Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Diageo to make a €153m investment in James’s Gate

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0113/1224310196455.html

Really good news for the street and The Liberties. The planning gain that can be gained from this should now be considered by DCC.

What’s the rory with the new Guinness Brew-house?

I have heard that part of their overall plan is to move the majority of brewing facilities to the north side of James St and thereby free up the area around the Storehouse for civic/residential/commercial use.

I’m a traditionalist, and I live in the area (Echlin St) and love nothing more than throwing my windows open and filling my flat with the smells of the brewery. I’m worried that this will be a thing of the past if brewing is moved to the Quays. Also that unique feeling you get walking down James and Thomas streets, flanked on each side by this intimidating sense of industry will be lost forever if they focus on the northen end

Remember this guy…

I got a notice a couple of weeks back to say that enforcement proceedings have been take against the building owner. For all its advertising, the business didn’t last very long.

And my final one for the day is the upcoming launch of Thomas Street: Improving the Public Face of an Historic City Centre Street by Dublin Civic Trust

The Trust’s latest policy document, ‘Thomas Street – Improving the Public Face of an Historic City Centre Street’ will be officially launched by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Cllr Andrew Montague, at a reception in the National College of Art and Design on Thomas Street in mid-April.

Commissioned from the Trust by Dublin City Council in 2011, the study highlights the potential for the regeneration of Thomas Street as one of the major historic thoroughfares of the city through a variety of suggested measures. The report provides an in-depth analysis of the street in its current condition, identifying its attributes and its problems, while articulating a vision for the renewal of its historic fabric and the protection of its unique charm and character. It includes photomontages of restored stretches of streetscape, initiatives that could be undertaken to improve shopfronts, signage and building presentation, ways for promoting a healthy business mix on the street, and methods of capitalising on the rich historic and cultural associations of the thoroughfare.

The stimulus for the study is the increasing recognition of the importance of the street to the vitality of The Liberties and to a greater appreciation of the historic core of Dublin. Much of the Trust’s previous work on Thomas Street and its long-standing relationship with the area helped inform the report, including our publication Thomas Street, D8 and the Thomas Street & Environs Architectural Conservation Area drafted by the Trust for Dublin City Council.

You can read the report here http://issuu.com/dctrust/docs/thomas_street_study_master

Nice pic. Another pic below showing that funny Limelight pub facade. Apparently it was just cladding over the facade of an older building. The same building is seen here in Google Street View as McGruder’s – a happening spot for a while during the boom but now closed. The three old brick ones to the right of it have also been demolished:
http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&ll=53.343372,-6.282723&spn=0.000937,0.002411&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.343372,-6.282723&panoid=8H3mvvI2RvAgN6H-FK1Ipg&cbp=12,203.17,,0,2.93

Strange indeed. There are a number of oddities like that that still exist in Dublin, built most likely in the early 1960s but in a style harking back to more structural solidity rather then the glazed internationalism of the eara. I am thinking of particularly a building on Liffey Street with very narrow horizontal windows and a building on South Anne street (i think?) with odd protruding balconies.

I had a photo somewhere of a Pub called the Dolphin Bar (possibly in Temple Bar)….the frontage is unrevearved black Marble with a handful of windows.

Great images. So it looks like we lost another early house as part of the below site clearance – the white chap with characteristically low proportions and small windows, with the inserted ground floor shop gobbling up some of the first floor.

The marvellously sophisticated house to the left is a Regency or slightly earlier makeover of a similarly early house, incorporating the fabric of the original dwelling including door joinery and a quaint barley sugar staircase, until the place was gutted by fire in the 1980s and further insulted with an enforced attic storey removal by the Corpo’s Dangerous Buildings department.

The icing on the cake was the insertion of this delightful affair, the very picture of speculation, which I believe to be one of Brian O’Halloran’s earlier contributions to the city.

The loss of Nos. 15-16 Thomas Street with its giant double cruciform roof pictured below – seemingly one of the largest mansions built on Thomas Street (though Rocque is unconvinced) and later subdivided into a solid pair of houses in the Aungier Street manner – is beyond dispiriting. At least we still have the more classic Billys at No. 20 and No. 21, of which this new image is something of a revelation in showing what appears to be the original, very low, non-cruciform roof behind the added parapet of No. 21.

There also appears to be the very faintest outline of a cruciform angle on the shared chimneystack on the No. 20 side. A magnificent classic Dublin house at No. 14 there too – hadn’t seen that one before.

In other news, a recent planning application for no less than a bookies on the corner of Meath Street in the grand Victorian former Cash Converters premises has just been put out to further information.

This is on foot of a very emphatic observation by the Conservation Officer highlighting the prominence and quality of the building, the rare survival of a high quality Victorian fascia, the general preposterousness of a shopfront within a shopfront, the crudeness of the proposed Ladbrokes signage and corporate branding, the Fáilte Ireland east-west spine route currently under development, and of course the ACA.

Curiously, the planner highlights two major concerns: 1) all of the above, and 2) a bookies being placed on a high profile corner. Yet the Further Information only refers to the former. A glaring omission I would have thought.

I wouldn’t imagine a bookies shop on a prominent corner as being a valid planning argument….I may be wrong. I wonder is there any reference to concentration of uses in the new Development Plan that might limit bookies and the like. Not a whole lot on the street though are there?

Relevant extracts from planner’s report:

The site has zoning objective Z5 – ‘‘to consolidate and facilitate the development of the
central area, and to identify, reinforce and strengthen and protect its civic design character and dignity’. A betting office is a normally permissible use within this zoning. In relation to
betting offices, Section 17.2.8 of the development plan states that it is an objective of the
planning authority ‘to prevent a concentration of betting offices in the city, thereby ensuring
(that) the number of units in a city street, district or neighbourhood is not disproportionate
to the overall number of community facilities and shop units’. It is stated that the provision
of betting offices will be controlled having regard to:

 The need to safeguard the vitality and viability of shopping areas in the city, and to
maintain a suitable mix of retail uses;
 The number/frequency of such facilities in the area;
 The existing proliferation of retail service units in the area (including internet cafes,
call centres, takeaways, amusement arcades and car rentals);
 The impact on the amenities of the area by reason of noise, hours of operation and
litter.

In the current development plan (2011-2017) Thomas Street and Meath Street are listed as
market streets/radial routes (Section 8.5). It is development plan policy to prepare
enhancement strategies for these streets and to set out a series of mechanisms to underpin
their regeneration. Both Thomas Street and Meath Street comprise a variety of retail and
retail service units. Thomas Street contains some comparison shopping together with
convenience and retail service uses. There are two public houses in close proximity to the
site, while other uses in the vicinity include a carpet shop and bakery/cafe. The shopfronts
vary in quality, while some of the units appeared vacant on inspection. Meath Street would
be considered to fulfil the function of a local shopping and retail service area for residents of
the inner city, and includes a church, social services centre and creche, with retail units
including butchers, secondhand shops and clothing/shoe shops. The street is relatively
vibrant but has a number of vacant units. On inspection one betting office was noted further
south of the site along Meath Street. This is a sizeable unit at ground floor level of a modern
apartment building. Further south, there is a recent grant of permission (under Reg. Ref.
2679/11) for change of use of the ground floor level from retail use to a Chinese restaurant.

[…]

There is concern regarding the proposed use on the site. There does not appear to be an
excessive concentration of betting offices in the vicinity; however, when taken in
conjunction with adjacent public houses and other non-retail uses the proposal could
contribute to a proliferation of non-retail uses along the important radial market street of
Thomas Street and the adjoining Meath Street. In this regard it is noted that the proposed use would consist of a relocation of the existing Ladbrokes unit further along Thomas Street.

Relevant extract ends.

Hmmm – there doesn’t seem to be a conclusion drawn on the above.

Don’t be putting ideas in their heads, we don’t want what’s left of Thomas St. nuked

@GrahamH wrote:

At least we still have the more classic Billys at No. 20 and No. 21, of which this new image is something of a revelation in showing what appears to be the original, very low, non-cruciform roof behind the added parapet of No. 21.

Is this not the same [non-original] roof that’s still on it today?

We know the original roof was much steeper than this from the surviving profile of the return roof, we’re just not sure [yet] whether it was cruciform or not.

The loss of 15-16 as recently as the 1980s is deeply regretable, but we still have most of no. 17 [McGruders] and it looks more interesting every time we see a new image of it.