Stop this nonsense!
- This topic has 99 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Dreadful news…but hey bad decisions are being made in the Planning Dept everyday! What harm can another one do. Still at least the shite on top will be constructed under the watchful eye of a “conservation architect”, which is good news.
@StephenC wrote:
Dreadful news…but hey bad decisions are being made in the Planning Dept everyday! What harm can another one do. Still at least the shite on top will be constructed under the watchful eye of a “conservation architect”, which is good news.
😮 I agree StephenC, its amazing what damage we have acheived to our build environment over the past few years..Give a muppet loads of money and you come up with David Beckham type class ??
@Bren88 wrote:
– Ref.1871/06
Decision : GRANT PERMISSIONYes, Dublin City council has decided to grant permission for the above. There are conditions attached but they appear to be pretty standard. Things like working hours on site, conservation architect and oh a contribution to DCC of €17,000
Everything around there seems to get granted. Not going to repeat comments I made elsewhere about the area planner, but there is an extremely facilitatory attidude towards development.
Consideration of relevant policy for this proposal will now require the expense of an appeal …
I quite like the College Green affair.
As a matter of interest (Kite and Devin) what material planning grounds should the DCC planner have used to refuse the (in my view horrible) Grand Canal Street frankenstein?
Are you mixing me up with someone else? I didn’t say Grand Canal Street should be refused. I said that because of the prime office location & vacant houses it was inevitably going to be complete demolition or facade retention, and that I was surprised the trouble was taken to keep the facades in this case.
[align=center:359tybvp]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:359tybvp]
Adding upwards onto an older building is fraught at the best of times. This is an example of perhaps where it has been done well.
And, 100 metres away, an example of where it has been done badly (the front). You feel like you could break that brick storey off in your hand!
I took the address of the building from your post No. 12 above?
Reading back over the thread maybe it is the Thomas Street/Francis Street building?
Perhaps I should have directed my comment more at Kite? But you (Devin) – did say apropos 79 Francis St – “Everything around there seems to get granted. Not going to repeat comments I made elsewhere about the area planner, but there is an extremely facilitatory attidude towards development.” Post No. 23.
From Post Nos 12 and 13:
Devin:Here are the Grand Canal Street (Hogan Place) buildings before & after. Seeing as they were mostly unoccupied and in poor condition and located in a prime commercial area it was always going to be complete demolition or else this. I’m surprised even the trouble was taken to keep the fronts in this case. (Better buildings in Dublin have been completely demolished.)
In situations like these you are not retaining the buildings as such; rather you are retaining the brick fa
@Graham Hickey wrote:
By contrast, the College Green topper-offer, red brick aside, is clearly distinct and complements its context rather than dominates.
This apartment appears to be on sale at the moment through Lisney. It’s bigger than I expected.
http://www.lisney.com/subnav.aspx?tabid=1&tabindex=1&inc=resProperty&ID=3253@jdivision wrote:
This apartment appears to be on sale at the moment through Lisney. It’s bigger than I expected.
http://www.lisney.com/subnav.aspx?tabid=1&tabindex=1&inc=resProperty&ID=3253s’not it – the one for sale is a lower floor (and looks very dark and dingy – but then what would you expect for only €700k?)
Re: The two buildings at start of the thread:
Parnell Street has been refused (by condition).
Thomas Street has been appealed.
[align=center:296wifvm]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:296wifvm]
Current planning application for new development on Richmond Street, Dublin 2, including two (!) additional setback storeys on top of a protected structure, the former Bambrick’s pub. Dublin City Council has (rightly) slapped down the proposal with this further information request:
“3. The planning authority will not look favourably on the provision of an additional two stories on the existing public house on site. The applicant is requested to provide a revised proposal which omits the additional floors and provides a thorough assessment of the remaining roof and a plan for its conservation.â€
<a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3828/06&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Richmond St app
I’m getting a bit tired of HKR architects (who are responsible for this proposal) lately. They’re doing a lot of the big stuff around town at the moment, and they’re usually trying to cram too much development in, especially when historic buildings / settings are involved.
Their proposed new Penney’s building of the Arnotts redevelopment speaks for itself ….
It’s still open I think, but under a different name – the George Bernard Shaw. But I heard it’s recently been bought by the people who run the Red Box / Harcourt St. Station venue.
Always had weird customers in there – I remember one night, a social worker seemed to be working the room, talking to regulars…, “and how are your meds” type of thing….
@jdivision wrote:
I agree with HKR comments,
Here is another example of what I’]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9751/copyofdscn2467rq0.jpg[/IMG]
As you are pulling out of Heuston Station on the Cork train, you see these three very fine parallel cut-stone 2-storey ranges at the back of the site. Up close, the quality of the stonework – window dressings, quoins etc. – is very good. They are protected structures.
As part of the Barracks redevelopment, HKR architects proposed placing modern 5-storey blocks in the spaces between and adjoining the ends of the three ranges – at both ends! Can you think of a more ignorant and insensitive way to add to the protected structures??
Dublin City Council put it all through (a trend in the Dublin 8 area). Problem then is, a development precedent is created, so that when it’s appealed, An Bord Pleanala’s job in protecting the character and setting of the protected structures is made that much harder; – where really, all six blocks should be removed by the Bord, half of them are left in – and that’s what happened.
You know those yearly award publications by the AAI and RIAI that feature lots of delicate modern extensions onto period houses, and the panel of assessors rave about the lightness and transcendence of the design? Well for balance they should give examples of bad development next to historic buildings as well, because this would qualify.
@Devin wrote:
You know those yearly award publications by the AAI and RIAI …………… Well for balance they should give examples of bad development next to historic buildings as well, because this would qualify.
Could not agree more, but it never would happen, the prof. bodies of any group would never do that, too cosy and incestuous. Whoever drew up plans for that shite should be ashamed. Architectural prostitution, and the scary thing is that there are idiots out there waiting to queue up to buy that stuff.
KB@Devin wrote:
You know those yearly award publications by the AAI and RIAI that feature lots of delicate modern extensions onto period houses, and the panel of assessors rave about the lightness and transcendence of the design? Well for balance they should give examples of bad development next to historic buildings as well, because this would qualify.
The unfortunate problem with that is that if you could show that the value of the building was adversely affected then the developer/apartment owners/investors could sue you for diminishing the value of their property.
What a dismal proposal. Of course the irony is that if these ranges were established residential streets, the blocks would be struck out outright for being insensitive, domineering and overshadowing of the terraces below. And this would be a street were houses weren’t even protected structures!
Not sure I quite understand why ABP has to let some development through; if they see fit it can be fully rejected. Or is it inevitable that politics plays a part – appeasing the authority’s critics?
Beautiful photographs btw Devin.
I went down to the very end of the Heuston lands to take those – it’s very serene down there. Got chased out again by security though!
Clancy Barracks was in an unusual situation in that it was a little treasure trove historic buildings closed off to the public eye, and no one knew about it before this huge quantum of development was proposed …. kinda sad.
True about the inevitability of political pressure on planning – the likes of Ken McDonald is only waiting to jump out and cite how many Local Authority-approved units were overturned by An Bord Pleanala in 2006, on behalf of his industry. And all the young people needing homes (as if he cares personally!).
What I meant by ‘precedent’ is that the principle of development has been approved, so ABP may feel under pressure not to remove too much. But to be fair, they are in general not slow to remove / refuse any amount of inappropriate Local Authority-approved development if needs be.
[align=center:3rjnny86]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:3rjnny86]
@KerryBog2 wrote:
Could not agree more, but it never would happen, the prof. bodies of any group would never do that, too cosy and incestuous.
@jdivision wrote:
The unfortunate problem with that is that if you could show that the value of the building was adversely affected then the developer/apartment owners/investors could sue you for diminishing the value of their property.
I know it would never happen – that’s what the internet is for, I suppose. Ciaran Cuffe recently likened blogging (and, by extension, discussion forum postings) to ‘canvassing down the pub’.
But it would not be difficult to prove that the integrity of the protected structures had been compromised in this case, as the legislation is quite strong there.
yeh there’s a real issue with sites like Clancy Barracks. They’re prime development sites, whose development in a high density, often high rise manner are almost essential from a strategic point of view. The same goes for other sites in the Heuston-Kilmainham area. It’s very difficult to redevelop these urban blocks in an effective manner sympathetic to the protected structures. However, crap design should never be tolerated.
ABP don’t “have to do” anything. Political pressure is something the board do not take kindly to. Sure wasn’t mary o’rourke goin nuts about this recently. They are generally open for the period of consultation and then they are a closed shop. They were also criticised for refusing residential developments out in Dun laoghaire despite the pressure from local govt for housing.
i’ve just seen a nice example of this type of thing in dun laoghaire town centre. An awful pig of an apartment block is being built behind, above, beside and around what i believe is an early 20th century terrace at the junction of York Road and the Main Street, you’d have a wonderful view atop the 46A on the way to the seafront… sorry i’ve no pic. It’s not a protected structure but to be honest they’d have been better off demolishing the terrace than doing this
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
