Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

I’d like to see some images before taking a stance on this;

are there any available?

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2007/000022.html

As it is, 34 bedrooms is’nt much for a city centre hotel. Not very competative. However, I’m kinda tired of all this gutting and restructuring of buildings in Dublin. Don’t forget across the river the Ormonde faces the same fate. It’s got now that it’s hard to find a commercial building in Dublin which has remained intact since the day it was first built. Still Foster’s plan looks good. Temple Bar is a bit staid too now. At least I bet if it gets the go ahead it will be completed before the U2 Tower. Anyway, anyone who buys this hotel will gut it and do the same, so may as well let Foster have a go than some other firm of half wits.

Compare this make-over of the Clarence to that of the Ormonde’s. The Clarence looks far more swankier.

@GregF wrote:

Compare this make-over of the Clarence to that of the Ormonde’s. The Clarence looks far more swankier.

I don’t think the Ormonde will reopen, it’s part of a landbanking process

I think it comes down to how much of the city should not be touched. There are plenty of stately but unspectacular 19th century architecture in the city centre. Do we want Dublin to be a glazed city wth a few remnants of the past or a reflection of its history with modern additions in the many vacant sites which would allow this?

I see no reason why these fine buildings on Essex St should be sacrificed for something that can be built anyway – Dublin, Barcelona, Shanghai – wherever – at the expense of buildings that would have been the product of Dublin artisanship and building.

Its just more chipping away at the city.

The Clarence itself also has an elegant rear facade that I’d probably be even more concerned about disappearing. In particular though, this typically evasive image is of greatest concern:

What’s this about? Is a daylight image not beyond the bounds of possibility? From what can be made out here, it’s the Westin all over again – token conservation gestures with facade retentions, and a lumpen sprawling blanket of nondescriptness dumped on top of the lot. This may be an unfair assesment given the limited images available, but that’s what you get from being ‘creative’ with releases.

Without question the greatest charm of the Printworks is its chimneyed and gabled roofline, evocative of the Custom House of old and the early 18th century riverscape, and ought not be intruded on. The other parts of the site can accommodate extra height. Otherwise the plans sound impressive, and the news of the Printworks being put to such an appropriate use very welcome indeed.

I think it’s very telling in that picture that the flanking buildings are in darkness except for their lower floors. It makes height comparisons difficult, which is surely the point.
It seems that the attic storeys currently in place on the hotel will be removed and replaced by the UFO landing pad seen above, stretching across three properties. Pity, as this section of the quays is marked by its varied roofline rather than the uniformity found elsewhere. IMO, the current incarnation of the Clarence is a shade too tall already, though is justified (just about) by the variety of ridge and roof heights in the vicinity. This will be lost in the redevelopment, with the retained facades looking for all the world like historicist wallpaper. (Or should that be ‘historicist wallpaper*’?:rolleyes: )

A few quotes in the press release set alarm bells ringing for me:
“…the sensitive insertion of new additions…” – ‘sensitive’ how? The buildings are being gutted.
“…uniting … the existing buildings…” – And this is a good thing why exactly?
“Only the quayside facades of the existing hotel and adjoining buildings – all of which are protected structures – would be retained…” – Was this discussed in pre-planning with DCC? Are the interiors of value? The only one I know is the Clarence itself, which has some worthy features iirc. (I’m open to correction on this.)

The sustainability aspects, such as the natural light and ventilation, and the energy efficiency, are positive elements, but I don’t think they can balance or excuse the other interventions.

Lastly, the words of Norman himself- “The redevelopment of the Clarence Hotel is an ambitious project – architecturally and structurally – with a confident yet sympathetic civic presence. It presents an exciting opportunity to regenerate Temple Bar’s river frontage, while also creating a bold new addition to Dublin’s skyline.”
Ambitious? Yes. Confident? Yes. Sympathetic? I can’t see it.
And Temple Bar’s river frontage mightn’t need to be regenerated if it hadn’t been allowed to deteriorate by… Remind me who was responsible again?

More pics please, Norm. The daylight view from the Ha’penny Bridge, for example, might be instructive.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I think it’s very telling in that picture that the flanking buildings are in darkness except for their lower floors. It makes height comparisons difficult, which is surely the point.
It seems that the attic storeys currently in place on the hotel will be removed and replaced by the UFO landing pad seen above, stretching across three properties. Pity, as this section of the quays is marked by its varied roofline rather than the uniformity found elsewhere. IMO, the current incarnation of the Clarence is a shade too tall already, though is justified (just about) by the variety of ridge and roof heights in the vicinity. This will be lost in the redevelopment, with the retained facades looking for all the world like historicist wallpaper. (Or should that be ‘historicist wallpaper*’?:rolleyes: )

A few quotes in the press release set alarm bells ringing for me:
“…the sensitive insertion of new additions…” – ‘sensitive’ how? The buildings are being gutted.
“…uniting … the existing buildings…” – And this is a good thing why exactly?
“Only the quayside facades of the existing hotel and adjoining buildings – all of which are protected structures – would be retained…” – Was this discussed in pre-planning with DCC? Are the interiors of value? The only one I know is the Clarence itself, which has some worthy features iirc. (I’m open to correction on this.)

The sustainability aspects, such as the natural light and ventilation, and the energy efficiency, are positive elements, but I don’t think they can balance or excuse the other interventions.

Lastly, the words of Norman himself- “The redevelopment of the Clarence Hotel is an ambitious project – architecturally and structurally – with a confident yet sympathetic civic presence. It presents an exciting opportunity to regenerate Temple Bar’s river frontage, while also creating a bold new addition to Dublin’s skyline.”
Ambitious? Yes. Confident? Yes. Sympathetic? I can’t see it.
And Temple Bar’s river frontage mightn’t need to be regenerated if it hadn’t been allowed to deteriorate by… Remind me who was responsible again?

More pics please, Norm. The daylight view from the Ha’penny Bridge, for example, might be instructive.

Well said – couldnt put it any better myself.

ET phone home

I’ve actually seen more images of this and I am appalled. Some elements of the scheme are undoubtably ambitious and imagnative and as similar type building would suit Docklands very well.

However, the facade of this new hotel will be a mockery of the original. The proposals will simply slice off the top of the existing hotel and the adjoining building. The other smaller properties will be brought up by means of a glass curtain wall box. And of course the whole thing is topped off with the enormous ridiculous flying saucer.

The photomontage for Essex Street is at least an improvement… the original drawings I saw had Essex Street resembling a tress lined boulevard the width of Dawson Street which of course made the building look more suitable to the street in terms of scale. I think the building will dwarf the street though I actually like this facade.

The ‘by day’ photomontages show clearly that the proposed building will dominate the quays in the way that the the Four Courts and Custom House have previously. I know the current Clarence is quite dominant with its copper clad mansard but it is at least subtle and complementary to the surrounding area. This oval monstrosity will give two fingers to anything that comes near it.

Inside was ingenious though. A U shaped central looby with an open skylight. Very futuristic.

I for one will be objecting!

IMO, the current incarnation of the Clarence is a shade too tall already, though is justified (just about) by the variety of ridge and roof heights in the vicinity.

I think you are being too generous here. From the quays, the current hotel is already too bulky, in my opinion. From memory, I’d guess it’s 40-50% taller than the ajoining buildings. It also has quite a bit of “girth” relative to it’s neighbours on that section of the quays. The result is that while the old fascade is quite nice, even the current building always stuck out dramatically for me as being too bulky for the context.

This new proposal is simply all wrong in this regard for this location. I’d guess that it’s 70-100% taller than it’s neighbours (hard to make out exactly with that sneaky nighttime picture). But it’s not the height alone which is problematic – it’s the huge span also. If you take the area (height by width) of the fascade of what is being proposed, then it’s probably about 15 times the size of the typical buildings along that stretch. If that’s not ignoring the “grain” of it’s context, nothing is; “sympathetic” and “sensitive”? :rolleyes:

However, as I said already, this is the dilemma, If U2 sell it it is likely to be sadly gutted as well as the adjacent vacant buildings one way or another as 32 bedrooms is not economically viable for a hotel.
So would this Foster concoction be better than another one at the end of the day?

that night time render is awful, it looks like jury’s custom house quay with a hollywood spaceship on top … the back looks interesting however, can’t really judge it until day time renders show it in context but the quay frontage doesn’t look promising.

Uugggggh, absolutly hideous.
Especially the monuental Duvet floating on top of the thing. And such a pity becaust the Clanence is one of the most unique, original and nicly proportioned buildings on the quays. Ive kown for several years that they were planning extending next door but this is way over the top. Rear facade is shite aswell. Who are you and what have you done with Norman!

that looks f**king awful … object object object….. its far to bulky for the Quays an would dominant everything.. i am really disappointed that this is the best Foster can come up with.

We have made this mistake to many times in Dublin pulling down what elegant buildings ,, keeping a facade and throwing up any old shit behind them.

Surely this will never get through planning!!!!

For context (taken from elsewhere on this site):

It would be helpful if we could view more and clearer images of this project.You can’t relly see what’s happening.

Having said that, the Clarence as it is is just a provincially sized hotel and you can hardly blame these ambitious people for wanting to expand. Norman Foster is in good form these last few years so maybe we may just get something to enhance the beauty of the present Clarnence.

This proposal is more suited to a brown field site and not an attractive historic building which is a protected structure. This really annoys me that Foster is proposing this type of rubbish for dublin as he knows he wouldnt have a chance of getting permission to bastardise a listed building on his own turf in this type of manner. This should be strongly resisted by all those who look at this website and have an empathy for good design , conservation and sustainable development.

@blaise wrote:

This really annoys me that Foster is proposing this type of rubbish for dublin as he knows he wouldnt have a chance of getting permission to bastardise a listed building on his own turf in this type of manner.

I think he has :p The impressive English Electric Company building on London’s Strand has recently been demolished and the listed Marconi House completely gutted to facilitate Foster’s Silken Hotel. Here’s a photographic record of the destruction and a description of the boring looking new hotel. “The concept was to create a seamless relationship between the existing building and the contemporary additions” :rolleyes: : http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Strandmusikhall/GaietyTheatreSiteThenAndNow.htm

God!! Pretty shocking stuff there. Was it not opposed?

Btw all six Clarence plan buildings on the Liffey side are Protected Structures – Dollard House (printworks), the main hotel building and the four Georgian houses, with all that entails.

If the gaiety in London is anything to go by then it is very worrying

I don’t know who “Devan” is but it’s not me!

Lies! All lies!!

You’re only trying to stir up a bit of controversy by pretending that there’s someone in this city who actually likes this proposal.:D

Joking aside, is there anyone out there who does like it and can give a good, reasoned argument for such an opinion?

Bono?

Aah yes. A man renowned for his ‘good, reasoned argument‘.:)

The picture above (804) gives a good example of what will be done.
1. Draw a line slicing through the top of the adjoining redbrick just under those 4 windows, continue along to the end of the current Clarence.
2. Remove roofs and unwanted masonry.
3. Stick a glass box on top including over adjoining 4 storey properties.
4. Stick a huge oblong saucer on that.

Sympathetic and sensitive indeed

Anyone seriously considering defending this proposal should stand on the Millennium Bridge and actually imagine what the new Clarence would look like…. Imgaine it in relation to the rest of the quays and the river.

@StephenC wrote:

The picture above (804) gives a good example of what will be done.
1. Draw a line slicing through the top of the adjoining redbrick just under those 4 windows, continue along to the end of the current Clarence.
2. Remove roofs and unwanted masonry.
3. Stick a glass box on top including over adjoining 4 storey properties.
4. Stick a huge oblong saucer on that.

Sympathetic and sensitive indeed

Anyone seriously considering defending this proposal should stand on the Millennium Bridge and actually imagine what the new Clarence would look like…. Imgaine it in relation to the rest of the quays and the river.

Rofl 😀

Maybe its Fosters……..

@GrahamH wrote:

What’s this about? Is a daylight image not beyond the bounds of possibility?

Aha, but that seductive little nighttime image (not to mention all the focus on facade facade facade while who cares about the rest) has illuminated an important truth about this proposal. How telling that the rest of the quays lies in its shadow. This hotel is not about context at all. It is really nothing more than a Narcissus gazing adoringly at its own reflection. Any token statements as to its ‘sensitivity’ and ‘sympathy’ are absurd and dishonest. This is a building that loves only itself. But worse than that, it demands that you do, too.

I agree that it could be an interesting feature elsewhere, where it doesn’t have to elbow out so much of the city’s existing character.

Here’s a solution that should appeal to all: we get a giant projector to project the ‘floating hotel facade’ in the river at night. We leave everything else alone.

(Bono, floatin through town at night with his tinted wraparound goggles, won’t even be able to tell the difference.)

😀

I’m not sure which is worse – your posting of the images, or my admitting to knowing what they are and refer to…

Perhaps it’s Bono’s intention to use the flying saucer as a stage of epic proportions, only this time with the U2 Tower as a backdrop instead of the Central Bank?

I’m not sure if I’m joking…

The Clarence as currently stands is quite an odd building with regards height – it’d remind you of the 19th century fashion on Sackville Street to build tall awkward buildings on narrow plot widths. Saying that, I cannot imagine much of the rooftop storeys to be orginal, especially given they’re all clad in modern pre-patinated copper, and the angular portholed sides are reminicent of an 80s apartment complex (like at the Swan Centre to tie in nicely with above :)).

Was there ever a penthouse storey up here before the 90s renovation? Again probably unlikely given that great chimney there to the side… Any pics? Indeed the more you look at it, it seems likely the mellow slates were simply salvaged from a former pitched roof on the site.

That’s not to say it still doesn’t have a certain character; if anything the upper floors are quite elegant in a quirky way, but as often the case with such buildings, the upper side elevations are cumbersone and ugly, treated as secondary elevations even though they’re just as visible as the principal. Needless to say, the air-con conduiting also does them no favours.

In this respect, I’d imagine none of the rooftop is protected, so they could sweep it clean off quite legitimately.

Here’s their website, with a few insights as to interiors – the foyer, Study and basic structure of the Tea Room seem to be intact.

http://www.theclarence.ie

Seeing as the thread has gone a bit surreal, whats the difference between God and Bono – God doesnt walk around Dublin thinking hes Bono 😮

@Devan wrote:

i don’t like the green cladding on the current building at all. the roof on the redevelopment proposal is what i like. i also like the shape.

😀

Oh yer such a shit stirrer]a[/U]n” is “Devin”s evil twin / alter-ego… wherever you see a posting by Devan, you can be damn sure its the opposite of what Devin thinks

… Anyway back on topic, I was looking at the site today from the Millenium Bridge; I had deliberately held back on taking a position until I viewed it on site. Imo the only thing by which it would be comparible to in terms of impact on the Quays is the disasterous O’ Connell Bridge House. Scale, mass + bulk of the proposed UFO pad would be totally unsuitable. Thumbs down from me.

I am now offering odds that one way or the other, this is destined for appeal to An Bored Stampalla; any takers 😉

@shadow wrote:

Maybe its Fosters……..

XXXX, more likely.

I’m not sure which is worse – your posting of the images, or my admitting to knowing what they are and refer to…

Definitely your admission. Without a doubt.

I have vague memories of the building from before its last renovation. I’m pretty sure it was there I went for dinner with my fellow jurors one day in summer 1993, to a non-descript function room a couple of floors up. And I remember being in the original bar on the ground floor another time, but the details escape me (the details of the interior, that is…). Part of the problem is that my memory of the bar has become conflated with a photograph of the old bar of The Dolphin Hotel included in Sean Rothery’s ‘Ireland and the new architecture’, but that might be because they weren’t entirely unalike. Anyone know?

The building certainly became taller in the renovations, but I think there was some type of penthouse above the attic storey. As you say, the copper dates from the renovations too.

Other than that, I don’t have any more specifics or pictures.

Edit: I’ve just remembered that a friend has a set of party photos taken in and around the lobby. It was 14 years ago (not a jury party, I should add), but I can ask anyway.

@GrahamH wrote:

The Clarence itself also has an elegant rear facade that I’d probably be even more concerned about disappearing. In particular though, this typically evasive image is of greatest concern:

The thing that really bugs me primus inter pares about this second U2 development in the city( theit Tower being the other) is the really lumpen roofline left by the facades being left untouched while a glass space thing just drops out of the sky on top of them. I’m all for them having a crack at upping capacity at the hotel(though their assertions that it has only 34 bedrooms are a bit hard to belive, sounds like an excuse their pulling for this) but it cannot and should not be expresses through this design, if you can call it as much.

PS. What is with that wavy glass/white concrete back facade? Would it hurt them to simply smarten up the existing exterior with just a tiny bit of surgery rather tha a full blast of newness?

For the love of architecture, its time this atomic bomb was dismantled, before it goes off!!!

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

their assertions that it has only 34 bedrooms are a bit hard to believe

Indeed – according to their own website the hotel has 43 bedrooms, 4 suites, and a penthouse. That’s hitting 50 given what the penthouse pulls in.

@hutton wrote:

“Devan” is “Devin”s evil twin / alter-ego… wherever you see a posting by Devan, you can be damn sure its the opposite of what Devin thinks

Not true!!

The Clarence had extra stories & a copper roof added in the &#8216]Imo the only thing by which it would be comparible to in terms of impact on the Quays is the disasterous O’ Connell Bridge House. Scale, mass + bulk of the proposed UFO pad would be totally unsuitable. Thumbs down from me.[/QUOTE]There’s a danger of a smug consensus emerging here – everyone feeling safe to lay into the proposal. It would be great to hear somebody genuinely talk in favour of it. Other than the architect, of course.

It does seems like contributors with different opinions refrain from comment once a strong consensus emerges, or maybe its just that the views of others actually sway opinion ! ? or maybe its just that they don’t want to be verbally battered !

I reckon in this case most are genuinely disappointed with this proposal, there was bound to be strong expectation/anticipation once you hear fosters name.

I always liked the original building & don’t think that any attempt should be made to connect it visually with its neighbours, the ‘sky room’ addition as proposed would reduce its status to infill (IMO!) The existing penthouse additions are too bulky, but half get away with it given the brawn of the original.

This ufo thing could look cool elsewhere, i just don’t think it works here… will still keep a semi open mind until i see further renders (in daylight!) showing views from down the quays, are there no other images floating around ?

I’ve seen views of the ufo or ‘lightcatcher’ from inside – it goes right down to the bottom. It’s quite impressive .. very cutting edge. Though it also has a certain resemblance to a giant toilet bowl.

(no jokes about Bono being on top, please)

Look similar? Attached photo is of the recently constructed Supreme Court in Singapore, also by Foster. The UFO like structure is somewhat similar to the Clarence proposal. For the record, I like the Clarence plans.

I like the Essex Street East elevation and I think that it would act as an excellent addition to the area.

I am concerned with three issues; firstly the impacts of its overall scale on the Quays where the existing Clarence is already way out of kilter and mitigated only by the appearance of deco from the roof cladding which is I think not original?

Secondly the way the design neuters the qualities of the existing buildings; it reminds me of the Opus building in Edmund St in Birmingham where essentially a glass box was thrown on top of a similar mix of 19th and early 20th century buildings.

Thirdly the rendering is designed not to give a clear impression of the impacts of the scheme and this is not the first time that renderings of night time views have been used in this way. There needs to be some guidelines to police renderings as after the South King Street scheme (which I really like) and building beside City Hall (which I also like) it is clear that such renderings are at best not a true reflection of the design intention or at worst a smoke and mirrors exercise that may have the result of giving a completely understated impression.

On balance that a decision were made to lop off the upper floors and grant the remainder would be my hope.

I don’t want to put a xenophobic swing on this but is anyone else just a wee bit miffed that Sir Bono gave this commission to Foster? First he runs away to amsterdam at the first sniff of having to pay tax and now he goes for the “celebrity” Laaandan architect. He should have held a competition where the deciding vote would be cast by him from a floating golden throne in the river below… Mind you, I suppose tired old Knights who’s stars are waning should probably stick together.

Here is an article from yesterday’s Irish Times

@phil wrote:

1:Surely the comment about “rock musicians (and their friends)” by Michael Smith has nothing to do with the conservation of the existing buildings, and can only do harm to the case being made by those who are opposing the proposed building?

Agreed. MS has done sterling work in the past, but sometimes he gets his tone spectacularly wrong as here and, as you say, it might even do his case harm. The personal circumstances of a developer have nothing to do with the planning merits of a case – as I’ve said in the past to clients seeking to object/observe, rich people getting richer isn’t grounds for refusal of PP and calling them greedy will only make you seem petty – and focussing on these personal circumstances can in fact detract from the real and valid arguments against granting PP. His comment could almost be interpreted as ‘I wouldn’t mind so much if this were a regular developer applying to gut six Protected Structures and build an over-scaled, inappropriately designed hotel, but because it’s a Rock Star I have a problem with it.’

Come on, MS, you can do better than that. It’s not as if the proposal doesn’t have enough questions over it from a straight planning standpoint.

When I saw the Sindo’s piece, I immediately thought “great, smith has blown the case, thanks a lot” – he’s done some real damage IMO to the appeal – way too much vitriol

Interesting article and for the first time a daylight image of the scheme in relation to the quays. A little full on from Michael Smith but I guess as a private individual he can say what he likes once it isn’t slanderous. It was also Bono he went for and not a private individual which would have made it a million times worse; you would never hear An Taisce, IGS or myself write or say such things but Michael Smith as a magazine owner knows which buttons to press to gain attention. I furter don’t think that the An Taisce line of it being fine in the docklands would have got a half page spread in the sindo. I still further don’t believe that any planners will consider an individual submission when considering that from a proscribed body or DC for that matter.

In fact, I’d say the only reason this got coverage is because of that very line – especially in other weekend papers that honed in specifically on that personal point. So whereas it’s an inappropriate and irrelevant observation to make in a planning submission, from the point of view of publicity it has really brought the project into the public eye. Or more specifically, it has brought DCC’s imminent decision into the public eye.
It will no doubt be considered carefully…

The verdict came back on this

<a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1394/07&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Clarence Hotel Decision

This proposal is just like the central bank , a great building in the wrong place.

It would look great flanking the pheonix park or some square in dublin but here it just screams for attention.

I must say that, considering its Georgian provenance, the Clarence looks remarkably scruffy. I can also understand that it is too small to compete in the dog-eat-dog marketplace – but why oh why did it have to be Fostered? Has Bono never heard of Quinlan Terry?

Just in case you haven’t, either, here’s a few things he’s done:

Waterfront development. Richmond-upon-Thames (1984-87) – incorporates two old, listed buildings:

Baker Street development, London (2001-02)

Don’t you agree that something in this vein would be far better than Foster’s proposed monstrosity?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2007/0503/1178025864163.html

Harmony of Liffey quays is key to plans for Clarence

Radical plans to redevelop the Clarence Hotel need to be viewed in the context of the Liffey quays, writes Frank McDonald , Environment Editor

MORE than 30 years ago, the London-based Architectural Review produced a special supplement on Dublin at a time when the city was being badly knocked about. It was an important reminder of what we had that was precious and a clarion call to halt needless destruction of the urban fabric.

Kenneth Browne, who edited the extensive, illustrated supplement, A Future for Dublin, published in 1974, was particularly eloquent about the Liffey Quays. “Without question,” he wrote, “it is the quays which give topographical coherence to Dublin. They are the frontispiece to the city and the nation….more

@al_3452 wrote:

This proposal is just like the central bank , a great building in the wrong place.

It would look great flanking the pheonix park or some square in dublin but here it just screams for attention.

I’d disagree with you about the Central Bank. I think it’s position over Temple Bar is perfect.
As for the Clarence….with Bono co-owning it, are you suprised that it “screams for attention”? :p

You are obviously in a minority of one on the appopriateness of the siting of the Central Bank which is a really innovative building in terms of design for a cleared site and engineering techniques. Its location on the fringes of Temple Bar in what was the centre of the traditional banking distict with numerous examples of victorian pomposity was fundamentaly flawed in planning terms.

Now if it were on Grand Canal Basin and five stories higher it would really have gained international critical acclaim

Make that a minority of two, the way the central bank hangs and looms over Temple Bar is one of the great vita’s in town.If it were down on the Grand canal basin only a fraction of the people who now pass it by would be able to glance up at it.

Must be one of the biggest buildings in town I would have thought…

central bank looks great from the temple bar area like along crown alley, but when viewed from a distance or a panorama of the city, it’s bloody awful, especially from Lord Edward St. and High st

Agreed it gives the vista from the Ha’penny up Crown Alley a very International flavour.

What caused chaos was the creation of a Plaza on Dame Street and the destruction of the streetline and stunning buildings that were demolished to make way for it.

Had it been built in the backland even deeper than its present position and the Dame Street line kept intact then I may have had a different opinion as that site is very very deep in comparison.

The Clarence site in contrast is only a slip of a plot with no real depth and the Quays are infinately more exposed to long views than Fownes Street and Cope Street

Sorry for those photos of Quinlan Terry’s work not working.

The Richmond waterfront development can be seen here:
http://www.qftarchitects.net/commercial/photos/richmond_colour_large.jpg
http://www.qftarchitects.net/commercial/photos/richmond_colour_large2.jpg
http://www.qftarchitects.net/commercial/photos/richmond_colour_large3.jpg
http://www.qftarchitects.net/commercial/photos/richmond_colour_large4.jpg
http://www.qftarchitects.net/commercial/photos/richmond_colour_large5.jpg

The Baker Street developmet can be seen here:
http://www.qftarchitects.net/commercial/photos/baker_colour_large.jpg
http://www.qftarchitects.net/commercial/photos/baker_colour_large2.jpg
http://www.qftarchitects.net/commercial/photos/baker_colour_large3.jpg

Now surely something along those lines would be so much better than Foster’s monstrosity, wouldn’t it?

Makeover plans for U2 hotel on ice as Council raises questions
The Irish Independent

U2’s plans to turn the Clarence into “the most spectacular hotel in Europe” are on hold, after council officials issued a deadline to the supergroup to respond to a lengthy list of questions about the project. Dublin City Council’s planning department says the status of the planning application is currently dormant, as it awaits a response from the owners, due before the end of September. Bono and The Edge, who own the hotel in trendy Temple Bar in Dublin, want to take over the five protected structure buildings adjoining the Clarence and to erect a spaceship-like glass dome ‘skycatcher’ building on the top in a €150m revamp. It would quadruple the size of the hotel, transforming it into the biggest in the city, visible from both north and south of the Liffey. The department has written to the hotel owners, the Clarence Partnership, requesting answers to what it describes as 18 key questions.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/makeover-plans-for-u2-hotel-on-ice-as-council-raises-questions-691360.html

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Makeover plans for U2 hotel on ice as Council raises questions
The Irish Independent

U2’s plans to turn the Clarence into “the most spectacular hotel in Europe” are on hold, after council officials issued a deadline to the supergroup to respond to a lengthy list of questions about the project.

For the curious, it’s Reg. Ref. 1394/07: <a href="http://http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1394/07&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=591669%26StartIndex=31%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=Search%20Criteria‘>Search%20Results“>http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1394/07&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=591669%26StartIndex=31%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=Search%20Criteria‘>Search%20Results

Directive 1. Bearing in mind that Section 57 of the Planning and
Directive 2. Given that DOEHLG Architectural Heritage Guidelines
Directive 3. It is noted that the Section 57 Declarations issued by
Directive 4. The EIS sets out a number of Alternatives
Directive 5. In relation to Item No. 4 above, the applicant is
Directive 6. Bearing in mind that the proposal places great emphasis
Directive 7. The EIS and Design Statement to be augmented by
Directive 8. The applicant is requested to elaborate on the note
Directive 9. In relation to the proposed `skycatcher`/ skyroom,
Condition 10. With regard to specific conservation matters
Condition 11. Given the change in levels between the street levels
Condition 12. The EIS describes the Planning Policy background
Condition 13. The applicant is requested to submit a Project Construction
Condition 14. The EIS indicates that the air monitoring was carried
Condition 15. Applicant is requested to clarify how the plant room
Condition 16. Information on site entrances / exits is necessary
Condition 17. Given the concerns about loss of light adjacent properties,
Condition 18. Having regard to the sensitive receiving environment

@ctesiphon wrote:

For the curious, it’s Reg. Ref. 1394/07: [url]http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/]

A very interesting list of questions from DCC.

I’m surprised at the need for some of them – for example it appears that the Applicant never sought to state the case for the ‘exceptional circumstances’ which are a prerequisite to permission for the demolition of Protected Structures – a strange omission – and also downgraded the status of some of the structures from Regional (DCC’c view) to Local.

Not looking good I would think?

There was a horrible article about Bono in Metro this morning titled

‘Bono is no Geldof’

Well he didn’t expelled from School for having an interesting reading list.

This project is dead

@publicrealm wrote:

A very interesting list of questions from DCC.

I’m surprised at the need for some of them – for example it appears that the Applicant never sought to state the case for the ‘exceptional circumstances’ which are a prerequisite to permission for the demolition of Protected Structures – a strange omission – and also downgraded the status of some of the structures from Regional (DCC’c view) to Local.

Not looking good I would think?

Aye- iirc, there was a suspicion in some quarters that the AI questions for Lansdowne were approaching the forensic level, but here it seems the opposite is true- makes the job for DCC much easier. But surely any planning consultant worth his salt would be aware of the provisions regarding the demolition of a PS? Or did they think that DCC would just bend over backwards to accommodate them because of who they are? Surely not…

I can just see it now- “George W Bush? Got him on speed dial. Pope John Paul II? Don’t even need the phone. These DCC boys are a tougher nut to crack, though…”

@publicrealm wrote:

Maybe there was a bit of a ‘Mainland’ influence in the Clarence application?

Key phrases to watch for:
Eire;
Planning consent;
Listed building.

*le sigh* 🙂

CMB Design Group Architects is the name on the DCC page linked above.

Whatever about the merits of the design, I can’t see why Michael Smith has to have a poke at U2. His remark, highlighted below, sums up his arrogance to me. Is he saying that musicians are good at nothing else bar making music? And that only he and like-minded individuals are qualified to comment on anything relating to architecture? Was just a very cheap shot in my view.

U2 €65m Clarence plan ‘execrable’
By Paul Kelly Irish Examiner
HERITAGE experts have dubbed €65 million plans by rock band U2 to revamp one of Dublin’s most exclusive hotels as “execrable”.

Michael Smith, the former chairman of heritage body An Taisce, wants Dublin City Council to turn down U2’s plans for the boutique Clarence Hotel in the city.

According to architects’ magazine Building Design, Mr Smith is unhappy about the plans as they include the a creation of a futuristic “sky catcher” designed to draw light into the base of the hotel, and the demolition of nearby Georgian buildings in the Liffey Quays area.

“These buildings are among the most distinguished quay-front buildings in the city; in an era of aspirant sustainability, their proposed destruction, particularly at the hands of rock musicians and their friends, is execrable.

“The days of grateful fawnings over international — or in this case intergalactic — architecture on Dublin’s landmark sites should be over,” he said in the letter to the council.

Renowned British architect Norman Foster revealed proposals at the beginning of the year to create a “new landmark” for Dublin by redeveloping and extending the hotel, which is owned by Bono and the Edge.

Launching it in January, Foster said the project had a “sympathetic civic presence”.

But Mr Smith said: “Foster & Partners’ website asserts they ‘design by challenging — by asking the right questions’.

“In this case, the first question they should have asked was how to integrate rather than destroy the existing buildings.”

An Taisce, as well as the Irish Georgian Society, have formally objected to the U2 development, arguing it would be better placed in the docklands.

An Taisce planning officer Kevin Duff has called on the council to implement a development framework for the Liffey Quays area in the wake of other schemes there.

The U2 project is now on hold until the applicant answers a list of questions, the city council said, but hotel bosses insisted the queries were routine.

@corcaighboy wrote:

“The days of grateful fawnings over international — or in this case intergalactic — architecture on Dublin’s landmark sites should be over,” he said in the letter to the council.

With all those landmarks that have been built here by the glitterati of the Architecture world???:confused:

@corcaighboy wrote:

Whatever about the merits of the design, I can’t see why Michael Smith has to have a poke at U2. His remark, highlighted below, sums up his arrogance to me. Is he saying that musicians are good at nothing else bar making music? And that only he and like-minded individuals are qualified to comment on anything relating to architecture? Was just a very cheap shot in my view.

I remember this being discussed earlier in this thread and PVC King and GrahamH reckoned that he said such stuff in order to get media attention, which I think was probably a good point. However, when taken at face value, It was a ridiculous comment for him to make none-the-less.

See posts 45 to 49.

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5824&page=2

Incidentally, this is a Singapore version of the Skycatcher. It is the new Singapore High Court (opened around 18 months ago). Thought it might be of interest to readers of this thread.

The current charming vista from O’Connell Bridge that will be so compromised by the current proposal. I also hadn’t realised till recently that it’s proposed to completely lop off and build up the entire enchanting roofscape of the adjoining Printing Works!

Admittedly the Civic Offices’ embellishment of the current bulk of the Clarence isn’t exactly welcome, but otherwise the scene is the essence of Dublin.

Clarence Hotel ‘may be sold’ if plans not approved
The Irish Times

Failure to get approval for the ambitious scheme to redevelop and extend Dublin’s Clarence Hotel could lead to its owners – including U2’s Bono and The Edge – selling the property, city planners have been warned. In a detailed response to the planners’ request for further information on the €150 million plan, architects Foster + Partners say the alternative would “most likely be a down-market budget hotel or . . . the closing of a long-established Dublin landmark business”. Last March, the planners requested detailed additional information on the proposed development, including what “exceptional circumstances” would justify the demolition of all but the quayfront facades of the hotel and five adjoining buildings, which are all protected structures. In their response, the architects say the proposed redevelopment is necessary if the Clarence is to become “a world hotel that fits into the highest echelon of this genre, to be mentioned in the same breath as the Burj Al Arab in Dubai or Raffles Hotel in Singapore”.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/1017/1192565608847.html

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Clarence Hotel ‘may be sold’ if plans not approved
The Irish Times

Failure to get approval for the ambitious scheme to redevelop and extend Dublin’s Clarence Hotel could lead to its owners – including U2’s Bono and The Edge – selling the property, city planners have been warned.

Oh noes!

Seriously, is this actually a threat? 🙂

Shag off down the docks and give the city an early christmas present, fellas. Go on, I dare you.

The whole ‘world hotel’ nonsense is so ridiculous as to almost defy mockery. There’s no shame in being high quality regional- if anything, I suspect many tourists would prefer a splash of local colour rather than the bland, identikit internationalismus of Big Norm. So sell it to someone who understands at least that much, and be done with it. We’ll all be happpier that way.

@igy wrote:

Seriously, is this actually a threat?

If only it was a promise.

So what happens if they do knock down the “late” Georgians and the hotel isn’t mentioned in the same breath as raffles, do we get to threaten them? How many times does Clarence and Raffles have to get mentioned in the same breath to justify the over-development of the site. Notice also that their foyer is being promoted as a convenient short cut between temple bar and the quays, will everyone be allowed to use this short cut or just people who stay in Raffles and the Burj Al Arab.

since when is it the planner’s job to mitigate risk to a purely speculative development?

Whatever miniscule support I may have had for this project has been completely lost in this Burj/Raffles nonsense. The Clarence is already a terrific hotel and if they can’t attract sufficient business, then they are simply running it badly.
This would have been akin to the Shelbourne redevelopment demolishing everything but the facade facing St Stephen’s Green. Instead, the Shelbourne project rebuilt the dated rooms and improved upon the already magnificent bar and restaurant rooms.
Give me the Shelbourne over the Burj al Arab any day.

Sorry about the swaring but Bono can fuck right off

This sort of blackmail is akin to what Paddy Gallagher did on Molesworth Street by threatening to close down his site (and make people unemployed) if he wasn’t allowed to demolish St Anne’s School

Hypocritical tax-avoiding short arse

@Rory W wrote:

Sorry about the swaring but Bono can fuck right off

This sort of blackmail is akin to what Paddy Gallagher did on Molesworth Street by threatening to close down his site (and make people unemployed) if he wasn’t allowed to demolish St Anne’s School

Hypocritical tax-avoiding short arse

Hear, hear. (or whatever the forum version of such parliamentary speak is)

Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?
Just added a poll

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

I think my feelings on the matter are pretty clear (and that’s the way I voted), but I’ve yet to see a good reasoned argument for giving permission.

If anyone votes that way, could I request a couple of lines explaining why? Thanks in advance.

Well I will comment!!!! ( i wasn’t going to)

BAD:

1. DESTROY A BEAUTIFUL FACADE
2. HEIGHT
3. its just not the for the liffy/location…

BUT was liberty hall???
was the bank of scotland??? sorry ulster
was the department of justice in smithfields ? (notice you can see it from the spire)
was the guinness white factory tower that is so well hidden because its white
was the AIB bank in docklands that makes liberty hall look small fry??
was the irish rail bridge???
was the heinekien building??

4. Is it even in the right place???
5. What if they sell it and let it rot while they move to docklands as a lasting reminder?

GOOD/BAD?

1. It hides the DCC bunkers??

2. Has anyone ever noticed that if you stand in the middle of the occonnel st bridge it will look like a queens crown with two churches flanking it perfectly aligned?? Almost like the mosques in istanbul turkey….
if they got serious lighting on the two churches it might not look 2 bad from there but I would need to see a render first to comment….;)

has anyone noticed this stand there and you will see….

it does have the same idea as the top of liberty hall…

3. if anyone says they would like liberty hall to stay as is then I don’t think they can object to this project

4. despite what people say the design is top notch world class very very good its just a question of if its the right site in the right context…. I did say if it is the right site and context!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
remember that

I welcome your comments!!! im not for or against it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@shamrockmetro wrote:

Well I will comment!!!! ( i wasn’t going to)

BAD:

1. DESTROY A BEAUTIFUL FACADE
2. HEIGHT
3. its just not the for the liffy/location…

BUT was liberty hall???
was the bank of scotland??? sorry ulster
was the department of justice in smithfields ? (notice you can see it from the spire)
was the guinness white factory tower that is so well hidden because its white
was the AIB bank in docklands that makes liberty hall look small fry??
was the irish rail bridge???
was the heinekien building??

4. Is it even in the right place???
5. What if they sell it and let it rot while they move to docklands as a lasting reminder?

GOOD/BAD?

1. It hides the DCC bunkers??

2. Has anyone ever noticed that if you stand in the middle of the occonnel st bridge it will look like a queens crown with two churches flanking it perfectly aligned?? Almost like the mosques in istanbul turkey….
if they got serious lighting on the two churches it might not look 2 bad from there but I would need to see a render first to comment….]

has anyone noticed this stand there and you will see….

it does have the same idea as the top of liberty hall…

3. if anyone says they would like liberty hall to stay as is then I don’t think they can object to this project

4. despite what people say the design is top notch world class very very good its just a question of if its the right site in the right context…. I did say if it is the right site and context!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
remember that

I welcome your comments!!! im not for or against it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK to respond
It doesn’t hide the DCC Bunkers

It’s a massive bulk plonked on to existing facades/heights

If they sell it maybe it’ll be sold to someone with a business plan, if they leave it rot they are even more hypocritical than before

“same idea as liberty hall” on a monsterous scale and whilst the viewing platform was for the benefit of the public – this viewing space in the Clarence is private

I want to keep liberty hall but object to this

It’s not the right site and I don’t believe that just because a project is designed by a starchitects practice (not necessarily the great man himself) that the project is by definition world class – this is just a massive bulk plonked behind a lopsided facade.

Can we see proper daylight renderings of this design?

I don’t think that Dublin should be bullied into accepting this by fawning over bonob/foster.

I agree with shamrock metro. I think it’s a pretty design and there have been MUCH worse built in Dublin that nobody ever objected to,
– hence I voted yes.

Just realised, that if they succeed in pulling down the buildings, I assume the city will send the archaeologists in to do a dig – it is pretty central original Dublin. Wood Quay Part II?

The Irish Independent – 22/10/07

Architect survey rejects U2 hotel
Monday October 22 2007

U2 should not be allowed to go ahead with their ambitious plans to transform the Clarence Hotel, according to a survey of architects.

Online architecture discussion board, Archiseek, found that more than three-quarters of those canvassed felt that planning officials should not allow the €150m revamp of the Dublin hotel, owned by Bono and The Edge.

The supergroup has applied to Dublin City Council to demolish four neighbouring listed buildings to make the Clarence “the most spectacular hotel in Europe”, erecting a skycatcher atrium, resembling a spaceship, visible from all over the city.

Objectors include An Taisce and the Irish Georgian Society.

Those who logged onto Archiseek were asked: “Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?”

The answer was a vehement ‘no’, with 78pc against it and just 22pc in favour.

Those who logged on blasted the plans as “awful” “rubbish” and “hideous.”

One urged: “Object, object, object. It is far too bulky and would dominate everything. We have made this mistake too many times.”

if you dont want them to build it you should automatically support

pulling down…

heniken
liberty
AIB
Ulster
Guiness
Dept justice
central bank
dept of health or what ever it is called

and replacing it with something georgian……

OR NOT?

“Object, object, object. It is far too bulky and would dominate everything. We have made this mistake too many times”

Who said this and would it possible for them to give some examples..?

The very simple reason why this scheme is entirely different to your examples, and ought to be rejected, shamrockmetro is that it is a thoroughly compromised development. It is not the signature building it purports to be nor what you proclaim it to be by your listing of such examples. It is a behemoth development that lurks behind, alongside and on top of compromised, bastardised and demolished vernacular buildings, some of which are the finest examples of their kind in the city.

The only reason the ‘saucer’ is being used is to try and give coherence and form to a ridiculously cloaked and rambling hodge-podge of a concoction – a development that results both in the mutilation of one of Dublin’s best traditional quay-fronts, and the loss of a potentially spectacular contemporary building for the city. It’s as simple as that.

@shamrockmetro wrote:

if you dont want them to build it you should automatically support

pulling down…

heniken
liberty
AIB
Ulster
Guiness
Dept justice
central bank
dept of health or what ever it is called

and replacing it with something georgian……

OR NOT?

That is an oddly mixed list: you are equating some good buildings with some bad ones, I think lots of people would like to see the Ulster Bank building go, ditto Hawkins house and what is now called the Heiniken building. The AIB building in contrast is much admired and Liberty Hall has its fans, me included. The Central Bank is a more tricky case, a fine building but inappropriately located: lots of people would prefer it had never been build but would oppose demolishing it, a consistient view, the original street scape has been lost and pulling down the building would not restore that, the building itself has its virtues and is an important relic of its time. The Clarence: well the proposed building is incoherent and bulky, inelegant bar the nice southern facade and building it would cause the loss of valuable buildings, a huge shame in a city not lacking in room for redevelopment.

I don’t know what you mean by replacing things with something Georgian, that is impossible because the Georgian times have passed: something can be built in the Georgian style or as a replica Georgian but almost no-one supports that except possible in an infill aimed at restoring a larger, significant, Georgian streetscape.

@shamrockmetro wrote:

if you dont want them to build it you should automatically support

pulling down…

heniken
liberty
AIB
Ulster
Guiness
Dept justice
central bank
dept of health or what ever it is called

and replacing it with something georgian……

OR NOT?

In a word – no

As per notjim’s comments all very different buildings

For me the question is: What should be the outstanding (ie significant) building along this stretch of the Liffey? The Four Courts or a Hotel? Nuff said.

I am in favour of this development, as usual in Dublin once somthing new has been proposed it gets talked down or dismissed, add in the Foster factor and it seems all architects etc are up in arms. I sense the green eyed monster!, pitty the whole area from Temple bar down to Hueston is not being redesigned. The digital hub etc appear to be doomed to more 4 / 5 story buildings even though the much hyped interconnector will run close by.

Pretty much anything a little bit different or interesting proposed in Dublin is doomed,thats simply how it is.Digital hub never had a hope from the start,the revised application which is 26 storeys might, but I doubt it.

@CC105 wrote:

I am in favour of this development, as usual in Dublin once somthing new has been proposed it gets talked down or dismissed, add in the Foster factor and it seems all architects etc are up in arms. I sense the green eyed monster!, pitty the whole area from Temple bar down to Hueston is not being redesigned. The digital hub etc appear to be doomed to more 4 / 5 story buildings even though the much hyped interconnector will run close by.

yes Mr. Hewson Sir. I’m not an architect. I think this proposal is muck.

@alonso wrote:

yes Mr. Hewson Sir. I’m not an architect. I think this proposal is muck.

Well I love the sky catcher idea, I think it would look really cool from the quays, and I think it’d be like the gravity bar: a great place to bring friends visiting Dublin and enjoy the great view.

What I don’t like is the demolition of the Clarence facade and its Western neighbour on Essex street.

But not to worry Alonso, I’m sure you’ll get your way and this project will be blocked, along with all the other interesting proposals for Dublin 😉

@DGF wrote:

For me the question is: What should be the outstanding (ie significant) building along this stretch of the Liffey? The Four Courts or a Hotel? Nuff said.

Coz there’s only room for one decent building in Dublin?

Perhaps if we had decent renders we could make our minds up – however – looking at the nighttime face on render you cannot guage the impact of the building, also to see the hotel from that perspective the liffey would have to be as wide as if it ran back over Abbey street – how about a human heigt representation from O’Connell and Gratten Bridge to truly represent it

Just on the budget hotel front issue .. how come the Morrisson can run a successful operation and Bono cant?

@Rory W wrote:

Perhaps if we had decent renders we could make our minds up – however – looking at the nighttime face on render you cannot guage the impact of the building, also to see the hotel from that perspective the liffey would have to be as wide as if it ran back over Abbey street – how about a human heigt representation from O’Connell and Gratten Bridge to truly represent it

Just on the budget hotel front issue .. how come the Morrisson can run a successful operation and Bono cant?

There have been day-time renders from O’Connell bridge or thereabouts in the papers on a few occasions – looks like they haven’t made it onto archiseek.

While a big fan of Foster, I doubt he had much to do with this one and personally think it is visually a load of muck. In my opinion, buildings which ignore their context to this extent need to be of an exceedingly high quality. In this case, the building is aesthetically bland and would undermine the charm and integrity of the quays without offering anything positive or representative of the best even (Foster) could produce. Apologies for the poor quality, I was in a rush but the boards and model are still visible in the foyer at D.C.C.

the scale is so overbearing … nothing in those renders changes my mind – now I can see why F&P let out the night time render first …

awful muck. shame on the architects.

Am i the only one that likes this??
its an improvement on whats there, thats for sure

But cubix, wouldn’t the things you like about it be so much more likable without the original façades awkwardly positioned in front? Surely this is a powerful new building badly compromised by a façade retention. In other-words, don’t you agree this would be better built elsewhere: again, Dublin is not short of brown field sites that could take a substantial powerful building, it is just that this isn’t one and the shoehorning of a distinctive modern building into the site leaves something that is awkward and inelegant, but which still requires considerable vandalism.

For the massive impact created, allbeit with its saucer base, the skypod is remarkably small inside.

you’re right, the glazed pod itself is tiny, its the extensive plateau around the base that does the damage – surely the saucer will obstruct views of the river & the entire quay side with only the spire, liberty hall etc. visible from the recessed ‘sky catcher’.

Kind of like one of those collars dogs wear when they injure themselves!! :

nice one Devin 😀

yeah your tight about how small the pod is, that see any reason for the ellipse to go out so far it doesn’t affect the heating function

some better photos…

According to the Sunday Times this has got past DCC provided they pay a MEur to the metro and allow public access to the bar and tea room: sadly no online version because they don’t put the Irish edition on line as far as I can see.

So its on dublincity.ie, it is application number 1394/07

The contribution to the Metro is actually 175,514.55 Euro in addition to 963,041.00 Euro to the council.

There is an archaeological condition too:

7. The developer shall facilitate the planning authority in the archaeological appraisal of the site and in preserving and recording or otherwise protecting archaeological materials or features, which may exist within the site. In this regard, the developer shall: a) Notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to the commencement of any site operation ( including hydrological and geotechnical investigations) relating to the proposed development b) Employ a suitably qualified archaeologist prior to the commencement of development. The archaeologist shall access the site and monitor all site development works. The assessment shall address the following issues: i) The nature and location of archaeological material on the site, and ii) The impact of the proposed development on such archaeological material. Prior to commencement of development, a report containing the results of the assessment shall be submitted to the planning authority. Arising from this assessment, the developer shall agree with the planning authority details regarding any further archaeological requirements (including, if necessary, archaeological excavation) prior to the commencement of construction works. Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation of any remains which may exist within the site.

Sunday Times arent the only ones to be reporting on it…this thread gets mentioned in the last line 🙂

@Todays Sindo wrote:

U2 finally get go-ahead for €150m hotel plan

Experts outraged at revamp nod

By Larissa Nolan
Sunday November 18 2007

U2 have finally found what they’re looking for — planning permission for a €150m revamp of the Clarence Hotel.

The rock supergroup have been given the green light by Dublin City Council to go ahead with controversial plans to turn the landmark property in Temple Bar into what Bono claims will be “the most spectacular hotel in Europe”. His friend, former US President Bill Clinton, stayed at the hotel last night.

But conservationists and environmentalists have expressed outrage at the decision to allow Bono and The Edge to demolish four neighbouring listed buildings and erect a spaceship-style atrium on top.

Under planning law, council’s should only give permission to demolish listed buildings “in exceptional circumstances”.

Michael Smith, environmentalist and former head of An Taisce, the national heritage trust, has blasted the council’s decision as “illegal” and accused U2 of “the biggest demolition of protected structures in Ireland in years”.

Even the council’s own City Conservation Architect, Clare Hogan, advised a refusal.

Ms Hogan said in her report, which was included in decision documents, that the planned development did not meet legal requirements. “The band were unable to provide exceptional circumstances as required under the Planning and Development Act 2000, to allow demolition of protected structures.”

“The decision is reminiscent of the climate of 1960s speculative development.”

Michael Smith — who has been against the development since U2 applied for permission earlier this year — said Clare Hogan’s comments are damning.

“The planning authorities clearly ignored the good advice of the City Conservation Architect. She is blatantly saying that this should not have been given permission and recommended a refusal.

“Essentially, her comments say that permission in this case would be illegal. And it is.”

However, senior executive planner Anthony Abbot-King felt the scheme was “an exemplary design solution” and that the owners have shown the existence of exceptional circumstances for economic reasons and through the proposal to reinstate facades, as well as the need to rejuvenate the west end of Temple Bar.

He also considered that the four Georgian buildings were in “poor to very poor condition”.

It is expected that An Taisce, as well as the Irish Georgian Society, will soon make an appeal to An Bord Pleanala.

And Michael Smith has vowed that, should An Bord Pleanala give the go ahead, he will personally challenge the permission in the courts.

Co-owners Bono and the Edge plan to demolish the Georgian buildings and transform the 44-bedroom boutique hotel into a 141-bedroom, five-star hotel and spa complete with signature restaurant, bar and fresh food market.

The “skycatcher atrium” on top will be visible from all over the city.

The hotel was designed by the internationally-renowned architect Norman Foster. A recent online poll found that three-quarters of architects on website Archiseek believed the development should not be given permission.

– Larissa Nolan.

I would just like to post my disgust at the recent approval of the Clarence scheme. Dublin City Council are being bought by a pop band that are turning Dublin from its heritage into something from their Popmart identity. Just look at “Sir” Foster’s “landmark” tower – what a joke. Let’s cap it all off and stick a big lemon/mirrorball at the top of it.

U2 and Foster associates are making a mockery of Dublin City, a city trying to modernize (which is all perfectly admirable, but not this way).

Its a disgrace that listed buildings can be simply ignored and knocked.

The people of Dublin should stand up and let their voices be heard on these issues before the city loses its identity forever.

As a student of architecture, it saddens me greatly to see what is happening in my hometown and that the safety measures for protected buildings are failing.

Sorry to be so negative but I am upset.

retaining the facade is just a facade, tis not good enough

hard to find this thread hidden in polls

http://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/mhmhsnkfmhql/

U2 anger environmentalists

« PREVIOUS NEXT »

Rockers U2 have angered environmentalists in Ireland with plans to build an unsightly skyscraper in Dublin.

Building heritage group An Taisce has criticised the group for its plans to demolish the Clarence Hotel – which the band owns – and redevelop the site through a €136m investment programme.

The organisation has called for an investigation into the so-called ‘U2 Tower’, which is set to be the tallest building in Ireland.

Ian Lumley of An Taisce, says: “Our biggest concern is that the U2 Tower will stick out of the skyline from parts of Georgian Dublin. It could potentially be an incongruous blot on the skyline on the south side of the city.”

Lumley also claims the band has ignored the impact of climate change on the proposed building – which could be affected by rising sea levels due to its position at the mouth of Dublin river.

still a mix up of the two sites, who’s writing this stuff

Clarence Hotel plan backed despite architect’s warning
Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

Dublin City Council’s planners decided to grant permission for the redevelopment of the Clarence Hotel despite being advised that it would “dominate all views of the city quays, overwhelming the Four Courts and important views of City Hall”.

City conservation architect Clare Hogan, in her report on the application to demolish all but the front façades of the hotel and adjoining listed buildings, also said it would be a “direct repudiation” of city council planning policy to permit it.

The €150 million plan, drawn up by international architects Foster + Partners, would retain the quayfront façades on Wellington Quay to provide 114 large bedrooms and 28 suites, oversailed by an elliptical flying saucer-like structure at roof level.

Describing such façadism as a “meaningless, discredited architectural device”, Ms Hogan said: “Allowing this approach to Dublin where historic buildings retain their integrity and interest is reminiscent of the climate of 1960s speculative development.

“Dublin’s beauty as a capital and its claim to being one of the greatest of surviving Georgian cities depends on its whole fabric of streetscapes rather than a collection of resounding buildings – the quiet ease of understatement, something rarely found in Europe.

“From the 18th century onwards, artists and engravers have left many celebrated views and vistas of the city from scenic viewing points along the Liffey, featuring landmark buildings. The proposed building would have a significant detrimental impact on these views.”

Under the 2000 Planning Act, Ms Hogan noted that a planning authority “shall not grant permission for the demolition of a protected structure . . . save in exceptional circumstances” – such as if the structure was dangerous.

But the Clarence Hotel Partnership, a joint venture by developer Paddy McKillen and U2 band members Bono and the Edge, had been “unable to provide exceptional circumstances as required . . . to allow demolition of protected structures”, she said.

“The applicants have neglected routine maintenance and allowed the external façades to deteriorate into a superficially scruffy condition, but otherwise the buildings are in good structural condition,” Ms Hogan said, recommending against granting permission. She also noted that the protected structures on the site – the Clarence Hotel, the adjoining Dollard printing works and four Georgian buildings – had all been rated as regionally important “and the lesser ratings provided by the applicant are inaccurate and misleading”.

A copy of Ms Hogan’s report has been submitted by An Taisce to An Bord Pleanála as part of its appeal against the council’s decision to approve the scheme. Separate appeals have been made by others, including former An Taisce chairman Michael Smith.

In its appeal, An Taisce said that neither the council planner’s report on the application nor its decision “properly addresses the legal requirement to prove ‘exceptional circumstances’ in granting permission for demolition of protected structures”.

An Taisce’s Kevin Duff said project architects Foster + Partners “make much of comparison with European city hotels such as the Ritz in Paris” but the “best-known and most prestigious” hotels in Europe are older converted historic buildings.

“This proposal constitutes the largest proposal for demolition of protected structures in a single scheme in Ireland since the current architectural heritage legislation came into place with the implementation of the 1999 Planning Act,” Mr Duff said.

(Monday, January 7, 2008)

© 2008 The Irish Times

I’d post a link to Clare Hogan’s report, but the DCC website is playing up at the moment and won’t open for me. I’ll try again later.

For now, it suffices to say that it was one of the most strongly worded conservation reports I’ve seen in a while, as evidenced by the use of such phrases as ‘direct repudiation’, ‘unable to provide exceptional circumstances’ and ‘inaccurate and misleading’ (above). It baffles me how it was just blithely dismissed in the planner’s report.

i dont know!!!!

The Clarence blocks the Dublin City Council bunkers from o’connell st already…
Clare Hogan has some very valid points…
However Dublin City Council need to implement a legally binding strategy to reverse the 1960’s damage now.
If that means pulling down central bank and dublin city council and irish life and the department of health by all means…

Has the copper on the roof always been there?

But the worst offender is O’connell st house which dublin city council should acquire now…
If they do not I would find it hard for Dublin City Council to save face.

They need to provide the framework to legally reverse the 1960’s damage rather than kept referring to it
foster and partners scheme is peanuts in the scheme of things and although it has some weaknesses it is not as bad as some of the rubbish going around…

Dublin City must acquire O’connell st house now before they refuse or oppose such a scheme and pull down there own facade on the Liffey because it stinks… more than this foster and partners proposal

And can Dublin City Council Please remove the large TV, carpark sign and cctv pole from st stephen’s green

“Clarence Hotel plan backed despite architect’s warning”

Why do we bother debating this. DCC seem intent on destroying the city despite what the professionals have to say. Clare Hogan should seek employment elsewhere, where her work can be valued.

Its an absolute disgrace, just to get the ‘big names’ into Dublin city centre.

if they acquire the house and maybe some more I’m all for refusing it,,, if not i’m blurred…

I would rather have the Clarence and take down a few other buildings if I had no choice…

If I had a choice maybe everything would go!!!!

This is Clare Hogans chance to put her stamp on the city and acquire some buildings!!!!
But I would be looking at the rest of the city more than fosters scheme even though they are in the same basket

If the board refuse it it would be interesting to see if bono and foster denounce dublin in the press!!!!
which i guess may be likely??? or is the tower a sweetener

The image foster/ bono would get in this city is that if you are DC, central bank, dept. of health, a large bank or maybe someone that makes beer, or someone that has a large group… or a train company that they have done what ever they wanted to the city…

Clare can change that and take them all!!!!!!!

Take other buildings before the Clarence!!!!

Sadly for Ms Hogan (or perhaps fortunately) her involvement ended at DC level, though if it goes to an Oral Hearing I’m sure she’d be called on again.

The Office she occupies has no right to acquire buildings, btw, and I’m not sure if she can afford it herself.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Sadly for Ms Hogan (or perhaps fortunately) her involvement ended at DC level, though if it goes to an Oral Hearing I’m sure she’d be called on again.

The Office she occupies has no right to acquire buildings, btw, and I’m not sure if she can afford it herself.

No vision… No sense of place…

Can I suggest she put together a proposal for reshaping Dublin and prepare to acquire/control key buildings….
There is nothing stopping her from lobbying for amendments to framework plans and acting in the dail…
Whats the worst answer she gets no… and if they say kinda or yes she may have the right that is what you kept
forgetting…

if you don’t ask you don’t get in architecture…

@missarchi wrote:

No vision… No sense of place…

I don’t know what this even means in relation to my previous post.

@missarchi wrote:

Can I suggest she put together a proposal for reshaping Dublin and prepare to acquire/control key buildings….

Neither of which is within her remit.

@missarchi wrote:

There is nothing stopping her from lobbying for amendments to framework plans and acting in the dail…

You’re right.
Step 1: become a TD.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Realise it’s beyond your remit.

@missarchi wrote:

Whats the worst answer she gets no… and if they say kinda or yes she may have the right that is what you kept forgetting…

As I said, she does not have the right. I have forgotten nothing.

PS What’s with all the ellipses? … … …

ABP are holding an oral hearing on the Clarence, commencing 16th April ………. And the question on everyone’s lips will be: will Bono make a 3D appearance?

being covered on RTE TV news in a few minutes -time 21:21

Yes; they are threatening us again!

from the Times breaking news:

Clarence ‘big coup’ for Dublin, says Edge

Olivia Kelly

The demolition of the Clarence Hotel, Dublin, a protected structure, and its rebuilding to a design by British architect Norman Foster was “an incredible coup for Dublin city” U2 guitarist and one of the owners of the hotel The Edge has said.

He was speaking outside a Bord Pleanála appeal hearing against plans to demolish all but the facades of the hotel, its expansion form 49 to 140 rooms, and the addition of a metallic elliptical roof called the “sky catcher”.

One of the appellants to the project conservationist Michael Smith yesterday described the proposed building as a “cannibalistic behemoth” and said the sky catcher looked like a spaceship which has landed in the middle of Temple Bar.

The hotel had done an “immense amount of good for the city”, The Edge said, however it had run into financial difficulties in recent years and if it was to be sustained into the 21st century it needed to be redeveloped.

Although the hotel and surrounding buildings, which have been purchased for the €150 million extension and redevelopment, are listed on the Record of Protected Structures, it is proposed that they will be demolished and only their front facades retained.

The fact that the building had been designed by Foster who created the Swiss Re Tower in London, also known as “the Gherkin”, was an incredible coup, and “outweighed the sacrifice of parts of ordinary period buildings”, The Edge said.

The 34-metre five-star hotel with its “sky room floating above the city” would be “completely commensurate with the scale of that grand street – the River Liffey” Andy Bow of Foster and Partners told the planning hearing.

It would “soften the impact” of surrounding buildings such as the Central Bank and the Civic Offices on Wood Quay and would bring a “new vitality to the west end of Temple Bar”. The demolition of the buildings and the back facade facing on to Essex Street would rid Essex Street of its current “prison-like” look, Mr Bow said.

An Taisce’s Kevin Duff said the applicants had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances which are legally required to permit the demolition of protected structures.

The design was a “unsatisfactory combination of facade retention and new build” he said and was the largest proposed demolition of protected structures since legislation was introduced in 1999. The loss of the facades on Essex Street was a serious loss for Temple Bar he said.

Architect James Kelly said given the capabilities of Foster his reverting to facadism was “very sad”. The design was coming “perilously close to pastiche”, he said.

Mr Smith said the design was “behind the times”. “Ten years ago a scheme like this might have got planning permission, surely not now. If it gets permission we can wave goodbye to proper development in Dublin City.”

The proposed roof “looks like a flying saucer” it was a “rag-bag, leviathan, a silly set piece” he said. The architects had shown no awareness of their surroundings.

“This building is in the wrong place – like a little black dress on your great aunt,” Mr Smith said.
© 2008 ireland.com

I see the Dept. of Environment have had a right good go at DCC for handing a planning permission to this little piece of urban vandalism. We need to see a lot more of this, whenever a local authority loses the plot. From day one, this scheme had nothing going for it, but it’s label. Dublin was going to get a Foster to add to it’s Libeskind and two Calatravas!

The Clarence building is a decent example of 20th century urban in-fill (especially the back), and Dollard house, if it was opened up a bit at street level, is a decent piece of 19th century in-fill, with some nice design echoes of it’s predecessor, the Old Custom House. However I’m inclined to agree with the Edge’s critique of the four protected houses on Wellington Quay. For ‘Protected’ structures, these are pretty low grade examples, certainly when compared to other structures that we’ve lost recently, or are in the process of losing.

Maybe Dublin can ill afford to lose much more of it’s quay side Georgian frontage, but if the new Clarence had to have a contemporary statement, something outstanding might be justified as a replacement for these four houses, and perhaps also at the back of Dollard. Facade retention, however, is just not an option here. If the buildings don’t really merit retention when compared to some outstanding contemporary alternative, then hiding the outstanding new build behind retained mediocre facades achieves nothing.

The one certainty is that any proposal that attempts to put a sinle hat on such a disparate group of buildings, not only deserves to be thrown out, but deserves a good dose of ridicule in the process, and Mr. Smith’s little black dress comment is a good start.

I hadn’t seen this section before (from todays Herald AM), it explains the relationship between the sky-catcher and the swimming pool, which I think it’s important that we know.

A huge amount of the architectural effort has clearly gone into filtering a small amount of borrowed light into the interior of this block, where it’s then squandered on a tiny oval ‘swimming pool’ no bigger than a millionaire’s jacuzzi. When you look at it again, the whole interior of this hotel has been hollowed out and contorted to accommodate a couple of pretty dubious elements presenting themselves as iconic concepts.

The guys I feel sorry for are the future archaeologists who did this thing up in three thousand years time. There’s no way they’re not going to see this a some bizarre ritualistic temple to some mother goddess figure. It’ll all be there, the ritual subteranean birthing pool, the uterus shaped light shaft, the high status viewing pod, they’ll be wetting themselves. Even the sky platter itself is bound to be re-interpreted as a charnel platform, where eagles clense the putrified flesh off the pure bones of the city state’s aristocracy class. What other purpose could it have had?

This is giving me some fresh insight. I’m going to look again at my pictures of Stonehenge. Maybe we’ve been too quick to see this as a ritual temple, a bronze age, equinox aligned, solar / lunar observatory. I’m starting to think stonehenge may have been an iconic, landmark,entrance foyer to some bronze age, celebrity, straw bale eco-hotel.

I noticed the DEHLG getting stuck in, aye. I wasn’t there, but it seems they didn’t pull any punches, effectively saying to DCC ‘No. We wrote them. Your interpretation is entirely incorrect.’

Why does my mind keep drifting back to this poster?

😉

So I take it the Dubh Linn pool, as per the original, is going to be flooded by the Poddle? :p

To be discussed on Question & Answers tonight at 22.40 on RTÉ One.

I’ve thought about this and I’ve reached the decision that the redevelopment should be given the go-ahead. ( Even, after considering the demolishment of the fine old buildings in Temple Bar east that line the quays as well as the old medieval Church’s interior.)

Regarding the Clarence……
1. If permission is granted, what we will get for the city of Dublin is a top international hotel designed by one of the world’s leading architects. We will have a focal point for the city. A magnet and a beacon as such. A talking point.

2. If permission is not granted what could happen is that U2 would sell the loss making hotel. No one would be interested in buying it, so it would be left to lie idle for years and years. Some cheap developer would finally come along and finally get planning permission for the ‘eyesore’ that it would become and so we’d end up up a substandard hotel designed by ‘Joe the builder’ architects.

People don’t have to look very far to see this already happening. Just across the river, the Ormond Hotel has been already lying idle for years. No one says a word about it’s fate. Joe Public doesn’t even notice it, passing it by each day. An Taisce are very quiet too. It may eventually get planning permission but it’s new design is no where near Foster’s stylish plans for the Clarence.

I thought the Ormond did get planning permission?

@GregF wrote:

2. If permission is not granted what could happen is that U2 would sell the loss making hotel. No one would be interested in buying it, so it would be left to lie idle for years and years. Some cheap developer would finally come along and finally get planning permission for the ‘eyesore’ that it would become and so we’d end up up a substandard hotel designed by ‘Joe the builder’ architects.

While I understand your concerns, one thing worth pointing out is that there is a duty of care on owners of Protected Structures to ensure they don’t deteriorate, and they can be prosecuted under the PDA 2000 for failure to maintain their buildings.

It hasn’t happened much (if at all? Not sure if this was the mechanism used on Henrietta Street), but the provision exists nevertheless.

Skylounge-itis has spread along Wellington Quay with this current proposal by Fitzsimons Hotel – <a href="http://195.218.114.214/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1803/08&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 1803/08

So would it be an interesting and enriching addition to the hotel and the quayfront, or an innapropriate intrusion on the character of the terraced group of traditional buildings forming the hotel?

Devin, do you have a hot link to all the most ridiculous planning applications, as they’re lodged.

This would look stupid. Every tourist in the city eventually ends up at the Guinness Storehouse anyway, how did they think they’d get away with sticking a bit of the Storehouse observation drum on the front of a hotel? Are there no plagiarism issues?

I also didn’t think it was legal to build out over the property boundary! or did some gurrier of a solicitor tell them they owned out to the mid-point of the river?

If I was running the planning office, I’d be convening an urgent meeting of all the heads to stop whatever subliminal messages are going out that gives developers the impression that this kind of thing is worth applying for.

Actually they would hardly be subliminal messages would they, we’re seeing stuff like this getting approval and being published in the papers nearly every day now.

@gunter wrote:

Devin, do you have a hot link to all the most ridiculous planning applications, as they’re lodged.

There’s no excuse not to discuss development on this forum since planning applications are up on the council’s site. Even just to put up elevations.

One or two schemes like Jurys Ballsbridge or the Clarence steal all the attention but a lot of major stuff goes through un-noticed – the way developers want it to go. DCC has been rubber-stamping most major city-centre development for the past couple of years and, as I’ve said before, it’s invariably significantly changed or refused if it goes to An Bord Pleanala. IF, that is. You’ve probably seen the ridiculous office block built almost on top of St. Michan’s Church, Church Street (granted, incidentally, by the same DCC planner who granted the Henrietta Street building). A local community group objected but didn’t appeal. Could list many more. Dublin is in crisis ….

As it happens a refusal has just appeared today for that Fitzsimons Hotel balcony, yet the Clarence was granted permission …

@Devin wrote:

There’s no excuse not to discuss development on this forum since planning applications are up on the council’s site.

I don’t think gunter was suggesting that you’re wasting your time; rather, marvelling at the consistently… eh, ‘remarkable’ nature of the proposals you put up here.

Anyway, right result on this one.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I don’t think gunter was suggesting that you’re wasting your time

Don’t know how you read that into my post, ctesiphon :confused:

@Devin wrote:

There’s no excuse not to discuss development

This bit? Sounded a little defensive; nothing more than that.

We need to discuss more development was the point.

@Devin wrote:

You’ve probably seen the ridiculous office block built almost on top of St. Michan’s Church, Church Street (granted, incidentally, by the same DCC planner who granted the Henrietta Street building). A local community group objected but didn’t appeal. Could list many more. Dublin is in crisis ….

Devin: Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding before with my comment, I’ve only just found this thread again. By the way, where is this thread? I only ever find it when I’m looking for something else.

I did see that block behind St. Michan’s out of the corner of my eye the other day. The relationship to the tower looked like a shocker from a distance, is it any better close up?

I have to confess a soft spot for that Henrietta Street block, although I felt it looked a lot better before the frosted glass balconies got bolted on, destroying the proportions, and the roof terrace (again with frosted glass) went in. There was a moment when that tall slender lift shaft stood proud on the roof like an homage to a great central chimney stack and the whole thing looked like it was going to be a very interesting composition. I’ve had a couple of small schemes go badly wrong at a similar stage, so I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. I was aware that An Taisce had issues with the development from day one. It will be interesting to see what the competition throws up for the site behind it.

@gunter wrote:

By the way, where is this thread? I only ever find it when I’m looking for something else.

It’s in the Polls section. Depending on the start page you use, it can be tricky to find. If you use this one – https://archiseek.com/content/index.php – you’ll see it near the bottom of the list, but if you use this one – https://archiseek.com/ – you won’t see it, even in the drop-down menu under Discussion. And this one – http://ireland.archiseek.com/ – will be similarly lacking, as it’s Ireland only (whereas Polls is, in theory, not location specific).

Paul- in the redesign, could this be remedied, maybe by inclusion of Polls in the drop-down? (Or could the thread be moved back now that the poll’s closed?)

Also, sorry to dredge this up (I missed the reply originally), but-

@Devin wrote:

We need to discuss more development was the point.

This was my point originally- I didn’t think gunter was saying we shouldn’t discuss development, but your original response seemed to interpret his (his?) comments differently. That’s all (folks). Apologies if I created any confusion.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I didn’t think gunter was saying we shouldn’t discuss development, but your original response seemed to interpret his (his?) comments differently.

Jesus Christ ctesiphon, how many female gunters do you know?

And I certainly was not suggesting that we shouldn’t be discussing live developments. As Devin said, it’s the live developments that we, emphatically, should be discussing, and as early in the process as possible.

I’m almost afraid to ask this question, but, as a matter of interest, it there any evidence that discussions forums like this have ever had any influence on actual events, or are we just fraustrated cranky people (blokes mostly, I assume!) venting off?

Thanks for the navigation tips, I should be alright now until somebody goes and up-dates the system.

You might have been a lady with an interest in obscure sailing terminology. One doesn’t like to presume. 😉

Re our influence: who’s to say. I do find it funny that the polls are often referred to as ‘A survey of architects’, when in fact there are far more citizens/non-professionals than architects on here as far as I can tell. One area where Archiseek certainly proved its worth (as more than a talking shop) was in the matter of JC Decaux and the ‘free bikes’ scheme. I could almost guarantee that the result there would have been markedly different without jimg’s first, despairing post and the correspondence/collaboration that ensued.

Also, I’m trying to turn your mis-spelling into a gag (a la the Guardian magazine’s Wyse Words, if you are familiar), but it’s not falling into place:

‘fraustrated’ – frustrated women?

‘frastrated’ – frustrated men?

Needs work, I think.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Also, I’m trying to turn your mis-spelling into a gag

Fekk off

The Clarence got permission this morning.

as in from AnBP?

Any ideas what restrictions?

Yes from the Bord. Very few as far as I am aware.

Thats great news,I was under the impression that this would be struck down.

I’m moving somewhere with a more restrictive planning regime. China, perhaps.

Clarence Hotel green lighted – with small changes

Bono and The Edge will finally be able to press ahead with their €150m revamp of Dublin’s Clarence Hotel.

An Bord Pleanala has given the go ahead to the Norman Foster-designed project, which has been going through the planning process for over a year and a half.

The decision is hugely significant as the redevelopment involves gutting a series of protected buildings, including the Clarence itself, leaving just the facades.

Revised plans will have to be submitted to Dublin City Council as the planning board directed certain changes.

The proposed penthouse level facing Essex Street at fourth floor level will have to be reduced in length by four metres on the western side and four metres on the eastern side. The board also stipulated that “prior to the demolition of the protected structures, all existing buildings and interiors shall be preserved by record” and the drawings lodged with the architectural archive.

The massive revamp was granted permission by Dublin City Council in November but that decision was appealed.

An Bord Pleanala then directed that an oral hearing take place.

Planning officials have given the green despite the Department of the Environment saying it did not believe the plan was of such architectural merit as to justify the demolition of six protected buildings.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/clarence-hotel-green-lighted–with-small-changes-1434871.html

Great stuff + added bonus of some economic activity and construction jobs.

@CC105 wrote:

Great stuff + added bonus of some economic activity and construction jobs.

I hear there are vacancies coming up in a few Midlands councils at the next local elections. Your attitude would go down well there.

As far as I can see, any claim DCC or the Board had to an awareness of architectural heritage is now dead in the water. How either body can stand over any future decision regarding protected structures is beyond my comprehension.

This is a shameful moment indeed.

what are the odds of this going to the high court??

If they knocked the whole thing down and built a contemporary hotel, It would be less objectionable.

This will have all the integrity of a Las Vegas casino.

Foster would not get away with this in England, or anywhere else for that matter. We’ve disgraced ourselves again.

This is terrible news. Before I even checked up on the details of this, and having discussed it with others, it was quite obvious what the undercurrents of this decision are. The emergence of the decision process/hierarchy merely confirmed it.

The thoroughly excellent and exceptionally detailed, considered, rational and balanced 88-page Inspector’s report by Senior Inspector Kevin Moore dissected and pulled apart in minute detail the arguments of both the applicant and indeed many of DCC.

He rejected the application.

The Board, in a page and a half, granted permission. Their intepretation of ‘exceptional circumstances’ is frightening in its implications.
I won’t say much more on this case.

The refusal versus granting of this case was written all over it.

Sorry to inject a moment of levity, but word of Archiseek’s black mood has spread beyond the confines of this forum :p

archiseek is fumin’

Nassty Board.. wicked, trickssssy, falssse!

We hates them, yesss

Effectively, we have – in the space of six months of recession – stepped back four decades to a stage where any development is automatically good because of our changing economic circumstances.
God knows what will be considered acceptable in two year’s time when we really start to feel the pinch.

@fergalr wrote:

Sorry to inject a moment of levity, but word of Archiseek’s black mood has spread beyond the confines of this forum :p

Didn’t you see the name of that poster over there? The circle is smaller than you think! 😉

publicrealm-
I’m really at a loss to understand this one. I’m sitting here – cocoa, pipe and slippers all present and correct – with the Inspector’s Report and the Board’s Decision, trying to get a handle on their reasoning, but it’s not falling into place. I don’t think the Board has been wicked, tricksy and false, I’m saying it’s made the wrong decision.

*** *** ***

The Board considered that the measures proposed for the conservation and re-use of the historic fabric of the protected structures, in particular, the design and conservation strategy in relation to all the accommodation addressing Wellington Quay, together with the unique design features visible above the historic parapet level, would ensure that the integrity of the Liffey Quays Conservation Area would not be undermined…
…
…having regard to the policies of the development plan, which include policies to encourage the protection of the existing use of premises listed in the Record of Protected Structures, the Board considered that the development which proposed the continuance of hotel use on the site would conserve an intrinsic aspect of the special social interest of the premises and would not materially contravene the development plan.

This is what passes for the grounds for a decision these days? It seems one aspect (use) of one category (social) is sufficient to trump the other conservation considerations. And flying saucers on the roof don’t undermine the integrity of a conservation area. Glad to have that clarified.

Also, I’m having trouble finding the relevant policy re continuance of use. Any thoughts?

Would it be H6?

POLICY H6
Dublin City Council actively encourages uses which are compatible with the character of protected structures. In certain cases, the Planning Authority may relax site zoning restrictions in order to secure the preservation and restoration of the buildings. These restrictions, including site development standards, may be relaxed if the protected structure is being restored to the highest standard, the special interest, character and setting of the building is protected and the use and development is consistent with conservation policies and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Looks like an awful stretch of logic. In fact, H6 seems to say the opposite- that top drawer conservation merits a few concessions in other areas.

While I have the page of the DCDP open I may as well stick a couple more up. For balance, like.

POLICY H13
It is the policy of Dublin City Council to protect and enhance the character and historic fabric of conservation areas in the control of development.

POLICY H15
It is the policy of Dublin City Council that new buildings in conservation areas should complement the character of the existing architecture in design, materials and scale.

POLICY H16
It is the policy of Dublin City Council to protect and reinforce the important civic design character of Dublin’s quays, which are designated a conservation area and infill development should complement the character of the quays in terms of context, scale and design.

Still, it’ll be a welcome shot in the arm for economy.

*high five*

all existing buildings and interiors shall be preserved by record” and the drawings lodged with the architectural archive.

echos of tara and the m3

protection ain’t what it used to be

All I can express is disgust. Revulsion at a pathetic decision for a PATHETIC proposal that smacks of the minnowism that permeates so many decisions that have emerged lately for specific projects in our city centre.
Any of you “big and shiny = progress” boosters check my record on here. I am not anti -new development once the context and function is correct but this is something I take as a personal affront. I suppose arrogant middle ranking career-Brits built the quays in the first place but to piss away what is ,by accident or design ,a unique urban set piece in global terms (ie the quays between Hueston and Butt bridge) is an exercise in extreme folly. Even the most deluded speculator -led illegal demolition on the D7 quays hasl not done as much psychologial damage as what we are about to have inflicted upon us.
If the Clarence wasn’t viable on its preferred busines model by Not Us Ltd they should have fucked off elsewhere downstream and built their own shangri-la. God knows there’s enough areas of the Liffey waterfront still in need of some masturbatory legacy project we can all guffaw at in years to come for its sheer audacity.

Come back SUAS ,all is forgiven! sure we’ll need a ride down to anthony gormley’s slashman when the time comes.

I’m at a loss to think of even a middle ranking English provincial shithole that would put up with such an awful proposal.

No worries, pr. I wondered if I was just missing your drift. I agree about the ‘exceptional circumstances’ bit- it needed clarification, but this is a worrying precedent.

Re. PS deification- I had a similar conversation today regarding the wholesale transfer of the old List 1s and 2s onto the RPS. It started me wondering whether a smaller RPS and significantly beefed up ACA provisions mightn’t be a way to go.

Until recently, I may have had a bit too much of the greenhorn faith in ABP, but those days would appear to be at an end.

*wipes tear*

Also, I discovered what policy was being referred to- it’s H6A, passed as Variation No.2 of the Development Plan in 2005 (and thus not in the online version of the DP- it’s p.9 of the Inspector’s Report). You might know it as the Bewley’s Variation:

Policy H6A: It is the policy of Dublin City Council to encourage the protection of the existing or last use of premises listed on the Record of Protected Structures where that use is considered to be an intrinsic aspect of the special, social, cultural and/or artistic interest of those premises.

It will be the policy of Dublin City Council in considering applications for planning permission in respect of a change of use of any such premises to take into account as material consideration the contribution of the existing or last use of that structure to special, social, cultural and/ or artistic interest of those premises and/ or whether the new use would be inimical to the special interest identified.

Talk about unforeseen consequences.

Rumours that the next U2 album is provisionally titled Hoist by your own petard – sort of a sequel to …Atomic Bomb, I think – couldn’t be confirmed at the time of writing.

This was in Phoenix last year. I think it’s relevant in so far as a lot of good will has built up towards the U2 boys from the Irish populace – which in fairness been a two way street.

That is until now when it is apparent that the actual truth is Hewson is a tax-avoiding, war games speculating, greedy developer –

Sure make your own mind up…

SIR BONO’S PROFIT FROM WARGAMES

WHEN NOT saving the world or relocating companies off-shore, Bono KBE (Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) has been busy recently in making interesting investments – with one such gambit being into a software firm which specialises in “extremely realistic videos to be used as training games for the US military”.

Despite the fuss, 10 months on, with the product due out this autumn, there’s still no word from the new KBE about the ethical criticisms of his investments. This hasn’t stopped a head of steam building up in the meanwhile. One petitioning letter by US clerics Reverend David A Bos, Rabbi Michael Lerner, and Pax Christi USA Ambassador for Peace, Fr. Joe Nangle OFM, has secured further signatures from the US Fellowship for Reconciliation and other religious organizations.

There’s a long tradition of rock bands trashing hotels

@gunter wrote:

There’s a long tradition of rock bands trashing hotels

Maybe there’s some young rock’n’roll wastrels on here who will rob a rolls royce and drive it into the proposed swimming pool;)

I’ve just had a look at the decision & it all hinges on “exceptional circumstances“, I can see this going to a legal challenge i.e. what is the legal definition of “exceptional circumstances“. I fail to see anything exceptional about it except that the design is “exceptional” (in a good or bad way depending on your point of view).

I don’t think the economic or hotel use justification could be realistically seen as “exceptional” in the city. There must be numerous places where the same considerations apply. Decision extracts:

“Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development constitutes exceptional circumstances for
the purposes of section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 which
make it appropriate to permit the part demolition of the protected structures. The
proposed development, therefore, would not be contrary to the provisions of the
development plan when taken as a whole and would be in accordance with the proper
planning and sustainable development of the area“.

“In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission, the
Board considered that the development proposed, which involves the part demolition
of protected structures, is permissible because the exceptional quality of the design of
the proposed development, allied to the continuation of the historic hotel use on the
site constitute exceptional circumstances for the purposes of section 57(10)(b) of the
Planning and Development Act, 2000 and that the Board was not, therefore, precluded
from granting permission“.

They follow on with this definition of unique/exceptional, would a judge agree?

“The Board also considered that the unique circumstances of this case, that is, the
exceptional design quality, the conservation proposals and the architectural quality
and cultural significance of the remaining intact historic fabric of buildings on the site
would not constitute an undesirable precedent for the partial demolition of any other
protected structures, either in Dublin or nationally”.

Planning Register Reference Number: 1394/07
An Bord Pleanála Reference Number: PL 29S.226834

I’d like to see what happens if this is challenged in the courts as it would have wide ranging significance for other cases also. Let the games begin!

I’m glad this got the go ahead I suppose.

As I said before, on the one hand it is sad that the old buildings are to be gutted. On the other at least we are getting an internationally renowned achitect to design the make over. It will be a landmark, a talking point, a new feature for Dublin. It will be good for tourism.

What could have been disasterous for the whole site is that had the application failed, U2 (money grabbers that they are) would have abandoned the loss making hotel and put it up for sale. It would have fallen into disrepair and become derelict over the coming years. Then, in steps some cheap developer with Bob the Builder who buys the place and puts in a planning application to gut the place again. The Corpo are fed up with the eye sore and grants permission and then we end up with some inferior shoddy design. This go ahead is the lesser of the 2 evils, when you think about it. Look at the Ormond Hotel across the river and no one, including An Taisce are saying a word about it’s appalling neglect!

BTW, remember that the present fancy roof of the Clarence Hotel was added only around 15 years ago. An Taisce opposed that too at the time!

This thread was mentioned on Morning Ireland today with some posts read out.

In contrast with the other posters, I am happy there will be a new hotel and I look forward to it opening.

There are some factors in favour of the decision:
The applicants previous development on the same site 12 years ago was one of the highest quality projects in Dublin. Materials and finishes were to the highest standards and the end product was an addition to the city. So they have form.

The company I worked for used to put its important clients in the Clarence and the clients were always delighted. The hotel had character and wasn’t just another 5 star insta-palace.

The new hotel is not a massive incongruous highrise in a low rise area. It’s a midrise 6+2 structure. I would suggest that this is a better height for development than the rubbish strewn along the quays in the past decades. Hello Statoil, Ellis and Arran Quay apartments, Bachelors Walk, the list goes on almost as far as the quays themselves. But even these McCrap apartment buildings are better than the pallisade fenced overgrown parking lots that preceded them.

Conservation is worthwhile for buildings that have over the years come to be recognised as distinguished, beautiful, significant. And it is worthwhile preserving buildings that are not individually outstanding but whose loss would detract from a coherent whole such as a Georgian terrace. But Wellington quay is not Merrion Square. It’s a higgledy piggledy collection of old and new buildings of varying heights. The older buildings are mostly shabby and the newer ones mostly cheap budget-constrained temporary structures.

I don’t see why the organs of the state have any business deciding what is ‘good design’ or aesthetically pleasing or what appears bulky or what is incongruous with its neighbours. Like all these planning decisions, the judgement is essentially random: one person likes a new building and another doesn’t. I would favour a simpler planning regime with more measurable criteria such as allowable building heights , plot ratios and so on.

To be fair GregF, An Taisce did object to the very inapproriate and downright ugly development proposed for the Ormonde Hotel which if I remember DCC permitted. The development ever happened. Its also not AT’s job to enforce proper planning, its merely an interested party. Given the limited voluntary nature of the organisation the fact that it responded to both the Ormond and Clarence proposals, which both have siginificant implications for the Liffey streetscape, is to be congratulated as far I am concerned. They didnt get paid to do it. They didnt get financial assistance to do it. They didnt have access to a range of designers, consulants and the like to get through the process.

But enough of that. I have to say your comments regarding what might happen if this was refused are quite valid. However I think this equally says a lot about the system in this country.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

I don’t see why the organs of the state have any business deciding what is ‘good design’ or aesthetically pleasing or what appears bulky or what is incongruous with its neighbours. Like all these planning decisions, the judgement is essentially random: one person likes a new building and another doesn’t. I would favour a simpler planning regime with more measurable criteria such as allowable building heights , plot ratios and so on.

But why Frank? Surely the extended logic here is that no buildings need to be designed by an architect, since their design is subjective. Why not just a uniform building style that removes “subjectivity” from the equation. And could builidng heights or plot ratio not also be considered subjectively…think of some of the highrise advocates on this site – build up no matter what it looks like and no matter how it impacts on the area around it or the people who need to use it.

Planning and Development Act 2000, Section 57 (10) (b)

“A planning authority, or the Board on appeal, shall not grant permission for the demolition of a protected structure or proposed protected structure, save in exceptional circumstances”.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

This thread was mentioned on Morning Ireland today with some posts read out.

Either you’re all as vain as I am, or there’s a problem with the Listen Again function for Morning Ireland around the 1′ 50″ mark, just where the comments seem to be mentioned.

From today’s Indo

“Yesterday, An Taisce said the board had set a precedent which could see other listed buildings demolished to make way for new developments. This is only supposed to happen in ‘exceptional circumstances’ — where a building was dangerous, for example — and none had been demonstrated, it said.

“The proposal does open up a precedent on the quays,” An Taisce heritage officer Ian Lumley said. “This undermines the architectural conservation area, and it could be the subject of legal proceedings. The board are venturing into very dangerous territory.”

In overturning its inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission, the board said the high quality of the revamped hotel and benefits to the area meant the project would be in accordance with proper planning and granted permission subject to 19 conditions”.

Sean Dunne must be rubbing his hands with glee.

Would you bet against it?

I’m personally in favour of this. Foster and Partners have a proven track record, and the Clarence as it is, already projects well above the surrounding buildings, so it’s not like the skyline is going to be ruined.

I don’t think anyone has, so far put up any pictures of the buildings, we’re going to lose. It’s hard to make a fair judgement otherwise.

i was thinking it was unfair to call it a flying saucer shaped, building, more like a vase or funnel with a top but then you look at the montage with the viewing gallery and you say yeah it is a flying saucer

were the planners won over the greeness of the building, just says it green its okay, it like buying a new double aa rated wash machine and just dumping the old one in your local park.

For me its nothing to do with F & P or their record,its the fact that these buildings are in a desparate state.It was a logical decision,not based on emotion or conservatism like people in an taisce.I’m not sure what everyone crying about cause the nimbys have already ready won the battle when it comes to development in Dublin,you just have to look at what we build during the celtic tiger to realise that.

who left the buildings in a desperate state?

Wat the hell is it suppose to represent?????…..I have huge respect and admire the work of Norman foster but this is a little outragous

The prospect of protected structures being demolished all over the place on the precendent of this decision is certainly concerning. However overall I will be very excited to see this go ahead. As I suspect will the silent majority of non-archiseek-anoraks. In their own apathetic way of course.

Archiectural merit as extraordinary circumstances justifying demolition of protected structures is just so subjective. For me this one gets a pass, I wouldn’t be confident of the next one though.

Makes me worry for the poor redbrick terrace on Henry street 🙁

This is an unbelievable decision. What is the point of listing buildings if this can happen?

There’s also the added point that U2 and co were incapable of making a profit with a small hotel during an economic boom, losing €500K in 2005 alone. What makes them think that they’ll be any better running a large hotel during a recession, in which hotels are already closing down?

P.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Didn’t you see the name of that poster over there? The circle is smaller than you think! 😉

publicrealm-
I’m really at a loss to understand this one. I’m sitting here – cocoa, pipe and slippers all present and correct – with the Inspector’s Report and the Board’s Decision, trying to get a handle on their reasoning, but it’s not falling into place. I don’t think the Board has been wicked, tricksy and false, I’m saying it’s made the wrong decision.

*** *** ***

This is what passes for the grounds for a decision these days? It seems one aspect (use) of one category (social) is sufficient to trump the other conservation considerations. And flying saucers on the roof don’t undermine the integrity of a conservation area. Glad to have that clarified.

Also, I’m having trouble finding the relevant policy re continuance of use. Any thoughts?

Would it be H6?

Looks like an awful stretch of logic. In fact, H6 seems to say the opposite- that top drawer conservation merits a few concessions in other areas.

While I have the page of the DCDP open I may as well stick a couple more up. For balance, like.

Still, it’ll be a welcome shot in the arm for economy.

*high five*

do we know who the unfortunate inspector was and who sat on the panel that overruled him???

I presume that the Clarence will now be deleted from the Record of Protected Structures? I cannot believe that An Bord Pleanala have ignored the expert advice of the Council and the DEHLG and permit a proposal which would make the building not worth listing anymore. It shoud be plainly clear that the architectural merit of a proposal is never ground for demolition of a Protected Structure. Mr Foster would certainly not have got permission for this on his home turf in the UK, thats for sure.

There isn’t a stretch of the Thames like this; I’ve always been of the opinion that Dublin reacts with its river more like Paris or Cork than London in this respect. In the riverside in London from Westminster to London Bridge you have either absolute icons or absolute muck there is very little middle ground on the main stretch of the Thames.

I really hope that the drawings translate to the icon the promotors claim it is and that some of the sentiments bove are misplaced; I am however unconvinced.

@wearnicehats wrote:

do we know who the unfortunate inspector was and who sat on the panel that overruled him???

These are the members of the Board: http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members.htm I don’t think they were all involved in the decision- as I understand it, panels are drawn from that list. I think the decision was 7-1 in favour. I’d love to know their reasoning. It doesn’t come across in the Board’s Decision.

The Inspector was Kevin Moore. His reasoning is abundantly clear.

the edge said he wanted to preserve it, preserve what one wall?

and they seem to talk of preserve type clarance hotel, who cares if its a hotel.

By Cormac Murphy

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/conservation-group-could-seek-to-halt-8364150m-clarence-hotel-revamp-1435971.html

Saturday July 19 2008

A CONSERVATION group could seek to overturn An Bord Pleanala’s grant of permission for the €150m Clarence Hotel redevelopment.

The Irish Georgian Society (IGS) said today it will examine whether a High Court review of the controversial decision is a viable option.

The Clarence Consortium, which includes Bono and The Edge, was given the go ahead to demolish six protected buildings on Wellington Quay to make way for the revamp.

Conservation officer with the IGS, Emmeline Henderson, told the Herald a judicial review “is certainly something we would consider if there is recourse”.

However, she pointed out the move would have to be made on the basis of a technicality in the Bord Pleanala ruling — the decision itself cannot be reviewed.

The U2 band members, along with property developers Paddy McKillen and Derek Quinlan, were given the green light to press ahead with the transformation of the 44-bedroom boutique hotel into a 141-bedroom, five-star hotel and spa, complete with restaurant, bar and fresh food market.

But the controversial plan has alarmed conservationists as it involves a massive reconstruction of the Clarence, an art deco building dating from 1937, four Georgian buildings from the early 19th century and Dollard House, which was built in 1886.

All are listed buildings and only the facades along Wellington Quay in the south inner city will be preserved.

The plans were designed by internationally renowned architect Norman Foster and include provision for a roof-top, flying saucer-like structure which will dominate the quayside landscape.

The board made its decision by a seven-to-one majority against a recommendation by senior planning inspector Kevin Moore that permission be refused.

Mr Moore characterised the scheme as “conceptually brilliant but contextually illiterate”.

But the board said the project would “provide a building of unique quality and architectural distinction”.

It also ruled that “the continued historic hotel use” was sufficient to constitute the “exceptional circumstances” required in legislation to permit the demolition of protected structures.

“In deciding not to accept the inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission, which involves the part-demolition of protected structures, is permissible because of the exceptional quality of the design,” the board’s report said.

It added that the new design would not undermine the integrity of the Liffey Quays Conservation Area.

The massive revamp was granted permission by Dublin City Council in November but that decision was appealed.

There seems to be some criticism of the role of planning in this case. Let me just say that the role of planning is to facilitate development and protect adjacent amenity/property. In rejecting proposals planning authorites indicate to developers how they might get permission. There are two substantial issues for the city in this case, namely:

1. The design and its impact on the surrounding area.
2. The demolition of protected structures.

There is no objection to a sensitive and intensified redevelopment on the site and no objection to the design per se…it is all about context.

The An Bord Pleanála Inspector’s Report includes some devestating criticisms of the design and its impact on its surroundings:

“In my opinion, the design of the proposed development is conceptually brilliant, but contextually illiterate. The result is something architecturally exquisite on its own but completely self-gratifying in a location that demands much less. All of the great monumental buildings along the quays stand independently aside from the traditional terraces. Indeed, they stand back from the quayside and from their separate independence they offer their own statement. In truth, the proposed development, for the very reason that it is proposed to be sited within a terrace of structures of historical significance on the quays (within a terrace that it cannot and should not disassociate itself from), proves to be misplaced. It cannot be a monumental building in this context without the iconic terraced streetscape of the quays at this location imploding….

The overall development cannot be seen to relate to the urban grain of this area. The character of this area is, thus, not reinforced by this proposal. As a consequence, the value of the Conservation Area is diminished. The development’s incongruity in terms of design, scale, height, roof treatment, use of materials and general failure to respect the character of the existing architecture is unpalatable. It is my opinion that the proposed development has been adapted in isolation for isolation, to be read as a self portrait not as part of a landscape composition of terraced quays corralling the city’s river.”

(Inspector’s Report, Section 13.3, pages 73-76)

The more I think about this decision, the more I want to kill somebody.

This stretch of the Quays is all about a series of individual ‘palazzos’ from the Sunlight Chambers down to the Clarence. If they had wanted to make a contemporary statement and they were confident that Foster could deliver a building of the quality that would justify the demolition of the four late Georgians beyond the existing Clarence, that would have been a better option IMO. A contemporary palazzo, designed by Foster, extending the series, I could go for that.

Total demolition of some of the site would be preferable to 95% demolition of all of the site.

and another thing:

The back of the Clarence, the assembly of the parts, the dining area and it’s reflection on the elevation, is not ony a ‘Protected Structure’ it’s an architectural gem IMO. To loose this in favour of an over-scaled (for Temple Bar) rippled curtain wall, that will have all the charm of an office block when the novelty wears off, is unforgiveble.

Jebsus, they are knocking the back wall too!!! I hadn’t realised it would be that gone too….I thought the facades at both frontages would be retained.

F**k’s sake.

ABP will be heartily ashamed of this decison in 5 years I predict. This is the ESB of it’s generation.

I used to want to meet Bono when I was a young one – now i REALLY want to meet him. 😡

@ctesiphon wrote:

Lies! All lies!!

You’re only trying to stir up a bit of controversy by pretending that there’s someone in this city who actually likes this proposal.:D

Joking aside, is there anyone out there who does like it and can give a good, reasoned argument for such an opinion?

This proposal does not go far enough, I fully support it. The more of these ‘listed buildings’ we lose the better.

This proposal does not go far enough, I fully support it. The more of these ‘listed buildings’ we lose the better.

Are you trolling?

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

Are you trolling?

No, all listed buildings on this site should be demolished for this scheme IMO. What we end up with now is a dogs dinner of old and new structures. Thats the real reason this scheme wont look well. Not the actual new structure itself. Hence why I say this does not go far enough.

Haha! ‘Listed buildings’.

Thanks for your ‘good, reasoned argument’. Anyone else?

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

Are you trolling?

Dark is not a troll in the sense of “someone who consiously pretends to hold ill-thought out and annoying opinions in order to provoke a response”, however, I can see how you could make this mistake.

How about the existing buildings just being ugly, along with a large section of the quays in the immediate area.

@CC105 wrote:

How about the existing buildings just being ugly, along with a large section of the quays in the immediate area.

I think it is a mistake to base planning descision on negative aesthetic judgements like this; fashions change and it is so easy to see no merit in a good building, so much harder to see what is good about a building, I always feel that if opinion is mixed, the positive judgement is usually more worthwhile, more thoughtful. What we can say is that these are fine buildings, care was put into designing them and into building them, there are reasons to be impressed by them and by their relationships with the surrounding streetscape, it is likely that these attributes will be valued in time, even if you find them ugly now. Personally, I think the hotel is a great buildings, with an Edwardian feel rare in the city center.

This plan is a catastrophe. I cannot fathom how seven members of ABP could take this grossly overscaled Disneyland facadism and hold it up as ‘exceptional design’.

Whatever about the bombastic flying saucer roof, it’s the double-height glazed box that lurches out of the facades of the small houses on Wellington Quay that kills me. It looks like someone has just plonked a curtain-walled office block directly on top of these cowering buildings. There’s barely even a set-back. And then there’s the huge strip of blank two-storey gable wall saying fuck you to O’Connell Bridge and the rest of the city, wrecking one of the city’s few classic vistas. Plus the baffling consensus that the Essex Street facades are blank and worthless. I just don’t get it.

It’s groups of small-scale buildings like those around the Clarence that give Dublin its distinctive character. It’s inconceivable that a development like this would be pemitted along the canals in Amsterdam or on the terraces along the Seine. As usual, planning in Dublin appears to be around fifteen years behind the rest of Europe. It’s like someone in An Bord Pleanala has just been to Bilbao on a mini-break and decided Dublin needs some ‘iconic architecture’, and everyone else was too weary to object. Meanwhile the actual fabric of the city rots – Thomas Street, James’s Street, the Northside Georgian core. This is the intimate urban streetscape that distinguishes Dublin from the sub-Birmingham naffness it increasingly appears to aspire to.

There must be some ingenious architect out there who could design Bono a 140-bedroom hotel on this site without butchering the quays..?

@paddyb wrote:

This is the intimate urban streetscape that distinguishes Dublin from the sub-Birmingham naffness it increasingly appears to aspire to.

Can I be the first to congratulate you on this excellent sentence!

@paddyb wrote:

This plan is a catastrophe. I cannot fathom how seven members of ABP could take this grossly overscaled Disneyland facadism and hold it up as ‘exceptional design’.

I don’t know how the inner processes work in APB, but the selection of the inspector would appear to be a critical decision. While I wouldn’t dissagree with too much that was in the inspector’s report on the Clarence, there are a couple of things that stand out:

1. That ‘Conceptually brilliant, but contextually illiterate’ phrase, and

2. The name of the inspector.

If a particular inspector was possibly prone to grandstanding and had a back catelogue that included a withering evaluation of another large scale redevelopment proposal for a contextually challenging site in Dublin, that had been abruptly and properly overturned by the Board, would that be the inspector you would pick to take this particular file?

I think that ‘Conceptually brilliant’ phrase is undeserved, I suspect it was introduced to give maximum effect to the ‘contextually illiterate’ part of the couplet, which is deserved. To me, this is the Achille’s heel in the whole report, it gave the Board the soundbite they needed to to justify their Grant of Permission. Who wouldn’t want a building that even it’s most vocal denouncer conceded was ‘Conceptually brilliant’?

IGS letter in today’s IT. Hmmm…

Clarence Hotel development

Madam, – The Irish Georgian Society: Ireland’s Architectural Heritage Society is extremely concerned at the decision reached by the members of the board of An Bord Pleanála on July 16th, 2008, to grant permission for the Norman Foster-designed redevelopment and extension to the Clarence Hotel, Wellington Quay, Dublin.

The Irish Georgian Society is confounded as to why the board said Yes to this scheme when their own senior planning inspector advised against doing so, citing the negative impact on the built heritage as the principal reason.

In addition to An Board Pleanála’s own planning inspector advising against the scheme, Ireland’s conservation community was unanimous in its rejection of the scheme, with the Irish Georgian Society; An Taisce; Dublin City Council’s conservation department; and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government’s architectural heritage protection policy unit all advocating a No decision.

Furthermore, the decision reached by An Board Pleanála to grant permission for the scheme is contrary to the measures set out to protect the built heritage in Dublin City Council’s development plan (Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011, Part X, Heritage and Appendix 18, Protected Structures and Buildings in Conservation Areas), Ireland’s national conservation legislation (Planning Development Act, 2000, Part IV, Architectural Heritage) and national conservation policy (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government’s Architectural Heritage Protection: Guidelines for Local Authorities), as well as international conservation charters (International Charter for the Conservation Restoration of Monuments and Sites, Venice, 1964) and conventions (Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, Granada 1985).

The society is strongly opposed to the decision to grant permission for this scheme and fully concurs with An Bord Pleanála’s inspector’s evaluation that the “design of the proposed development is conceptually brilliant but contextually illiterate”.

This is due to the proposal’s form, scale and massing being at variance with already established urban form of Wellington Quay, an urban form characterised by small-scale narrow-fronted terraced Georgian houses.

A form deemed to have significant heritage value, as borne out by the quays being designated an Architectural Conservation Area.

In addition to the negative impact the granted scheme will have on the “quayscape” and city’s skyline, the granting of permission represents a serious conservation setback in Ireland as to what is deemed acceptable treatment for a protected structure.

The concept of a protected structure, as introduced into Irish law through the Planning and Development Act, 2000, was a far-seeing and progressive one, where the protected structure comprised the building itself, the interior, the curtilage of the building and where relevant, the attendant lands.

In particular, the protection of the interior was a long overdue but hugely welcomed development and was intended to inhibit facadism.

Facadism, long discredited by the international conservation community and totally at odds with ICOMOS’s conservation charters, entails the retention of the facade and the demolition of the building behind.

The Clarence Hotel, Dollard House and number 9-12 Wellington Quay, which formed part of the planning application, are all protected structures and as such their interiors were also protected.

An Bord Pleanála’s ruling to grant permission for the demolition of the interiors of all these protected structures has paved the way for wholesale facadism along this stretch of Dublin’s quays.

Most worrying is the precedent that has now been set. It will be increasingly difficult for Dublin City Council and An Bord Pleanála to refuse permission for future insensitive planning applications which threaten to degrade the protected structures and architectural conservation areas located within Dublin’s historic core.

The last point the society wishes to stress is that we are not in any way opposed to good quality modern buildings.

The society is conscious that the well-designed buildings of today will become the built heritage of tomorrow. However, the “built heritage of tomorrow” should not be erected if it means that Dublin’s celebrated historic buildings and streetscapes are to be mutilated and degraded, as is the case with the Clarence development.

The society agrees that to have an architect, such as Norman Foster, who is held in such esteem by the international architectural community, design a building for Dublin should be exciting.

However the society emphatically considers that Dublin is being given a second-rate building by a first-rate architect and that it is a sad day when an architect of Norman Foster’s calibre is reduced to facadism. – Yours, etc,

EMMELINE HENDERSON,
Conservation Research Manager,
Irish Georgian Society,
74 Merrion Square,
Dublin 2.

© 2008 The Irish Times

Also, gunter- I’ve been giving your last post some thought. I’ll be back.

Hardly news -a conservation body writting that they do not approve of this development. After the editorial in the Times the other day I suspect that lots more of these conservative views will make it to print. Not hard to see how FMc D gets to write the stuff he does.

The letter (note ‘letter’, not ‘news’) was posted here for information, particularly for those who may not have seen the IT today. You might not be aware of it, but this debate has travelled beyond these shores. I don’t know if those elsewhere read this forum, but if they do I’m pretty sure they’d appreciate the up-to-date information.

You don’t? To be honest, that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

The rest of your post – equating ‘conservation’ with ‘conservative’, the illogical statement about Frank McDonald – is up to your usual high standard. :rolleyes:

best get back to school then!!!as for standard of postings, get over yourself:o

Dawn’s place?

Gee wiz, it’s not news that a conservation body opposes…blah blah…we know…that’s not the point. This time it’s much more significant and that’s why they’ve been quoted about taking legal action, I think. Get over yourself CC!

I wonder if there’s anyone here who could clarify something for me about the above letter.

@The Irish Georgian Society wrote:

The society is strongly opposed to the decision to grant permission for this scheme and fully concurs with An Bord Pleanála’s inspector’s evaluation that the “design of the proposed development is conceptually brilliant but contextually illiterate”.

However the society emphatically considers that Dublin is being given a second-rate building by a first-rate architect and that it is a sad day when an architect of Norman Foster’s calibre is reduced to facadism. – Yours, etc,

Can it be both “conceptually brilliant” and “second-rate” at the same time?

The first quote is the inspector
the second is the IGS opinion

Yes, but the IGS “fully concurs” with the inspector’s evaluation, which includes the view that the building is “conceptually brilliant”.

Seamus O’G is right, I’m afraid; the inspector sold the pass to the Philistines – ‘conceptually arrogant’ would have hit the mark better.

I’d taken it that ‘conceptually brilliant’ referrred to the ‘skycatcher’ concept of funnelling light down through the building, coupled with the project’s overall environmental credentials – not its aesthetics. ‘Conceptually brilliant’ hardly refers to thickly spreading top-up additions across a terrace of historic structures like a layer of architectural Polyfilla.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Lies! All lies!!

You’re only trying to stir up a bit of controversy by pretending that there’s someone in this city who actually likes this proposal.:D

Joking aside, is there anyone out there who does like it and can give a good, reasoned argument for such an opinion?

Yes. Ilike it a lot. I’m delighted and somewhat surprised (pleasently) that it got the go ahead. It’s brilliantly imposing and livens up the otherwise boring and drab quay area. I especially like airy top of the building. The rest of it has a gothic type feel to it. The fact that they had to knock down a couple of Georgian buildings either side of it is a good thing. If I had my way aside from a few notable exceptions I’d level the quays and put something more inspiring in its place. Just because something is old doesn’t mean that it has any architectural merit. This train of thought that states leave the quays as they are simply because they’re Georgian is a a ridiculous and flawed argument for tolerating mediocrity. Did the Georgians lose any sleep at night while they laid waste to vast areas of the medievil city to make way for the wonderfully designed wide streets? Hardly! Times and architectural styles evole. It happens. Be respectful of past glories but not imprisioned by them.

Be respectful of past glories but not imprisioned by them.

Jeezus h christ. What a bunch of absolute horsesh*t rounded off with a seemingly reasonable question. Here’s a question for you: how the f*ck would leveling the quays be respectful of the past?

Have you actually been to any cities where where their historic buildings and streetscapes have been erased in the recent past whether by accident or design? You don’t have to go far. Ryanair do cheap flights to the English midlands or try any of the south Wales urban centres.

It’s depressing trying to maintain some ambition for Dublin and sustain hope tthat it compete with and develop along the lines of similarly sized admired European capitals and yet come across so many people whose lowly aspirations would have Dublin turned into something like Coventry. It’s the same ignorance which provided the justification for the gutting of Dublin in order to bring dual carraigeways into the centre of the city.

And yes, it is IGNORANCE and not simply a matter of opinion. It demonstrates a lack of objectivity and experience of other cities. The “out with the old” attitute to urban development can never be justified based on the experience of other cities. There are never any cities named which demonstrate that this approach has improved a city (I challenge you to name a single similarly-sized European city which is generally admired having destroyed it’s own historic heart) , there are countless examples of cities which are generally viewed as having being destroyed by this approach and furthermore there are endless counterexamples of cities where the preservation of their historic stock has made them into some of the most widely admired and vibrant cities in the world.

The outsider intervenes again, but are you in Dublin not rapidly approaching a Wood Quay or a Hume St moment? The Clarence and Stephens Green proposals are such monumental (sic) affronts to the integrity of the city that somebody should do something; in today’s media-hyped world with its penchant for the tabloidesque think of the negative publicity. ‘Over-hyped (and over-there) fading popgroup and megalomaniac starchitect conspire to ravish defenceless old dame on the quays’ (or something like that). You can no doubt invent a better scenario for the green yourselves.
Instead of the relentless quest for the ‘iconic’ and the mega, DCC should concentrate on ‘improving’ and consolidating the city within the canals. There are plenty of continental examples of good practice, just get on with it. It does not mean you build nothing new, even less that you give up on ‘contemporary’ architecture, since there are plently of vacant spaces and genuinely dilapidated buildings to focus on. Why not try Newmarket or Thomas St as exemplars and get a genuine debate going about best practice? ABP gives every indication of having been bought or at least contaminated, so the last line of defence has now gone.

@CC105 wrote:

How about the existing buildings just being ugly, along with a large section of the quays in the immediate area.

allowing as you clearly should for the buildings to get a good clean what’s ugly about them comapred to their contempaories?

@Desmund wrote:

Did the Georgians lose any sleep at night while they laid waste to vast areas of the medievil city to make way for the wonderfully designed wide streets? Hardly!

You’ve got a point there Desmund, but the ‘Georgians’ were pursuing a comprehensive vision of a classical city, I don’t see much evidence of a comprehensive vision today and whatever vision the Clarence proposal entails, it is seriously compromised by the facadism that they’ve adopted to deal with the ‘Protected Structure’ status of the existing buildings.

@johnglas wrote:

are you in Dublin not rapidly approaching a Wood Quay or a Hume St moment?

I think there are some parallels with both Wood Quay and Hume Street here, but perhaps the planning controversy with the most similarities is the Municipal Gallery of Modern Art saga of almost exactly a hundred years ago.

On that occassion, a prominant Irishman on the fringes of the global artistic world engaged the services of a star architect from England to make a big statement on the Liffey Quays. I presume that Hugh Lane engaged Edwin Lutyens for the same reasons that the U2 boys engaged Norman Foster, he had the biggest reputation going and they had access to him.

Although it had none of the crass commercial overtones of the proposed Clarence make-over, the proposed Hugh Lane Gallery was certainly ‘conceptually brilliant’ and would have have classical elegance by the bucket full. As far as I understand it, the proposed new gallery was undone by little more than a negative public reaction which expressed itself unimpressed by the concept of a building intruding into the Liffey vistas.

Another factor in the negative public reaction was the fact that the new, conceptually brilliant, gallery would have replacing the ha’penny bridge (less than a hundred years old at that stage) and this modest struture had, by then, become a much admired feature of the quay-scape.

But that was all in more primitive times, before we had the concept of ‘Protected Structures’ and before we had the benefit of a belt & braces planning system to ensure that ‘protected Structures’ remained protected.

@Desmund wrote:

Did the Georgians lose any sleep at night while they laid waste to vast areas of the medievil city to make way for the wonderfully designed wide streets? Hardly!.

I certainly regret how much of the medieval city was lost to the WSC, in Edinburgh, for example, the Georgian town extended the city rather without destroying so much of it. On another thread the lost of TCD’s early buildings was regretted. Either way, the fact the Georgians destroyed part of the medieval town doesn’t really constitute an argument for demolishing Georgian buildings.

Inspector on “exceptional circumstances”:

[align=left:3105yhmx]I note that there is no definition of “exceptional circumstances” under the Planning and

the Guidelines.[/align:3105yhmx]

(Inspector’s Report, Assessment, Section 13.1, pages 46 – 47)

Can someone explain to me why An Taisce or the Irish Georgian Society haven’t taken a judicial review against the Board’s decision? Are they hard up, if they won’t defend conservation, who will? The failure to challenge this decision sets a terrible precedent in my view.

@SunnyDub wrote:

Can someone explain to me why An Taisce or the Irish Georgian Society haven’t taken a judicial review against the Board’s decision? Are they hard up, if they won’t defend conservation, who will? The failure to challenge this decision sets a terrible precedent in my view.

Well………

Firstly, you are looking at challenging a decision by an expert body, on what is essentially an undefined and subjective matter. Not a great start. Generally the Courts will not go behind the reasoning of an expert body unless it can be shown to be wholly irrational;

Secondly there is the small matter of circa 1 million euro, which you would need to gamble. This assumes a worst case scenario where you lose your case (assuming you get leave in the first place) and pay your own plus the other sides costs (ABP would certainly pursue costs) and also get hit by the Applicant for the cost of the ‘unnecessary’ delay (in a deteriorating market).

Hardly a job for any voluntary, cash starved organisation?

We need a planning inspectorate, loosely modelled on the Spanish Inquisition, but with additional powers, which would call in decisions as it saw fit. S’not going to happen though.

A image of the ‘world class pool’!!!!!:cool:

I think the images for the hotel look spectacular,The Saucer is quite impressive as are the images of the temple bar side of things.The only part I find particularly awful is the plain curtain wall that brings the height of the buildings to the left of the main building up to the matching height.True it looks “Different” to the rest of the quays but that particular run of buildings aren’t looking to well anyway.I might go so far as saying that the hotel is a diamond in the roof…but I won’t go that far for fear of getting shunned

Roche rejected advice on Clarence Hotel proposals from department
i know politicians are supposed to make judgements but surely he should know he doens’t have the right judment for this osrt of thing and excuse himself and trust his advisors
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1104/1225523343322.html

according to the IT property News today, Foster has closed his Dublin office

ARCHITECTURAL FIRM Foster+Partners has closed its Dublin office as part of a redundancy process worldwide.

Does that include the Clarence and U2 Tower?

@wearnicehats wrote:

Projects in Ireland include a revamp of the Clarence Hotel, complete with flying-saucer roof, and the U2 Tower in Dublin’s docklands as well as a €280 million mixed-use, residential and commercial scheme on a 10-acre site beside Howth’s Dart station and a masterplan for a mixed-use development in Greystones, Co Wicklow, with residential, civic, educational, commercial and leisure facilities.

[/I]

Always thought the Greystones South Quarter development was an interesting one. Didn’t ever think that was going to get permission/built anyway! http://www.greystonesnewquarter.ie/gallery.asp

what does ayone think of it?

@layo wrote:

Always thought the Greystones South Quarter development was an interesting one. Didn’t ever think that was going to get permission/built anyway! http://www.greystonesnewquarter.ie/gallery.asp

what does ayone think of it?

I think its quite ok in the scheme of things…
The tower had potential and the Clarence had potential where do you draw the line…

“Does that include the Clarence and U2 Tower?”

Aye, and according to the latest Time’s Britain and Ireland’s wealthiest list, Bono and Co are feeling the pinch.

LVMH to take stake in Bono-backed ethical fashion brand
The French luxury goods group is to take a stake in Edun, the ethical fashion brand founded by Bono and his wifeTimes Online
LVMH, the French luxury goods group, is to take a stake in Edun, the ecological and ethical fashion brand founded by Irish singer Bono and his wife, Ali Hewson.

Speaking at LVMH’s annual shareholders’ meeting in Paris, the group’s chief executive, Bernard Arnault, said Edun will sit alongside the company’s other fashion brands such as Celine, Kenzo, Marc Jacobs and Louis Vuitton. He did not specify the size of the stake or give any financial details.

Launched in 2005 by Bono and Mrs Hewson, Edun sells T-shirts and dresses in organic cotton made in countries such a India, Peru, Uganda, Kenya and Lesotho.
The company says on its website it aims to encourage sustainable employment in developing regions, particularly Africa. Bono, whose real name is Paul Hewson, is famous for fronting the band U2 and for his extensive campaigning for African humanitarian causes, which has led to three Nobel Peace Prize nominations.

As he announced the Edun deal, Mr Arnault said trading in April at LVMH was broadly in line with the level seen during the first quarter, with a slight improvement in wines and spirits

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article6288788.ece

Few have escaped in the last 18 months even some of the most risk averse funds have seen performances of -30% p.a.

Will this project happen in the current climate?

Not unless the syndicate empty their matresses

Hopefully it won’t happen, I find it shocking that there has been no legal challenge as the permission is blatantly unlawful. Maybe the IGS have other priorities and maybe An Taisce are short on funds.

blatantly unlawful

Care to expound – do you think An Taisce had grounds to JR’d the Appeal?

This was my quote from last year, they can’t legally grant a permission to demolish protected structures except in exceptional circumstances.

@SunnyDub wrote:

I’ve just had a look at the decision & it all hinges on “exceptional circumstances“, I can see this going to a legal challenge i.e. what is the legal definition of “exceptional circumstances“. I fail to see anything exceptional about it except that the design is “exceptional” (in a good or bad way depending on your point of view).

I don’t think the economic or hotel use justification could be realistically seen as “exceptional” in the city. There must be numerous places where the same considerations apply. Decision extracts:

“Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development constitutes exceptional circumstances for
the purposes of section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 which
make it appropriate to permit the part demolition of the protected structures. The
proposed development, therefore, would not be contrary to the provisions of the
development plan when taken as a whole and would be in accordance with the proper
planning and sustainable development of the area“.

“In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission, the
Board considered that the development proposed, which involves the part demolition
of protected structures, is permissible because the exceptional quality of the design of
the proposed development, allied to the continuation of the historic hotel use on the
site constitute exceptional circumstances for the purposes of section 57(10)(b) of the
Planning and Development Act, 2000 and that the Board was not, therefore, precluded
from granting permission“.

They follow on with this definition of unique/exceptional, would a judge agree?

“The Board also considered that the unique circumstances of this case, that is, the
exceptional design quality, the conservation proposals and the architectural quality
and cultural significance of the remaining intact historic fabric of buildings on the site
would not constitute an undesirable precedent for the partial demolition of any other
protected structures, either in Dublin or nationally”.

Planning Register Reference Number: 1394/07
An Bord Pleanála Reference Number: PL 29S.226834

I’d like to see what happens if this is challenged in the courts as it would have wide ranging significance for other cases also. Let the games begin!

Cant they not make a compromise? I dont think the new proprosal is that bad anyway. If it is what is not good about it. Is there anything you like about it.

Its all about proportion and balance here. The CLarion building is fine, But the back and some adjacent buildings could do with alot of renovation and restructuring. Dublin needs more density of 5-9 storeys. The Clarioun is 6 storys from ground to roof level.

I like the proprosal, Im tired of nothing exciting going ahead. Open the doors to some love for christ sake, and LET THE FEAR GO.

Im tired of nothing exciting going ahead. Open the doors to some love for christ sake, and LET THE FEAR GO

Fine quality protected structures in current usage are hardly the place to start are they?

But the back and some adjacent buildings could do with alot of renovation and restructuring.

Inside

Looks great to me as it is…perhaps you mean the Clarion not the Clarence – they can knock the effing Clarion as far as I’m concerned.

I’m not saying I dislike it (or like it), I’m just pointing out that, in law, they must have exceptional circumstances to grant permission to demolish protected structures. What are the exceptional circumstances? I can’t see any.

Exceptional circumstances should be defined specifically in the Act but is not.

Exceptional circumstances should be defined specifically in the Act but is not.

And their lies the rub: once they are defined, de facto, they cease to be exceptional.

However, that said we could use some guidance in the Act and a consulted and agreed set of guidelines would help.

Such as some form of architectural heritage protection guidelines for planning authorities, issued perhaps by the Department of Environment.

Oh wait…

Some positive developments on the Wellington Quay front.

The vacant shops that form part of the stalled Clarence Hotel redevelopment site, ironically still ‘protected structures’ despite the planning permission to demolish them, might be coming back into use as at least an as interim measure, which when you think about it is a bit of a repeat of how the whole Temple Bar area itself survived and evolved while the mega-CIE-bus-station plan stalled before eventually dying in the 1980s.

Has anyone ever been in the former Working Mens Club? Just wondering what kind of interior it had – probably 70s bar lounge

The brickwork of the facade you see in the middle photo was recently cleaned of its paint. It involved applying some sort of transfers to lift the paint off the brickwork. Interesting to see although the effect isn’t complete.

@SunnyDub wrote:

Hopefully it won’t happen, I find it shocking that there has been no legal challenge as the permission is blatantly unlawful. Maybe the IGS have other priorities and maybe An Taisce are short on funds.

The IGS may also be slightly hamstrung because of their effusive praise of the design.

I was in Dublin recently, and there didn’t seem to have been any progress on this project. What’s the problem?

I understood that the hotel would be unviable unless it was allowed to be redeveloped. Yet, after all the ABP palaver, nothing.

Did Michael Smith’s snobbery finally reach The Edge?

The scheme was shelved ages ago. There isnt the finance to develop and probably not the market for the high cost hotel envisaged. The age of the starchitect is passed.

It is interesting to see how all those ‘redundant’ and ‘derelict’ spaces and units surrounding the hotel have been put to quite ‘viable’ and ‘attractive’ re-use.

Not a snowball’s chance in hell this will go ahead any time soon. However, should an extension to the planning permission be applied for, one would wonder what the implications of the revised building height objectives in the new Development Plan would be on the project. Any assessment of a permission extension must take cognisance of changes in planning policy since the permission was granted.

A further interesting procedural point is some of the alterations that have recently been carried out in these Protected Structures – buildings that may still have a demolition ball over them, but until the permission is enacted are still Protected Structures. This can be observed in the main entrance to the Workman’s Club, where all of the delicate early nineteenth-century balusters have quite literally been chopped out of the staircase in the past few weeks because they were ‘suffering from wear and tear’ according to a cagey member of staff, and all replaced with preposterous swirly poles from B&Q. There are a number of other interventions in these buildings that would make for a fascinating enforcement case.

Nonetheless, as mentioned above, it is the mind-numbingly outrageous professional endorsement of the Clarence project across a number of disciplines, with their writing off of these buildings as ‘unviable’ and beyond economic repair, that is so galling, when one observes how they have since been transformed into one of the most vibrant, culturally distinctive and uniquely Dublin venues in the capital. Not only have these period buildings – one of the very best groupings on the entire three miles of the historic quays – been put to a viable and sustainable use that is of social and economic benefit to the city, their new lease of life as a fantastic array of public venues is showcasing to Dublin’s citizenry – particularly, and crucially, its younger people – the interior delights of stoical Dublin merchant building stock of the late Georgian and Victorian periods.

The intimate two-room plans, the variety of delicate and robustly detailed staircases, the tradition of our reticent interior joinery – our moulded shutter boxes, pilasters and doors – the simplicity of plasterwork, the handsome selection of chimneypieces, and the baffling array of sash window types intuitively responding to site context – all make for the most stimulating urban experience. And that’s before you even drink in the majesty of the Liffey views framed by the delicate tracery of 200 year-old glazing bars.

To all those built environment ‘professionals’ who endorsed this demolition ego trip, grow your own brain, get out of your car, and learn about your city before destroying it for the rest of us.