admin

PVC is concerned by this proposal not because it is a bad idea but because this type of gold plating of the docklands with trinkets seems to be the prime focus of DDDA of late.

Lets look at more fundamental issues such as transport this so called model quarter has no link to the airport and only a tram line under construction serving the main rail hub.

I would be a lot more confident in the future of Dublin if the DDDA stopped phaffing around with gimmicks such as this and started to lobby central government for the funds to get a proper underground rail link in.

This project is the perfect symptom of why local govenrment in Dublin needs an upper tier such as the London Development Agency to ensure that funds are adequately focussed and priorities are viewed from a more integrated versus photo opportunity based approach.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Will all the craning necks belong to Archiseekers?

‘I wonder… is that yer man…?’ 🙂

If I’d known about the event earlier I might well have popped along for a journey through time. 😎

No but more funds should be devoted to public transport to give them an alternative.

James Nix hit the nail on the head when he described the purchase decision for a car being something along the lines of an individual gets off an intercity train on a wet Sunday evening gets crammed into Luas and dumped in Abbey St, walks accross town to get a bus, waits in the rain for 25 minutes and vows it will never happen again; he/she has a car by Wednesday!

Manchester is apparently quite close to introducing a charge zone; not sure if they just drive people to out of town retail or actually work

DCC issued a request for additional information – some of the more noteworthy listed below.

They rightly criticise the colouring book quality of the visual imagery. However they seem to be more concerned with the impact on Parliament Square with no mention of the mile …

Whatever about not allowing incursions in to the mile’s skyline, surely applying the same policy to the square’s horizon, given its breadth & scope, is overly restrictive.

1. Visual Impact: Having regard to the scale and height (152m) of the proposed building and its potential impact on the skyline of the city the applicant is requested to submit additional visual imagery of the proposed development to sufficiently allow the Planning Authority assesses the visual impact and quality of the proposal. These should include the following (i) Additional photomontages of the proposed development from all those specific chosen points in the submitted visual impact study. The quality of all images should be of a standard comparable to that of the print resolution production of an architectural magazine. (ii) 3-D animation visualisation of the proposed project. (iii) Photomonages of the proposed development from Parliament Square in Trinity College Dublin. (iv) Computer generated imagery of the city from the proposed skybar on the 35th floor. (v) Appropriate night time visual imagery. Note: The applicant is advised to note that the submitted images are of a poor quality and either does not do justice to the proposed design and/or give rise to concern about the potential visual impact of the proposed development.

3. Architecture and Design: (i) Physical Connection with National Conference Centre The applicant is requested to justify the proposed access relationship between the hotel and the NCC. The applicant is also requested to explore alternative design solutions that better reflect and respect the scale of the NCC and the proposed hotel. Notwithstanding the proposed direct access to National Conference Centre at second and third floor the Planning Authority has concerns regarding the appropriateness of the scale of the functional and architectural relationship between the proposed hotel and the National Conference Centre. Note: The applicant has made a strong argument in support of the scale of the proposed hotel on the grounds that it is self evidentially appropriately located directly adjoining and interconnected to the National Conference Centre. The submitted plans at 2nd and 3rd floor however show very modest and restricted internal functional access arrangements. (ii) Winter Garden Bar 35th Floor The applicant is requested to justify the design, layout, and use of the proposed winter garden at the 35th floor, and where feasible amend to provide greater clarity of both public access intent, use and architectural impact. The proposed hotel shows a 35th Floor Winter Garden/Bar. This includes a fitness centre, function room, meeting rooms, and various supporting ancillary services, including toilets, stores, changing facilities etc. The Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposed fractured internal layout with its multiplicity of competing rooms and functions of limited scale or interest fails to sufficiently maximise or understand the potential of this as accessible public space. Having regard to the above the applicant is requested to clarify their intention with respect to the degree of public access to the proposed upper floors. In this regard, the applicant is requested to suitably amend the design where appropriate to ensure legible public access. Note: The 35th floor of any building, let alone one in Dublin, has the potential to provide an iconic piece of pubic accessible space affording dramatic and unparalleled views of the city, in effect a new public space in the sky. Whilst the Planning Authority recognises the potential of the winter garden area, it is nevertheless strongly of the opinion that a building of this scale and height which will necessarily dramatically impact on the skyline of a relatively low rise city has a responsibility to infuse a greater civic spirited and public accessible dimension into the upper floor(s). (iii) Lift Core Accessibility The Planning Authority has a number of concerns regarding the proposed internal arrangement for lift core accessibility in the proposed hotel. There are two issues of note here. Firstly it is unclear from the submitted drawings and/or written statement whether or how the applicant proposes to ensure reasonable and continued public accessibility to the upper floor winter garden space and bar. As discussed above, the accessibility of the upper floor for public use this is fundamental in assessing the overall merits of the proposal. The applicant should thus be requested to clarify their intentions in this regard. Secondly the submitted designs would seem to indicate a separation of use between the lower and upper hotel suites with regard to the proposed lift core access. The applicant is requested to clarify the rational of their intentions in this regard. (iv) Lower Ground Floors The applicant is requested to clarify the architectural design intent informing the proposed kitchen use at the second floor level, in particular how it is intended to treat the skin of the glazing as it faces onto Mayor Street. Note: The Planning Authority is of the opinion that a building of this scale (152m) should demonstrate a clear and unambiguous but ambitious intent with regard to the visual impact of the lower ground floors. There are reservations about the visual impact of the proposed location for the kitchens to serve the hotel building. These are shown at the 2nd floor level and thus potentially have a very strong visual relationship with the streetscape. (v) Material Finishes Having regard to the height (152m) and scale of the proposed development and the innovativeness of the proposed material finishes it is considered reasonable that further detailed information be requested with respect to a number of issues pertaining to architectural design in particular material finishes and architectural detail that require greater specification, clarification or more detailed visual presentation than that presented in the NCC HOTEL TOWER Facade Report (i) The applicant is thus requested to submit visual examples of where the proposed primary external material finish has been successfully executed. The images shall be of a quality of architectural magazine print. (ii) In this regard the applicant is requested to submit images that specify the comparable climatic differences or otherwise between building(s) shown in any imagery and the site of the current proposed development. (iii) The applicant is requested to submit additional mitigation measures that may be necessary to prevent deterioration and/or accelerated climatic and/or pollution staining. (iv) The applicant is requested to address the life cycle of the proposed material in the context of an Irish climate including specifically issues of potential pollution staining, water runs, oxidisation etc. A maintenance plan should also be submitted. Note: The submitted NCC HOTEL TOWER Facade Report whilst outlining in considerable detail various potential facade options (glazing, mesh etc) would appear to be non-specific as to its preferred or exact choices. The booklet itself acknowledges that the sketchbook provides feedback to the concepts produced and is intended to illustrate the appearance, feasibility and performance of the different components of the facade and that a variety of choices are given as to potential solutions to various elements in the facade.

@ctesiphon wrote:

So does this bridge make a nonsense of the (now granted, because the sole appeal was withdrawn) Strand Street bus interchange, or does the bus interchange make a nonsense of this bridge proposal?

nope cte, this bridge makes no sense all by itself.

What are the odds notjim, same article posted by myself & yourself at exactly 12.00am 😀

As I threw in my opinion on this on the luas central thread, i may as well here too 😉

“The council is proposing to build a bridge to accommodate a southbound Luas line as well as two bus lanes, two cycle lanes and two footpaths, and hopes soon to seek tenders for its design. The council said it was seeking a “low-key design” to fit in with the surrounding architecture.”

You’d want to make it feckin invisible lads. What kind of width are they talking here ? I’d just about accept a slender little job to facilitate luas (in a trade off to confine the damn thing to marlborough st. – even that presents serious design challenges) but this yoke sounds like its set to challenge O’Connell Bridge itself, essentially 4-5 lanes wide.

The lovely rhythm & flow of the liffey’s bridges, fairly evenly spaced it has to be said (until now) is to be well & truly botched up.

You have my sympathy and no doubt would have the sympathy of an ambulance chaser whose first consultation would be free; has to be worth a go because at least one professional took disgraceful liberties with your hard earned cash

So finally we get a piece of the EIS, merely the ‘Draft scoping report for consultation’ in fact.

Out of a total 47 pages, there’s very little mention of Stephen’s Green & the impact installing a construction ‘compound’ within the parks confines will have, permanent or otherwise. Indeed reference to it is so vague, you’d have to conclude that tree felling within the green will not be necessary – i’m not convinced.

Unless the RPA can keep its compound strictly within the confines of the Green’s main lake, itself surrounded by some of the parks most mature specimens, felling looks to be inevitable.

For those interested all references to Stephen’s Green within the report are summarised below.
Mention within the report itself is limited to 3 paragraphs. The bulk of comment, or shall we say concern for the green comes at the end in a summarised table of comments received from the main stake holders – OPW, DCC & DoEHLG.

[quote=”Metro North EIS:
Draft Scoping Report for consultation”:3ttv79xq]

… From O&#8217]Comments received as part of consultation[/B]

– St. Stephen’s Green should be considered as a feature of architectural heritage. The architectural impact must therefore be considered as well as the archaeological impact. – DoEHLG

– The assessors should consider whether or not St. Stephen’s Green is a National Monument under the National Monuments Acts 1930 – 2004. At least one member of DoEHLG believes that it is and if it is, Ministerial Consent will be required prior to development.. – DoEHLG

– Structures within St. Stephen’s Green must be protected e.g. statues, rails etc. – OPW

– Erosion of greenbelts with the location of stops must be considered, especially in relation to the impact on the footprint of St. Stephen’s Green (the entire Green and not just the 500m radius).

– All construction plant and equipment should be kept within the confines of St. Stephens Green so as to minimise the visual impact on the surrounding environment.

– The impact of dust from the development should be considered in relation to the entire area of St. Stephen’s Green and not just a 500m radius.

– If any permanent structures are to be erected in the Green, the impact must be considered.

– The impact that pedestrian footfall and the development may have on the water table for the trees.

– Clarification is needed in relation to the proposed size of the compound at St. Stephen’s Green and other design arrangements.

So essentially, we’re none the wiser. All we know is that the Green’s terminus is to be located at the north west corner & that it will of course require a large bored tuning circle, i.e what we already knew; nothing on the size of this compound.

I’m convinced the RPA are side stepping this one. Lets face it, a TBM is hardly the most graceful of man made objects. If felling turns out to be necessary within the Green, & its difficult to see how it can be avoided – there are many out there, far more militant than me, that will be up in arms about this one.

There is an alternative of course.
Spare St. Stephen’s Green the heavy toll of the 5 year construction period & utilise the lawn of the adjacent Iveagh Gardens.

Don’t get me wrong, the Iveagh Gardens are a gem & i’ve been jumped on before for suggesting it as an alternative, but the simple fact remains that the lawn can be reinstated exactly as is, whereas the perfectly maturing set piece that is the green is in danger of being altered permanently.

Put simply, the Iveagh lawn equates to less than a third of the overall park, is large enough to contain the RPA’s compound in its entirety, can be easily sealed off for the duration, but most importantly, can be successfully reinstated.

There is an alternative.

nice shot what, but don’t waste your time with this one; tis the pain in the ass formerly known as …

I’d agree with Joe.

High rises should not be alowed stray in to or near the city core, clear lines of division should be drawn.

By all means, allow quality high density development at the various proposed public transport nodes but this business of random high rises protruding from obscure locations, paying no deference to the established city, is nonsense.

Does nobody in DCC contemplate the wider aesthetics of the city, the fact that the city itself is part of an overall vista, ensconsed in a bowl like depression, on full view from most of the surrounding suburbs.

Look up & down the river DCC, stand on the fifteen acres, drive in on the N4 or N11, take a stroll down the Clontarf road. I was looking for something a little more considered than here’s a train station, here’s a high rise.