Royal Dublin Hotel
- This topic has 57 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
What a shame that a sympathetic reproduction/appropriately finished facade was not submitted for the new front to the RDH on O’ Connell St. The go ahead has been given for a modern facade, on the planning application it reads as a ‘glass and stone facade’.
I know I’ve gone on about this before, but really, why oh why can’t the CC not insist on Victorian/Edwardian facades for any new developments on the Street. Any modern infill architecture is grossly out of place on O’ Cll St and shatters the historic appearance of the street.
I don’t mean pastiche or any thing of the sort, but well finished and proportioned stylised facades, in keeping with 95% of the historic building stock on the street.An Taisce’s objections to it being next door to the only 18th century building on the street evidently had no impact on the Royal Dublin Hoteliers who have shown nothing but contempt for the street since they first moved in 1963, allowing the Georgian townhouse to fall into a delapidated condition so it could be declared ‘unsafe’ and the hotel extended.
And the rear-end of the hotel faces onto Parnell St in a manner which must make it the most disgustingly obtrusive building in the city.
-
-
-
I agree with reinstating a more sympathetic period facade. A new modern facade is simply repeating the mistakes of the past. I am sure the Pennys building and the Fingal offices were all very nice and new and modern and forward-looking in their time, but as is generally the case with ‘modern’ it doesn’t seem to stay like that very long. To prove my point I have to ask how come the RDH is requesting to replace it facade and Clery’s are not? I am not in favour of completely turning back the clock on O’Connell Street – although historical picture show that right up to the 1960s it was a very fine boulevard – but I dont think ‘modern’ facades have had much success on the street over the past 3 decades.
-
-
This from last weeks Northside People:
Moore Street to be covered
MOORE STREET market will not be lost to Dubliners as part of the massive redevelopment planned for the city’s historic trading place.
Dublin City councillors were assured in a report during a recent Area Committee meeting that the local authority is committed to the market.
As part of a 1999 planning decision by the council the area — known as the Carlton site — is to be redeveloped, but Moore Street Market has been identified as a mainstay of the Parnell and Henry Street location.
“It has been one of the objectives of the O’Connell Street Integrated Area Plan to upgrade the environment on Moore Street and to provide partial coverage to the street while at the same time retaining the atmosphere of the market,” it was explained to members.
“This development was always linked with the developments on both the ILAC and Carlton sites.”
Subsequent to the ILAC Centre’s application for redevelopment and confirmation of amendments to the Carlton site by An Bord Pleanala, the O’Connell Street IAP has recommenced the design process for a canopy and environmental improvements, such as the pavement.
The design process will include full consultation with all interested parties including the existing street traders.
While stall holders at the market will be expected to welcome this announcement, news that storage facilities will not be provided by council for traders might muffle its reception.
“As a general rule, Dublin City Council does not provide storage facilities for casual trading,” the report states.
“It is the responsibility of stall holders to provide their own facilities.”
It was added: “Dublin City Council is committed to the upgrading of Moore Street and to the retention of a market on the street.
“The new canopy, pavements and stalls will serve to enhance this historic market.”
-
I really do not agree that “Victorian/Edwardian facades” should be used on O’Connell street. If the street is to make a statement about our times surely it should be of our time and not just a copy of the past. It would be worrying if the only marker of our time were to be the reproduction of past forms superimposed on to modern structures. Surely it is possible to design good quality modern buidlings. I agree that there have been some buildings built on O’Connell Street which look grossly out of place but I think that we could now have learned from this and are ready to move on. If you look at Andy Duvanne’s Stephens Court on St. Stephens Green it has definitly taken on a character of its own over time and fits in nicely to its surroundings. It is definitly more pleasing to look at then some of the pastiche on other parts of the green.
-
-
-
It is so not the case of fixating on times past, or anything like that.
Stephens Court works well because of the lack of uniformity on the Green, the site layouts and parapets of buildings are all erratic, in which case Stephens Court can exist purely for it’s own sake in the midst of the jumble of surrounding buildings.O’ Connell St is entirely different, where the maintance of a standard parapet level, similar facing materials and styles are crucial to the effect created. It is not the case of harking back and all that crap, at least 95% of it’s architectural stock is of an historic nature, and to have a tainting 5% minority of modern infill is simply unaccepable, particularly destroying the north western side/end of the street (RDH end)
I can never get over how so many people and architects just flatly refuse to even consider thinking about appropriate replicas in areas where a complete sense of character could be restored with a single building being redeveloped in this manner.
Instead we end up with either pastiche or some watered-down modernist rubbish ‘reflecting the proportions and materials of surrounding buildings, being midful of this historic area’, some have hearted 80s-influenced pile of tat morelike.Development in the way I suggest is moving forward, not backward.
-
-
I could not agree more. O’Connell St. was built according to a plan and an idea in the aftermath of 1916. Although most of the building in themselves from that era are not amazing, collectively they do give the street a sense of presence and are appropriate to the idea of a main boulevard of a capital city.
The failure of this street has been the northern-most end where this architectural uniformity has not been maintained – Eircom building, RDH, Frazers. Why not re-enforce it and continue this uniformity from the Liffey to the Ambassador which is successful up to that point?
So far the modern statements (post 1950’s I’d say) have not been successful and the question is – do we want to gamble more on this area or do we want to create a unified street taht evoke the street’s age and prominence?
-
Indeed – the arguments against replica infill in this case are quite weak. In the strictest sense, modern architecture could fit in well if it is done so with that idea in mind. Usually attempts at infill on O’Connell Street have been disasterous -even the most recent Schuh is not a good example. The exterior of Arnotts on Liffey St. is an example where modern may fit in…. Most certainly not PENNEYS on O’Connell St. :rolleyes:
-
Yawwwwwwwwn… same old tired arguments – I’m sorry for being rude but it seems the same as it ever was – people romanticising past built glories, and those who see things as they are now. The Penny’s etc of O’Connell St are an eye sore yes. The idea of O’Connell St is a wonderful one in terms of design and architecture and a grand street for the country to enjoy – but look at it now. We can’t have everything – redevelopment costs money and that too influences design considerations. I accept a degree of pragmatism is required when redeveloping sites in “sensitive” areas, but have difficultly with the idea that it has to be the same as it was now and forever. Good taste doesn’t have a date, be it 18th, 19th century, or today. Althought here seems to a certain snobbish element to anyhting not built in or around Georgian times. Something can be modern (i.e. not worshipping at the altar of a bygone era) and still gel with the surroundings – I would prefer O’Connell St to have modern next to Old – it would show we’re a country that can embrace it’s past but also execute good architecture in a modern sense.
-
You also present that same tired argument that we must impose our mark on everything.
I haven’t seen too many examples of what you describe to be confident and really, that’s what it comes down to. Sure, we could have great designs – but O’Connell St. hasn’t seen many of these for quite some time.
There are those who insist everything must be new and we must impose our mark on every possible location available. Well, our era has the greatest opportunity to make its mark with the huge areas of potential development in the Docklands – so far, what could be the new city doesn’t look very promising. I think all our efforts should be into this area just as the Georgians developed new areas at the fringe of the city that they inhabited.
-
To be frank, my arguement against replica infill is quite the polar opposite of what is suggested. I didn’t make any comments with so much as the slightest rose-tint or romantic inference. You back up your weak arguements with changing the subject, bringing in the usual suggestions of Georgian snobbery and conservationism, there is one Georgian building on O’ Connell St, the vast majority of it’s building stock dates from the 1880s through to the 1930s.
The ‘degree of pragmatism’ you speak of
d d dallas, is exactly the 80s red brick and cheap granite clad crap I speak of, its what we inevitably end up with, or watered-down modernism, aka the schuh building.Just what is the point of steadfastly sticking to modern infill, the schuh bldg being a case in point, located slap-bang in the middle of an entirely Victorian/Edwardian terrace.
If you set out to build a grand thoughfare, you most certainly wouldn’tbuild the vast majority of it’s bldgs in a certain style, and then toss in a couple of utterly out of place structures for good measure. This is infill we’re talking about here, not individual historic and new structures existing in their own right beside each other.Many of the modern buildings on the street will soon be lodging planning permissions for redevelopment, and will be proposing to lash vast sums into structural glass and polished granite etc. Why not ensure NOW that this money goes into proper cut stone pilasters, appropriate brickwork and wooden joinery by the CC committing themselves to restoring
O’ Connell St to a dignified state.
I’m not talking of ‘restoring it to its former glories’ in the 19th century, but restoring it to it’s former glories of the mid-60s before all the present crap moved in!I don’t propose to turn the street into a time warp, the proposed granite paving and starkly modern street furniture & lighting would contrast spectacularly with a historic and diverse streetscape as a backdrop.
-
I do agree that O’Connell St. is a horrible mess as is. I dont think anybody could say otherwise, but dragging it back to the Victorian/Georgian era with mock victorian/Georgian shopfronts is wrong. Sure the Dublin bus building , Fingal CC, Pennys, Mc Donalds, burger King only make the street look tired and tacky. More shop/hotel front sthat are “modern” and stark and unsympathetic to the surroundings such as the ones mentioned above would be another shambles and make a street that should be the premier street in the city far worse than it is regardless of the paving or the spike. If we had always looked to keep out buildings in line with what has gone before we would still be living in wattle and daub huts, we have to move on. On a street as importand as O’Connell St. Very very careful consideration must be taken for every building or redevelopment that effects its visual impact.
-
It is not wrong to ‘go back’ when you’re talking about an overwhelming minority of bldgs, literally five out of the whole thoughfare, that if changed appropriatly, they restore the ENTIRE architectural unity to the street.
This is the fundamental argument.
Its only five/six buildings.
How can you possibly disagree with that? -
i suppose if gaudi were alive today and eyeing up that infill site…you’d tell him to p*ss off cos he wouldn’t fit in with the existing style! For the record I can only dream of what he might do there as he’s dead…but someone else is alive today…you have to aloow people the opportunity to do their best in their time and trust them to do also what is best for the street to as I am sure a man such as gaudi would have done….you cannot impose restrictions where design is concerned….planning and development is an open democratic process in this country and if a design is appealed and turned down by ABP then so be it….let them try again….in fairness on an admittedly sensitive site like this a competition would be the best way foward….good enough in the middle ages but hardly used in this country much
-
I would hesitate using the Gaudi arguement as Barcelona is fortunate in having a very uniform look. The Gaudi style is everywhere.
However look at what is proposed for O’Connell Street by way of new developments.
The Millenium Mall – may have died a death, may not – but it was hardly cutting edge architecture and I am sure Gaudi would be turning in his grave at the thought of constructing such an ugly behemoth being put up on the Ramblas.Schuh is not that bad and it looks better than you would expect because the terrace is is on is so bland and uninteresting.
I would almost bet my life savings that the RDH will opt for a bland uninteresting and relatively inexpensive design for its new facade….remember the brown marble and brass front they put up a few years ago.
I think you have put across a very convincing arguement Graham although I take my arguement mainly from the fact that nothing modern (ie 1960s onwards) has lived up to the standards that should apply to O’Connell Street.
-
I disagree Graham – modern arcitecture should be capable of producing highquality appropriate buildings which compliment their surroundings and which stand the test of time.
If we look back rather than forward then we will get no where. We leave no legacy of our time!
The problem is that many buildings in Dublin were built without the input of any architect or very poor architects. -
the thing about gaudi is that firstly he was given the opportunity and evidently a free rein without too many restrictions…obviously hiis buildings fit in in a certain ways but any proposal for RDH ought to and all the best buildings respond to their surroundings in different ways….but lets not think a mock facade is the best or only way foward
Surely someone today deserves a similar opportunity to do their best.
Perhaps we should be considering how cr*p buildings do succeed in getting built in important locations as has happened all along o’connell street (although i think schuh is not so bad really – bit ‘todays-fashion’ driven)….
But I do not blame too much our planning system and its planners for letting cr*p through – having read Frank Mc Donalds articles these last few days…..I believe its a good system but unfortunately it doesn’t always mean quality buildings are produced……but in a location like O’Connell st we should just accept any cheap tat or mock facade in my opinion…only the best should do! -
I’m so disappointed so few people agree with me.
This argument really has nothing to do with conservation or recreating times past etc.
It is simply about how the street LOOKS, its physical appearance, and put frankly, it would look better with appropriate ‘historic’ facades.
I’m not suggesting some straight-laced Georgiana, we could play around with designs, what about a wonderful Victorian gothic facade for the RDH, or a high Victorian front like Gilbeys used to have on the street and like Jurys on College Green for Bublin Bus, or even simple Regency buildings with brown stock bricks and granite corner stones.
The street could be so beautifaul.
This is not recreating the past, it is simply using architectural styles, just like Art Deco is a style, or Arts & Crafts is a style, or modernism, or post modernism, or neo-classisism or gothic and so forth.But above all, why can’t you all just see that with the rectification of a few buildings on the street, its entire architectural unity would be restored, creating a distinctive place in the city, with a sense of character. Would you not like to see a unified composition in our city, a beautiful civic space with a definite charm and instant appeal as an historic place, an urban space on a par with any other European city?
Making a programme about it, I and others spent days and days in the place, shooting virtually every building, researching them and the place as a whole. What struck me so sharply was the amount of effort so many people went to over the generations, over two & a half centuries to create a unified, dignified architectural composition and civic space, esp in the 1920s, and then the whole effect was to be shattered in the space of two decades from the 70s.
It is imperative and our duty today to restore that composition as some redress for the terrible mistakes made.
-
Originally posted by Graham Hickey
This is not recreating the past, it is simply using architectural styles, just like Art Deco is a style, or Arts & Crafts is a style, or modernism, or post modernism, or neo-classisism or gothic and so forth.Reread what you just wrote. Using architectural styles as you put it without any convictions turns a city into a theme park.
But it was never unified! One side (eastern) was recreated in a reasonably unified scheme but the western side has been a hodgepodge for most of its life. The buildings north of the GPO as far as the Carlton are original and offer nothing to the street. So where do you stop? Demolish the western side and mimic the eastern?
THEME PARK
THEME PARK
THEME PARKI like a nice piece of Victorian architecture as much as the next person but pastiche fills me with horror and to my mind is WORSE than modern infill.
Afterall every generation puts its mark or layer on every city – thats what makes them interesting – thats why youy want to visit Paris, London or Barcelona… not because they are themeparks but because they are an authentic mixture….
That’s what cities are about – diversity. On holidays I go and see as much contemporary architecture as medieval or 19th century. I like the contrast of generations of buildings cheek by jowl.
I’d prefer a run-down and derelict O’Connell Street to pastiche. AT least the dereliction would have some integrity and a gradeur in decay.
-
GRAHAM I JUST THINK THAT TO SAY ‘that with the rectification of a few buildings on the street, its entire architectural unity would be restored’ SEEMS EXAGGERATED TO ME…UNFORTUNATELY! I HAVEN’T STUDIED IT CLOSELY I ADMIT BUT YOU SEEM A BIT OPTIMISTIC WITH HOW MUCH NEEDS DOING….I AM ALL FOR YOUR VISION OF ARCHITECTURAL UNITY FOR THE STREET AND MAKING IT MORE ‘GRAND’ IN A SENSE BUT THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED WITH A MIX OF ‘STYLES’ IF YOU LIKE FROM VARIOUS PERIODS….BUT YOU SHOULD NOT TELL SOMEBODY TODAY TO DO A NEW RDH FACADE IN A CERTAIN PRESCRIBED WAY….THIS DOES NOT LEAD TO GOOD DESIGN….LET PEOPLE TRY THEIR BEST AND IF IT ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH THEY CAN TRY AGAIN…I BELIEVE MORE COMPETITIONS WOULD PRODUCE MORE GOOD BUILDINGS MYSELF. OF COURSE LOTS OF MORE MODERN BUILDINGS IN THIS CITY ARE RUBBISH FRANKLY INCLUDING SOME ON O’CONNELL ST ITSELF BUT YOU CANNOT CONDEMN THOSE TRYING THEIR BEST TODAY BECAUSE OF THE SINS OF THEIR FATHERS….IF THAT ATTITUDE ALWAYS PREVAILED THROUGH OUT HISTORY HOW WOULD ANY NEW STTLE AS MENTIONED BY YOU EVER EMERGE?
-
The GPO is a neo classical structure – pastiche? O’Connell St. an attempted Greek theme park? A hark back to another age and era – certainly.
The use of upper case is a bit severe, don’t you think?
As for me, I can’t say I would ever prefer dereliction to anything – as bad as the poor apartment buildings are all over the city, I prefer them to the dereliction that i saw before them and can’t understand why anyone would think otherwise.
-
-
-
-
Its unfortunate that there is very few examples of great modern design sitting well with its surroundings in this city. I personally can’t think of many at all.
-
-
-
-
-
WOW, I touched on a vein there!
Eh, everyone, pastiche as defined in the Oxford dictionary as meaning a bad imitation of something, you seem to be mixing it up with ‘replicas’ as it were, or anything not modern.
Anyway, to be honest I’d hate to see Victorian follies on the street, I said it in haste.
But it dosn’t sway me in the slightest from having at least reserved redbrick dressed stone facades, in keeping with most of the street.I agree Paul that the RDH end is a shambles and always has been, but the rest of the st isn’t & wasn’t. And considering that the southern end is the most unified part of the st, it makes it even more unaccepable for the likes of the schuh building to be butting in.
I ‘surveyed’ the street today, and looking at the schuh bldg, it is unbelivably out of place.
Out of the total of 73 properties on the street, (I’m sad enough to have counted), 65 are ‘historic’, ie pre 1930, 2 are tiny brick clad stuctures at the top end, unnoticable, and the remaining six are the nasty usual suspects, Pennys, Bus, Fingal, RDH, Eircom and Schuh.
As I say, there is no architectural unity to the RDH end, but there would be a historic unity if the buildings mentioned weren’t there, nothing spectacular would prevail, but a sense of character would.Although frankly I’d prefer modern structures on the St any day if new ‘sympathetic’ structures built were to be treated in the manner the present ones currently are.
Most of them are in the most appaling condition above street level, with a century of grime on them, and most of the windows look like they haven’t seen a coat of paint since the Rising. And as for the invasion of PVC!
Carrolls ‘Irish’ gifts beside Ann Summers looks like they had their PVCs installed a mere 1/2 years ago, are they not banned on the st? -
-
-
I think there was movement to remove the Happy Ring House sign, and there was resistance… so it stays.
Alot of very good points have been made over the last few pages by everyone. And everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just because I say something it doesn’t mean it’s THE FACT – the same applies to everyone else.
Graham, you obviously feel passionately for the Street and I don’t think I’m being unfair by saying you do like your “old-school” styles.
However I can’t help but feel that to put in replicas smacks of an unimaginative vision, and to a certain extent… romanticism of past times. O’Connell st may have had a plan, not all plans get completed – how many unbuilt projects are there, or details that never made it to the final construction. We use it now – we live here – it is 2003. We should add our own layer and not grovel to another generation. I think there’s an element of truth to the Theme Park analogy.
-
You know what, the many good points from ‘your side’ has actually swayed me slightly.
I have come to my final conclusion that O’ Connell St has always progressed.
Gardiner created a unified composition, which the Wide Sts Comms adapted sypathetically for commercial uses, then the Victorians came along and wreaked havoc on the street with their ‘feature’ buildings, then the 20th century came and bombed the backside out of half of it, resulting in a fantastic opportunity to restore some architectural unity to it, which was achieved to a degree in the 20s & 30s.I have been swayed to agree that a more modern, nonetheless sympathetic, facade is appropriate for the RDH and Eircom simply due their lage, expansive facades, where the potential exists to create landmark buildings at the upper end.
However, looking at Dublin Bus and Schuh again this morning as I was passing, there is absolutely no excuse for modern facades on these. Both are very narrow buildings, both exist in entirely brick clad and older terraces, and both exist in the lower, or near the lower unified part of the street.
Building modern here smacks of sheer arrogance, that ‘we must make a statement’.Building ‘replicas’ in the areas I mention is not a theme park attitude, if that were the case, is Harcourt St a theme park? Or the east side of Stephens Green? Or the south and west sides of Mountjoy Sq? Or all wooden Victorian shopfronts going up in every town and village across the country?
Building ‘old’ as it were, in strictly limited areas to either architecturally or historically unify an area is not a bad thing.I think its very interesting though, that if Gilbeys, once one of the city’s finest Victorian buildings, that existed on the Fingal site, was demolished today, there would be absolute uproar over the issue and an immediate order would be slapped on the developer to rebuild it faithfully, down to the last doorknob. And yet, because 30 years pass by with Fingal in its place, the whole idea of rebuilding now is completely laughed at. Indeed, such is the extent of this irony, that it is entirely likely that if its owners proposed to built Gilbeys now, it would’nt even get planning permission!
Just found out that Carrolls Gifts and all of it’s terrace has been protected since at least 1991, long before its PVCs was installed upstairs.
And I also see that the GPO have lodged an application to modify the Princes St entrance to the building. But the sheer ignorance of An Post, they have posted the application on the HENRY ST side, of the building, so anyone seeing it couldn’t be bothered to go around to the other side to inspect the development. But above all, its posted as high as is possible on the lower sash of the window so the average passerby can’t read it. I could barely make it out, other than interventions to the exterior stonework and modifications to the 30s interior lobby.
-
-
I think Graham has a point.
The main argument in terms of applying a ‘familiar’ facade and urban treatment ot a street like O’Connell St is that it applies a contextual language that the street is ‘comfortable’ with.
The real challenge in doing this is do do so in such a way that the facade actually reflects the interior treatemnt (or maybe the other way around) so as to produce intelligent good quality buildings.
All this talk of style and modernism V pastiche is an architectural red herring. Lutyens only died in 1944 and right up to that date was producing work of great integrity in a numbere of historical idioms.
My own favorite architect – Oliver Hill who was one of the founders of the Mars and CIAM movements (and incidentally ws Michael Hopkins mentor during his very long career) at various times was quite happy to work in any style the client wanted just so long as he was allowed to bring it to a logical contextual conclusion – so his ‘stockbroker Tudor’ stripped classical country houses are fantastic and enjoyable pieces of work and in many ways just as inventive as his favoured Deco Moderne such as the Morecombe Hotel where he worked with Eric Gill and his best house Jolwynds (if you want to see his moderne work watch Poirot).
The point is – if you are going to do this kind of thing it should be doen well – usually its done atrociously badly by fairly talentless hacks who see it as an easy route to planning permission.
As to pastiche – well the kind of modernism that is so vaunted in Dublin is nearly 80 years old and most of it (including the Bensons National Gallery) harkens back to the 1930’s at latest, its just as prone to facadism but usually better executed.
to conclude – all architecture is pastichism because consciously or unconsciously it refers to something previously built – whether fad of the moment in last months AR or Burlingtons town house (eg: Trinity’s Provosts house and many others).
its crtazy getting hung up on ‘isms’ and ideologies in architecture and makes the whole businessfar too ‘po faced’ and exclusive.
-
-
-
Yes – let’s avoid the “p” word from now on… The Vegas remark was a tad glib! I guess Edinburgh comes across as so “perfect” it feels like a Georgian Theme Park (although Disneyland never looked that good!).
I suppose I felt that way having contrasted it to Glasgow and our own fair city, which really have scars and look as though they has a history – whereas beautiful Edinburgh is suspiciously Dorian Gray like – if you catch my drift…
-
I haven’t viewed the new designs but if what you describe as modern is in fact excellent quality contemporary design then I would choose this over non-contemporary design.
This is the only way real inventive architecture can be rewarded, by giving exciting new work a chance.
Anyone got any pics of the new designs ?
-
Suppose they would actually help matters here wound’nt they!
I’m glad I’ve now cleared up in my own mind what I’d like to see on the st, and in what areas, thanks to the many heated opinions, (although admittedly I’d still like to see sash windowed bricked facades above anything else, no elaborate follies though), I am apparently after all ‘of the old school’- I’d like to think of the enlighted variety.
What exactly is the ‘new school’ then?!?
-
-
I have to say, I don’t mind if the street is furbished with replicas or modern contempoary buildings. I would however say that the buildings that do go up should be of a very high architectural standard and the cost of materials for building is no excuse for poor design. Dublin has seen a lot of nice buildings go up in recent years, but there is also a huge amount of cr*p.
-
-
In principal graham I do agree with you. BUT (And I’m not going to use pastiche) If an attempt was made to re-create a Victorian facade on the RDH, It would look almost as out of place as the Planned building. It seems that it is simply impossible to re-create a victorian edifice (without spending outlandish amounts of money, which i’m sure is the last thing the owners of the RDH want to do) that doesn’t look just like that, a re-creation.
-
Simple, quality brick-clad facades with sash windows, and the optional extra of stone dressings & pilasters etc, are exceptionally cheap compared with any modern glass-clad/ granite-clad/white concrete-clad etc building.
Most, if not all of the bldgs at the north-western end are simple, decorative brick structures anyway, as I presume the Aer Lingus bldg was that used to be on the now derilect site, and the same with Dublin Bus site – Gilbeys being the marked exception.
The RDH, aside from its nasty projecting gold aluminium windows – its brick cladding, as a material, works well in the context of the whole terrace, whatever about its colour & quality.
I think that any material used, other than brick or quality cut stone (to reflect the AIB next door) in the ‘refurbishments’, will invade onto the terrace.
Remenber, even in the progressive 30s, the Carlton was still built in a classical style using traditional materials to fit into the street, albeit an interpreted classicism, and works really well.One positive aspect the RDH’s redvelopment is the hotel’s expansion, which should help increase trade at the northern end. It is planned to add an extra storey to the building, although it will be set back from the street parapet line and invisible from st level, the whole entance lobby is to be gutted, as is I think its coffee shop, and as far as I recall the plans include a whopping increase in its bedroom numbers.
-
I took a walk arounf on Monday and I was struck by the appalling mess RHD made of the Parnell side of their building. Looking at the hotel from this side its a wonder anyone would want to stay their.
Poor Parnell Street and Square… they really have been let fall apart. Even the new bland and boring Jury’s Inn wont add anything. It just continues the line of ugly boxes that were put up in the mid 90s. The Square is a disgrace as well… so many of its Georgian buildings look delapidated and rundown.
I saw the model for the extension of the Municipal Gallery but the staff at the gallery reckoned it would be a while yet before anything happened due to money.
I also (for the first time) got to read the complete IAP for O’Connell Street and I was impressed the scope of the plan. But many of the elements are simple to implement nd effect street like D’Olier, Westmoreland and Parnell… all well away from the Spire and LUAS works. Its a shame that we haven’t seen any progress on these streets while we have been waiting for the Spire to be errected. A lost opportunity!
-
The IAP is very comprehensive but remember, it was published in 1998! 5 years ago! And it was compiled 6 years ago!
And nothing has been done, other than the erection of a 120 metre pole.All of the delapidated Georgians on Parnell Sq are mentioned in the IAP, as is Parnell St, again nothing done.
Likewise with O’ Cll St, and is’nt Marlbourgh St included – like it would make a difference if it was.
And as for poor Westmoreland, Europe’s only motorway with traffic lights…
Tree planting here, and paving etc could make it beautiful, a perfect visual launch-pad for O’ Connell St. -
Yes, you’re right Graham. I tend to forget just how long this whole thing has been chugging alone (almost half a year waiting for some lighting to be turned on on the Spire!) What struck me was how simple the recommendations for the side streets were. Reduced traffic lanes, uniform tree planting, smart lighting… Its not that hard is it?
-
Hate to be pedantic about these things but the derelict site on O’Connell Street was occupied by a branch of Penny’s and not Aer Lingus – burnt down the same weekend the Pope visited Ireland (1979) fact fans – yes gaping hole on “main street Ireland” for almost 25 years – should probably organise a celebration of the anniversary or something
-
Hate to be pedantic, you’re loving it!
But you’re correct, Aer Lingus was on the RDH site, with Penneys and, wasn’t it a bookstore or something, on the derelict site.
I stand corrected (and not for the first time)!
I’ve heard loads of the Aer Lingus premises but never seen it, anyone have a picture?
-
The day the go-ahead for RDH redevelopment came through, the planning application was hastily taken out of the front window, but now its back up again for some reason…
The total no of extra rooms is 61, and ALL of the public areas are being gutted incl restaurant, bar, reception etc
Its interesting that all of these plans were only drawn up on the back of the Gresham’s refurbishment, they probably would’nt have happened otherwise.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
