Stop this nonsense!
- This topic has 99 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Surprise – An Bord Pleanala has overturned its Inspector’s recommendation and granted permission for this penthouse storey, although they have stipulated that the swoopy bit at the front is flattened out.
Details: http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchdetails.asp?id=4795348&caseno=217779
The decision says:
In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission for the proposed roof level extension, the Board considered that a modestly scaled penthouse structure would be acceptable at this prominent street corner location.
Condition 2 says:
The design of the proposed penthouse extension shall be modified by omitting the curved roof profile and replacing it with a continuation of the flat profile of the remaining part of the roof. Revised drawings showing compliance with this requirement … shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.
Reason: In the interest of civic design and orderly development. It is considered that the curved roof profile, as proposed, would be unduly prominent in the streetscape and visually incongruous in this conservation area.
I think this probably mitigates the worst of it, although they should have restricted the projection of the canopy as well, as these projecting canopies can be very jarring on or next to historic buildings.
In fairness to the people who own this building, they opened a nice caf
Award for thee worst addition to a historic building ever goes to Anthony Reddy Associates for this current proposal (below) for Portobello House on the Grand Canal – Ref. 1098/07. All we’ve learnt over the years about adding to historic buildings has seemingly gone unheeded in this proposal ….
Devin wrote:Award for thee worst addition to a historic building ever goes to Anthony Reddy Associates for this current proposal (below) for Portobello House on the Grand Canal –]Apart from ignoring its context it appears to step out over the footpath at first floor level?
I imagine that this should require a letter of consent from DCC?
i think if they took that monstrosoty thing on on top of it off and left as is or put a smaller roof on it would look ok,not perfect but hardly award winningly awful.without that roof setback(can it be called that considering it protrudes back out again) it fits in well with the surrounding buildings.i also like the fact that despite being an add on to the old college building it doesnt try to be one and rather stands as its own building.
i think we can see time and time again from some of the examples on this thread that this sort of roof does not work on or near historic buildings
public realm, i think the step out is within their own boundary. It looks like it might be level with the railings and the platform. Otherwise yeh they’d require consent
Anyway that roof is bloody atrocious. On and on it goes
Whatever of the ridiculously over-scaled vista as generated from the above vantage point, you really do have to see the proposed head-on view from across the canal to truly appreciate it in all its glory. The ‘extension’ looms over the original building so audaciously as to make one wonder if it’s all some sort of joke; they’ve even added a stumpy tower thingy (a very rough comparison would be the Dental Hospital’s glass cylinder) to further detract from the primacy of the original cupola and wider front elevation.
Agreed that the street elevation is hardly criminal, but the projecting boxes seriously detract from the original building as a whole and the potential for it to blend seamlessly round the corner into the streetscape. And even though the original is only painted green and can be changed, the red sandstone cladding of the extension looks cheap and jarring next to it, as well as the red brick terrace on the other side. The blank expanse at the steps is also ugly.
In fairness to A.R. Associates, the height is hardly their fault, it clearly being the demand of the client. And glazed setbacks are getting through the system, so they’re only trying their luck in appeasing the client with a barely credible attempt. But really, isn’t it ridiculous how even new-build buildings like these are succumbing to this presposterous concept of architecture essentially ending at the third or fourth floor parapet, plonking generic greenhouses with sun screens on top of it all. It’s as if only two-thirds of a building actually needs to be designed any more, as the Setback Reference Guide Vol III will furnish a proposal for the remaining 30% for minimal cost and effort.
There’s a single storey building called the Georgian Restaurant – might be of the ’70s.
Anthony Reddy himself is a good guy. He was president of the RIAI for the past 2 yrs. and made a fair bit of noise about the planning shambles in Ireland.
But whoever drew up this hugely overblown proposal should have been advised that it would never get through next to a landmark listed historic building.
Has this gone in for planning yet ?
Unfortunately the Georgian has been closed for 5 years now. I had many a good night out there but ultimately the property value proved too much of a lure to the owner.
The proposal is deserving of inclusion on this thread. Even a building of the existing scale would probably be inappropriate for this rear curtilage given the aspect and importance of the building.
Exactly – the council have an objective in their Development Plan for new development within the curtilage protected structures which says ‘The Planning Authority will seek to retain the traditional proportionate relationship in scale between buildings, their returns, gardens and mews structures …’ (Section 15.10.2)
While no one’s expecting a coach house to be reconstructed, the general idea is that a new building here would recede and be secondary to Portobello House.
@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
Has this gone in for planning yet ?
Yes. Decision due quite soon. Keep an eye here: <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1098/07&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 1098/07
1) Having regard to the height, massing, design, projection forward of the building line on the east elevation, it is considered that the proposed extension onto Portobello House, a Protected Structure would be overbearing and visually obtrusive when viewed from adjoining streets, and would materially affect the character and integrity of this important Protected Structure. The proposed development would represent an incongruous form of development along Richmond Street South and Richmond Row and would seriously injure the visual amenities of the surrounding properties and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2) Having regard to the plot ratio proposed for this site, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the Development Plan standards, paragraph 15.4.0 and 15.5.0 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011, and would result in over development of this site, and seriously injure the amenities of adjoining properties. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area
3) The proposed development which involves the demolition of a three storey building at number 37 Richmond Street South, which is located in a designated conservation area in the Dublin City Development Plan 2005, would be at variance with paragraph 15.10.3 which refers to retention and re-use of older buildings of significance which are not protected. This building makes a positive contribution to the character and identity of streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city. The proposed development would therefore seriously injure the visual amenities of the streetscape and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area
Very clear message from the planners on this which has to be commended as this streetscape is worthy of preservation; DCC have been very proactive in this area with rapid enforcements when informed of unauthorised and inappropriate developments.
Suprisingly the Lisney Apartment hasn’t shifted yet.
Excellent, a very thorough no.
@PVC King wrote:
Suprisingly the Lisney Apartment hasn’t shifted yet.
Gotta get a Lotto ticket on Saturday so. When you look at the floor plans I suspect the layout would put off a lot of people
5/1/2008
As first raised at the beginning of this thread, the signature corner building at the entrance to Thomas Street and Francis Street has just completed works to its facade and (ever so slightly more) contentiously its roofscape. The addition of a pavilion storey was granted by DCC, was refused by the ABP inspector, and then granted by the board of ABP on the condition that the sweepy curved part be flattened out.
Hence what was this…
@Devin wrote:
…is now this.
Alas I didn’t have time to get a wider stretscape view from a distance, which would better demonstrate its impact.
It is certainly better than what was intitially proposed, so the sting has at least been taken out, but I’d still contend this is a clunky addition to an historic building. The oversailing element, whilst crisp in itself, is particularly overbearing for its context, and the chimney solution inelegant.
As far as pavilion additions go, this was probably a good preliminary case, and one gets the impression the Board were in some respect using this as just that: a test case in a secondary area. It’s by no means of Hugh Lane extension proportions, but it’s not particularly sensitive either. It’s very top heavy, while the original building has had some of its landmark quality diluted. No real damage has been done, but on the basis of this extension I wouldn’t be rushing to grant similar cases elsewhere.
All in all, I think it’s decent enough to be added to the city’s curiosities list rather than monstrosities list.A glazed infill section was popped in to the rear to provide direct access to the top.
A neat solution, if the top-hung casements cumbersome. Cleverly, the extension has also been set back by a metre or so, ensuring an expanse of glazing does not attain the same status as surrounding masonry elements. It is also detached from flanking facades.
The orginal facade has been beautifully cleaned by Interclean and repointed, and sashes a sexy dark grey (shock!). Actually they were painted a few years ago and could do with a new coat or two.
The cut limestone sparkling.
And the owner’s investment in the chic Caffé Noto on the ground floor was most welcome. It does a roaring trade, simply selling coffee and excellent homemade cakes, being bizarrely the only one of its kind in the area. Everything’s also so cheap away from the city centre! Hilariously it has the most spectacularly rude staff of any establisment anywhere in the city. It’s actually a selling point – it’s a running joke amongst my colleagues as to who’s got the worst treatment thus far. The staff are of an artsy type, with that dishevelled slipper-footed, figure-hugging fashion thing going on, and an attitude so aloof and non-caring as to make it something of a must-see. One is also expected to collect one’s coffee from the counter, whist your cake just might arrive at the table if the server feels like it. Just remember to bring your own cutlery – the staff can’t be arsed washing it.
Otherwise a nice little number on the corner.@GrahamH wrote:
but I’d still contend this is a clunky addition to an historic building. The oversailing element, whilst crisp in itself, is particularly overbearing for its context, and the chimney solution inelegant.
Would have to agree, not as bad as it might have been however. Why the need for the extensive roof line over hang ? were they trying to make the handling of the chimney more difficult for themselves ?
The heaviness of the overhang & its crude interaction with the chimney would be the most disappointing aspects imo.
Absolutely – merely serving to highlight the entire extensions’ inappropriateness in the first place. It draws attention to it like big red arrow – ADDITION ALERT!
The fact that these glazed boxes appear to be uninhabitable without a sun screen raises questions on a wider level as to their viabilty as a design solution for increased density.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
