admin

I’m not sure that it is a mere one story standing when viewed standing outside the train station looking down at the replacement pier; it certainly seems like a lot more; with whatever redevelopment option is completed there will of course be a large private component unless the rate payers are expected to pay for one giant marine folly to get tired of; how else would the numbers stack up to regenerate this tract of land in a way that doesn’t resemble the fiscal backdrop to the London Olympics?

There would be impacts on the sight lines of protected structures that is conceded but the only angles that would be compromised would be from the harbour wall where uninterupted views would be seen from other angles. So possibly this would not be a price that some residents were not prepared to play.

My main gripe is that a competition was held an excellent design was selected if the images are to be believed; from what you say the winning entry despite complying with the brief is completely unacceptable.

Whatever views any of us hold; 3 and half years after the competition Carlisle pier is still a sorry mess and presents nothing other than a blot on the landscape and there is no plan whatsoever to rectify this.

There are a lot of mobile phone shops on Grafton Street and it is very hard to believe that any opened recently; as the trend in other European Cities has definitely been consolidation within that setor as more and more phones are sold online. I think the main problem with mobile phone shops are that because they often pay such a massive premium rent that it is very difficult to assign them because no other retailer can justify the rental levels they often pay which combined with covenant strength makes them almost as permanent as the buildings they occupy.

I think that a change in the rating system from a rate in the pound to one linked to rental level could make for an interesting scenario. Particularly if rates rebates were given for more disireable uses such as comparison retailing uses such as clothes and footware

The intention of Section 140 was to deal with a situation where sufficient development land wasn’t zoned or if a policy was missing from a development plan then local county councillors could rezone suffcient land or change policies mid-plan.

What has happened in the interim is that development plans have zoned more than enough land and policies have in the main been in line with national or regional policies.

What Section 140 has delivered is Liffey Valley and 100’s if not 1000’s of multi unit residential rezonings that were entirely inappropriate. The key difference is that Section 140 are not open to any scrutinty whatsoever whilst development plans are run through a much more comprehensive process.

I think the only solution is to make councillors apply to An Bord Pleanala for the variations which could be fast tracked within say 3 months

I like the Essex Street East elevation and I think that it would act as an excellent addition to the area.

I am concerned with three issues; firstly the impacts of its overall scale on the Quays where the existing Clarence is already way out of kilter and mitigated only by the appearance of deco from the roof cladding which is I think not original?

Secondly the way the design neuters the qualities of the existing buildings; it reminds me of the Opus building in Edmund St in Birmingham where essentially a glass box was thrown on top of a similar mix of 19th and early 20th century buildings.

Thirdly the rendering is designed not to give a clear impression of the impacts of the scheme and this is not the first time that renderings of night time views have been used in this way. There needs to be some guidelines to police renderings as after the South King Street scheme (which I really like) and building beside City Hall (which I also like) it is clear that such renderings are at best not a true reflection of the design intention or at worst a smoke and mirrors exercise that may have the result of giving a completely understated impression.

On balance that a decision were made to lop off the upper floors and grant the remainder would be my hope.

John

I kind of agree on the value of the Luas link up not being a top priority and the rationale I would use on this is that the longer that the Luas linkup gets delayed the closer the Metro comes to completion and as they run on a virtually parallel alignment what is its real benefit given the duplication of function. In terms of construction time the metro we are told is scheduled for 2012 or 5 years from now whilst the Luas link up would take a year to clear the regulatory process and another 3 to complete so arrive only a year earlier.

To this end my opinion has always been even as early as 2005 that the Luas should not be a mere linkup that should always have been provided in some shape or form but that it should form a key plank in a wider Luas network which itself would form part of a wider intergrated transport network that serves as many parts of the City without duplication. The Luas alignment should therefore be skewed either east to the south docklands via Baggot St and the Canal or west at an earlier point say Harcourt Road up towards Clanbrasil St before heading back towards the 4 Courts area through Newmarket and Meath St.

One comment that I find very interesting is Padraig White’s comment on providing a link from de metro to the interconnector adding extra cost. Can we therefore assume that such a link hasn’t been provided for or even planned?

It does seems like contributors with different opinions refrain from comment once a strong consensus emerges, or maybe its just that the views of others actually sway opinion ! ? or maybe its just that they don’t want to be verbally battered !

I reckon in this case most are genuinely disappointed with this proposal, there was bound to be strong expectation/anticipation once you hear fosters name.

I always liked the original building & don’t think that any attempt should be made to connect it visually with its neighbours, the ‘sky room’ addition as proposed would reduce its status to infill (IMO!) The existing penthouse additions are too bulky, but half get away with it given the brawn of the original.

This ufo thing could look cool elsewhere, i just don’t think it works here… will still keep a semi open mind until i see further renders (in daylight!) showing views from down the quays, are there no other images floating around ?

This is a very live issue in the context of the key worker regime incentives that protect nurses, civil servants etc in London whereby affordable housing is not a lottery type gimmic based on quite large salaries when enforced at all.

I think Tesco being excluded like all retailers from the key worker incentives have identified that staff turnover at middle management level is costing them more in training costs and operational inefficiencies than provding subsidised accomodation for a select bunch of hot shots who will sell themselves cheaply in return for cheap housing. A 1 bed apartment here would cost £1,300 pcm and as oyster doesn’t apply to this area you also get fried on commuting costs.

that night time render is awful, it looks like jury’s custom house quay with a hollywood spaceship on top … the back looks interesting however, can’t really judge it until day time renders show it in context but the quay frontage doesn’t look promising.

I’d like to see some images before taking a stance on this;

are there any available?

Whatever the architectural value you may see in this, it is unsuitable for what it was built for and it comes as no surprise that it will not be missed when and if it is demolished.
It looks like a warehouse – inside and out. It is totally unsympathetic to its purpose.

Don’t necessarily agree that it is unsuitable for its purpose Gianlorenzo, its served fairly well for 28 years. Ok, it doesn’t look good, particularly the exterior, but as mentioned it was constructed with the cheapest of materials. It could have been substantially better.

I don’t think it should be held up as an example of modernism, its just a church on a budget.
I decided to post it because of some basic similarities with other STW stock from the time. I always found it strange that the church (given their budget) approached a big firm in the first place & that they actually took it on.

Often thought it might do as a community centre Prax. Not really suitable for warehousing, its at the centre of the area, adjacent to shops, pub etc.