€1.25 billion Dublin centre project plan

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0421/dublin.html

€1.25 billion Dublin centre project plan
Monday, 21 April 2008 21:14

A planning application for a €1.25 billion development of Upper O'Connell Street and surrounding areas in Dublin city centre is to be lodged later this week.

The developer, Chartered Land, which is behind the Dundrum Shopping Centre, says the project will bring 3,000 jobs when completed and up to 7,000 jobs during construction.

The plans cover a 5.5-acre area known as Dublin Central, which stretches from O'Connell Street to Moore Street and from Henry Street to Parnell Street.

The proposals include a mixture of residential and retail development, along with three new public squares and two pedestrian streets. There will also be a rooftop restaurant quarter.

The facade of the old Carlton cinema will also be retained but it will be relocated 50 metres north of its present location to make way for a new square. The cinema has been closed for the last 14 years due to legal wrangles.

The centrepiece of the development will be a 12-storey building with a sloping public park on its roof. The park, which will cover more than an acre, will be accessed by cable car.

But the height of the building could be problematic - An Bord Pleanála recently wrote to Arnotts advising it to reduce the height of its proposed 16-storey tower nearby by nine storeys as the board believed it 'distracted from the balance and architectural structure of the streets'.

A number of listed and protected buildings are located within the area and the developers say they will preserve a number of houses including number 16 Moore Street - the last headquarters of the leaders of the 1916 Rising. An undertaking has also been given to maintain Moore Street market.

Danno

I seen the picture of it in the Indo today. Horrible looking.

zAbbo

Absolutely retarded, it's going to be cold up there, what happens when it rains, it's horrible looking...

jank

Yea looks kinda **** alright, It will never go through

BendiBus

zAbbo wrote: »

Absolutely retarded, it's going to be cold up there, what happens when it rains, it's horrible looking...

And the garden is on a north facing slope It'll see the sun about 2 days a year :rolleyes:

estebancambias

the responses in this thread are why dublin will always suck...what is your opinion on New York City? This is for the people who call stuff like this retarted.

itchyend

Didnt arnotts loose their planning application for same are

bertie:mad:

brown envelopes me thinks:cool:

Zoney

estebancambias:

This isn't NYC, it's Dublin. It's Ireland, not East Coast USA.

The criteria for evaluating a project *are* different here.

You might think things are rubbish in Dublin, but they won't improve by ignoring the existing character of the remaining decent architecture and features of the city.

paulm17781

Dublin will certainly never develop with the mentality that uniform 4 storey building are best. Everytime an interesting project gets started, the NIMBYs come out in force.

Metrobest

This isn't NYC, it's Dublin. It's Ireland, not East Coast USA.

This kind of attidude shows why this project probably will never get off the ground.

From what I understand of it, this is an excellent project. It will demolish some of most ugly buildings on O´Connell Street including the hated Dublin Bus offices. A winter ´skygarden´ will provide a pleasant space for citizens for the colder months. New apartments will introduce a residential component to the street, and make it safer. It will bring life to a part of the city thats more associated with junkies and fast food restaurants.

My only concern is that the 50m height of the skygarden is a lost opportunity for something more iconic. 50m is a virtual bungalow in height terms in the modern city. The scale of the pyramid looks a little awkward in my opinion, because it´s trying to be an iconic building, yet it´s trying not to offend the sensibilities of the (it seems majority) of Dubliners who oppose high rise. It should be 100metres and more pointy like the London Tower Bridge.

BendiBus

Metrobest wrote: »

This kind of attidude shows why this project probably will never get off the ground.

No. If everything looked like NYC that would be pretty dull too. You've jumped on a single line from Zoneys post and ignored the important bit about existing character. Yes the area needs significant development, but that shouldn't mean agreeing to anything.

50m is a virtual bungalow in height terms in the modern city.

Why does every debate about development end up as an argument over height? Should quality not be more important?

This proposal has an ugly sloping garden on top. It's nothing to do with height - it's just pig ugly.

jank

Metrobest have a look at http://www.atlanticquarter.ie/ to see how a delevopment should be drawn up!

This thing is like building a spaceship in the middle of the city.

paulm17781

Metrobest wrote: »

My only concern is that the 50m height of the skygarden is a lost opportunity for something more iconic. 50m is a virtual bungalow in height terms in the modern city. The scale of the pyramid looks a little awkward in my opinion, because it´s trying to be an iconic building, yet it´s trying not to offend the sensibilities of the (it seems majority) of Dubliners who oppose high rise. It should be 100metres and more pointy like the London Tower Bridge.

I know what you mean but I disagree. If this were too high it would look very ugly. The London development you talk about is in an architecturally different area. It this were 100m in the middle (top quarter) of O'Connell st. It would look all wrong. As it is it will be higher than most things around but not too out of place. I think what you're looking for could happen on O'Connell st. but it would be a gradual shift. 50M is a great start in that direction for this part of the city.

Victor

Website is working now

http://www.dublincentral.ie/
http://www.charteredland.ie/dublincentral.htm

Zoney

paulm17781 wrote: »

Dublin will certainly never develop with the mentality that uniform 4 storey building are best. Everytime an interesting project gets started, the NIMBYs come out in force.

We have more and more buildings above 4 storeys here in Limerick - from the average apartment block buildings of 6-8 storeys and the likes of the Clarion and the main Riverpoint tower which are in the teens. Much of Henry Street and the Quays, as well as the start of the Dock Road are now lined with such buildings. This also makes it easier to have taller buildings in the future - more recent constructions are a storey or two more than those before. They were also built in an appropriate area - the riverside with the standard 4 storey profile Georgian buildings behind being on higher elevation.

Dublin is now following such a line on the IFSC and the Heuston area. It isn't sensible though to plonk tall buildings in the middle of O'Connell Street.

Dublin needs to build up to being taller, not have permission granted to random pinnacles.

MadsL

Oh dear Lord!

When does the ski season start?? New skatepark for longboarders?

This is absurd for O'Connell St - greedy proposal if ever I saw one.

paulm17781

MadsL wrote: »

Oh dear Lord!

When does the ski season start?? New skatepark for longboarders?

This is absurd for O'Connell St - greedy proposal if ever I saw one.

Imagine, modern development on an ugly part of a main st. in a capital city. Witchcraft I tells ya! We should burn down the whole city and go back to living in mud huts. It's the only way to keep our heritage. :rolleyes:

Metrobest

paulm17781 wrote: »

I know what you mean but I disagree. If this were too high it would look very ugly. The London development you talk about is in an architecturally different area. It this were 100m in the middle (top quarter) of O'Connell st. It would look all wrong. As it is it will be higher than most things around but not too out of place. I think what you're looking for could happen on O'Connell st. but it would be a gradual shift. 50M is a great start in that direction for this part of the city.

Looking at the website I like it even more than before, the whole development is very sensitive to its surroundings and is not at all ugly. It essentially preserves the height line on O´Connell Street while also getting rid of the existing ugly buildings on it. It´s a win-win situation. It is exactly what this part of town, which is still run down, needs. The Spire was controversial before it was built; now everyone loves it. The same will be true of this development.

You may be right about the height thing - in London the trend towards vertical architecture has been set in stone because of the high quality of what is being built inspiring confidence. Hopefully what a development like this can do is to show people that what matters most is the quality of the design and here I think this development is onto a winner. That will then auger well for future high rise in the city.

BendiBus

Metrobest wrote: »

the whole development is very sensitive to its surroundings and is not at all ugly.

I have to disagree strongly. The tall element of this development looks truly awful.





The above images are referred to on Archiseek.

There are several places where it's entirely appropriate to develop tall buildings, Heuston & Docklands being top of the list. But again, my objection to this proposal is nothing to do with height (although I think there are better places to go tall). It's simply the dreadful look of the design. The frontage onto O'Connell St. is passable (because the crap ski-slope is not visible from there) but Henry St is destroyed by this concept.

Also, the proposal seems to include elevated shopping streets. All I can think of is the totally dead elevated streets in centres such as Stillorgan & the old Dundrum centre.

paulm17781

BendiBus wrote: »

Also, the proposal seems to include elevated shopping streets. All I can think of is the totally dead elevated streets in centres such as Stillorgan & the old Dundrum centre.

Two old and about to be redeveloped shopping centres can not be compared to a flag ship city centre project. Most cities have second, third floor or basement shops. Dublin is quite unique in that it has little of it.

LFCFan

Something needs to be done with O'Connell Street because right now it's an embarrassment as our premier street. The new paving etc has improved it a lot but it's the buildings and their contents that are bringing the street down. Fast food and Arcades are not what a premier street should be about. I for one would love to see something like this being developed as all it takes is one idea like this to come off and suddenly people will see the benefits of modern architecture and other projects will get off the ground. Dublin might finally join the rest of the major cities in joining the 21st century. In Dublin's case, completely skipping the 20th century.

spacetweek

paulm17781 wrote: »

Dublin will certainly never develop with the mentality that uniform 4 storey building are best. Everytime an interesting project gets started, the NIMBYs come out in force.

Saw the render and thought it looked great.

I certainly hope they dynamite that Quirky's rubbish while they're at it.

BendiBus

LFCFan wrote: »

Something needs to be done with O'Connell Street

"This is something. We need to do this!"

That's the attitude I'm feeling from this thread. I think this proposal is not good enough.

johnnyskeleton

BendiBus wrote: »

"This is something. We need to do this!"

That's the attitude I'm feeling from this thread. I think this proposal is not good enough.

That's exactly it. There has been so much litigation and controversy over this site that in the end it looks like it's going to be cpo'ed and given to whoever has any sort of plan for it.

It doesn't look so bad from the street level view of the Carlton, and it looks great from the inside. But the glass ski slope is horrible. The glass looks awful, completely out of place and ugly.

Something of similar scale but with stonework in keeping with other buildings such as the GPO would look much better.

Aesthetics aside, it's also interesting that they are looking at big new developments of apartments. I would hope that if they do go ahead these would be the first batch of city centre apartments designed to be lived in as opposed to being shoe boxes.

Metrobest

I think that the glass structure looks terrific in relation to its surroundings and is far nicer than what it will replace - ie. the hideous Dublin Bus buildings and the vile amusement arcade of the Quirky doctor. As far as glass pyramids go, I saw a similar structure in Andorra last weekend - the Caldea spa in the main town there. Having a drink on the 11th floor, with views over the city and across to the mountains, was a fantastic experience. The building is higher than 50m and more pointy and it looks great in all weather. I thought to myself, if Andorra can have a building like this is in its town centre, why can´t Dublin?

BendiBus

Google tells me you're talking about this:



Not even remotely like the Dublin proposal and not even a remotely similar location.

Nice looking building though!

Metrobest

Upthread I made a point that I thought the pryamid should be more pointy, like the Caldea building. Location wise, Caldea is in the middle of Andorra Les Velles city centre. Highly recommended for a visit. You get a fantastic sense of elevation on the 11th floor, I think this is what the Dublin Centre project is aspiring to also. Think of the views across to the Dublin mountains from the Park in the Sky.. the Spire as a visual marker of the vertical, along with a pleasant green space and natural sunlight flooding in..

Glass is a very pure material, due to its transparency it blends with surroundings a lot better than concrete or steel. There is no point trying to imitate Georgian architecture in modern Dublin.

steve-o

If it's got a funicular railway then it's got to be good. There's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car funicular

paulm17781

BendiBus wrote: »

I think this proposal is not good enough.

Let's scrap it and leave O'Connell St. like that for another 20 years so.

Rabble rabble rabble.

Victor

paulm17781 wrote: »

Rabble rabble rabble.

Rubble rubble rubble?

BendiBus

The developers have submitted a redesign. It was mentioned in Wednesdays commercial property section of the IT, and probably in todays papers too.

The ski-slope is now facing the other direction so at least it won't be in permanent shade, and it's a bit lower this time.

A number of other changes have been made to reduce the developments negative impacts.

http://www.charteredland.ie/dublincentral.htm

G_R

looking at the 2 photos on the link in the previous post i think it looks pretty nice.....a lot better than what its like now.....

Danno

Big Improvement

BluntGuy

Much better...

The other design looked truly awful...

I've got nothing against wanting to modernise the city and build fascinating new buildings with original architecture... but the other design was out of place entirely and probably would've ruined O'Connell street even further...

carlmango11

Why can't we, for once, build a building that isn't unoriginally modern. Does an abundance of glass and brickless panels really look nice? I think they should build a nice, grand, historic type building that suits the area? It doesnt have to look old and dark like dorset street type buildings. The kind of buildings you see around the south city centre (College greenish).

Google Foster Place and you'll see the type of architecture I mean. Hopefully it wont be full of stupid, knacker-magnetising shops like the rest of O'Connell Street. Arcades, Fast Food and Newsagents on our premier street. Greeaat....

BluntGuy

carlmango11 wrote: »

Why can't we, for once, build a building that isn't unoriginally modern. Does an abundance of glass and brickless panels really look nice? I think they should build a nice, grand, historic type building that suits the area? It doesnt have to look old and dark like dorset street type buildings. The kind of buildings you see around the south city centre (College greenish).

Blocks of glass seem to be the new modern aesthetic...

I don't know why. Glass can look nice, but I'm beginning to think it's over-used...

carlmango11

BluntGuy wrote: »

Blocks of glass seem to be the new modern aesthetic...

I don't know why. Glass can look nice, but I'm beginning to think it's over-used...

I think you're very right but O'Connell Street just isn't the place for this style of modern architecture in my opinion, it holds to much of our history to by knocked down and redesigned

paulm17781

carlmango11 wrote: »

I think you're very right but O'Connell Street just isn't the place for this style of modern architecture in my opinion, it holds to much of our history to by knocked down and redesigned

I think they should build mud huts and tents. I don't know why cities needed the big older style buildings of years gone by when we had perfectly suited crap. Down with moderisation. :rolleyes:

donvito99

My problem with dublin architectually is that there is no system in the buildings that are built. Take Rathmines road for example, buildings are set back, higgledy piggledy shops sticking out everywhere in the front gardens of grand dublin homes (which are now flats), hue council blocks randomly dooted across the town.

The whole street is lined with buildings ranging from 2 to 5 stories of great dublin homes. If these could be done up it would look great.

Again, random modern buildings jammed in.

Rathmines has some incredible buildings that are not utilised in any way.

Sulmac

O'Reilly's €1bn O'Connell Street scheme gets green light
Neil Callanan

Plans for a €1bn retail scheme at O'Connell Street in Dublin have been given the go-ahead by Dublin City Council. Joe O'Reilly's Chartered Land has been told it can develop its Dublin Central scheme, which will cover a site stretching from O'Connell Street to Moore Street and Henry Street to Parnell Street. John Lewis has already been secured as the anchor shop for the development by letting agent Bannon.




The council granted permission subject to 32 conditions, including a stipulation that there be free public access to the proposed 'Sky Park' and that only 769 parking spaces be provided.




O'Reilly will have to pay the council nearly €9.5m in contributions before work is allowed to proceed and will also have to pay nearly €2.3m towards the construction of Metro North. He will have to pay €50,000 to the council to carry out a "comprehensive traffic study on the operation of the proposed car park in city centre street network". This study will take place about six months after the opening of the development.




The council decided to allow the development after Chartered Land submitted changes to its original plans in October, one of which was that the Sky Park would actually face the sun rather than away from it. The height of the building was also reduced, along with the heights of other buildings.




O'Reilly's assets include stakes in Dundrum Town Centre, The Pavilions in Swords, the Ilac Centre in Dublin 1 and the new retail scheme at South King Street in Dublin 2. He is also developing offices in the city's south docks. Through his holdings in Castlethorn Construction, he is involved in the Adamstown development and the Rathborne scheme at Ashtown in west Dublin.


December 21, 2008

http://www.tribune.ie/business/article/2008/dec/21/oreillys-1bn-oconnell-street-scheme-gets-green-lig/

BendiBus

The council decided to allow the development after Chartered Land submitted changes to its original plans in October, one of which was that the Sky Park would actually face the sun rather than away from it.

I'm going to claim credit for that one as surely nobody else could have spotted such a subtle flaw in the design

Talk about submitting a ridiculous plan A just so that plan B will look positively brilliant :rolleyes:

Victor

donvito99 wrote: »

Rathmines has some incredible buildings that are not utilised in any way.

you show the town hall and the library, both in use for education and as a library. Sure there are buildings that have "civic pride" problems, but I imagine there are very few buildings in Rathmines that aren't in use.

spacetweek

I remember there being controversy about the number of parking spaces. 769 still seems like a lot - but does anyone know the original figure?

markpb

spacetweek wrote: »

I remember there being controversy about the number of parking spaces. 769 still seems like a lot - but does anyone know the original figure?

1,100