Paris Bakery gone soon to make way for shopping centre

reprazant

So what was being mooted for the last while has come to be and the Paris bakery will soon be no more (See link here).

Can some explain to me why the DCC and Nama felt that what was needed here was another shopping centre when the ones around it have many empty lots?

Would it not have been cheaper to just do up Moore St and leave the traders there that are doing good business instead of turfing them out (although only the bakery gets a mention)?

An historic part of Dublin is to be gutted for, what I can see, no good reason.

Bandara

reprazant wrote: »

So what was being mooted for the last while has come to be and the Paris bakery will soon be no more (See link here).

Can some explain to me why the DCC and Nama felt that what was needed here was another shopping centre when the ones around it have many empty lots?

Would it not have been cheaper to just do up Moore St and leave the traders there that are doing good business instead of turfing them out (although only the bakery gets a mention)?

An historic part of Dublin is to be gutted for, what I can see, no good reason.

It's a profitable business and could easily get a vacant site that's suitable on very favourable terms. The landlords would be queuing up.

More to this than we are being told. I'd bet any amount they will reopen elsewhere.

Tombo2001

Pretty poor decision. Shows how out of touch these people are.

Tombo2001

Bandara wrote: »

It's a profitable business and could easily get a vacant site that's suitable on very favourable terms. The landlords would be queuing up.

More to this than we are being told. I'd bet any amount they will reopen elsewhere.

Maybe so but there was something very cool about it being on Moore Street.......rather than Exchequer Street or Drury Street or Duke Street.

reprazant

My point isn't necessarily about the bakery, it is just the most well know and vocal of the businesses being forced to close there.

My point is more about why the powers that be felt it necessary to build another large shopping centre there when most of the shopping centres around the place already have empty lots as well as there being empty lots on all the main shopping streets around there.

Instead of just fixing up the buildings there on Moore St, why did they feel it would be a better idea to completely gut them, and destroy a historic part of the city, for what seems like a completely unnecessary shopping centre?

wowy

Disregarding the merits or otherwise of the development; you say "being forced to close", and Ruth Savill in the video says that "it's unfair". Their lease is expiring and it's not being renewed, which is entirely within the landlord's rights and which the tenant would have known when they took the lease. They opened in 2010, after permission for the development had already been granted, so they went in with their eyes wide open that this development was on the horizon, so they can't now rely on emotive arguments of unfairness, being forced out, etc. It was naieve if they thought "we have a short-term lease, and the landlord has permission for a huge development here, but no worries, we're here for the long-haul".

Bandara is right - if they're profitable as they say, they'll find another unit easily. It's a tenant's market. Perhaps they can take one of the "empty lots on all the main shopping streets around there" that the OP talks about?

This sorta stuff grinds me gears; it's a real Irish thing that once the horse has bolted (i.e. planning permission has been long since granted) to say "Ah now, hang on, I don't like that, the "powers that be" don't know what they're doing, etc". If you feel that way, I'm sure you objected in 2008? Did you also appeal the Council's decision to An Bord Pleanála in 2009?

You say there are lots of empty units in the area, and they don't need another centre. That's right, there are many empty units, but it's not as clear-cut to say that another centre is not required. Have you considered that they're empty because they're not what the retail market requires, and "just fixing up the buildings on Moore Street" isn't going to create units that retailers would be willing to occupy?

ScottSF

I'm surprised the article didn't mention how popular the Paris Bakery has become. It is even mentioned in travel guidebooks as a place to stop by. As for the rest of Moore Street, I still find it an intriguing and worthwhile place to pass through, however it is certainly overdue for an upgrade. But an indoor shopping centre does seem quite odd and unnecessary to me too.

I wish they found a way to preserve the historic nature of the block and turn the area into a tourist friendly "old-fashioned" shopping street. Sort of like the improvements made to Temple Bar to preserve the local and historic character even if it is quite touristy. Moore Street could become a popular place for visitors to stroll and shop while in Dublin. I will be disappointed if it becomes another typical modern but boring shopping centre (no reason to visit Dublin for that!).

CatLou

I'm very sad to read about this I love Moore St and I do a lot of shopping either on the markets or fruit and veg stalls. There are already a lot of shopping centres in that area, they basically want to build a f*cking shopping facing an already existing shopping, isn't that a brilliant idea...

I'm afraid what a development like that may do to the street. The Paris Bakery had a certain charm on that street and not on a "fancier" location, their service is ****e but the food is very good and it certainly brings some more variety to what is offered in the city and it goes perfectly with the spirit of Moore St.

And what about the other shops and vendors?

I hope they don't build another Ilac Center... I think something that could work for the street would be a big covered plaza like the Meeting House Sq on Temple Bar or a beautiful arcade with a covered market. It could house some of Moore St's businesses and bring some beauty to the area, integrating with the surroundings.

Tombo2001

wowy wrote: »

Disregarding the merits or otherwise of the development; you say "being forced to close", and Ruth Savill in the video says that "it's unfair". Their lease is expiring and it's not being renewed, which is entirely within the landlord's rights and which the tenant would have known when they took the lease. They opened in 2010, after permission for the development had already been granted, so they went in with their eyes wide open that this development was on the horizon, so they can't now rely on emotive arguments of unfairness, being forced out, etc. It was naieve if they thought "we have a short-term lease, and the landlord has permission for a huge development here, but no worries, we're here for the long-haul".

Bandara is right - if they're profitable as they say, they'll find another unit easily. It's a tenant's market. Perhaps they can take one of the "empty lots on all the main shopping streets around there" that the OP talks about?

This sorta stuff grinds me gears; it's a real Irish thing that once the horse has bolted (i.e. planning permission has been long since granted) to say "Ah now, hang on, I don't like that, the "powers that be" don't know what they're doing, etc". If you feel that way, I'm sure you objected in 2008? Did you also appeal the Council's decision to An Bord Pleanála in 2009?

You say there are lots of empty units in the area, and they don't need another centre. That's right, there are many empty units, but it's not as clear-cut to say that another centre is not required. Have you considered that they're empty because they're not what the retail market requires, and "just fixing up the buildings on Moore Street" isn't going to create units that retailers would be willing to occupy?

The point your making is a legal argument, and in its own way is unanswerable.

In an ideal world, I believe the city council would give special protection rights to businesses that bring a unique cultural contribution to the city, or in other words help make the city what it is.

I'll give an example.

The mermaid cafe/ gruel was a fantastic twinned restaurant that was forced to close by rising rents, and by an upward only rent review system.

Tough crap you might say. But its been replaced by some non-descript chinese takeway.

The city loses out.

No doubt what happens here is that Paris Bakery goes, and starbucks or costa coffee comes in. The city loses out. There are heaps of starbucks, but Paris Bakery is unique.

Did I appeal to an bord pleanala in 2009, no obviously not. But Paris Bakery wasnt there then. Its there now.

Planners dont seem to care who locates in a premises. With that in mind, the city loses its identity, the same chains everywhere. Does this bother you? Does it not bother you?

cson

In two minds over this; love the Paris Bakery but that end of OCS badly needs regeneration.

Tombo2001

cson wrote: »

In two minds over this; love the Paris Bakery but that end of OCS badly needs regeneration.

To be honest I'd agree with that. That whole area between O'Connell St and Moore St is a warren of lanes that I only notice when i see some junkies wandering through them with a glazed look. Its been a long time waiting to be cleaned up.

However, another shopping centre will not rejuvenate or improve it. Some sort of cultural centre would be far better, given the proximity of Jervis and Ilac. Or something like the English market in Cork, that could incorporate the culture of Moore St.

However as mentioned by Wowy, the horse has bolted.

expectationlost

can't be surprise to Paris Bakery Dublin they knew moore street was on the chopping block why expect to stay there long term?

expectationlost

cson wrote: »

In two minds over this; love the Paris Bakery but that end of OCS badly needs regeneration.

that because its been deliberatly run down by developers so you accpet anything in its place.

cson

expectationlost wrote: »

that because its been deliberatly run down by developers so you accpet anything in its place.

I'd question that; as far as I know Chartered Land we're aiming for a redevelopment circa 2008-2010 which is when the arse fell out of the market.

Aard

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Planners dont seem to care who locates in a premises.

Planners are not allowed take competition into account. An area may be zoned as acceptable to develop a cafe, but you can't go further and say we'll only accept unique one-off cafes and veto international chains. It's an unworkable proposition.

expectationlost

cson wrote: »

I'd question that; as far as I know Chartered Land we're aiming for a redevelopment circa 2008-2010 which is when the arse fell out of the market.

they been running it down for 20 years

reprazant

expectationlost wrote: »

that because its been deliberatly run down by developers so you accpet anything in its place.

Also, the buildings that didn't sell had a CPO placed on them by the DCC and then sold to said developer which goes against the rules of CPO. TG4 did a documentary on it before.

The developer now cannot afford to build the shopping centre so NAMA is paying for the development for the developer.

Aard

expectationlost wrote: »

that because its been deliberatly run down by developers so you accpet anything in its place.

Not deliberately run-down. It's that all that's on offer are short-term leases. Because of such insecurity of tenure, only certain types of businesses are willing to take the risk: phone shops, beauty salons, small grocers, etc. You're not going to get well-known retailers taking up short leases.

expectationlost

Aard wrote: »

Not deliberately run-down. It's that all that's on offer are short-term leases. Because of such insecurity of tenure, only certain types of businesses are willing to take the risk: phone shops, beauty salons, small grocers, etc. You're not going to get well-known retailers taking up short leases.

yes which is why the bakery shouldn't be acting shocked now, but the street was also deliberately run down

Its All Wright

Moore Street and Lower O'Connell Street look disgraceful. This redevelopment cannot happen soon enough. Moore Street has history and it should be respected but they cant make it any worse than it is now

Gloomtastic!

From what I can gather, Paris Bakery are very good at blaming other people for their own woes - and getting publicity about it.

When they nearly went bust a few years ago, it was everyone else's fault rather than them not making enough money. (Know someone who worked there for the summer and is still out of pocket).

They supply the pastries for a major coffee shop chain. Why does that need to be located in Moore Street?

Stop whinging about it and run your business like it should be!

MemEmee

I like the idea of The Paris Bakery. But the service is just shockingly bad. I've stopped going there. And the staff turnover seems to very high. New people every time I go. Ages to get served. I know people who have had to leave at lunchtime as it was taking so long and they had to get back to work.

Tombo2001

Aard wrote: »

Planners are not allowed take competition into account. An area may be zoned as acceptable to develop a cafe, but you can't go further and say we'll only accept unique one-off cafes and veto international chains. It's an unworkable proposition.

Why is it unworkeable?

(an academic question I know, it is what it is).

I think its beyond question that a typical owner run cafe brings more and offers more than a franchise......why then they shouldnt be encouraged is perplexing.

Tombo2001

Its All Wright wrote: »

Moore Street and Lower O'Connell Street look disgraceful. This redevelopment cannot happen soon enough. Moore Street has history and it should be respected but they cant make it any worse than it is now

I'd disagree....another shopping centre versus a load of empty buildings really doesnt make any difference to me personally.

La_Gordy

Well I'm disappointed as this sounds like the area is on its way to being gentrified. Moore St seems to be doing well. Some parts of O'Connell St are awfully scabby like the Carlton cinema which they plan on changing, but to the detriment of a busy and active culturally valuable part of the city.

Its All Wright

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd disagree....another shopping centre versus a load of empty buildings really doesnt make any difference to me personally.

Theres a big hole in O'Connell Street since the hotel was demolished? What do you propose? Leave things how they are? Cities are generally full of shops and if there proceeding with the development now then there is clearly a demand for the retail space so i dont see your point at all

Tombo2001

La_Gordy wrote: »

Well I'm disappointed as this sounds like the area is on its way to being gentrified. Moore St seems to be doing well. Some parts of O'Connell St are awfully scabby like the Carlton cinema which they plan on changing, but to the detriment of a busy and active culturally valuable part of the city.

I'd challenge that.

If you take the block that goes from O'Connell St to Moore St and Henry St to the Rotunda.....

There is nothing worthwhile in that block......on the o'connell st side there are a couple of video arcade places and on the Moore St side it is generally fairly ramshackle.....in between I dont know what there is........

Moore St will still be there regardless of what the development is.

Culturally valuable? In what way.......

If you mean something to do with the 1916 rising, thats where my eyes start glazing over, sorry i couldnt care less about it and I'd say most Irish people feel the same way.

Aard

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Why is it unworkeable?

(an academic question I know, it is what it is).

I think its beyond question that a typical owner run cafe brings more and offers more than a franchise......why then they shouldnt be encouraged is perplexing.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be encouraged. What I am saying is that there is no way for the planning system to differentiate between the two. No modern planning system allows this. How would you even enforce it? How would you define independent?

My point is that this is not a planning issue. There is no scope for the planning system to deal with it, nor should there be imo.

La_Gordy

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd challenge that.

If you take the block that goes from O'Connell St to Moore St and Henry St to the Rotunda.....

There is nothing worthwhile in that block......on the o'connell st side there are a couple of video arcade places and on the Moore St side it is generally fairly ramshackle.....in between I dont know what there is........

Moore St will still be there regardless of what the development is.

Culturally valuable? In what way.......

If you mean something to do with the 1916 rising, thats where my eyes start glazing over, sorry i couldnt care less about it and I'd say most Irish people feel the same way.

No, I mean market trading, the ethnic restaurants and shops and the extremely diverse mix of people. I'd prefer that over another Subway or Zara.

There just aren't that many city centre streets left in Dublin with such character. For me Moore St and Capel St are probably amongst our most interesting.

expectationlost

this is related to the announced plans to restore a chunk of buildings on the street for a 1916 museum.

a campaign was set up to save moore street with some descendents of the 1916 rebels, then developers set up another campaign for save moore 1916 buildings campaign with another a few other descendents which presented a plan that only saved 3 buildings with a museum, which were then designated a national monument, so they can demolish the buildings either side including the bakery buildings which would probably go either way as they new street is key to all the developers plans

Gyalist

Aard wrote: »

Not deliberately run-down. It's that all that's on offer are short-term leases. Because of such insecurity of tenure, only certain types of businesses are willing to take the risk: phone shops, beauty salons, small grocers, etc. You're not going to get well-known retailers taking up short leases.

It was deliberate. It's been at least a decade since the traders in the area became aware of the plans. It was only the crash that prevented the development from going ahead earlier. The short term licences and temporary convenience leases were granted precisely because the area was eventually going to be re-developed.