admin

@Paul cuddy wrote:

1. My Argument did not constitute snobbery that is how you chose to receive it which is incorrect. So you will never get a job as an arbitrator.

Who wants to deal with parties who can’t agree; anyone who goes to appeal because they don’t like a business model will lose.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

2. “ they have complied with the spirit of the development”, yes they have but only the development on the ground floor which is my whole point. They have not respected the building that sits directly above them and to each side. They have allowed their brand to take priority over the existing building and streetscapes natural character.

Couldn’t disagree more; they have executed a perfect Regent Street intervention.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

3. MCD is a cheap lunch for poor tourists, I am not going to even validate that statement.

Real demand being mixed in terms of price point is obviously beyond you; not all units can be filled by Brown Thomas.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

4. Of course a retail mix is necessary, but not at the expense of a significant streetscape. If they truly wanted to be sympathetic to the existing style, they would have incorporated the fenestration into the shop front, eliminated the striking contrast in colours, they didn’t do this because their brand is king and more important than architecture and street aesthetics. Same reason why they have posters in the windows and plastic bins outside, because they are out and out profiteers and have no interest in our heritage or towns and to be fair, why should they, we have Planners who are responsible for that but as you know, sometimes we would have been better off leaving Ronald himself in charge.

This is their urban branding; how anyone can attack those colours is beyond me; so to the shopfronts thread if you want a justified whinge; Ronald is now a bunch of fund managers who want sales growth, sales growth is only maximised by their playing the planning game which they and Starbucks are the only International food retailers who get planning as a formality.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

5. If you cannot omit your brand for the sake of being sympathetic to a streetscape, then like I said, go to an industrial estate, because your development is easily retractable. Have a look at most small, non global businesses that operate on major streets, most of them follow the buildings architectural style, it is only the major outlets that need to impose the brand so heavily on the building.

Go to the shopfronts thread to see shopfronts that are actually offensive; you are the first person I’ve ever seen trying to equate olive and gold as being anything other than sensitive.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

6. All businesses like mcds would have a glass building given the choice, the onus is on the Planner to restrict this to an acceptable level based on the merits of the development and not the scale of the brand
I have been living in Ireland for the past 10 years and my advice to you is, if you want to stay healthy, then dont go to mcds for your 5 a day

Nope; they would be watching their CRC liability, glass = higher energy requirement = higher energy tax. Their business model is lean and relies heavily at prime locations on a very large proportion of their sales coming from coffee and snacks. Why MCD is successful is that they have four trading periods, breakfast, Lunch, post pub and the bits in between where they are taking a lot of Startbucks trade.

You can hold a view of the 1990’s MCD model which suffered greatly and underperformed the market; do not argue that an organisation that has grown top and bottom line every year for the last 10 years in sophisticated markets like Europe and mature Asia is a one trick pony. A large part of this has been their flexibility in product mix and engaging with planning authorities even those with reputations for anal views in places like Westminster and Bath.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

You cannot be serious, I respect that effort has been made, they have toned down the aluminous visual impact and the dark olive would be sympathetic in another environment, but not here.

The purpose of the planning code is to impose design standards not engage in snobery; they have complied with the spirit of the development plan so if they pay the asking rent they have as much right to be there as anyone else.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

There is too much glass,

You will never be a retail planner.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

plastic bins outside (with a logo),

Crap bins a great example of different parts of a council imposing seperate objectives without communication; this should have been a S106 levy and the local authority should have provided the bins with MCD’s cash.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

posters in the window (I know these can be removed, but restrictions on advertising in certain sensitive areas should be imposed).

Agreed – should see enforcement to stop creep but this for most retailers is restrained.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

Planning permission for this type of outlet should never be granted on a street of that character.

So they should be kicked off the Champs Elysee as well then? A successful retail mix dictates that a range of products and price points are required to keep a town centre healthy. MCD sells good coffee and decent cakes at highly discounted prices; it is not just a case of snobbery being innapropriate it is a case of ensuring that a global value brand gives less affluent tourists a spot to have a cheap snack without having to go the usual 3-4 streets off prime to get it.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

Mc donalds and all fast food outlets belong in industrial estates accessed off major roundabouts, they are not for the high street. Any building that uses its shop front as an ever evolving advertising portal does not belong in an area of architectural significance.

That is a lazy cop out; you work with people to get them to fit your rules; MCD have unlike Burger King bent their model to fit they deserve that to be recognised. If they apply for a 1980’s style shopfront then their application should be refused but as they have spent the money on a decent shopfront and fit out they should be welcomed as the one global titan that plays the game.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

This attempt to make it sympathetic is on a parallel with their attempt to go healthy with their salad dinners swamped in fattening sauces.

Where have you been for the last 10 years?

With large schemes there is a huge danger consent is given on soft terms as local authorities don’t want to be seen to be anti-devleopment and anti-employment in a tough economy. Then development precendent is created and is wheeled out when the market recovers; the case of Ray Burkes exploration licenses in 1993 should not be forgotten; if a consent that under normal circumstances would be refused is granted on ‘stimulus grounds’ the length of the grant must ensure it is commenced within a 3 year timeframe and not used tactitcally when the market recovers. Please appeal this; it is wrong for Cork which other than Merchants Quay has preserved a great City Centre with very few mistakes; Heineken make enough money, I don’t need my dividends increased at the expense of something like this.

It would make a lot more sense for the adjoining occupiers to bear higher insurance premiums; they should have done a proper title search before buying in. Failing that DCC should buy an insurance policy until funding is available to do a proper job that reflects the ambition the area has long term.

That DCC are reluctantly spending a sub-standard amount of money to rectify an area which they had no real input in creating really does bring the whole DDDA disgrace back into focus; have any of the management been barred from holding directorships, Anglo HQ, South Wharf, you could go on and Ariston.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

Tough. They and the rest of their ilk have bankrupted the country and giving up this building is a good way for them to express gratitude to the people of Ireland for all the billions they injected into the bank to keep it operational. Some public function for the Old Parliament Building is likely to be the only return we see from the rescue of the banks.

I am looking at the Superquinn collapse 24 supermarkets, €400m in debt, I think all bankers involved in that deal should not still be in employment and should be banned from ever working in a financially regulated environment again. However there is a real danger at this point of the cycle of ‘going after the banks’ rather than the specific bankers who made the banks the zombie banks that they are; it is not the retail bank network that took the banks down it is the top 50 NAMA debtors of which at least 30 of whom the president of the SCS had never heard of before the list was published; does that not strike you as strange; leading valuer has never heard of 60% of top debtors? 24 supermarkets and 3 banks syndicate a loan of €400m to a business with no other income stream to cover the debt; as the FT said last weekend; Crazy lending…… Crazy taxpayer to keep any of the people responsible employed in a loss making bank.

2 College Green is a building that houses a bank branch a coincidence but no more than that.

I agree that an enhanced environment would increase the quality of life of residents of and visitors to the city; the journey from Grafton Street to O’Connell Street could not be any less pleasant. The problem is simple, a misconception that it is ok to turn the centre of the City into an unregulated bus station and arterial traffic route for people going from suburb to suburb.

What I do not get is why the Bank of Ireland needs to become a museum

National Museum of Ireland has two great museums at Kildare Street and Collins Barricks which are free and not critisicised.

National Gallery of Ireland / NCAD which have high level art to the requisite standard; if there is a gap for more culture it is at a much lower level in terms of providing exhibition space for emerging art.

National Parliment – didn’t Piggygate not symbolise what is really important in Irish politics – distractions from dealing with what is actually important…..

Close the linear bus station…… Let the bank repay the billions that are owed, they won’t be able to that without premises…..

I think that image looks great; I don’t think it is fully acheivable as this will need to be a Luas route but the space it would create would create a really really great space. On the subject of number 2 I am at a loss as to why the Bank needs to change use to a museum. To put this area into context the building with Starbucks was Dolmen Securities, BoI had their HQ until the 1970’s , AIB’s constituent banks had major offices there, the Stock Exchange is around the corner, the Central Bank was down the Street. This was Dublin’s commercial core as distinct from retail core. Looking at Bank in London no one ever suggests that the Bank of England should up sticks to turn the Old Lady into a museum.

I fear a real danger of getting fixated on a project that is not deliverable and missing the real prize which is the urban space in the image; to give Dublin an urban space of this scale and quality would be the real winner.

Imagine diverting all Westmoreland Street trraffic originating in Pearse Street up D’olier Street and terminating all traffic from Dame Street at Trinity Street which would be a trickle if there was no through route to OCS. This would give a huge virtually pedestrianised corridor from George’s Street to O’Connell Street save as to Luas. That is the real prize, the public have access to number 2 Monday through Friday which should be extended to Saturdays at this branch. Why kill a real prize with an unfundable pipe dream?

I agree that as scheme it would work very well; from an urban regeneration point of view it would be real progress. The time just isn’t right for construction of offices without a pre-let in place. Dublin if it is organised can through marketing designs and then building on the basis of agreements for lease; stay well ahead of the curve.

The first thing that needs to change is the elimination of large properties from the alteration to the rent review position. How can anyone go to site when they don’t know what their income stream will be after the first five years? A sensible rent limit needs to be set say €25,000 p.a. and let corner shops survive but not create complete paralysis across the wider built environment field.

I think that this strategically located business space opportunity should have detailed project management consultancy undertaken to have a phasing plan produced that can be delivered within a two year period; this is something that should be done across a number of live planning consents.

All of these oppportunites should be actively marketed; occupational demand should decide what gets developed and when it gets developed; this is not just a Dublin thing, outside core markets like Shanghai, Sydney and London the days of safe speculative development with no pre let in place prior to ground being broken are firmly suspended. That however does not mean that well located parcels of land need to rot indefinitely; what could produce a higher return on new investment in a high number of locations?

Agreed on timing but there is no way that the funding situation will be this constrained in 18 months let alone 5 years; with no major office schemes completed between 2010 and 2014 you have to feel that building obscelence will create its own demand; its less than 1m sq ft they need to shift which is about half average annual take up between 1985 – 2002. With the consent they would have the luxury of marketing off the plan with revision applications to tailor specific detailing to occupier demand; that way occupiers with 2-3 years tolease expiry can deal on an agreement for lease basis. Chin up Rory it will get better but only if there is the right space in the right locations. The location needs this….