thebig C
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks a million for that LOB!:) Having looked at Sandys somewhat understated design I can see why Cooleys design prevailed.
The search goes on!
C
I don’t know if anybody has noticed, but, somebody has “refurbished” on of the Victorian/Edwardian buildings on Benburb St by painting the brickwork on the ground floor a lurid police siren blue!
Agreed Kefu, but , I suppose its no surprise! The last time the City was in such a state was the 1980s. Look at the similarities, a dreadful economic cricis and acres of vacant city centre sites that had been put together by development site assemblers in the brief boom of the late 1970s.
Then again, even during more affulent times there was very little care or maintainence of properties. Alot of Irish people want the rights that go with property but not the responsibilities. Just look in suburban areas how many people have the inside of their houses decorated lavishly but their from garden is like a rubbish tip or garage forcourt!:)
The reputation of Parnell Street is so bad that it will take alot for it to ever recover. In a sense its never been right since Dublin Corporation pulled it apart for road widening over 30 years ago. Its even entered lingua franca as a definition of dereliction….several times when talking to foreigners such as Polish/Lithuanian etc about their hiome Cities , I have noticed when they want to convey the idea of an area that is run down, dangerous or seedy they refer to it as “like Parnell St”!!:)
C
@StephenC wrote:
Im quite surprised at how aggressively Tesco are expanding given the current retail market. Thomas Street, Fairview, Fleet Street and now Smithfield. And all in competition with Centras or Spars and the like. I suppose it is welcome to see someone take the unit and its was always to be expected that a retailer like Tesco would turn up on Smithfield Sq – surely the whole point of all those retail units. Its strange about The Complex. I thought it would develop into something more permanent but it appears to be one of those informal cultural/arts hubs that are springing up about the city but without any sense of longevity or long term purpose. Still there is LOTS of space among the units of Smithfield Market, so they can surely change to a less high profile spot.
Still given all the problems with retail in the city centre its a big leap of faith by Tesco.
Whatever peoples views about Tesco , its good that at least somebody is filling up at least some of the ample empty space. Most of the units opening onto the Square are empty and if you take a walk around the corner all of the units in the complex that open onto side streets are completely vacant.
I have to say, I don’t really share your surprise regarding the failure of Smithfield as a regeneration effort. That area of town has basically been derelict since the 60s/70s when alot of the industries there either relocated or closed. Furthermore, it was never that salubrious to start off with. Perhaps the docks, especially on the Southside had a degree of success because of their proximity to the core D2 Business District and also to upmarket areas like D4.
For 4 years I traveled through Smithfield by Luas each day. Despite the Luas line and its effect on land values, and, the biggest property boom we are ever likely to see, very little redevelopment actually occured between Capel Street and Heuston. That which did either took ages to build or wasn’t completed before the crash. Furthermore, due to the urban landscape of the area, I have heard site aquisition could be fairly difficult, resulting in several large sites being left as wastelands because individuals owning tiny slivers of land refused to sell or lodged objections. This is particularly noticable at the huge empty fenced off chasm between the Four Courts and Phoenix House.
Also, and this will sound awful, whislt the Jameson Distillery development and Smithfield Market are finished off very well, they were always basically islands of affluence surrounded by ghettos. I know thats harsh, and many of the original inhabitants of the area are really decent upstanding people but there are also alot of “scumbags”, for want of a better term. Just look at all the behavior outside the childrens court…not to mention the horse fair!! That is not going to attract anybody.
Furthermore, judging by that fact that its mostly foreigners who alight at Smithfield, I would say most of the apartment owners are investors who literally don’t care about the area because they don’t live there!
C
Thanks for the pics StephenC:)
As for the Wellington Quay construction, I too am dissappointed. I think PVC King expressed the correct sentiments in comparing it to 1980s infill.
I was in town before Christmas and first glimpsed its facade as I was walking down Jervis St. Given that it closes the vista, I thought it could have gone marginally (1-3 floors) taller to add some sort of focal point to the view. Also, on the Quay frontage I felt they could have curved it slightly to meet Fitzsimmons gable wall, or if there were legal issues involved at least been more immaginative in the treatment of how the frontage steps back. Visually, it did remind me also of the kind of depression led unambitious pastiche being built in the late 1980s/early 1990s when the planners were still harping on mock georgian facades and redbricks… and architects were still scared to extensively use glass or steel. Overall, its better then its predecessor but not great in its own regard.
C
Thanks for those pics. Looks like some quite nice building were actually lost, better in fact then alot of the 18/19th century dross that is currently listed!
Just looking through the thread, it seems that the dreams of a European style piazza are just as far off as when I read about them in a Times supplement when I was in school circa 1997!!
TBH, I actually wouldn’t have minded the 23 storey tower, if it meant a more dense footprint and the retention of a couple of those buildings…..rather then the squat 13 storey slab and all the 8 storey monoliths we ended up with.
Also, I will be lit upon for saying this, but the childrens court does Smithfield no favours….just fills it with more reasons not to go there!
C
Hey
GrahamH once again, excellent post!
My observations are as follows, the new addition itself is quite a good building. The architecture is sharp, interesting and yet restrained. As a stand-alone construction, it would be great. Its certainly far superior to much of the dross in the docklands. However, it is grossly out of context. Dare I say it, a high-rise building would have less of an impact then this additional example of looming bulky low-rise structres which try to conform by having stories lopped off, yet still impact horribly on the skyline and historic buildings!
In a world of fibreoptics and LED lighting, the imposition of those spotlight bars worthy of a suburban shopping centre are an absolute disgrace and in many other Cities would simply not be permitted. Given the lighting its then hardly surprising that the developer chose hanging baskets which were obviously in the end of season bargin bin at B&Q!
Honestly, the best I can say is that they cleaned up the face a bit.
Sigh!
C
It looks like having to taper down so dramatically at the Havelock Sq End is at least partly responsible for the intrustion of the steel-work.
Also, imo, the big screen would be better located directly behind the goal. Firstly, it would enable more to view it, sceondly, I think it would give less of an unfinished look to that end.
C
Gunter, I would like to Echo what you said. However, it is more then just indolence on the part of DCC and other Government bodies which are preventing the port area being feasibly developed into a citizen friendly interface with the Bay.
Firstly, when the Port was proposed to be moved initially to Loughshinny in the 1980s and more recently to Breamore, there was a corus of protest from many quarters to keep the port in the City. Granted some of it was vested interest, but, some was that mindless anti-change element which usually dominates in any planning debate.
Secondly, the proposed incinerator will cement the ports position as an industrial area. I have always had a problem, not with the incinerator iiself, but with the contention that the best position for heavy industry in Dublin is effectively the best bayside location. We are always told the Bay is the Citys best asset, yet, access to it is grudgingly small. To my mind the best location for an incinerator would be in some semi rural locale near Dublin, but crucially, not in an area of high pupulation density. Actually, Braemore if the new port is Developed there would be ideal. Unfortunatly this means moving it from one persons backyard to anothers…..that is only bound to cause more controversy!
C
@Devin wrote:
Em, helllleau, where have you been for the last five years? .. not in Dublin, I take it. Modifying development went off DCC’s radar sometime back in 2004. Make hay while the sun shines was it. If you can think of a major scheme DCC truncated / curtailed / redesigned since then, please let me know. Scenario almost without exception went as follows: applicant comes in with ridiculous OTT overdense proposal in spirit of the times→ DCC does dance with rubber stamp→scheme gets hammered on appeal.
Helleau yourself!:) DCC might have been on a hiatus for a few years but from the 1960s-2000s, they lopped floors off pretty much every development.
In the spirit of the Celtic Tiger they began to rubber-stamp, but, now that everybody is anti-developer they are simply reverting to type to vainly show that they are being tough!
@Devin wrote:
What has come over Dublin City Council?? Planning application at North Star Hotel opposite Connolly Stn. for 8-storey new hotel building on current surface parking area to rear of hotel. In decision to grant permission newly out, they lobbed three storeys off (Ref. 3931/09).
Also whacked three floors off recent 10-storey proposal for M&S Mary Street loading bay area – 2121/09 (eventually got refused on appeal)
But WTF? They just rubber-stamped every ridiculous proposal that came into them during Celtic Tiger. Such changes like these were unheard of ……. maybe they’re finally sick of seeing their decisions savaged on appeal ….
Devin, its the same old rubbish they always engage in. Lopping off floors plays well with the typically conservative Irish person/voter who generally don’t like anything different or daring. DCC have been doing this for years.
Naturally, its lost on councilors, council pen pushers and alot of the public that effectively cutting buildings in half destroys any architectural integrity they have. Either approve or reject them in entireity rather then trying to fit a 10 storey square peg into a 5 storey round hole!!
I must say that is a nice little building. I have never noticed it before. Its quirky in the sense that it manages to express an international style redolent of its era, whilst at the same time offering fleeting glimpses of the older 1930s terminal.
Interesting that this was chosen as phase 2 of Dublin airport. I seem to recall seeing an illustration years ago, possibly in an exhibition of plans in the Irish Architectural Archieve, that showed a Prof Fitzgerald design to build a second eliptical building on the land side of the old terminal. They would have been linked by various bridges, but given the similarity in designs, the overall effect would have been of a circular terminal.
C
@cgcsb wrote:
Victoria square destroyed more than 1/4 of Belfast’s surviving georgian stock. Although for some that was a positive thing. Victoria Sq. is very impressive though, and I just wish ABP wasn’t so uptight about the Dublin Central scheme, the proposed skypark would have been just as interesting as viccy’s dome.
Really? I do remember that there was controversy that one of Belfasts oldest pubs was demolished/closed to make way for it but I thought that the only large scale demolishion involved Churchill House, a 1960s slab?
@dermot_trellis wrote:
That would look better alright, but would they be allowed put it in the centre? Might be distracting for rugby kickers if it’s right in their line of view.
Whether the shallower rake is better or worse than Wembley, I certainly hope they won’t have the same horrendous pitch issues! Wembley’s been a complete disaster for football so far.
Yeah, thats about the only reason I could think of not to site the screen in the centre. Although, if O’gara or Sexton were to be distraced by a big screen….I would imagine thay’d also have problems with the 50,000 people staring at them:)
Actually, I have been told the the semi open end will allow for more rain/sunlight to reach the turf, hense, Aviva shouldn’t have Wembleys problems. Every cloud has a silver lining I suppose!
OMG, its not too noticable walking past, but, the photo from the opposite side of the street really highlights just have damaging that storefront is. Almost akin to covering a beautiful face in plaster of Paris….to use the Prince Charles analogy:)
Paul, have you got any renders of the proposals for the ICS/bloodbank building?
C
Whilst I think it would look and feel alot better as a uniformly 360 degree stadium, I have to admit its pretty darn good.
However, I think if they moved the big screen on the Havelock Sq end into the centre, it would improve things imeasurably. For a start it would make the screen a focal point, for the remaining 3 sides and give the appearance that the huge taper down to just one tier is due to design rather then another concern.
C
