what now for Irish Times D’olier Street buildings?
- This topic has 66 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Fully agreed hutton with every word of your post. You sum a number of matters succinctly. The impact of the additional storeys on the city for the rest of us to look at for the next century, simply for minimal private gain, is something that deeply grates, perhaps above all else, and a theme that was sadly replicated in many developments during the boom years.
On your last point about active participation, I was surprised and disappointed that An Taisce did not appeal this. Of course it has a giant workload for a voluntary organisation, and the turnaround it effected with so many developments during the boom years is a positive and enduring legacy for the city. But in this particular case, the sole reason I did not appeal it to the Board was on the basis of its initial submission to DCC and the critical importance of the subject, I was certain AT would. All of the above would have been clearly spelled out to the Board in such a case. In honesty, I’m fuming about it. But a collective blunder it is fair to say – not that it should be our job to police such baseline matters as the redevelopment of the iconic street triangle in the heart of the ceremonial core of the city.
The D’Olier Street elevation, as it appears on Daft.ie :rolleyes:
I think they prefer the ‘proposed’ to the ‘as built’
I don’t think you can blame architects they serve clients…
You can blame planners and our econmic systems of so called “competition”
Of course you can blame architects! What a stupid thing to say. The architect is ultimately responsible for the design of the building. Not the developer (though he/she will have their requirements for a building such as maximising space, costs, profile etc), not the planner who has only a limited scope for involvement in the design of the project, and not the economic system which has delivered as much good quality architecture as it has bad!
Architects are in competition before projects and fee agreements are negotiated…
What do you expect? I’m not saying I agree with the result I have seen all the renders including internals but its beside the point…IT should refuse to occupy it if they are not happy with it otherwise they are supporting the scheme…
oh wait they might have a contract…
If the architect was the client I would blame the architect they have no power to tell the client what to do…
Firstly the Irish Times (IT?) have nothing to do with this building. They sold up and moved on. The major tenant for the building at the moment is the Irish Aviation Authority.
You’re right in that Architects are in competition for jobs and competition was fierce is the boom times. However from my experience, the architects of this scheme could quite easily have put forward an well designed and less intrusive new building and the client would quite easily have gone along with it. Most developers care nothing for the intricacies of the design, they are more interested in the overall look of the building and obviously the degree to which it maximises the floor space they will gain, or meets the profile requirements of clients etc.
Developers also always seek surety in the planning process. If it will get them a grant then they’ll do it. Certainly, if DCC staff had been more considered in their appraisal of the scheme (particular the aforementioned “dead as a dodo” Conservation Officer), then perhaps they could have gained a much improved design from HKR and P Elliotts.
I would also vouch that the Compliance system has failed miserably in this instance particularly in relation to the details which Graham critiques above, the poor stone masonry, fenestration etc. I would suggest that they maybe promised one thing but delivered something else.
5/12/2012
Well like clockwork, and within a hair’s breadth of the deadline, a planning application has just been lodged for retention of the ghastly LED lighting scheme erected on the former Irish Times offices in 2009. At the time, a four-year permission only was granted for the lighting to ‘allow time to assess its impact’, before the expiry of which a new planning application had to be lodged for retention of the scheme or else it be taken down. I was hoping they’d forget the deadline of December 2012, but alas the agents have little to be absent-minded about as they tap their pens in their empty offices and shop units. Following an invalidation two weeks ago, a very hastily resubmitted application has just been lodged.
http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3529/12&theTabNo=1&backURL=Search Criteria > <a href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=2251513%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=Search Criteria‘>Search Results
The details have yet to go up online, but one can only imagine the velvety words on improved de saf-ety and secur-ity of D’Olier Street, and the gushingly positive impact this crude outbreak of linear measles has on the facade of one of the most carefully contrived streetscapes in the city.
All objections welcome by January 11th 2013. Here’s hoping we can claw something back from this hopelessly crass cub of the Celtic Tiger.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
