seconds out – round two for Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop in Sligo
- This topic has 47 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by cajual.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
May 19, 2004 at 2:42 pm #708321AnonymousInactive
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/sligo/sligo/doherty.html
Admitted defeat, can’t make it work after all. Two days travelling to Sligo for twenty minute meeting with the planners and told that it was my drawings that were the problem………not informative enough.
“Maybe our client could make model, come back after the elections”?
Sorry lads and thank you all for your kind words. 🙂
…………well most of you.
Think I’ll try to crack New York instead, Hey Paul how’s the weather in Canada?
-
May 19, 2004 at 5:09 pm #764454Paul ClerkinKeymaster
I think that’s an awful shame. It really pisses me off when you see some of the stuff built as infill in Irish country towns. For example Monaghan is desperate for really bad quality buildings which supposedly follow the roofscapes or window line but in reality are huge and clumsy. I liked this scheme for Sligo….
Also I cannot see how these drawings lack information…. Basically the Sligo councillors lack a spine between the lot of them and do not want to rock the boat by giving permission when they could lose their cosy seats….
Seeing as its so close to the townhall, he should find a tenant for Teeling House who wants to open a Sex Shop… that would really bring up the tone of the street – bright pink signage, maybe a flashing phallus shaped sign….
“Sorry, but as we had invested money in the site, we need to recoup our losses. Sexy Inc were looking for a shop site in Sligo and naturally they wanted to be based close to the centre of political power. We couldn’t refuse their money. “
-
May 19, 2004 at 5:22 pm #764455GregFParticipant
Jaypers,…that scheme looks good AlanD. I don’t know why the Sligo clique can be so pedantic. Definitely a case of visual illiteracy on the councillors behalf.
-
May 19, 2004 at 6:07 pm #764456IrishtownParticipant
Shame. It was a great design.
-
May 19, 2004 at 6:20 pm #764457AnonymousParticipant
Too good a design to give up on,
Have another go
-
May 19, 2004 at 6:57 pm #764458sw101Participant
have you gotten paid, that’s what i wanna know…;)
just wait a few months and you’ll see some bogshite engineer will throw in planning for some semi-d half-assed conservation and retention effort with an awful layout, and the feckin planners will lap it up
-
May 19, 2004 at 11:20 pm #764459ro_GParticipant
unbuilt ireland indeed …
-
May 20, 2004 at 9:32 am #764460AnonymousInactive
sw101 yes we’ve been paid for work to date, thanks for your concern.
Diaspora, don’t rub it in mate. If An Taisce had not argued so blindly yet so ignorantly in my view the local politicians would have agreed , we would have consent and would have started on site.
We know and our client also knows that if we were succesful and did get Teeling House off the register of protected structures, An Taisce would appeal and it would go to an bord pleanola and that would add another year on to the process.
The whole system is crazy, the planners and politicians play for time by not giving guidance and our client goes bankrupt or gives in.
Make a model, indeed. What bullshit.
-
May 20, 2004 at 4:36 pm #764461LOBParticipant
Sorry to hear it aland
-
May 20, 2004 at 4:59 pm #764462AnonymousInactive
D’you know LOB, I was sitting behind a feckin tractor on Tuesday for an hour on route to Belfast Airport , my backside nipping, frustration building wondering what the hell I was doing in Ireland after 18 months and having to listen to gobbledegook.
Reading the comments above it occured to me that I really like the Irish.
Thanks lads you’ve made my day.
-
May 21, 2004 at 8:14 am #764463FINParticipant
hard luck alan. has the client given up totally?
-
May 21, 2004 at 9:23 am #764464AnonymousInactive
………..can’t make the project stack up financially without the new building Fin and keep the quality, of design and materials.
Tried, tried, tried and tried again, just can’t do it.
-
May 21, 2004 at 10:45 am #764465FINParticipant
shit, sorry.
-
May 21, 2004 at 1:27 pm #764466thaddeusParticipant
visually illiterate planners, almost backward looking with little understanding of what adds to and enhances the quality of the built enviornment and the larger communitiy.
great scheme.
-
December 22, 2005 at 5:23 pm #764467Paul ClerkinKeymaster
If at first…. Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop back into Sligo Archiseek.com
After a previous refusal and controversy, Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop have submitted a new planning application for a site on Old Teeling Street, Sligo. The proposal, for local developer Louis Doherty, is for a mixed residential and commercial development, next to the Court House Building. The architects have been working on proposals for the same site for three years and it has been an exhausting process. “This project would provide a successful case study into the difficulties of getting planning permission in Ireland” says Alan Dunlop “our first scheme was very well received by the Council, but we proposed the removal of a building next to the courthouse which had some historic interest. The whole thing got caught up in the current debate in Ireland about the protection of historic structures and dragged on and on, until we twice had to withdraw.”
-
December 22, 2005 at 7:08 pm #764468AnonymousParticipant
Good luck with it Alan, I hope you have one that will get through this time.
Diaspora & Thomond Park
-
January 11, 2006 at 3:19 pm #764469AnonymousInactive
Sorry Diaspora and Thomond Park, I missed this over Christmas and Ocean FM has just telephoned me to ask about it.
Thank you . I really appreciate it your comment. Fingers crossed.
-
January 11, 2006 at 4:41 pm #764470ctesiphonParticipant
I missed this first (second? third?) time around- looks like a promising scheme.
Two quick questions-
Does the revised proposal now incorporate the protected structure?
Was it the councillors rather than the planners that scuppered it the last time? (One of my pet annoyances is the involvement of councillors in conservation in Ireland.) -
January 11, 2006 at 4:54 pm #764471AnonymousInactive
two quick answers.
Yes it incorporates the protected structure.
Events dear boy, events scuppered the schemes. Got caught up in a lot of things happeninging at the same time in Ireland. Protected Structures. National Elections, Local Politics. Debate over Planning Policy. Rural Homes. An Taisce. Scottish Architects being inexperienced in how the planning system worked in Ireland.
That kind of thing
-
January 11, 2006 at 5:27 pm #764472antoParticipant
@alan d wrote:
two quick answers.
Yes it incorporates the protected structure.
Events dear boy, events scuppered the schemes. Got caught up in a lot of things happeninging at the same time in Ireland. Protected Structures. National Elections, Local Politics. Debate over Planning Policy. Rural Homes. An Taisce. Scottish Architects being inexperienced in how the planning system worked in Ireland.
That kind of thing
….. how the planning system worked in Ireland.
didn’t know it worked!!:)
-
January 11, 2006 at 5:50 pm #764473Paul ClerkinKeymaster
I think he meant to use the word “operated” not “worked”
-
January 11, 2006 at 5:55 pm #764474AnonymousParticipant
There are certainly ‘some operators’ who ensure that individual planning systems don’t function at optimum levels.
-
January 11, 2006 at 6:02 pm #764475AnonymousInactive
………..thought it was only Britain and America that was divided by a common language?
operated is better……
-
January 11, 2006 at 7:31 pm #764476GrahamHParticipant
And how did this reversal of furtiune come about Alan – from being in a position where the client ‘tried, tried, tried and tried’ but failed to make it stack up financially?
Is it a change about in their circumstances in which case there’s no need to comment of course, or did you justy ‘tweak’ the project? The main elevation (well what’s now your main elevation :)) has changed anyway…
-
January 12, 2006 at 9:53 am #764477DevinParticipant
The revised scheme looks good.
Glad to see Teeling House – the demolition of which An Taisce rightly opposed – is being retained.
-
January 12, 2006 at 11:25 am #764478AnonymousInactive
Don’t want to get into the An Taisce thing again devin. I lobbied against third party right of appeal in Scotland citing An Taisce as part of the arguement.
Anyway Graham, how can we do it now, well things have changed and I won’t go into them all ( our application is current ) except to say we no longer have to create parking underground or roof garden amenity spaces, , the site is bigger slightly and the rear part now looks onto a new public space. The site next to us is now being more sensitively done by Colin Bell Architects from Sligo, consequently agents are taking a more positive attitute to the market. We are taking a “positive attitute” to our fees due, so that 3 years of work does’nt end up going down the Garavogue in a banana boat.
But , it is still on the edge.
-
January 12, 2006 at 1:26 pm #764479AnonymousParticipant
The last thing anyone wants here is to get side-tracked into discussing something that we have agreed to disagree on; With this type of behaviour http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0112/m3.html on both sides Ireland would be a lot worse off without them [An Taisce]. However I’m not sure if the UK planning system requires third party input given that it is subject to a lot less political interference and planners generally are allowed to get on with their jobs in a manner that allows them to exercise their professional judgement unhindered.
One aspect of the project is unclear to me is the difference in the side elevation between the original as displayed in post 2 and the revised drawing in post 15. In the original plan the form was broken with large areas of glazing emerging from a linear form in a triangular fashion will there be any similar breaks in the revised scheme?
Secondly will the very pleasant amenity/access space in the first proposal be repeated in the second or did this have to be sacrificed?
-
January 12, 2006 at 2:19 pm #764480AnonymousInactive
We’ll agree to disagree then Diaspora, heaven knows we talked An Taisce to death the last time.
Anyway, there are no longer roof garden amenity spaces, they made the original buildings taller than they needed to be and compromised the courthouse tower. Consequently, overall the buildings are lower.
The development originally proposed for next door was massive and butted up right to our boundary We had to fight for light into the apartments and views out, hence the big windows on post two. The developer would’nt change, there was no need. He was in discussion with the planners and had been for ages and eventually got planning approval.
There was a desire for it from the planners but no meaningful public space at all in the adjacent site , just residue and “civic space” which was really just there practically for a fire engine to turn . After An Bord P knocked back the approval, Sligo brought in an independent Dublin Based company to do a master plan/ redevelopment strategy for the area AND a much more sensitive architect Colin Bell was appointed for next door, which opened up a number of opportunities for everyone.
Anyway, we also took our opportunity to look a fresh at the original design. It was smaller in scale now obviously
but still had to have some prescence, particularly since we were not successful with the removal of Teeling House and give a sense of place. Economically we could not now use the range of materials we initially envisaged So the idea of making a building that looked as though it had been carved out of Sligo limestone was developed. and with a building carved our of rock, you don’t get big windows.How”s that?
-
January 12, 2006 at 2:26 pm #764481AnonymousParticipant
We talked a lot of things to death the last time; I hope this gets built whilst it is not as flambouyant as your initial design it has changed more than sufficiently to address the reasons listed for refusal in the first decision.
Historically the more contemporary retail provision in Sligo hasn’t been of a very high standard architecturally; I hope that this scheme marks a turning point in that regard.
-
January 12, 2006 at 2:53 pm #764482AnonymousInactive
The only other thing to add is that the submission is not now hand drawn, instead done in cad. One of the difficulties last time was my drawings. So all materials are photographically reproduced etc , etc, etc.
Diaspora, we may not have agreed last time, but I took on board what you were saying, don’t get me wrong.
-
January 12, 2006 at 5:58 pm #764483
-
January 12, 2006 at 7:48 pm #764484Paul ClerkinKeymaster
ad nauseum if really needed too…
that case is closed, devin, stop pissing about
-
January 12, 2006 at 8:06 pm #764485DevinParticipant
Ok Paul – but there was an awful lot of crap posted about An Taisce last time around – lot of it generated by someone supposedly defending An T but actually just protracting the affair. Just want to avoid that!!
Anyway enough. The new scheme looks exciting. I hope it can be pulled off. By god the place needs it.
-
January 12, 2006 at 8:16 pm #764486AnonymousParticipant
@alan d wrote:
The only other thing to add is that the submission is not now hand drawn, instead done in cad. One of the difficulties last time was my drawings. So all materials are photographically reproduced etc , etc, etc. .
The hand drawn images gave a great feel to the other design and gave a really human feel to it] Diaspora, we may not have agreed last time, but I took on board what you were saying, don’t get me wrong.[/QUOTE]
I changed my profile from D to TP last year; I know you weighted what I said at the time and I am glad you took some of it on board; sometimes agreeing to disagree has a higher value.
I would also be interested to gain some insight ito the thinking behind the changed valuation for the site in respect to how much of the uplift is attributable to two complimentary schemes regenerating the micro environment and how much is down to the general explosion in prime retail rents in sizeable regional towns.
-
January 16, 2006 at 2:20 pm #764487AnonymousInactive
@Devin wrote:
The new scheme looks exciting. I hope it can be pulled off. By god the place needs it.
Agreed. Sligo has looked like a poor brother of post-war Grozny for long enough. Tiem to get things moving there. High Street – Market Street area is largely direlict at this stage. Gateway City my buttocks.
-
January 17, 2006 at 1:53 pm #764488munstermanParticipant
Have to say, am really excited by the above scheme. I recently visited sligo for the first time and actually looked at the site (had vague recollections of the first scheme). I think the revised design is infinitely more suited to the site than the first one which (i feel) did not have the sensivety to its context that is now present. I was always a fan of the actual layout which i don’t think is forced despite its angular plan. heres hoping!
-
January 19, 2006 at 2:17 pm #764489AnonymousInactive
the earlier scheme had to incorprate things like roof gardens as amenity spaces munsterman , as I’ve said earlier , it was the only way it could stack up ………to build high.
If we were given the choice as architects, to propose the best and most appropriate density , scale and mix, then what you see on this scheme is what you would have got .
-
June 4, 2006 at 1:38 pm #764490AnonymousParticipant
Any news on the project?
-
June 5, 2006 at 10:53 am #764491AnonymousInactive
all additional information required now submitted ( as far as I know ) though who can really tell?
Has to be re advertised as of letter of notification received today Monday 5th June. Four weeks from date of advetrisement. That’s about it Thomond but thanks for remembering.
The adjoining Development by Colin Bell Architects now has planning Permission and is in the four week period required ( I think ) for An Bord P to make a comment.
-
September 5, 2006 at 2:16 pm #764492Paul ClerkinKeymaster
Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop finally get permission in Sligo
http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2006/000213.html -
September 5, 2006 at 2:42 pm #764493ctesiphonParticipant
Full PP, or can it still be appealed? Don’t want to rain on the parade, just looking for clarification.
Congrats to GM+AD. I can hear the sigh of relief from here.
-
September 5, 2006 at 3:39 pm #764494LOBParticipant
Congratulations alan!
Great news. -
September 5, 2006 at 4:03 pm #764495notjimParticipant
so what is the consensus, was this project improved by the initial refusal?
-
September 5, 2006 at 5:17 pm #764496AnonymousInactive
Aye, life is good LOB.
Is it better?………….. well I can draw better now, plenty of practice. Full approval, 28 days for appeal and objections is over, without problem. Consent received this morning,
good ol An Taisce , as you know I’ve always said
-
September 5, 2006 at 5:38 pm #764497AnonymousParticipant
Sometimes in life it is best to agree to disagree,
I am happy for you; it is clear that you invested a lot of effort both professional and emotional into this project and you deserve permission to regenerate this area. I hope that this building does not remain a lone example of good design but is emulated by others within the town.
Well done for perservering
-
September 6, 2006 at 9:53 am #764498cajualParticipant
congratulations. this is a few hundred metres from where i grew up so i’m looking forward to it!
-
January 13, 2008 at 9:41 am #764499AnonymousParticipant
You must be nearly complete on this one?
-
January 13, 2008 at 1:31 pm #764500cajualParticipant
don’t think it’s started- didnt see anything happening down there recently…
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.