O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
That doesn’t sound very slanderous to me. Anyway, where would they send the summons?
On Claire Hogan, did she just have her fill of her opinions being ignored and she walked, or what happened to her?
I think if DCC had a real interest in maintaining an image of integrity, they wouldn’t lose people like this. It was Claire Hogan’s assessment of the Clarence scheme that was vindicated by the Dept. of the Environment report, not the planning officer’s. In a well run organisation, it would have been the planning officer who got moved sideways a bit nearer the exit door, not the (on top of her job) conservation officer.
Claire Hogan would have eaten them alive for messing around with the ‘Duke of Ormonde’s grand design for the quays’ with this DDDA ‘building on stilts’ lark, who’s going to do that now?
I can’t see Patricia Hyde dipping into the vitriol pot when Dick and Kieran come looking for pesky conservation reports on their pet projects, and that’s not being slanderous, that’s just being realistic.
It’s like looking down at your hand in poker, where you thought you had another ace and finding you have a pair of feckin twos.
If your senior conservation officer leaves (however that came about), do you not have to advertise for a suitable replacement? Surely a local authority can’t just fill an important position like that internally with someone who’s being fulfilling a completely different role in the organisation for as long as I can remember, if we’re being legalistic about it.
going to be very interesting to see what they have planned for Henry St, everything relating to same so far is vague, put your wrecking ball away chartered land !
gunter-
I know no more details other than the above, really, gleaned from someone who was in attendance at the Clarence hearing, and who would know some of the players involved in that case. I agree about the hiring of a replacement, but equally it must be a bit a poisoned chalice at this stage, no?Stephen-
I don’t think the previous comparison I made was slanderous, and I stand by the point I was making (that letters after one’s name do not automatically lead to ‘right thinking’), but if it keeps the Feds off our tails for another 48 hours, I’m happy to make the change. For the team, you understand.1,110 Car Parking spaces and damn me but I just can`t seem to find any mention of an oul Public Transport space or two……it must be cos it`s way too complex for bottom feeders like me…..:o
These are all set to go.
All of which, incidentally, fall into the O’Connell Street ACA. Not that that ever mattered since the introduction of ‘exceptional’ ‘world class’ developments.
As someone living near where upper OCS I am disappointed by the public gain, leaving aside those advantages which align with a benefit to the developer: more shops, more footfall, more permeability etc, we gain a gallery in no. 42, an assembly hall, a drop in center, a national monument, a “visitor attraction” and some public areas, one of which is at the expense of a fine terrace.
With a development of this scale, I would have thought the council would have managed something better; didn’t Michael Smith write a letter to the Times years ago telling us to stop wanting the abbey on OCS, since we could have an Arts Cinema instead: I was hoping for a rep cinema or a theatre. What about this gallery, is it to be a public gallery or a commercial one, if public, whose collection, the Hugh Lane or is something spectacular planned to be revealed at some critical point, a little outpost for the Guiggenheim or some such: I do hope so, but probably in vain.
As for the national monument, what is to go in it, won’t the collection of insurrectionary memorabilia be spread a little thin once the GPO museum is fitted out?
I only had a couple of minutes in the planning office this morning, so the quality and choice of images may not be great, but I will stick them up until we get better one..
From the model, the sloping structure reads as a huge protective cover hanging over much of the upper levels of a glass structure of indeterminate shape and function, but with trees on top. The way it slopes back steeply on Henry Street looks odd and unsatisfactory. If they were going for high impact, you would have thought that they would have sloped it out at the top, like the U2 tower, rather than sloping it back, like a huge cooker hood!
All three ‘squares’ look terribly bitty.
I still think they’re on the right track with this, but I have a lot of reservations:
The extensive use of facade retention; the confused architectural expression; the lack of any clear definition to the new spaces; the seemingly random piece of ‘medium rise’ opposite the Rotunda Hospital.
It’s a bit of a mess, IMO. Another thing, DCC are goint to have to insist on grey sky renders, these fluffy clouds and transparent buildings are becoming totally unrealistic.
That is utterly monstrous! What a horrible form – gimmickery at its worst. And Henry Street looks like its been hacked to pieces, whether you knew it or not before the proposed interventions. Well they’ve made it easy for us anyway – this element at least doesn’t stand a chance.
(edit: gunter’s post overlapped mine, no time to properly respond))
Here’s the vacant No. 45, which is (rightly) not protected, as it has an ACA to look after it :rolleyes:
To put some shape on things, the Carlton as currently extant will be removed and its width roughly replaced with the new street. Where the derelict site is and possibly a sliver of the Fingal offices will become part of the new department store, as will the re-erected Carlton spanning the rest of the Fingal site and No. 45 beyond.
Red: New street
Blue: Glazed corner with setback
Yellow: Carlton
I just wrote an absolute rant about the above images provided by Gunter but decided to delete and just leave it at this for fear of sounding like a lunatic! This proposal is monstrous in just about every way it could be. The renders and model display some of the most obscenely tacky and inappropriate design I’ve seen. I’m no traditionalist, I love modern, innovative architecture but this is as far from that as can be. How can anyone think that this would be a good thing for Dublin?
Hi , I’m new to the site and im just wondering what IAP stands for.Sorry for my lack of knowledge , but hey , there’s only one way to find out.Thanks ,
AndyIAP = Integrated Area Plan; someone more expert will explain the difference between an IAP and Area Action Plans, Framework Development Plans, Local Area Plans,Special Planning Control Schemes, but basically all of these are masterplans which are considered by planning authorities in deciding planning permission, and, which in some cases have some budget of there own for works.
Anyway, the only place I could find a summary of the OCS IAP was
IAPs were planning frameworks for chanelling investment under the Urban Regeneration Schemes. They have now expired but the redevelopment of O’Connell Street was originally funded and prepared under the O’Connell Street IAP. They have now been replaced by Framework Plans, alothough none covers OC St.
AAPs and LAPs area provided for under the Planning Act for development of specific areas. LAPs are statutory whereas AAPs are meant as a guide.
Finally, Special Planning Control are as they say. OC St is currently operating under one. It is also an Architectural Conservation Area.
wrote a blog post about this, was wondering how the new proposed new arnotts streets and the new dublin central streets would match up,drew a map here see
http://dublinstreams.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-oconnell-street-development.htmlyou know paul clerkin (and grahamh) if you got a google key you could do lots with googlemaps embeds and mymaps
see this open map you collaboratively draw maps http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=108692096314893578946.00044c18f5b57f4c5b604you could start a a irish-architecture one and we all could join and sketch things on it.
with a short time on google sketch up you could preview the things in 3d, but somebody needs to make the rest of the buildings there only a few made a the moment
@lostexpectation wrote:
you know paul clerkin (and grahamh) you could, (with googlemaps embeds and mymaps) collaboratively draw maps.
you could start an irish-architecture one and we all could join and sketch things on it.
I hope you’re going to be giving tutorials for slow learners.
On you over-laid google maps, it was interesting to see the Arnott’s scheme and the O’Connell Street scheme set out on the one map. First impression though, there isn’t much synergy.
Here is one of the renders of the Moore Street side of the O’Connell Street scheme, together with some indicative drawings.
If you like your urbanism layered, grainy and a bit dramatic (and who doesn’t), this scheme gives you that, but, how deep are the layers? how gritty is the grain? does the drama satisfy and will it be sustainable?
To me, this render illustrates some of the dichotomy in this scheme. I see some very worthy intentions, compromised by some pretty muddled architecture. Maybe that isn’t fair, but somewhere between the architecture and the urban planning, the scheme has decended into clutter. You almost sense that the busy clutter of a shopping centre is the primary goal of this scheme and they don’t really mind if the urbanism is a bit superficial provided they achieve this goal.
I’m not really sure if I agree with Graham that the location demands excellence necessarily, given that we’re not talking about cultural institutions here, but the three new ‘squares’ should at least have a coherence of form about them, which isn’t coming across in the renders. Any urban space in the heart of the city should have an element of civic dignity about it. The ‘squares’ in this scheme have the look of cut open ends of a shopping mall about them, with very little civic dignity in evidence.
I hope An Taisce, in particular, take a balanced view on this scheme and don’t start pouring ridicule on this from day one. When you think about how bombastic this could have been, we’re already way ahead of where we might have been. They’ve actually set out to do a very difficult and worthwhile thing here, to create new streets and spaces that actually add to the fabric of the city. It’s a while since anyone had a serious go at that in Dublin (maybe Arnotts would be in that category too, but on the clumsy end of the scale).
I’m sticking with my first impression, that they may not be all that far away from succeeding in this objective.
From the Irish Times, April 23rd:
€180m spent assembling ‘Dublin Central’ site
Jack FaganURBAN RENEWAL: The 5.5-acre site for the ‘Dublin Central’ scheme between Upper O’Connell Street and Moore Street took over four-and-a-half years to complete and involved around 70 leaseholders and freeholders
PROPERTY DEVELOPER Joe O’Reilly of Chartered Land has spent in the region of €180 million assembling the 5.5-acre site for the proposed Dublin Central shopping, leisure and residential development between Upper O’Connell Street and Moore Street.
The €1.25 billion scheme – which includes two new pedestrian streets and three public squares – is easily the most spectacular project ever proposed for the city centre.
If, as expected, the plans are approved by the planners, it will add 65,000sq m (700,000sq ft) of retail space in the city centre. Another 37,160sq m (400,000sq ft) is planned by Arnotts for nearby Princes Street.
Most of the major retail schemes over the last 20 years have been along the M50 where around 232,250sq m (2.5 million sq ft) of new shopping space was built in locations such as Dundrum, Tallaght, Liffey Valley, Blanchardstown, Finglas and Clare Hall. The two huge schemes now planned for the Henry Street area will be seen as an attempt to tip the scales back in favour of the city centre.
The intricate task of assembling the vast site took more than four-and-a-half years to complete and involved around 70 leaseholders and freeholders. It is by far the largest development site pulled together in the inner city since the assembly of the site for the St Stephen’s Green shopping centre. The biggest single part of the site, the former Carlton Cinema standing on about one acre, was acquired from Richard Quirke for a figure believed to be over €30 million.
A further €25 million is being spent on buying the Royal Dublin Hotel which accounts for about three-quarters of an acre. The property includes a period townhouse which is to be restored and preserved.
Dublin City Council, which has consistently supported Chartered Land’s stunning vision for one of the most rundown inner city areas, sold the company a quarter-acre maintenance depot fronting on to O’Rahilly’s Parade, off Parnell Street. The consideration was around €9 million.
The Office of Public Works took a different view, opting for a profit sharing arrangement with the developer in return for handing over two buildings at Upper O’Connell Street.
Under the agreement, the State will be guaranteed a minimum annual income of around €1 million. The final figure will depend on the overall rental roll from the scheme.
CIÉ and Dublin Bus also struck a deal, exchanging two buildings along O’Connell Street for 1,858sq m (20,000sq ft) of new offices over retail facilities in the new development. The two buildings owned by the transport companies are partially listed and stand on a site of about a quarter of an acre.
Traders leasing shops along Moore Street, including many immigrants, are being paid between €50,000 and €250,000 to vacate their premises while owners are getting anything from €750,000 to €2 million for their freehold interests.
And the pay-off did not stop there. O’Reilly also bought six adjoining retail buildings from 36 to 41 Henry Street which are to be demolished to make way for a grand entrance into the new shopping precinct.
© 2008 The Irish Times
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
