hutton
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@lostexpectation wrote:
the council had a right go at the city manager but he said
no motion can interfere with the contract.
The manager is afaik either ill-informed or else he misled the council, as he should be well aware that Section 140 could and should be used by councillors to direct officials.
@Saucy Jack wrote:
Liveline are doing this as one of their topics today Thursday 10 July.
And?…………….
You’re just looking to push up the ratings of RTE, Saucy Jack :p
And just remember folks that it’s also all linked in to dodgy rezonings – http://ireland.archiseek.com/news/2008/000134.html
😡@cobalt wrote:
And its gone. Good news. It’s just depressing that DCC didn’t take on this simple message back when this proposal was first mooted:
(1) For the majority of people, the reason they don’t cycle is not that they don’t have or can’t afford a bike, it’s that they feel unsafe cycling on Dublin’s streets.
(2) To encourage people onto bikes – and because it is itself a desirable objective – the streets need to be made safer.
(3) The size, nature and location of these advertising units make the streets LESS safe.
……(a) For goodness sake – they’re deliberately designed to catch motorists’ eyes. A motorist looking at an ad = a motorist not looking at the road.
……(b) They also obscure pedestrians’ and road users’ views of one another.
……(c) By taking up so much of the footpath, they greatly increase the likelihood that a pedestrian will hop out onto the road to get round the obstacle – probably straight into the path of a cyclist – because they “didn’t hear any traffic”. No, bikes don’t have noisy engines.
Spot on.
@hutton 21st FEB 2008 wrote:
Originally Posted by Irish Times 20-02-08
74-year-old cyclist dies in collision
A 74-year-old cyclist has died following a collision in north Dublin yesterday afternoon. The man received fatal injuries when he collided with a lorry at the junction between Cherrymount Road and Malahide Road in Clontarf. The man, who had not been named last night, was removed to Beaumont Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 3.45pm. Gardaà from Clontarf, who are investigating the crash, said no one else was injured in the incident.
This fatality occured in the middle of the day. RIP.
I note that the Malahide Road is scheduled to have 7 of the larger “Metropole” billboards erected on it.
Given the Boards rejection of all Metropole units that were put before them on grounds of roads safety, who will be held responsible if and when an accident occurs in the proximity of such a roadside distraction?
I wonder who among the elected councillors and DCC planning officials is familiar with the term “Corporate Manslaughter”…
The Dorset Street debacle is indicative of a dangerous, unsafe scheme that should never have gone thru without proper planning; what’s to say it’s not one of many?
This has all been predicted by many posters, with my post above from last Feb being just one.
The Dorset St 24 hr installment and subsequent removal will not have gone unnoticed by interested parties… Should all make for a reference point if and when collisions take place close to other units.
To quote a previous poster, Blood on your hands DCC. 😡
Lethal + tawdry shite. Shame on you DCC 😡
I hope this thread is of help to any future injured parties requiring compensation from JC Decaux and/ or Dublin City Council from any injuries incurred arising from these billboards.
Moreover, I understand there has not yet been a safety report back to councillors, as was required by March; can anybody shed any further light on this?
It is all simply outrageous.
@GrahamH wrote:
🙂 Just a quick update on Ulster Bank….The big CAD drawing on the hoarding is more than just a little flattering in the number of properties it encompasses It’s also backwards.
Lol – Trust Graham to notice the tiny, but essential detail 😀
Any bets that some subversive put it up that way just to see if anyone would notice?
From todays Irish Times –
21 objections to €1.25bn ‘Dublin Central’ plan
Edel MorganPLANNING&DEVELOPMENT: Dublin City Council has received around 23 objections and submissions to Joe O’Reilly’s plans for the Carlton cinema site on O’Connell Street, writes Edel Morgan .
DEVELOPER JOE O’Reilly’s ambitious proposal for a €1.25 billion “Dublin Central” retail and residential scheme encompassing 5.5 acres of the north city centre has attracted considerable opposition.
Dublin City Council received 21 objections to the scheme, which incorporates a “Park in the Sky” 50 metres above Henry Street and the redevelopment of the former Carlton cinema site on O’Connell Street.
The list of objectors include Treasury Holdings, An Taisce, husband and wife Cllr Emer Costello and Joe Costello TD, the Irish Georgian Society, Dublin Transportation Office, Dublin Bus and the Save 16 Moore Street Committee.
A few submissions, including one from some members of the Moore Street Traders Committee, express support for the scheme.
Joe O’Reilly’s Chartered Land lodged a planning application in April for a shopping and restaurant quarter on the site which, as well as a shopping centre, would incorporate two new streets – one linking Henry Street to O’Connell Street and the other linking O’Connell Street to Moore Street. A small public square at the confluence of Moore Street, Henry Street and the GPO Arcade would lead to a new street that Arnotts is planning between the GPO Arcade and Middle Abbey Street.
The project would involve moving the Carlton cinema 50 metres north and redeveloping it as a 18,600sq m (200,209sq ft) John Lewis department store. There would be over 100 shops, around 100 apartments and 1,000 underground car-parking spaces, accessible from Parnell Street.
The proposal is also for 17 restaurants on the upper tier of the shopping centre under a transparent roof screen.
A triangular 12-storey building with a “Park in the Sky” with a viewing platform and an arts space in a reconstructed O’Connell Hall would be part of the cultural offering.
The developer is also looking to turn numbers 14-17 Moore Street into a commemorative centre – the buildings are designated as national monuments and were reputed to have been used by the leaders of the 1916 Rising for their last stand.
In its objection, Treasury Holdings – which owns a number of properties in proximity to the application site (17-19 Moore Lane and 35 Henry Street) – says it welcomes the development “in principle” but says the proposals for car parking are excessive, the traffic movements have been underestimated and the access proposals “do not respect or have regard” for the Moore Street area.
It suggests a reduction in the number of car-parking spaces to the development plan cap of 309 and says the redevelopment offers “an excellent opportunity” to rejuvenate Moore Lane, O’Rahilly Parade and Henry Place – primarily used as service streets – and bring them into public use with retail or residential use.
It also suggests that an opportunity exists to provide pedestrian links with Parnell Street and Parnell Square.
The objection criticises the shopping mall aspect of the scheme, saying that restaurant and night-time activity will be above street level, “and will effectively operate as mall-style food courts rather than a vibrant part of the city street life. Residential units are divorced from the street levels to the extent that there is a lack of neighbourhood structure to the scheme, providing for little natural overlooking of street level activity and no real sense of development mix”.
An Taisce lodged a detailed objection which called the plan “seriously ill-conceived” in its scale and impact on the design quality and the historic fabric of the surrounding area, and that the viewing platform and mass of building proposed would detract from the Spire and GPO “as iconic focal point landmarks of O’Connell Street”.
It says the proposal for a commemorative centre at 14-17 Moore Street doesn’t maintain the contextual relationship between the 1916 surrender meeting location and the GPO, and the high-rise portion of the development would “inappropriately dominate the setting of these buildings which need to be restored and managed in conjunction with a new visitor and exhibition facility in the GPO in advance of the 2016 rising centenary”.
An Taisce also refers to the “overstated and unsympathetic” architectural treatment of the proposed large new opening on O’Connell Street and is against the proposed demolition of 45 Upper O’Connell Street, which forms part of an older group of buildings “including the rare surviving original brick fronted Georgian House, Number 42”.
Writing in support of “a number of Dublin residents”, Cllr Emer Costello and Joe Costello TD question the appropriateness of modern high-rise development on O’Connell Street, which is designated an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA), and say the proposed public plaza on O’Connell Street “breaks the symmetry of the streetscape and creates a gaping hole in the street”. They express concern that a sky garden on the Henry Street side “could cause problems in later years” and say the apartments might be targeted by investors and not families.
In its submission, Dublin Bus requests that Dublin City Council review the car parking and proposed access arrangements while Geoff Power, with an address in Chapelizod, Dublin 14, is concerned about the impact on Moore Street “which has taken on a new demeanour that is vibrant, exciting and representative of new Ireland”. He maintains that the proposed redevelopment of the Carlton site “promises dull, generic gentrification with barely more than 1 per cent of the cultural quota”.
However, four traders from the Moore Street Traders Committee wrote in support of the proposed development, provided they are allowed keep their current working hours, saying: “This part of the city has long been forgotten when it came to investment and development so we are very pleased to see any new works or upgrades so as to enhance the area.”
Paul Clinton of Clinton Associates wrote in support of the principle of rejuvenation in the area but said that, while he supported the idea of a commemorative centre, he believed 16 Moore Street, which he formerly owned, “is not the correct 1916 building. We were always told the commemorative plaque was on the wrong building and I raised concerns in our submission to the city council at the time of the proposed addition to the list of protected structures. While the building should still be a commemorative centre for the historic 1916 events, an incorrect listing and National Monuments Order (which is being judicially reviewed) would distort the planning process”.
Clinton himself secured planning permission to redevelop the Carlton site in 1999. Dublin City Council later made the purchase order on the site after deciding that the Carlton Group had neither the finance nor the development expertise to advance the project.
Dominic Deeny, chief executive of Chartered Land, said the objections and submissions come as no surprise to the company and address issues “that we expected people to be concerned about”. He says the company took those concerns on board when putting the planning application together “but will have to consider what is being said”.
He says he expects Chartered Land will be engaged in further discussions with the planning authorities and is “confident” of securing “a positive outcome”.
© 2008 The Irish Times
@ctesiphon wrote:
Also- Graham & hutton- spot on. (Or should I say ‘+1’? :)) Although, perhaps oddly in this case, the Herald has extracted from at least one of the letters a generic positive comment and has missed the juicier stuff, almost as if the journo only read the first paragraph.
@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
Never ! 😉
+1 :p
@johnglas wrote:
What I can’t understand is why DCC even entertains ‘messages of support’; what does that have to do with the planning system?You could have umpteen vacuous supports, but if there is only one valid planning objection that carries far more weight and is the only one the planners should look at. It’s a planning application, not a popularity contest; no wonder the planning system is clogged up if they’re entertaining this dross.
Tbh Id have to disagee with you on this one Johnglas; without wishing to be misunderstood and have this comment taken as a sanction of support for the proposed O’C St redevelopment, I am nonetheless be in favour of planners having the ability to consider letters of support in favour of developments. Observations shouldn’t all be about objections – or should they? 🙂
One other piece I thought I would add – I think I may have posted it already, but as there have been unfortunate accusations against former owners along here as to why the street was held up, I figure its pertinent to post it again… The real question in the debacle is why did DCC’s Sean Carey make the decisions that he did – and why did he sell on DCC’s interest without putting it out to tender???
Now that’s the question…
from PHOENIX MAGAZINE, November 2006:
Whats on at the Carlton?
Dublin City Councilors found themselves in interesting waters in
their November session when they held part of their meeting en camera,
in an attempt to get to the bottom of the Carlton Cinema controversy –
and what may or may not have been the councils role in it.Having got the go-ahead for regeneration from planners in 1999, the
2-acre site framed by O’Connell Street and Moore Street became bogged
down in a mire of lawsuits, involving a compulsory purchase order, the
subsequent challenges, and a bitter row between the two main former
partners of the Carlton Group, Richard Quirke and Paul Clinton.Most probably the saga would have continued to remain out of public
sight had it not been for the remarkably inconvenient “rediscovery” of
the historical significance of16 Moore Street – the house in which the
1916 surrender was agreed, and which sits right in the middle of the
site.The heat really turned up earlier this year when those seeking to save
16 Moore Street made another discovery – in that they turned up a
contract in which the council provides assurances to the developer Joe
O’ Reilly with regards to the entire site, and in effect giving him
first preference on the 2-acre site redevelopment.Agreed in 2004, this deal appears to make no reference to the City
Development Plan in which it is stated as policy to “seek the
conversion of no. 16 Moore Street into a museum, which will be owned,
run and administered by Dublin City Council”.The existence of this contract also came as news to city councilors –
as too did the existence of a subsequent compensation claim lodged by
Paul Clinton in which he is seeking his share of €180 million, based
on a valuation done by his agents.In the quest for answers from management, councilors were coming up
against a brick wall by being told that by being before the courts,
the subject is sub judice – hence the latest twist where eventually it
was agreed that an en camera session be held.Fortunately Goldhawk has seen the contact and is aware of some of the
more juicy questions that were asked by councilors such as, why was
there so much haste by council officials in initiating the CPO in
December 2001, when barely 2 years had passed on a project that had a
5 year planning permission? Why was the subsequent deal that the corpo
agreed with Joe O’ Reilly not put out to tender – particularly as it
was reported in January 2003 that “the project will be advertised
across Europe by Dublin City Council and assistant city manager Sean
Carey said they expect to begin the marketing programme within three
weeks”? Why is O’Reilly given 7 years in the agreement as well as a
clause that states that the corpo “will give whatever comforts are
required to the Developer’s bankers to allow them to fund the
development of the site”? By agreeing not to pursue the site by CPO,
the agreement with O’Reilly effectively approves his acquisition of
the site from the Group Carlton, as agreed by Richard Quirke – a sale
vehemently disputed by Clinton; yet why does the city council not have
a copy of the primary agreement with Quirke – especially as it is such
a source of contention?To all of these questions, and to more, city officials have insisted
that they have shown “due care and diligence” in their dealings, and
that as the local authority it is their brief to act as a “catalyst”
and knock developers heads together in order to get regeneration done.
And so the saga rolls on – with the next stop being Clintons challenge
to the CPO due in front of the Supreme Court during December.From todays Irish Times:
Carlton plans get cautious welcome from councillors
OLIVIA KELLYDUBLIN CITY councillors have given a cautious welcome to plans for the development of a new 5.5-acre retail and residential city block centred on the site of the former Carlton cinema on Upper O’Connell Street.
Councillors representing the central area of the city said they were glad an application had finally been made for the site, large parts of which have been derelict for 30 years. Several said they did not believe the plans would be approved by An Bord Pleanála following its decisions on the Arnotts site.
The Carlton plan involves buildings of up to 13 storeys topped by a “park in the sky†reached by a funicular. An Bord Pleanála last month rejected several elements of the “northern quarter†plan for a similar-sized site surrounding Arnotts department store.
The board directed Arnotts to reduce a 16-storey tower to nine storeys and ensure no other building was higher than seven. It also said modern glass facades on O’Connell Street would detract from the “architectural heritage value of this nationally important streetscapeâ€.
While the Carlton development will retain some historic facades, it is substantially a new development and will involve glass frontages, transparent roofs and several modern buildings.
Councillors were presented with the plans for the first time yesterday. While they generally do not have a role in planning, there are parts of the proposed scheme which are in public ownership and cannot be sold to the developers without the sanction of councillors.
Independent councillor Mick Rafferty said his initial reaction to the Carlton plans was positive. However, he said, there should have been an international competition to ensure that the best possible design was used.
“I’d be concerned that we might have just another Dundrum shopping centre plonked in the middle of O’Connell Street, not taking into account the architectural value of the city core.â€
Labour councillor Emer Costello said it was tempting to accept any application because the site had been derelict for so long. However, she urged caution.
“I think we lost an opportunity in not having taken this site and the Arnotts site and had a major competition to decide the best plans for this part of the city.â€
The council is due to make a decision by June 24th.
@Blisterman wrote:
Good to hear about that. I don’t know what you guys have against one off housing.
Sure, a lot of it is crap. But look at the amount of great buildings which wouldn’t exist, if this law applied everywhere:Fallingwater, Tugendat House, Nearly every great countryside mansion.
Hmmm indeed; point out to me how many great countryside mansions or award-winning designs have been thrown up in places like Liscannor and I’ll buy you a pint 😉
Sad fact of it is Blisterman that Fallingwater is the exception – and the car-dependent subruralisation that has taken place is largely unsustainable, a visual blight on the landscape, and a financial burden to the rest of society through much higher servicing costs.
There is a place for one-off housing – but not in the wholesale degrading manner by which it has been allowed in the 26 counties in recent years.
Do I want a safari in Kent or a bicycle? Im very confused by some of the shops on this thread :confused:
Maybe I’ll just stick to a pram for Lunasas recycled baby 😀
Shame about PPS 14 being reversed – although this decision was inevitable given the previous ruling 🙁
On the bright side though, at least this has bumped back up the hilarious guff from NoG – and the even more entertaining put-downs by St Alonso 😀
I wonder where NoG is now – he’s been quite for a while; maybe he has just been incarcerated for harassing UK police officers over the “real” Yorkshire Ripper – again?!
I want a “eurocycle”… Or do I want a “eurobaby”? :confused:
Yep, that’ll be two eurocycles and a eurobaby for the chisler…
@gunter wrote:
An application of this scale is supposed to include a section on what alternatives were considered and a critical analysis of why these other options weren’t adopted. Hopefully this section will throw light on the extent of the original fabric and an evaluation of it’s worth. It will just be down to the integrity of the authors, as to whether this tells the full story.
Ho ho ho – look forward to that 😉
I know I am missing something here, but can somebody please tell me where are “the squares”? :confused:
From the Irish Times, April 23rd:
€180m spent assembling ‘Dublin Central’ site
Jack FaganURBAN RENEWAL: The 5.5-acre site for the ‘Dublin Central’ scheme between Upper O’Connell Street and Moore Street took over four-and-a-half years to complete and involved around 70 leaseholders and freeholders
PROPERTY DEVELOPER Joe O’Reilly of Chartered Land has spent in the region of €180 million assembling the 5.5-acre site for the proposed Dublin Central shopping, leisure and residential development between Upper O’Connell Street and Moore Street.
The €1.25 billion scheme – which includes two new pedestrian streets and three public squares – is easily the most spectacular project ever proposed for the city centre.
If, as expected, the plans are approved by the planners, it will add 65,000sq m (700,000sq ft) of retail space in the city centre. Another 37,160sq m (400,000sq ft) is planned by Arnotts for nearby Princes Street.
Most of the major retail schemes over the last 20 years have been along the M50 where around 232,250sq m (2.5 million sq ft) of new shopping space was built in locations such as Dundrum, Tallaght, Liffey Valley, Blanchardstown, Finglas and Clare Hall. The two huge schemes now planned for the Henry Street area will be seen as an attempt to tip the scales back in favour of the city centre.
The intricate task of assembling the vast site took more than four-and-a-half years to complete and involved around 70 leaseholders and freeholders. It is by far the largest development site pulled together in the inner city since the assembly of the site for the St Stephen’s Green shopping centre. The biggest single part of the site, the former Carlton Cinema standing on about one acre, was acquired from Richard Quirke for a figure believed to be over €30 million.
A further €25 million is being spent on buying the Royal Dublin Hotel which accounts for about three-quarters of an acre. The property includes a period townhouse which is to be restored and preserved.
Dublin City Council, which has consistently supported Chartered Land’s stunning vision for one of the most rundown inner city areas, sold the company a quarter-acre maintenance depot fronting on to O’Rahilly’s Parade, off Parnell Street. The consideration was around €9 million.
The Office of Public Works took a different view, opting for a profit sharing arrangement with the developer in return for handing over two buildings at Upper O’Connell Street.
Under the agreement, the State will be guaranteed a minimum annual income of around €1 million. The final figure will depend on the overall rental roll from the scheme.
CIÉ and Dublin Bus also struck a deal, exchanging two buildings along O’Connell Street for 1,858sq m (20,000sq ft) of new offices over retail facilities in the new development. The two buildings owned by the transport companies are partially listed and stand on a site of about a quarter of an acre.
Traders leasing shops along Moore Street, including many immigrants, are being paid between €50,000 and €250,000 to vacate their premises while owners are getting anything from €750,000 to €2 million for their freehold interests.
And the pay-off did not stop there. O’Reilly also bought six adjoining retail buildings from 36 to 41 Henry Street which are to be demolished to make way for a grand entrance into the new shopping precinct.
© 2008 The Irish Times
@johnglas wrote:
A: the planners are secretly in favour of this.
‘Tis not very secret 😉
Think about it – its got all the superficial baubles that may appeal to a glic dick; ski slopes, cable cars… in fact I can almost hear the words “and is there a monorail too, Joe?” :rolleyes:
