Urban Hype hairdressers and you know who

mike65

I was reading the article about the Urban Hype salon winning a design award
(okay its only from the Schwarkopf Professional irish Hairdressers association) and twas mentioned how the proprietor Eddie Mulligan had to re-mortgage the family home to fight the planning objectors or should I say one man anti-progress army that is Brendan McCann. I did some googling as you do, and found a couple of articles

http://archives.tcm.ie/waterfordnews/2006/02/10/story20789.asp
http://archives.tcm.ie/waterfordnews/2007/07/20/story26247.asp

It makes me glad I'm not in business and that if I were I'd probably not be too ambitious lest I fall foul of this man.

deisemum

Jaysus that's a sickening amount of money that Eddie Mulligan had to pay out in costs due to the objections of you know who. I see he's resigned from the Green Party, they must be relieved.

That's a serious amount of objections that he's behind.

fricatus

deisemum wrote: »

I see he's resigned from the Green Party, they must be relieved.

Do you mean the Green Party or Eddie Mulligan's crew? Probably both!

Really, when you stand back and take a look at it now that nothing's being built any more, you see that he's done nothing but retard the commercial development of the city for years. :mad:

What really gets me is his unwillingness to listen to anyone else, his utter conviction that he's right - the arrogant standpoint of the truly blind ideologue!

I hope he's finally got the message that nobody wants to listen to his crap any more, and that he keeps his nose out of any future planning matters.

deisemum

fricatus wrote: »

Do you mean the Green Party or Eddie Mulligan's crew? Probably both!

Really, when you stand back and take a look at it now that nothing's being built any more, you see that he's done nothing but retard the commercial development of the city for years. :mad:

What really gets me is his unwillingness to listen to anyone else, his utter conviction that he's right - the arrogant standpoint of the truly blind ideologue!

I hope he's finally got the message that nobody wants to listen to his crap any more, and that he keeps his nose out of any future planning matters.

I was refering to the Green Party but you're right I reckon there's more than the Green Party that are relieved, however I cannot see that stopping him from his one man crusade.

Professey Chin

deisemum wrote: »

I was refering to the Green Party but you're right I reckon there's more than the Green Party that are relieved, however I cannot see that stopping him from his one man crusade.

Theres always ways
*wanders off to get petrol and matches*

What?Im cold........>_>

ziedth

What actually is this mans reason for the objecting? Like does he have an agenda is it just to cause as much trouble as he can. Jesus, it annoys me :mad:

Sully

He was canvassing for No alongside Coir during Lisbon Treaty II. Only person who didn't interfere with me during my canvassing for Yes. Closest dealings iv had with him anyway.

Can't say I like the Urban Hype design, sticks out a bit to much for the area. Other then that, a good business.

Odats

What I'd like to see done to this area is to do up the Waterside area and clean out The Pill River and put some flowers and get rid of them eyesore falling down bridges. I think the area where Mulligan was supposed to build on the other side of the road across from Hype is even worse now as there isn't anything built on it but with objections etc and the construction slowdown I don't think anything could be built in near future.
Back to McCann. It's easy to object when you have the comfort of a state job P&P of which lecturing pays quite well and have no conscience about putting people out of work.

well butty

Sully wrote: »

He was canvassing for No alongside Coir during Lisbon Treaty II. Only person who didn't interfere with me during my canvassing for Yes. Closest dealings iv had with him anyway.

Can't say I like the Urban Hype design, sticks out a bit to much for the area. Other then that, a good business.

It's a matter of opinion but i would suggest that that structure will win a design award. It's got quality written all over it. Maybe some of us are unable to see that!

Sully

well butty wrote: »

It's a matter of opinion but i would suggest that that structure will win a design award. It's got quality written all over it. Maybe some of us are unable to see that!

Design looks good, just not for the area is all. Awards, yes - just not so sure it works well in that area..

deisemum

Odats wrote: »

Back to McCann. It's easy to object when you have the comfort of a state job P&P of which lecturing pays quite well and have no conscious about putting people out of work.

It was reported a while back that he was on €92,000 or €96,000.

ziedth

deisemum wrote: »

It was reported a while back that he was on €92,000 or €96,000.

I'm sure thats nice, i had to leave waterford because I couldn't find a job in retail. How many retail developments did he object too last year?

dannydiamond

Sully wrote: »

Design looks good, just not for the area is all. Awards, yes - just not so sure it works well in that area..

Jesus christ Sully, these are people that are trying to make a living in these tough times. What does 'not for the area' mean anyway? You'd swear we're trying to compete with Milan ffs,where is a suitable 'cool' area for a building like this in Waterford?
Fair play to them, I've always commented to my wife when we pass that it's a pretty cool building,we need more of this innovative forward thinking and fk the begrudgers and the very best of luck to them.

well butty

Sully wrote: »

Design looks good, just not for the area is all. Awards, yes - just not so sure it works well in that area..

Again dependent on opinion. Contemporary design in a vernacular context. I believe Ole hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, too much for restricted minds!!

dannydiamond

well butty wrote: »

Again dependent on opinion. Contemporary design in a vernacular context. I believe Ole hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, too much for restricted minds!!

Yep, they're trying to run a successful business, they want to stand out not blend in.
There's thousands of people passing that way each day and I would be certain they are attracting attention because of their building.
Blend into the current(drab imo) surroundings and they have no chance.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem, baffling really.

Sully

dannydiamond wrote: »

Jesus christ Sully, these are people that are trying to make a living in these tough times. What does 'not for the area' mean anyway? You'd swear we're trying to compete with Milan ffs,where is a suitable 'cool' area for a building like this in Waterford?
Fair play to them, I've always commented to my wife when we pass that it's a pretty cool building,we need more of this innovative forward thinking and fk the begrudgers and the very best of luck to them.

Firstly, the building was done outside of recession without "tough times" in mind. So that constant argument I hear these days does not apply. With regards to the "not for the area" comment. That applies in every day planning requests - some buildings look completely out of place with the rest of the areas architecture. This is a prime example of a building standing out for both the right and wrong reasons. Its a lovely design, looks great but its not in common with any other buildings in that area and so looks a bit odd.

Its not about competing with others - its about whats right for the area in terms of the business, the design, its height etc. Iv not read the planning objection but thats something that springs to mind and its a typical arugment of "you know who". (Not saying he was right - just pointing out a possibility)

Just like the project on the quays was blocked - it did not complement the area and was a complete over development. Iv noticed that some people seem to think "Ah sure, any old development is fine once their is development". This mentality will destroy Waterford. Development needs to be good and consistent. Some developments in Waterford have been crazy and look completely out of place with other buildings.

well butty wrote: »

Again dependent on opinion. Contemporary design in a vernacular context. I believe Ole hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, too much for restricted minds!!

Restriced minds? Hardly. Common sense? Yes. I liked the design of the building, thought it looked really cool - great at night also with the lights. It somewhat suits the area in terms of its brick work but its size and mostly glass design makes it unusual for the area because the other buildings look nothing at all like it and are majorly different. So it stands completely out and I am just in doubt if it "fits in". An opinion - yes of course. Some will think an odd building looks fine and all good while others will think we should be developing nice buildings that fit within our area and stick out as being "Hey, that looks kinda weird for this area but it suits it very well!". I am not sure either way on this particular building.

dannydiamond wrote: »

Yep, they're trying to run a successful business, they want to stand out not blend in.
There's thousands of people passing that way each day and I would be certain they are attracting attention because of their building.
Blend into the current(drab imo) surroundings and they have no chance.

Yeah, very likely. A good business plan also. The surroundings are drab but I think a good building designer would put something that "fits" and still looks out of "shape". Same purpose - different method.

mike65

Waterford needs more striking architecture, overall the look is very bland esp various public-sector/semi-state lumps.

Cabaal

mike65 wrote: »

Waterford needs more striking architecture, overall the look is very bland esp various public-sector/semi-state lumps.

Striking architecture...yes I'm sure thats exactly what they said when the current railway station was built (it was 'modern!') and the old ESB offices.

Waterford should build in keeping with exisiting buildings, think I'm wrong?
Look at citys that do in Ireland and other countrys, one perfect example I recently visited was San Francisco.

Sure you have townhouses built around 1910 next door to one's build in 1980 and 2000's but they MUST build in a certain way such as they MUST have bay windows to keep in with exisiting town houses.

Of course Waterford will never do this and instead will build stuff that is 'striking' like the Ralway Square development...because that matches everything in the area. :rolleyes:

well butty

Sully wrote: »

Restriced minds? Hardly. Common sense? Yes. I liked the design of the building, thought it looked really cool - great at night also with the lights. It somewhat suits the area in terms of its brick work but its size and mostly glass design makes it unusual for the area because the other buildings look nothing at all like it and are majorly different. So it stands completely out and I am just in doubt if it "fits in". An opinion - yes of course. Some will think an odd building looks fine and all good while others will think we should be developing nice buildings that fit within our area and stick out as being "Hey, that looks kinda weird for this area but it suits it very well!". I am not sure either way on this particular building.

So you believe that we should design buildings using the lowest common denominator? You want it to compliment the established developments in the area which in my humble opinion are poor. We need to up our quality of Architecture and set new standards not stick with the drab!! Maybe you are in a happy place but Waterford is so far behind in its built environment and comments like yours will keep us there!!!!

mike65

Cabaal wrote: »

Striking architecture...yes I'm sure thats exactly what they said when the current railway station was built (it was 'modern!') and the old ESB offices.

Waterford should build in keeping with exisiting buildings, think I'm wrong?
Look at citys that do in Ireland and other countrys, one perfect example I recently visited was San Francisco.

Sure you have townhouses built around 1910 next door to one's build in 1980 and 2000's but they MUST build in a certain way such as they MUST have bay windows to keep in with exisiting town houses.

Of course Waterford will never do this and instead will build stuff that is 'striking' like the Ralway Square development...because that matches everything in the area. :rolleyes:

I said striking not ugly.

well butty

Cabaal wrote: »

Striking architecture...yes I'm sure thats exactly what they said when the current railway station was built (it was 'modern!') and the old ESB offices.

Waterford should build in keeping with exisiting buildings, think I'm wrong?
Look at citys that do in Ireland and other countrys, one perfect example I recently visited was San Francisco.

Sure you have townhouses built around 1910 next door to one's build in 1980 and 2000's but they MUST build in a certain way such as they MUST have bay windows to keep in with exisiting town houses.

Of course Waterford will never do this and instead will build stuff that is 'striking' like the Ralway Square development...because that matches everything in the area. :rolleyes:

Can you list the Architecture in Waterford that we should reference to?

Minfadlek

deisemum wrote: »

I see he's resigned from the Green Party, they must be relieved.

Was it "low key" - never heard a word ? Hope they gave him a good send-off

deisemum

Minfadlek wrote: »

Was it "low key" - never heard a word ? Hope they gave him a good send-off

http://www.waterford-today.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7527&Itemid=1&ed=743

longshanks

Sully wrote: »

Can't say I like the Urban Hype design, sticks out a bit to much for the area.

Sully wrote: »

Design looks good, just not for the area is all.

Sully wrote: »

Restriced minds? Hardly. Common sense? Yes. I liked the design of the building, thought it looked really cool

i dont like it, i do like it. any chance you'd make up your mind?

Minfadlek

Just heard the end of him on his mate Billy's "show" where Billy praised his "bravery" !

robtri

I am going to go with Sully on this one...

The building, taking it on its own, is a good, well designed piece of architecture... and should be appluaded. it works very well as a single building..

BUT

when it comes planning for cities and twons, aspects of the design need to take into consideration its neighbouring buildings, and its local surrounds.
The building needs to be kept in line with these for it work as part of the city, to enhace the overall look to the city.
This doesn't mean you can't have contemporary or modern architecture... it just has to pass as part of the city...

well butty

robtri wrote: »

I am going to go with Sully on this one...

The building, taking it on its own, is a good, well designed piece of architecture... and should be appluaded. it works very well as a single building..

BUT

when it comes planning for cities and twons, aspects of the design need to take into consideration its neighbouring buildings, and its local surrounds.
The building needs to be kept in line with these for it work as part of the city, to enhace the overall look to the city.
This doesn't mean you can't have contemporary or modern architecture... it just has to pass as part of the city...

So what are you suggesting it should compliment? The Wander Inn, Johnstown. Why should we start with the lowest common denominator!

Sully

well butty wrote: »

So you believe that we should design buildings using the lowest common denominator? You want it to compliment the established developments in the area which in my humble opinion are poor. We need to up our quality of Architecture and set new standards not stick with the drab!! Maybe you are in a happy place but Waterford is so far behind in its built environment and comments like yours will keep us there!!!!

I thought I explained this part already. Basicaly, I believe you dont have to keep exactly within the boundries of whats currently out there. But, you should not go miles out and develop a great building that just looks completely out of place in its location.

Iv always said that the council should pass some sort of byelaw effectively forcing businesses to keep a clean and up-to-date shop front. We have far to many business in Waterford who have barley given the place a lick of paint, nevermind replacing the age old signage. Also, awards for good building design (we may have this already, but it seems very quiet) where you dont have to be a member of any business study group to be considered. That should address the lack of quality in our current buildings around the City.

longshanks wrote: »

i dont like it, i do like it. any chance you'd make up your mind?

Whats hard to understand about not liking the building in its current location but liking it "stand alone"? Its a great looking building but looks completely out of place in its current location which is what I dislike about it.

well butty

Sully wrote: »

I thought I explained this part already. Basicaly, I believe you dont have to keep exactly within the boundries of whats currently out there. But, you should not go miles out and develop a great building that just looks completely out of place in its location.

Iv always said that the council should pass some sort of byelaw effectively forcing businesses to keep a clean and up-to-date shop front. We have far to many business in Waterford who have barley given the place a lick of paint, nevermind replacing the age old signage. Also, awards for good building design (we may have this already, but it seems very quiet) where you dont have to be a member of any business study group to be considered. That should address the lack of quality in our current buildings around the City.



Whats hard to understand about not liking the building in its current location but liking it "stand alone"? Its a great looking building but looks completely out of place in its current location which is what I dislike about it.[/quote]

Maybe the location should change. The new building has raised the bar (we all agree on that) so maybe the surrounding property owners should look at their own tired, dilapidated and purely functionally designed buildings!

Sully

well butty wrote: »

Sully wrote: »

I thought I explained this part already. Basicaly, I believe you dont have to keep exactly within the boundries of whats currently out there. But, you should not go miles out and develop a great building that just looks completely out of place in its location.

Iv always said that the council should pass some sort of byelaw effectively forcing businesses to keep a clean and up-to-date shop front. We have far to many business in Waterford who have barley given the place a lick of paint, nevermind replacing the age old signage. Also, awards for good building design (we may have this already, but it seems very quiet) where you dont have to be a member of any business study group to be considered. That should address the lack of quality in our current buildings around the City.



Whats hard to understand about not liking the building in its current location but liking it "stand alone"? Its a great looking building but looks completely out of place in its current location which is what I dislike about it.[/quote]

Maybe the location should change. The new building has raised the bar (we all agree on that) so maybe the surrounding property owners should look at their own tired, dilapidated and purely functionally designed buildings!

That would require a complete demolition though. Ideally the building should have been scaled down with a similar design, similar effect and therefore allowing others to "up the game". The current standard can not be matched. I think that there surely is a way of going unique and not having this glass shelter looking out of place. It has so much potential and is just not reaching it in its current location.

robtri

well butty wrote: »

So what are you suggesting it should compliment? The Wander Inn, Johnstown. Why should we start with the lowest common denominator!

where did you arrive at that from
I said it need to enhance the city and compliment the local area...
not just one building...