Devin
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
City Council finally observing their policy on listed granite?? …………. maybe the failure of the UNESCO bid ….
2009. Some flags were removed out of the listed pavement on Foster Place for the usual services digging, and replaced in blacktop.
2010. A year later nasty white granite is slipped back in.
Close up. The white granite appeared to have been taken from another location already in use so it wouldn’t look too bright and contrasty.
2011. A complaint suceeded in getting the original flags put back this time …. but strap pointed lol.
Stephen, this is what got permission at the Wellington Quay facade. Repainting of the facade a terracotta colour ‘to re-establish the redbrick colour of the riverfront’ – fine. And aluminium lettering in a pale colour with caps measuring 350mm and lower case 300mm. See architect Cathal O’Neill’s statement below.
But, the usual convenience store scenario – you get permission for one thing then do something else, in a city with no planning enforcement. As if Dublin needed another yellow building … with canary yellow sign lettering, much bigger than the permitted size.
You can open a copy of the shopfront submission from the An Taisce website – http://www.antaisce.org (second item down)
Interesting pic here from around 1960, capturing College Gn just before the ‘blitz’ from 1960 on. Amazingly intact, like a museum of high quality 18th & 19th century buildings.
@StephenC wrote:
Here’s a snap of the less than desireous shopfront on Mary Street. A prime pitch on the city’s premier retail street should be aspiring to a lot better than this. The window transfers seem to be obligatory.
The catalyst for the Polish fascia was the Spar on the corner: Because DCC Planning Enforcement did not take action on its new shopfront & signage when erected in 2006* – and because they did not take action again when Gourmet2Go installed the same signs as Spar except bigger & of higher impact in 2010 – the message went out that low standards are permissible beside the historic city church, so Polonez follow.
*New s/fronts & signage are not exempt. They require permission.
It’s grim what’s happening on Dame Street. Gruel & Mermaid go but Rick’s burgers, Iskander’s kebabs, Eddie R, Abrak, Charlie’s fast food et al all stay.
@StephenC wrote:
No permission sought for COU of this cafe to fast-food take-away, in the Capel ACA. Complaint was lodged last August. Is DCC’s Planning Enforcement dept. working? ……. you tell me.
I think the front of it should be kept free of development. It’s a really great severe monumental elevation that needs a proper setting.
We’ve been so browbeaten that Dublin is insufficiently dense and needs to densify that we are prepared to accept development almost anywhere.
Sorry, yeh, incomplete posting.
The Grangegorman Strategic Plan proposes dumping blocks in front of the pedimented wings of Francis Johnson’s monumental early 19th century former Richmond Asylum :O :O :O
The Grangegorman plan is open for submissions until 7th of December.
Thanks, S Resi …. set in concrete? shudder. Even the TB rigid laying was on sand …
Smithfield Market about to rise – Georgian grain, North King Street, in the background.
Smithfield Market about to rise – Georgian grain, Queen Street, in the background.
And done.
There was a little food market at the bottom of Smithfield today. Oh, picture of urban health. Just don’t go to Winetavern Street or High Street:
Great record. Don’t think ANYTHING there was kept, was it? any pits or anything ..
A warehouse on the Queen Street side:
Nice. I was still on neg at the time :”>
Some more pics of the buildings at the top corner:
It was was totally unecessary to demolish that Victorian pub, Bo Derrols. It was just runaway boom excess. A corner historic building like that should be an asset in your scheme. If the Thomas Reads had opened there instead of where it did, it would probably be still open, Thomas Read’s other problems notwithstanding. I new some new sports type bar has opened where it was.
If ya heard developer Paddy Kelly in the paper recently, jaysus your heart would bleed … his indignation about people’s feelings toward Smithfield ……. which in any case is more about Smithfield generally than what he built.
The cement-rendered one to the right of the pub was an early building – the tell-tale corner chimney breast was visible through the shop window ….. mass bulldozing around here.
As they were coming down, 2003 direction:
Smithfield in 2000. The McGarry NiEanaigh remaking of the square has been done but the west side is not yet developed.
Re: Smiles. Well that kind of abstract, stark idea on a classical building can look good …. have seen some examples in London, I think.
Whatever is there at the moment is pretty minimal. Would be way down the list of offenders on O’Conn St. …… unless they put on something during business hours I didn’t see?
Oops, that planning reference number link doesn’t work. This is the correct one: <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3701/07&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%203701/07
Passed by the Smiles on O’Connell Street at the weekend and its signage is really not that bad at all – by no means garish. It just needs a holistic treatment with the building.
That Smiles on O’Connell Street applied for an “external apple-shaped sign to be positioned between the two central columns of the double storey portico” in 2007. They complained that people were having difficulty finding them and that some form of appropriate signage was needed which would be “identifiable, abstract and innovative” and which did not damage the architectural character of the existing building (see planning app. cover letter – http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00168789.pdf). They said this sign would be like “the hanging of a lantern from the portico of a fine building.”
But the City Council refused it, as they considered it would be “visually obtrusive and inconsistent with the character of the building, and would detract from the setting of the protected structure” – 3701/07 …… seemed odd to me given the nature of what was proposed and given the wider fight against the tirade of cheap, rotten design-free shops & signage in the area. If the CC really thought what was proposed was unacceptable, shouldn’t the applicant have been encouraged to come back with another design with the building in mind, rather than forcing them down the unauthorised and inevitably poorer-quality signage route in order to stay afloat?
Stephen, the reason I think was that the enhancement scheme that was done in the mid-noughties (which those lamps date to) was confined to a certain area of Pearse Street – ie. in and around the Gibert Library. It was done as a project between the QBN office and DCC City Architects department while a bus lane was being installed along Pearse Street, so as to deliver an integrated design. Leaflet attached below.
It’s a pity resources could not extend to application of such partnership arrangements between the QBN office and DCC City Architects for subsequent installation of bus corridors in other, less important locales of the city ……. like College Green.
