igy

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

Yes, it’ll be a great, high-quality, landmark office building with excellent transport links. I hope Google moves into it from over the road and Facebook, LinkedIn etc. move into Google’s old place.

Facebook have more than enough space where they are at the moment, and not sure about LinkedIn.
I have heard other people suggest a Google move to Montevetro though, something about wanting to bring everything under one roof while simultaneously getting away from some crappy contract terms where they are?

@Satrastar wrote:

I appreciate that it was intended to draw attention to heritage, rather the opposite of “a reckless disregard for heritage” as you said.

But the sign they covered was more correct than the one they placed!

@lauder wrote:

The Irish should be scapped on them altogether, it looks so much more elegant in well made cast signs in english, just like the ones that were restored in Cork city recently.

Not that i want this thread to veer off-course into an Irish language discussion, but I disagree about making the signs English only.

Even if you ignore any heritage, preservation or language-encouragement, at the very least we should have standard street signs with both languages for the benefit of visitors.
The Oxford Street example above is something that’s done (in my brief experience of London) well and consistently.
I struggle to think of any category of street furniture or signs in Ireland that are either consistent or well maintanted.
Maybe a standard street sign in city center areas (I’m not advocating removing the very old ones by the way) is to be encouraged? I can’t imagine leaving Irish out of that.

Lose the giant badge, and I don’t think it’s too bad. The ‘Costa’ Sign over the front door is far more muted than it otherwise could have been.

@jackwade wrote:

Does this count as false advertising?

http://www.daft.ie/2680909

That’s Morlan’s photoshopped picture, first posted on page 11 of this thread.

ha, that’s nice of them 🙂

At least they left his watermark on it

@GrahamH wrote:

I didn’t think the Carlton had a usable interior left…?

This was also my recollection, having been in Dr Quirkey’s large ground floor pool area a number of years back, which my sense of direction told me was a few metres behind the façade of the Carlton. I think it was recenty enough kitted out as a casino or something, and now it’s this ‘4D’ theatre.

It seems to have opened. I await with bated breath the photos someone has no doubt taken of their hideous signage 🙂

I’m surprised the independent didn’t do the same when they moved, I always liked that clock on the Abbey St building.

I saw one of those big ones on the finglas road, jutting out over the on-footpath cycle lane. I’d have to go down there and check, but i’m almost sure a tall/standing cyclist would smack their head into it going past.

Why is (at the least) facade retention never considered for these?
I’m no architect, but surely retaining the facade at the street, then having higher (presumably glass) floors recessed is preferable to complete demolition of the existing buildings?