monument), unit G/1 has a second and third floors at levels +1 and +2 and units OC2 and OC5 have a second floor at level +1;
- 29 no. units at level +1 with access to a second floor at level +2;
- retail to be provided in no. 60-61 O’Connell Street (protected structures) at level 0 (retail unit OC1),
- in nos 57-58 O’Connell Street (protected structures) at levels 0 and +1 (retail units OC3 and OC4),
- nos 41 O’Connell Street at levels -1 to 1a,
- in no. 40 O’Connell Street at level 0,
- in no. 17 Moore Street (protected structures and national monument) at levels -1 to +1a and
- in no. 15 Moore Street (protected structure and national monument) at levels -1 to +1a.
Total residential development of 108 no. units provided as follows:
- Block A / ‘The Iconic Building’ is located at the junction of Henry Street and Moore Street and provides 44 no. apartment units, including 2 no. 1 bedroom units, 31 no. 2 bedroom units and 11 no. 3 bedroom units from level +4 to level +10, accessible from a lobby on Moore Street and a communal landscaped open space of 1015sqn with play space at level +4. Both the lobby and the communal space are shared with block B. Each unit is provided with 1-2no. wintergardens, on the east and / or west or the southwest and / or east – west elevations of the ‘Iconic Building’;
- Block B is located south-east of nos 14 – 17 Moore Street and provides 2 no. apartment units and 6no. duplex units, including 4 no. 1 bedroom units, 1 no. 2 bedroom units and 3 no. 3 bedroom units from level +3 to level +4, accessible from a lobby on Moore Street and a communal landscaped open space of 1015sqm with play space at level +4. Both the lobby an the communal space are shared with Block A. Each unit id provided with a roof garden and / or balcony. All balconies are located on the south western elevation;
- Block C is located between the junction of the proposed east-west street with Moore Street and the junction of Moore Street and O’Rahilly Parade and provides 17 no. apartment units and 1 no. duplex unit, including 1 no. 1 bedroom unit and 17 no. 2 bedroom units from level +4 to level +8 accessible from a lobby on Moore Street and communal landscaped open space of 239sqm at level +4. Each unit is provides with a roof garden and / or balcony, except unit type AA, which is provided with a roof garden only. All balconies are located on the south-western elevation;
- blocks D, E and F are located between O’Connell Street Upper and Moore Lane and provide 15no. duplex units and 13 no. apartments units, including 4no. 1 bedroom units and 9 no. 2 bedroom units and 15 no. 3 bedroom units at level +4 to level +5 in block E and level +4 to level + 6 in blocks D and F, accessible from a lobby on O’Connell Street Upper and a communal landscaped open space of 1,300sqm with play space at level +4 to be shared with Block G. Each unit is provided with a roof garden and/or 1-2 no. balconies. Balconies on block D are located on the western elevation, balconies on block E are located on the eastern elevation and balconies on block F are located on the eastern and western elevation,
- Block G is located on Parnell Street and provides 8no. apartment units and 2 no. duplex units, including 3 no. 1 bedroom units, 5 no. 2 bedroom units and 2 no. 3 bedroom units at level +2a to level +6 accessible from a lobby on O’Connell Street Upper and a communal landscaped open space of 1300sqm with play space at level +4 to be shared with block D, E and F, with a communal space at level +2a. Each Unit in block G is provided with a balcony / terrace, which are located on the eastern and western elevations. A total of 14 no. 1 bedroom units, 63 no. 2 bedroom units and 31 no. 3 bedroom units, including 24no. duplex units and 84 no. apartment units are proposed. Office / commercial uses are provided at nos 40/41 O’Connell Street Upper (c 2105sqm), 60/61O’Connell Street Upper (protected structures) (c.618sqm) and 57/58 O’Connell Street Upper (protected structures) (c. 170sqm).
@gunter wrote:
This cannot be true, ctesiphon!
Why can’t they make the bad stuff disappear?
You can’t just replace a dynamic conservation action figure with a planning officer. How is that legal? This is a wind up, right?
I understand she has a conservation qualification.
Then again, Eddie ‘The Eagle’ Edwards was a ski-jumper.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
