O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
A 1961 view of Lower O’Connell Street by Charles W. Cushman shows the current Grand Central Bar building by Bachelor & Hicks under scaffolding, probably for its first cleaning, 1960s-style, with a blasting of half of Dollymount Strand at the pressure of a steamroller.
It also shows us a sophisticated streetscape of dark and sultry fenestration, where even approaches to white are toned down to an elegant cream. My, how crass we are today with our generic Dulux Brilliant White.
No matter how long you stare at the Ulster Bank, it is impossible to make out what lunacy is going on. Either there is a rank of freaky space-age lamps suspended on cables from the parapet, or there’s a scaffold precariously clinging onto the upper floors.
Or both.
A marvellous view here of the lower west side, with the last of the readable Wide Streets Commission buildings still standing on the site of the modern-day Schuh building, later to become the infamous Brutalist-with-cladding Burgerland, latterly the Crazy Pound Shop (yeah!). Now only straggling remains of the WSC survive.
The nasty random timber glazing of modern-day Burger King appears to have only just replaced the original semi-circular steel window that used to fill the arch, while the delicate balcony has also been removed. The degrading legacy of the 1940s and 1950s can of course be seen everywhere.
O’Connell Monument is in an advanced state of neglect, and would remain so until the 1980s (to be promptly permanently damaged!), while the delightful Metropole by Aubrey V. O’Rourke can still be seen adjacent to the GPO with its ranks of grand torchieres at first floor level, to be demolished 11 years later.
Can anyone explain the prevalence of Indonesian flags on O’Connell St. in 1961? Did we have a massive state visit from them of which I wasn’t aware?
Cork in the hurling no doubt!!!!
In de newsmedia?
Talking of flags, does anyone feel that this facade is need of brightening up with some cheap fabric vertical banners?
The owners apparently do…
€20 gratefully received by DCC by 8th Jan if you have the energy…
<a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4346/09&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%204346/09
Next stop, the Oliver St John Gogarty….
giggerty, giggerty.
@Smithfield Resi wrote:
Next stop, the Oliver St John Gogarty….
With a facade maimed in that manner no wonder that rather dapper gentleman is ducking to avoid recognition!!
That application refers to the Grand Central building on the corner with O’Connell Street, not Wynns Hotel. It is the result of recent enforcement proceedings taken against the banners’ illegal erection.
Of course, if our planning laws were stringent, standards were upheld, and consistency in planning practiced, no right-minded invividual would go to the effort and expense of applying for retention for such patently inappropriate structures on a Protected Structure, in an ACA and a SPAC.
Has anyone got any idea what the RPA are presently doing on the central median of O’Connell St. Their contractors have erected hoarding over the last number of days on the median north of Abbey St. More test boring for Metro North, or something else?
Of course, nothing on their site.
@adhoc wrote:
Has anyone got any idea what the RPA are presently doing on the central median of O’Connell St. Their contractors have erected hoarding over the last number of days on the median north of Abbey St. More test boring for Metro North, or something else?
Of course, nothing on their site.
It’s defiantly one of the riskiest stations…
Add some water a bridge and a big drop…
Lets hope its neutral…@Smithfield Resi wrote:
.Is that an image of the ‘dapper gent’ on the banner, or has Joyce come back for a ‘diddley eye’ pint at Gogarties?
I noticed last night while walking through town that the large “Baileys” neon sign on Batchelors Walk was being replaced. I couldn’t see the new brand but its not Baileys. The lighting is now blue.
So, being curious I checked to see if a site notice was in place. No. I checked the planning register to see if an application had been made and permission granted for what are works to a protected structure, in an ACA and a Special Area of Conservation and works which would generally require planning permission in any event (unless I am mistaken). No permission in place.
Now, if I am not further mistaken, it is an objective of Dublin City Council to seek the removal of all the neon signage on Batchelors Walk under the O’Connell Street ACA and SPC schemes. To date this has never been acted on…as with so many of the ACA objectives. It would seem that this is a perfect time to hit the owners of this signage with an enforcement notice to have them remove the sign fully given that they havent applied for permission.
Any thoughts? Is it worth a letter to Planning Enforcement.
It would also appear that the original permission for the sign from 1997 included a condition limiting the life of the permission to 2000 and requiring its removal after that..
Interesting thoughts there StephenC. It would of course be an ideal time to act on actually enforcing the law here. But then again, the primatic trivision sign directly below the former Baileys sign was erected since the IAP was embarked upon, with no authorisation.
Who is the main city official for this patch? Who is at the rank of say, Assistant City Manager? What are they at and why are they being paid for services not done?
Lads,
hate to break it to you but DCC dont care, they have simply given up enforcing any of their own planning laws.@hutton wrote:
Interesting thoughts there StephenC. It would of course be an ideal time to act on actually enforcing the law here. But then again, the primatic trivision sign directly below the former Baileys sign was erected since the IAP was embarked upon, with no authorisation.
Who is the main city official for this patch? Who is at the rank of say, Assistant City Manager? What are they at and why are they being paid for services not done?
AJ + 1
Does it matter the paid management at DCC simply couldn’t give a hoot one iota about the way Dublin looks; when I think back to the lack of support received from Dublin City Council management in the Bewleys retention, they had to be saved by their own unpaid councillors. I hate to say it but the only way this gets resolved is if someone goes legal; which won’t happen even though it is as clear a breach as you will see anywhere.
Depressingly you’re probably right.
It makes you wonder what everyone is thinking in Wood Quay. I know its grand having a job, getting well paid, plenty of perks, nothing too onerous, but you have to fill the 8 hours a day you’re in there. Perhaps someone will act on this just to kill the tedium.
Its also curious to note DCC’s very strident repost to John Gormley’s inquiries into planning decisions undertaken by the Council. It would be interesting to find out how they think their planning enforcement section is performing.
@StephenC wrote:
It would also appear that the original permission for the sign from 1997 included a condition limiting the life of the permission to 2000 and requiring its removal after that..
Problem is here that Enforcement had seven years up to 2007 to issue an Enforcement Notice, but failed. Now they are statute barred from taking action. It’s a stupid provision in the Act and clearly absurd that in a seven year + one day period a structure can go from limited-time authorised to unauthorised and them to indefinately authorised for the rest of time.
Planning Act reform needed but sadly nothing on this in the 2010 Amendments.
Thats true SmithfieldResi – but now the signage has changed (its a Nokia sign now) and substantial works have taken place which I would argue required permission.I think they could take enforcement action and have the sign removed by refusing retention permission.
@StephenC wrote:
Thats true SmithfieldResi – but now the signage has changed (its a Nokia sign now) and substantial works have taken place which I would argue required permission.I think they could take enforcement action and have the sign removed by refusing retention permission.
I submitted a complaint to them last week. It’s probably a waste of time but it can’t hurt. It was assigned to a case officer on Monday.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
