O’ Connell Street, Dublin

Yes, but what does the Spire do?

@johnglas wrote:

Yes, but what does the Spire do?

What does Daniel do ! ?

@notjim wrote:

You know Peter I am sure this isn’t true but we are of one mind, my first thought was: great, they can polish away the shot-peening. I am sure the only reason it was done was that everyone enjoying the word peening, but what a pity.

ah yes what might have been, i believe the rationale for the shot peening came from a worry within dcc that its natural reflective surface would be a serious distraction for motorists, hurtling along at 10km per hour

😀 now there’s a memory, jesus 2003 notjim! no recolection until i went through the link, slightly worrying! 😮

One other piece I thought I would add – I think I may have posted it already, but as there have been unfortunate accusations against former owners along here as to why the street was held up, I figure its pertinent to post it again… The real question in the debacle is why did DCC’s Sean Carey make the decisions that he did – and why did he sell on DCC’s interest without putting it out to tender???

Now that’s the question…

from PHOENIX MAGAZINE, November 2006:

Whats on at the Carlton?

Dublin City Councilors found themselves in interesting waters in
their November session when they held part of their meeting en camera,
in an attempt to get to the bottom of the Carlton Cinema controversy –
and what may or may not have been the councils role in it.

Having got the go-ahead for regeneration from planners in 1999, the
2-acre site framed by O’Connell Street and Moore Street became bogged
down in a mire of lawsuits, involving a compulsory purchase order, the
subsequent challenges, and a bitter row between the two main former
partners of the Carlton Group, Richard Quirke and Paul Clinton.

Most probably the saga would have continued to remain out of public
sight had it not been for the remarkably inconvenient “rediscovery” of
the historical significance of16 Moore Street – the house in which the
1916 surrender was agreed, and which sits right in the middle of the
site.

The heat really turned up earlier this year when those seeking to save
16 Moore Street made another discovery – in that they turned up a
contract in which the council provides assurances to the developer Joe
O’ Reilly with regards to the entire site, and in effect giving him
first preference on the 2-acre site redevelopment.

Agreed in 2004, this deal appears to make no reference to the City
Development Plan in which it is stated as policy to “seek the
conversion of no. 16 Moore Street into a museum, which will be owned,
run and administered by Dublin City Council”.

The existence of this contract also came as news to city councilors –
as too did the existence of a subsequent compensation claim lodged by
Paul Clinton in which he is seeking his share of €180 million, based
on a valuation done by his agents.

In the quest for answers from management, councilors were coming up
against a brick wall by being told that by being before the courts,
the subject is sub judice – hence the latest twist where eventually it
was agreed that an en camera session be held.

Fortunately Goldhawk has seen the contact and is aware of some of the
more juicy questions that were asked by councilors such as, why was
there so much haste by council officials in initiating the CPO in
December 2001, when barely 2 years had passed on a project that had a
5 year planning permission? Why was the subsequent deal that the corpo
agreed with Joe O’ Reilly not put out to tender – particularly as it
was reported in January 2003 that “the project will be advertised
across Europe by Dublin City Council and assistant city manager Sean
Carey said they expect to begin the marketing programme within three
weeks”? Why is O’Reilly given 7 years in the agreement as well as a
clause that states that the corpo “will give whatever comforts are
required to the Developer’s bankers to allow them to fund the
development of the site”? By agreeing not to pursue the site by CPO,
the agreement with O’Reilly effectively approves his acquisition of
the site from the Group Carlton, as agreed by Richard Quirke – a sale
vehemently disputed by Clinton; yet why does the city council not have
a copy of the primary agreement with Quirke – especially as it is such
a source of contention?

To all of these questions, and to more, city officials have insisted
that they have shown “due care and diligence” in their dealings, and
that as the local authority it is their brief to act as a “catalyst”
and knock developers heads together in order to get regeneration done.
And so the saga rolls on – with the next stop being Clintons challenge
to the CPO due in front of the Supreme Court during December.

I wonder if they’ll resurrect their classic old advertising slogan:

“Pick your ring in comfort”

Probably not.

A curiously apt quotation to our earlier discussion I came across earlier-
…………….The street is exceedingly broad and handsome; the shops at the commencement, rich and spacious; but in Upper Sackville Street, which closes with the pretty building and gardens of the Rotunda, the appearance of wealth begins to fade somewhat, and the houses look as if they had seen better days. Even in this, the great street of the town, there is scarcely any one, and it is as vacant and listless as Pall Mall in October.

From “The Irish Sketch Book.” By WILLIAM MAKEPEACE THACKERAY

Plus ca change?

Walking through town this evening, the spire looked great in the evening sun & has stayed fairly clean too … but … i swear the thing looks as if its started to lean to the right (top 40 metres or so) … i’m sure its an optical illusion ?? :confused:

*to the right when viewed from the bridge i should say

@GrahamH wrote:

It is indeedy Punchbowl. This was once one of the largest houses on Sackville Mall, and probably the largest on the west side. Here you can see it proudly dominating that side of the street – a big five bay affair.

It also marked the boundary between Gardiner’s low cost numbers – the dodgy duplexes if you will – to the south end of the Mall compared to the generally more exclusive three-bay houses – the modern-day executive mansions in Phase Two – to the north.

i see even back then they needed a barrier (walls) to the hustle and bustle of the street in order to use the median.

@Rory W wrote:

Slightly revisiting an old topic here but a hording has just gone up on the Ulster Bank on Lower O’Connell Street – anyone know what’s going on? Will they be opening up that ‘defensive’ shopfront?

A history of that building and the restoration plans were posted here before.

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=76763&postcount=2942 is the first post,
for me it appears on page 118 of this thread:

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2087&page=118

I’m afraid to say I’m rather disappointed with the end result of O’Connell Street. Its a long time since I’ve been on this board and since the last time the street has effectively stagnated.

Arguably the worst building on the street – Findlater House – has not been redeveloped and seems destined to be a dead civil service office. The Gresham has failed to re-develop to Five Star standard. And, alas, the Carlton not only remained undeveloped since the first redevelopment proposal over ten years ago, but the new suggested replacement is a joke. I think its a trojan horse to force high rise in a subsequent planning application. I cannot envision the project either getting the finance nor the commitment for completion.

The images of the porposal look horiffic and a mess. The suggested new square fronting O’Connell Street is an enormous error. It would break the building line that has been extant since the 18th century, turning the street from a boulevard into a broken and hap-hazard strip.

I intend to lodge an objection. Cant wait! 🙂