Branded Buildings – Any Limits ?

@teak wrote:

Is there any planning limits on ‘branded’ appearance of commercial buildings,
e.g. McDonalds, KFC, chainstores, etc. ?

There are restrictions on fabric banners in Dublin city. All other changes to signage, external finish would require planning permission.

I was thinking of the building shape and style rather than signage.
Like those silly McDonald’s huts around the country.
As the layout inside and the functions of the place do not generate any especial
need for a nutty exterior, I see no reason why they ought be allowed.
Moreover since the planning regulations are applied religiously to all other
kinds of building, not least to residential dwellings.

Absolutely, they are cheap little plastic shacks providing unwanted eyesores in strategic locations. I often asked myself the same question. You have to wonder if the provision of jobs influence the planners to such a degree that they just let them go and then when Mc Donalds set the precedent, well then all the industry wanted their own one and the Planners could not say no as the competition down the road have one. The decision probably ended up being governed by competition law as appose to planning law.

Hilarious; McDonalds urban fit out is one of the best out there; clean dark green facia and the yellow arches highly toned down from the 1980’s problem colour. I suspect that if one were to apply for a branded building that the clours chosen would define the average result; anthracite with a thin red line would sail over whilst Fabreze pink would sink. If you were rolling out a national instruction one would get a retail planner and an advetising consultancy such as Ogilvy brand consult, to discuss how certain brands need to do a McDonalds in terms of brand tweaking to fit with the better Main Streets.

Indeed – a sharp McDonald’s in uber-sensitive Bath below, in this case adorning a late 1940s Georgian reproduction building on a retail street. Irrespective of context, this is one of the best designed shop fronts in the city.

You cannot be serious, I respect that effort has been made, they have toned down the aluminous visual impact and the dark olive would be sympathetic in another environment, but not here. There is too much glass, plastic bins outside (with a logo), posters in the window (I know these can be removed, but restrictions on advertising in certain sensitive areas should be imposed). Planning permission for this type of outlet should never be granted on a street of that character. Mc donalds and all fast food outlets belong in industrial estates accessed off major roundabouts, they are not for the high street. Any building that uses its shop front as an ever evolving advertising portal does not belong in an area of architectural significance. This attempt to make it sympathetic is on a parallel with their attempt to go healthy with their salad dinners swamped in fattening sauces.

What I meant in my original post was the sort of brand-shaped buildings in the suburban areas.
These often using entirely foreign architectural motifs in the same exaggerated way that Disney used the Richardsonian Romanesque style for the Disneyland house.

http://limerick.ratemyarea.com/assets/0146/0021/DSC00170_medium.JPG

http://saynsumthn.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/pizza-hutjpg.jpg

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/f7141c90-2101-47a4-a7a9-f0619f7ed793.jpg

The metropolitan McDonald’s / BurgerKings etc are nowhere near as outrageous as the suburban ones, although some of them are bad enough in some places.

This sort of abuse of planners (that’s what it really is as the planner is afraid to be accused of denying people new jobs if the commercial applicant sulks off somewhere else) is not the sole preserve of fast food companies.
MFI, Homebase, multi-screen cinema complexes (what a comedown from the grand old art deco picturehouses of the past), supermarkets and car showrooms are all getting in on this act.

Can anyone tell me what the brown boarding across the top of the McDonald’s windows is for ?

@Paul cuddy wrote:

You cannot be serious, I respect that effort has been made, they have toned down the aluminous visual impact and the dark olive would be sympathetic in another environment, but not here.

The purpose of the planning code is to impose design standards not engage in snobery; they have complied with the spirit of the development plan so if they pay the asking rent they have as much right to be there as anyone else.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

There is too much glass,

You will never be a retail planner.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

plastic bins outside (with a logo),

Crap bins a great example of different parts of a council imposing seperate objectives without communication; this should have been a S106 levy and the local authority should have provided the bins with MCD’s cash.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

posters in the window (I know these can be removed, but restrictions on advertising in certain sensitive areas should be imposed).

Agreed – should see enforcement to stop creep but this for most retailers is restrained.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

Planning permission for this type of outlet should never be granted on a street of that character.

So they should be kicked off the Champs Elysee as well then? A successful retail mix dictates that a range of products and price points are required to keep a town centre healthy. MCD sells good coffee and decent cakes at highly discounted prices; it is not just a case of snobbery being innapropriate it is a case of ensuring that a global value brand gives less affluent tourists a spot to have a cheap snack without having to go the usual 3-4 streets off prime to get it.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

Mc donalds and all fast food outlets belong in industrial estates accessed off major roundabouts, they are not for the high street. Any building that uses its shop front as an ever evolving advertising portal does not belong in an area of architectural significance.

That is a lazy cop out; you work with people to get them to fit your rules; MCD have unlike Burger King bent their model to fit they deserve that to be recognised. If they apply for a 1980’s style shopfront then their application should be refused but as they have spent the money on a decent shopfront and fit out they should be welcomed as the one global titan that plays the game.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

This attempt to make it sympathetic is on a parallel with their attempt to go healthy with their salad dinners swamped in fattening sauces.

Where have you been for the last 10 years?

1. My Argument did not constitute snobbery that is how you chose to receive it which is incorrect. So you will never get a job as an arbitrator.
2. “ they have complied with the spirit of the development”, yes they have but only the development on the ground floor which is my whole point. They have not respected the building that sits directly above them and to each side. They have allowed their brand to take priority over the existing building and streetscapes natural character.
3. MCD is a cheap lunch for poor tourists, I am not going to even validate that statement.
4. Of course a retail mix is necessary, but not at the expense of a significant streetscape. If they truly wanted to be sympathetic to the existing style, they would have incorporated the fenestration into the shop front, eliminated the striking contrast in colours, they didn’t do this because their brand is king and more important than architecture and street aesthetics. Same reason why they have posters in the windows and plastic bins outside, because they are out and out profiteers and have no interest in our heritage or towns and to be fair, why should they, we have Planners who are responsible for that but as you know, sometimes we would have been better off leaving Ronald himself in charge.
5. If you cannot omit your brand for the sake of being sympathetic to a streetscape, then like I said, go to an industrial estate, because your development is easily retractable. Have a look at most small, non global businesses that operate on major streets, most of them follow the buildings architectural style, it is only the major outlets that need to impose the brand so heavily on the building.
6. All businesses like mcds would have a glass building given the choice, the onus is on the Planner to restrict this to an acceptable level based on the merits of the development and not the scale of the brand
I have been living in Ireland for the past 10 years and my advice to you is, if you want to stay healthy, then dont go to mcds for your 5 a day

@Paul cuddy wrote:

1. My Argument did not constitute snobbery that is how you chose to receive it which is incorrect. So you will never get a job as an arbitrator.

Who wants to deal with parties who can’t agree; anyone who goes to appeal because they don’t like a business model will lose.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

2. “ they have complied with the spirit of the development”, yes they have but only the development on the ground floor which is my whole point. They have not respected the building that sits directly above them and to each side. They have allowed their brand to take priority over the existing building and streetscapes natural character.

Couldn’t disagree more; they have executed a perfect Regent Street intervention.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

3. MCD is a cheap lunch for poor tourists, I am not going to even validate that statement.

Real demand being mixed in terms of price point is obviously beyond you; not all units can be filled by Brown Thomas.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

4. Of course a retail mix is necessary, but not at the expense of a significant streetscape. If they truly wanted to be sympathetic to the existing style, they would have incorporated the fenestration into the shop front, eliminated the striking contrast in colours, they didn’t do this because their brand is king and more important than architecture and street aesthetics. Same reason why they have posters in the windows and plastic bins outside, because they are out and out profiteers and have no interest in our heritage or towns and to be fair, why should they, we have Planners who are responsible for that but as you know, sometimes we would have been better off leaving Ronald himself in charge.

This is their urban branding; how anyone can attack those colours is beyond me; so to the shopfronts thread if you want a justified whinge; Ronald is now a bunch of fund managers who want sales growth, sales growth is only maximised by their playing the planning game which they and Starbucks are the only International food retailers who get planning as a formality.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

5. If you cannot omit your brand for the sake of being sympathetic to a streetscape, then like I said, go to an industrial estate, because your development is easily retractable. Have a look at most small, non global businesses that operate on major streets, most of them follow the buildings architectural style, it is only the major outlets that need to impose the brand so heavily on the building.

Go to the shopfronts thread to see shopfronts that are actually offensive; you are the first person I’ve ever seen trying to equate olive and gold as being anything other than sensitive.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

6. All businesses like mcds would have a glass building given the choice, the onus is on the Planner to restrict this to an acceptable level based on the merits of the development and not the scale of the brand
I have been living in Ireland for the past 10 years and my advice to you is, if you want to stay healthy, then dont go to mcds for your 5 a day

Nope; they would be watching their CRC liability, glass = higher energy requirement = higher energy tax. Their business model is lean and relies heavily at prime locations on a very large proportion of their sales coming from coffee and snacks. Why MCD is successful is that they have four trading periods, breakfast, Lunch, post pub and the bits in between where they are taking a lot of Startbucks trade.

You can hold a view of the 1990’s MCD model which suffered greatly and underperformed the market; do not argue that an organisation that has grown top and bottom line every year for the last 10 years in sophisticated markets like Europe and mature Asia is a one trick pony. A large part of this has been their flexibility in product mix and engaging with planning authorities even those with reputations for anal views in places like Westminster and Bath.

PVC “Real demand being mixed in terms of price point is obviously beyond you; not all units can be filled by Brown Thomas.”
Make the point, leave out the arrogance. To suggest that MCDS or other fast food outlets are the only companies that can offer a price mix, is just not true. There are countless small businesses who can offer cheap healthy food from an urban sensitive shop and do so in prime locations.

“This is their urban branding; how anyone can attack those colours is beyond me; so to the shopfronts thread if you want a justified whinge; Ronald is now a bunch of fund managers who want sales growth, sales growth is only maximised by their playing the planning game which they and Starbucks are the only International food retailers who get planning as a formality.”
Colours themselves do not make a shop front sensitive, you cannot just pick olive and gold and decide, job well done. It is all about how they integrate into the existing building. The colours are in stark contrast to the existing building, which is good for visual impact and branding but not for the streetscape. The olive is dark and coarse which aggressively interrupts the gentle light colours of the existing building. This takes all the emphasis off the beautiful architecture and places it on the commercial outlet. I feel you are just looking at a sharp neat shop front and are not considering it in context.
As for the rest of the argument, I cannot really see the relevance, you go on about the business model a lot, but that is not really what this is about.

As for the glass, not entirely true about the higher energy requirements but anyway I was being hypothetical to help express a point.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

PVC “Real demand being mixed in terms of price point is obviously beyond you; not all units can be filled by Brown Thomas.”
Make the point, leave out the arrogance. To suggest that MCDS or other fast food outlets are the only companies that can offer a price mix, is just not true. There are countless small businesses who can offer cheap healthy food from an urban sensitive shop and do so in prime locations.

The location has an ITZA of about £250 – £350 a square foot; there are less than 10 food offers that can make money at that level; other than Nero none of them have a more sensitive shopfront. No other operator in this quality of environment comes close to MCD on price.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

“This is their urban branding; how anyone can attack those colours is beyond me; so to the shopfronts thread if you want a justified whinge; Ronald is now a bunch of fund managers who want sales growth, sales growth is only maximised by their playing the planning game which they and Starbucks are the only International food retailers who get planning as a formality.”
Colours themselves do not make a shop front sensitive, you cannot just pick olive and gold and decide, job well done. It is all about how they integrate into the existing building. The colours are in stark contrast to the existing building, which is good for visual impact and branding but not for the streetscape. The olive is dark and coarse which aggressively interrupts the gentle light colours of the existing building. This takes all the emphasis off the beautiful architecture and places it on the commercial outlet. I feel you are just looking at a sharp neat shop front and are not considering it in context.
As for the rest of the argument, I cannot really see the relevance, you go on about the business model a lot, but that is not really what this is about.

It is completely about the strengths of their business model and the uniqueness of them being able to trade locations that are almost exclusively reserved for comparison retail such as clothing or mobile phone shops. Any colour will have some level of impact a material as plain as Portland stone; look at the Helifax sign for the adjoining unit; that equally contrasts as it is Compare this signage to that of Burger King on OCS which as ground floor to another mono-tone stone upper and this shopfront is light years ahead.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

As for the glass, not entirely true about the higher energy requirements but anyway I was being hypothetical to help express a point.

U-vales of glass are inferior to almost any other cladding material; unlike the shopfront which has secured consent from one of the most protective planning departments globally. That they saw fit to grant consent on their main retail pitches is as clear a validation of the design quality of this shopfront which is used in numerous locations.

You cannot argue that every colour has the same impact, obviously the lighter colours will impact less with a light building. That shop front is solely about visual impact.
There are individually owned businesses across the country on prime streets providing food. Your info does not stack up with the facts.
e-glazing – trombe walls – concrete floors, great for heat generation and retention.

“One of the most protective planning departments globally” did you draw that fact from the same website that told you about the less than 10 food outlets. :thumbup:

@Paul cuddy wrote:

You cannot argue that every colour has the same impact, obviously the lighter colours will impact less with a light building. That shop front is solely about visual impact.

The Helifax shopfront next door is darker yet you have no comment on that one; you need to stop digging.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

There are individually owned businesses across the country on prime streets providing food. Your info does not stack up with the facts.

Not at those rental levels; name one food business at ground floor on Grafton St, Henry St or Patrick St in Cork other than MCD, Burger King or Starbucks that is not owner occupied. The small local businesses you refer to can’t pay the rent; it might work in Ballaghadreen or Trowbridge but it doesn’t in Bath.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

e-glazing – trombe walls – concrete floors, great for heat generation and retention.

Retail pods in industrial estates don’t do Class A office cladding; stop digging.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

“One of the most protective planning departments globally” did you draw that fact from the same website that told you about the less than 10 food outlets. :thumbup:

No I drew that fact from years of experience dealing with prime retailers and refusing consent for inapproriate signage.

@PVC King wrote:

The Helifax shopfront next door is darker yet you have no comment on that one; you need to stop digging.

I cannot see any halifax shopfront in the picture, so maybe you could dig it out and post it and even if there was one there, why would I want to comment as it was not the topic, the topic was the MCD shopfront, you are hell bent on talking about everything else other than the topic.

@PVC King wrote:

Not at those rental levels; name one food business at ground floor on Grafton St, Henry St or Patrick St in Cork other than MCD, Burger King or Starbucks that is not owner occupied. The small local businesses you refer to can’t pay the rent; it might work in Ballaghadreen or Trowbridge but it doesn’t in Bath.

I will be in galway this week and I will take a picture of a few for you, then maybe you might have a bite to eat there.

@PVC wrote:

Retail pods in industrial estates don’t do Class A office cladding; stop digging.

e- galzing windows have outstripped all other glazing in both the commercial and domestic sector, that info is direct from the source, one of Irelands biggest glazing manufacturers. And again we are not on about industrial estates, we were discussing streets with significant architecture. You should start digging in the right direction.

@PVC wrote:

No I drew that fact from years of experience dealing with prime retailers and refusing consent for inapproriate signage.

I am sorry, but with the greatest of respect, that does not make you an authority on global planning departments

@Paul cuddy wrote:

I cannot see any halifax shopfront in the picture, so maybe you could dig it out and post it and even if there was one there, why would I want to comment as it was not the topic, the topic was the MCD shopfront, you are hell bent on talking about everything else other than the topic.

Look at the image again; the bus stop sign is standard Helifax; where goes bus stop goes so goes larger version facia. The Navy used by this dysfunctional bank is darker than that of the thoroughly sensitive olive green with gold inserts.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

I will be in galway this week and I will take a picture of a few for you, then maybe you might have a bite to eat there.

Restrict any examples to the upper end of Shop Street as rental values will have fallen off a cliff 100m down.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

@PVC wrote:

Retail pods in industrial estates don’t do Class A office cladding; stop digging.

e- galzing windows have outstripped all other glazing in both the commercial and domestic sector, that info is direct from the source, one of Irelands biggest glazing manufacturers. And again we are not on about industrial estates, we were discussing streets with significant architecture. You should start digging in the right direction.

Paul cuddy wrote:
“Mc donalds and all fast food outlets belong in industrial estates accessed off major roundabouts, they are not for the high street. Any building that uses its shop front as an ever evolving advertising portal does not belong in an area of architectural significance. “

Advertising is not the issue at that location; A metro pole scale advert is worth €30k at that location; they are paying c £200k -£250k rent; I’ve not doubt it makes money for them or they would not be there.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

@PVC wrote:

No I drew that fact from years of experience dealing with prime retailers and refusing consent for inapproriate signage.

I am sorry, but with the greatest of respect, that does not make you an authority on global planning departments

Second guessing planning departments from a risk averse position like MCD has obviously saved them abortive fees in Bath; the way you are talking you would think they got turned over. You can have the last word on this – why don’t you have a go at Bath for allowing MCD to assist their retail mix with a food offer that increases dwell time and spend and as a result retail vibrancy.

Are you referring to a halifax sign or a shop front.

The last word:

1. Obviously, retail mix is important but not at the expense of heritage.
2. Branding and advertising are important but less important when you have a high street location as the constant footfall will suffice.
3. That shop front is not sensitive enough, it is in the zone, but I would be dissatisfied with it because it is too striking and harsh for the existing building. It takes the emphasis away from the buildings.
4. Unsympathetic advertising is not acceptable in a streetscape of that character.
5. I do not want to scorn MCD for their efforts, I would like the more than capable Planners that are still in existence, steer them further in the right direction.