O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
It’s not a case of people ‘whinging’; it’s a case of a development that’s largely inappropriate. So far as the Carlton and what might have survived of the interior is concerned, beware the ‘insurance fire’ or the ‘accidental’ missed swing of the wrecker’s ball; where developers are concerned, take nothing on trust.
It surprises me that what is left of Art Deco cinema architecture is not more highly prized and that it is beyond the wit of the developer and his architects to come up with an alternative use of the buiding in situ.
Also, looking at the existing pattern of lanes in this area, it seems to me that they should form the basis of any new streets, or is that beyond the ingenuity of the developer and his architects as well?i haven’t really made up my mind on this; but it is always worrying when the best arguement in favour of a proposal is that it was very delayed.
@notjim wrote:
i haven’t really made up my mind on this; but it is always worrying when the best arguement in favour of a proposal is that it was very delayed.
🙂 it is worrying, especially if that’s how DCC planners feel. tbh I’d be inclined to be in favour of most of the development bar the silly 12 storey folly. Hopefullyu though the planning authority by which I mean ABP will sort these elements out
@notjim wrote:
i haven’t really made up my mind on this; but it is always worrying when the best arguement in favour of a proposal is that it was very delayed.
So your prepared to see it drag on for another couple of years with delays & appeals,get a grip,I’d rather see nothing happen at all if thats the case. And its not just this,every construction project of significance in this country takes far too long.
I came across a 1969 edition of Plan magazine the other day, containing this topical article:
A News View Commentary
Michael QuinnGetting Rid of a Rogue
Gilbeys, the outstanding big edifice, in a style of a rogue Victorian in Upr. O’Connell St., Dublin is to be redeveloped. As the newspapers express it, it will be in a sophisticated ‘mix’ of shops, showrooms, offices and extensive car parking. (How all of these parkers in underground blocks are going to enter and leave the city by our choked traffic routes is anybody’s guess. In some American cities, I hear, they tax you now if you provide parking in your blocks).
Gilbey’s is owned by International Distillers and Vintners Ltd., a U.K. company. They plan to move to a new premises on that masterpiece of urban streetscape, the Naas Road. The planning permission being sought by IDV for O’Connell St. Covers Nos. 46, 47, 48 and 49 O’Connell Street, and 15, 16 and 17 Moore Lane, a vital ‘backland’ link with the area to the rear. This is where an international consortium, plus Dublin Corporation is to carry out a £4m. redevelopment on a 7.7 acre site, centred on Moore Street.
Gilbeys/I.D.V. does not own No. 48, although its planning permission brief will cover these premises, and the yard at the rear which is rented to Messrs. Gill is the property of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, which has its headquarters and district office there.
I cannot see that there will be much of urban Dublin left in Irish hands when all this is finished.
Gilbeys, O’Connell St., Dublin, another outstanding facade about to be engulfed by the shopping centre – car park juggernaut.
ENDS
(Improved picture taken from Freddie O’Dwyer’s Lost Dublin)
The mentioned development would appear to be the outline permission Frank McDonald described as Gilbey’s attaining before flogging the building to Star (Great Britain) Holdings, who demolished it in March 1973; only the stone medallions of Palmerston and Gladstone above the entrance were salvaged.
Gilbey’s often reminds me of a little bit of Dawson Street on O’Connell Street. Indeed more than most of us realise I think, there’s whole layer of 19th century development of a commercial/semi-institutional character that comprised the likes of enormous heavy buildings like Gilbey’s that has vanished from our streets. O’Connell Street was the mothership, followed by College Green/Dame Street and Dawson Street. Grafton Street and Westmoreland Street were more refined in their premises’ execution.
Of course the ‘sophisticated’ mixed use development never came into being – Dublin County Council as it was at the time leased the entire completed block in 1975, famously commandeering “the ground-floor shops to create a preposterous council chamber, sound-proofed against the citizenry, where there is a ‘public gallery’ with seating for a total of eight people.” Presumably the rest of the room was consumed with stationary cupboards stocking a select range of brown envelopes catering for the most discerning under-the-counter dealer.
Shouldn’t the effusive language about ‘… a sophisticated ‘mix’,etc.’ give us all pause for thought, not to mention the up-to-date reference about congestion and carparking? A generation later this ‘sophisticated’ development is just another piece of urban tat. Whatever about the architectural purity of Gilbey’s it did have presence and impact and what replaced it certainly was not an advance.
It’s a fallacy to think that ‘contemporary’ equals ‘modern’ or that either equals ‘progress’ or ‘improvement’. Think carefully before you demolish, especially in this location.Great…almost 40 years ago Michael Quinn writes a clear article containing one VERY simple question….
“As the newspapers express it, it will be in a sophisticated ‘mix’ of shops, showrooms, offices and extensive car parking. (How all of these parkers in underground blocks are going to enter and leave the city by our choked traffic routes is anybody’s guess. In some American cities, I hear, they tax you now if you provide parking in your blocks).”
As this latest development rather blithely proposes 1000 new “spaces” the Quinn Question remains unanswered !! 🙂
@cubix wrote:
This gets the thumbs up from me,its taken 11 years for this to sorted and to hear people talk about alternatives and more analysis just amazes me.Can we have just one development in dublin city centre thats a little bit different/exciting without people whinging.
As one of the people “whinging” about this proposal I have to ask, are you really prepared to let any old sh*te be thrown up on this site just so that something/anything happens? What you may see as being “different/exciting” I and others see as being poor design, poor urbanism and being just plain wrong for the location, hell wrong for any location with some of those revolting elevations… I’d rather see nothing happen for a while, perhaps the scheme going to an international competition (as it should have in the first place for such a major element in Dublin city centre) than to end up with what I see as a 2008 equivalent of the monstrous St. James’ Centre in Edinburgh. Just my opinion but having finally got a look at the scheme application and model properly I feel very very strongly negatively towards it.
Some pictures of the model.
Truky awful turn-corner treatment, and more gimmicky stairs. What crude features heralding the entrance to a new street.
The hole gouged out of Henry Street. And do note the Ilac-like four storey blank wall attempting to conceal the slaughter of this historic streetscape. No point getting worked up about this – it’ll be tossed out on appeal.
The view looking north to O’Connell Street – a surprisingly short thoroughfare. Attractively designed apartments to the left, but too tall.
The residential element at the Rotunda end of the site. Elegant forms here, but the lower portion of the building is far too tall. This site can take an element of height, especially as it juts out terminating the view from down Parnell Street, but it needs 2-3 storeys lopped off to preserve the primacy of the Rotunda as well as to scale it into line with its surroundings.
More evident here.
The new street leading to the GPO Arcade. Again these ten storey apartment blocks are just too much for the city core. Eight should be the limit across the board in the city centre.
That’s a wicked lens you’ve got Graham. This looked a lot better when it was out of focus!
Sorry for defending that south (red sandstone?) corner of the proposed ope onto O’Connell Street. You were right, it is truly horrific.
Perhaps instead of demolishing those 5 or 6 buildings on Henry street, they could replace the lower floor of one of them with an arch into the new street. Or is that a stoopid idea 🙂
Great pics, cheers Graham. The more I see this the less and less I like it. More details of ridiculous junctions between buildings and that corner from O connell st into the new street is absolutely horrendous.
What is it about proposals for buildings on O Connell st. They always seem so poor. The HKR proposal for the site of the Pennys building next to the GPO was equally bad.
@reddy wrote:
Great pics, cheers Graham. The more I see this the less and less I like it. More details of ridiculous junctions between buildings and that corner from O connell st into the new street is absolutely horrendous.
Oh yes its getting worse alright 😮 apart from the form of the street canopy which i quite like, despite the shite it sits upon, this is an eminnent display of incoherent design, they cannot pass it off as eclectic.
The treatment of Henry St. brings the entire proposal down to the level of a bad joke.
Kudos for the pics.
___________________
Honestly, why do developers bother spending all this money on something that clearly has little chance of getting planning in its current form? Are they being ill advised by their architects, or are they simply ignoring the architects advise and ordering that the application goes ahead anyway, Mugabe style.
IMO, there should not be a new street slashed from O Connell Street at all. They should at least have proposed a sheer glass facade to maintain O Connel Streets integrity and form.
@archipig wrote:
IMO, there should not be a new street slashed from O Connell Street at all. They should at least have proposed a sheer glass facade to maintain O Connel Streets integrity and form.
Just on that point, I think O’Connell Street could cope with an opening, once its not on the scale of a crater, but between this proposal & the arnotts effort, the integrity & form of Henry Street really would be at risk. Feed in to Moore St. if you want to but no more messing around with Henry ! and none of your half assed set backs either.
@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
Feed in to Moore St. if you want to but no more messing around with Henry ! and none of your half assed set backs either.
I don’t think this image has been posted up before. It’s the developer’s image of the new ‘square’ on Henry Street. It reads (to me) as all designer clutter and no coherent form, with very little actual public space, as noted by hutton. The right hand edge of the space appears to be some kind of screen wall. From the rear it reads as just a blank wall in Graham’s pics of the model.
That’s the entrance to Moore St. on the left and the entrance to the new ‘north / south’ street (with the escalators) straight ahead.
@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
Just on that point, I think O’Connell Street could cope with an opening, once its not on the scale of a crater, but between this proposal & the arnotts effort, the integrity & form of Henry Street really would be at risk. Feed in to Moore St. if you want to but no more messing around with Henry ! and none of your half assed set backs either.
I think the cartier foundation in Paris is a very good example of how this new artery leading off O Connell street should be addressed in this development.
It’s interesting to compare the Arnott’s scheme with this one in some ways – In the Arnotts proposal access to the central square or “shopping centre” part is via quite narrow, very well defined streets. Whilst I don’t particularly like the facade treatments, the rather 60s looking deck access to upper levels and some other aspects of the Arnotts scheme, it is made look like an exemplary piece of urbanism by this monster.
Here there is zero respect for the concept of street, whether existing or proposed. The new malls intersect with O’Connell St and particularly Henry St. in probably the most brutal and poorly defined way possible. The architecture of the “mall” (for clearly this is all this is notwithstanding the fact that it’s open ended), is allowed to spill out and all over existing streetscapes with a sub-Hadid/Liebskind approach to facade-ism. The tower itself is a joke, the way escalators and staircases become the dominant elements in these new spaces is all wrong and even the plan – this creation of a street roughly paralell and close to Moore St leading to the awkward junction proposed above just doesn’t make sense in urban terms (of course it’s easy to see why in commercial terms).
Again i’ll say there has to be a better way to develop this site than this. And I mean fundamentally. Ditching the “vertical park”, lopping off a few storeys and a few cosmetic changes to facades will do nothing to stop this from being a disaster for Dublin.
Sorry to be harping on and on about this – I feel so strongly about it that it’s hard for me to accept people saying “ah sure it’s something new and shiny and exciting where now there’s nothing – it’ll do…” which seems to be the basic position of a lot of people on the matter.This absurdly extravagant proposal must be a front for some more coherent and slightly less ambitious proposal the developer has in waiting when this gets rejected. This is an excercise in pushing the boundaries of what the a 21st century development should be.
Propose something completely bonkers so that the actual subsequent proposal will be looked on as almost understated
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
