O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Some more views of the ski jump.
Had to go over the outline of some of them. What is it about the people who produce these photomontage views? The proposed developments are always rendered so that they practically blends into the sky.
Devin: I agree with you totally that the renders are too transparent. No building will vanish into the sky like this, and if the building vanishes, what are the trees on the sky park going to look like?
It is good to finally see a view from O’Connell Bridge, a render from up around Cleary’s would be interesting!
Leaving aside the ski slope itself, I think the biggest problem with this scheme remains (a) the amount of demolition and (b) the quality, or otherwise, of the proposed public spaces.
Like the majority of other posters, I can’t really see, in the quality of the supposed new ‘square’ at Henry Street, the justification for the demolition of this fine streetscape.
@gunter wrote:
Leaving aside the ski slope itself, I think the biggest problem with this scheme remains (a) the amount of demolition and (b) the quality, or otherwise, of the proposed public spaces.
Yes there is a serious amount of demolition. It’s basically another Clarence: demolition of a string of protected structures behind the facades, and demolition of all ACA buildings, including the fine stone-fronted No. 45 Upr. O’Connell St., as covered earlier, for no good reason. The “public space” looks like a fraught suburban shopping-centre forecourt. Where’s the European outdoor room capturing the genus loci of O’Connell Street?
Now it’s easy to come on the internet and rubbish someone else’s work, but I am shocked and appalled by this development generally. The new architecture looks throwaway and trashy, an insult to the grandeur and civic design of O’Connell Street. The three architect practices involved have all done good work elsewhere, but the approach here is so far off what’s required that the site should just be given to someone else imo. I think most people are glad that the site is in Joe O’Reilly’s hands because they know he can deliver, but the present scheme needs to be fundamentally modified imo.
I think the point is that they’re trying to get a metro station under the square, in order to maximise footfall to and from it they’d need as many access points as possible. Not saying that makes it worthwhile but believe that’s their logic behind it
Isn’t a Metro station between O’Connell Bridge and Parnell Square a bit like a meal between breakfast and brunch?
If I were the developers, I wouldn’t hold out much hope.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Isn’t a Metro station between O’Connell Bridge and Parnell Square a bit like a meal between breakfast and brunch?
If I were the developers, I wouldn’t hold out much hope.
They’re about 750m apart which is normal for high-density areas in other EU cities.
@GrahamH wrote:
Which is more than can be said for the weeping birches on the median – don’t get me started on those yokes again 😉
With all due respect, architects seem obsessed with birch,…. i often think it’s some scandinavian obsession! i fear a future dublin monoculture of birch. There are so many spectacular trees out there yet every development seems to have the ubiquitous birch grove 🙁
So is that last picture of Devins’ a mock up from an old image or are Burger King up to their old advertising tricks again?
@Bago wrote:
With all due respect, architects seem obsessed with birch,…. i often think it’s some scandinavian obsession! i fear a future dublin monoculture of birch. There are so many spectacular trees out there yet every development seems to have the ubiquitous birch grove 🙁
The white stem and the transparent whispy branches create a clean, simple backdrop for their buildings but you’re right, there are so many alternatives that are more suitable and striking that could be used.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Isn’t a Metro station between O’Connell Bridge and Parnell Square a bit like a meal between breakfast and brunch?
If I were the developers, I wouldn’t hold out much hope.
There would also be an exit point on Parnell Square. I’ve seen the plans and proposals for this by O’Reilly.
From Business Post in February:
Developer Joe O’Reilly wrote to the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) criticising the decision to reduce the number of Metro North stops in Dublin city centre. O’Reilly said that the decision to reduce the number of stations from three to two “is a weak compromise”. In a letter written in October 2006, and released to The Sunday Business Post under the Freedom of Information Act, he said that the southern part of the city centre will “yet again be strengthened by the current proposal which dedicates one station (St Stephen’s Green) to the south, while the second station is shared; the northside has no station. Furthermore the positioning of a station on O’Connell Bridge will serve to create greater division between north and south Dublin.”The RPA has said it will consider a third city centre stop at Parnell Square East, after a request from Dublin City Council. That station would be close to a number of properties owned by O’Reilly, including the former Carlton cinema site and adjoining land on O’Connell Street and a 50 per cent stake in the Ilac Centre to the rear of that site.
“It is true that a metro exit at Abbey Street would be within 300 metres of our development but we are not looking to just create a successful shopping district quarter,” O’Reilly continued. “We see our development as an engine for regeneration – simply put, we want a successful development in a vibrant, prosperous part of the town. Together with the metro we can rejuvenate Parnell Square/Dominick Street and the surrounding areas, making them as attractive as St Stephen’s Green on the south side.”
O’Reilly said that if the decision is made to stick to two stations they should be equitably positioned with one on the southside and one on the northside. He said the proposed station under O’Connell Bridge was in an area already congested with pedestrians and would be a disaster. “It just does not make sense to put all the commuters and tourists through streets crowded with shoppers to get to the metro,” he wrote. “By positioning the second station at north O’Connell Street/Parnell Square east we will put passengers away from the areas of congestion.”
O’Reilly continued that the new public square planned for part of the Carlton cinema site would be able to accommodate a metro exit and contrasted that situation with Oxford Circus tube station in London which has to close regularly at peak time because of passenger congestion. “There is only one chance to get this right and the decisions made now will impact on generations to come,” he concluded.
An earlier submission, drawn up by TJ O’Connor & Associates on behalf of O’Reilly’s Chartered Land, said that if one “enters the Ilac from Henry Street and exits on Parnell Street is is like going into a time-maching, regressing about 15 years to pre-Celtic Tiger days”. Other documents show Chartered’s redevelopment of the Carlton site will involve constructing a 92,900 square metre development.
RPA chairman Padraic White responded that following talks with stakeholders in the O’Connell Street area it became clear that a stop there would have had significant drawbacks in terms of the likely impact on businesses and traffic. The station under the Liffey was then chosen because there would be less construction impact and because it offered better connections to the Luas red line.
He said he did not agree with O’Reilly’s view that the stop under the Liffey would create additional congestion problems because the station’s location would reduce the number of people using O’Connell Bridge. Up to six entrances in total will be used to allow passengers disperse from the station and the footways on O’Connell Bridge will be widened.
Aah, right. It is the Parnell stop. I misunderstood, and thought it was referring to a stop between the Parnell one and the OC Bridge one.
Or maybe I just couldn’t resist the temptation to post another Simpsons reference. 😉
It looks like it might be John Lewis as the star tenant for the Carlton site. They are said to be interested and still, unlike some retailers, in expansion mode.
I finally got around to taking a look at the Carlton scheme in Wood Quay a couple of weeks ago. Suffice to say the file is in and out like a yoyo. Even while I was there two men edged towards the table, nudging “that’s it, that’s it”, as if a Golden Ticket was shimmering undiscovered amongst the paperwork. They turned out to be two ‘interested parties’ shall we say connected with the Henry Street buildings to be demolished. Most curiously, they were at pains to highlight to a bemused self that these buildings, don’t you know, are only post-1916! Bowled over is not the term to describe my reaction.
Sure they can be knocked in the morning so. Sorted!
Ah they were very pleasant and concerned about other aspects nonetheless.Just some general observations:
The new ground floor retail frontages – essentially the streets – are all to be clad in a stunning black basalt, dressed with, if I recall, a fawn/tan coloured sandstone for framing windows, coping etc. This part of the scheme appeared well-considered.
Facade treatment to the first floor to the retail parts and generally as a whole appeared however utterly chaotic – unnecessarily cluttered and busy with different elements, shapes, materials and exposed internal fit-outs clamouring for attention over each other. The streetscapes and shopfronts are also punctuated along their length with ‘lifestyle’ imagery in designated frames, which in itself appeared a crass and lazy feature-filling gesture but when this eventually descends into advertising will be markedly worse. This element must be cleansed from the scheme.
The roof appeared to work quite well as a concept, but its design uninspired and the supporting piers instrusive on the streetscape and lacking in finesse.
The public space at Henry Street looked absolutely appalling – so ridiculously cramped, incoherent and non-contextual. Whatever virtue the tower element may have (someone please enlighten me), its supposed importance in the scheme is completely lost with such a piddling space; in any event this pales into insignificance compared to the impact on Henry Street.
The Carlton facade ‘remounting’ – to use the diplomatic language of Arnotts – isn’t so much a building reinstatment as a token sop to ‘conservation’. The glazing of the adjacent corner building completely consumes its ground floor, relegating the facade to floating heritage wallpaper above a thoroughly contemporary and detached ground floor. It doesn’t wash. I fail to see how this shifting of the deckchairs can or will get permission. The exceptional circumstances for such interference with a Protected Structure do not remotely exist as they may have done with Arnotts in the creation of a viable street and square, nor was Arnotts a case of a complete removal of the structure as is with Carlton. Half of the point of its retention are the cultural and social associations with the building as it stands.
The apartment element opposite the Rotunda appeared arrogantly over-scaled.
A mixed bag overall, but mostly not in favour of the proposal.
It’s interesting to see how the Ilac as the first development in Ireland to usher in the first generation of UK retailers is now likely to be supplanted by the adjacent Carlton scheme with the latest wave of UK/international chains…
Just on the trees of the street again. here’s the new rather awkward lime as installed last week.
Quite a severe pruning is going to be required to level it off. Should fill out nicely and tone down with time.
As mentioned, the limes are so light and wispy, with beautiful expansive leaves.
The bushy oriental planes to the side pavements. They vary in size quite substantially, though trunk size appears to match.
Striking spiked leaves and fruits.
The ash trees to the median, interpersed with weeping birch. Very blah.
In fairness they do look impressive when flowering, but sadly for much of the year they’re very bland. A great show at this time of year nonetheless.
So the proposed crab apples never came to fruition at all?
Oh, and yay – look who’s just arrived on Upper east in place of Bus Stop newsagents. Naturally with trademark regard for the nation’s premier Architectural Conservation Area and Area of Special Planning Control.
As reluctant as I am to contribute to their grubby marketing tactics, I suggest we establish a webcam with a start-up date and countdown – or should that be countup – dial, clocking the days, months and years that this, along with all the other identical tawdry rubbish pasted across countless facades, will be permitted on the capital’s principal thoroughfare.
thank god that’s open, otherwise people would have had to cross the street to use the spar on the other side
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
