Paris Bakery gone soon to make way for shopping centre

wowy

Qualitymark wrote: »

Dubliners want the battlefield preserved; it will be preserved. People aren't so passive as they're made out to be.

That's a great soundbite you have there, but it's fairly hollow.

The developer has legal title to the street, and will shortly have vacant possession. It looks as if finance is available for the development. They have planning permission (from both City Council and ABP), and they Ministerial Backing to incorporate the new museum as part of the overall museum. All-in-all, it's a fairly watertight package.

What have you got that can trump that? I don't see how just because "Dubliners want Moore Street preserved; it will be preserved".

You're over-exaggerating the numbers in support of preserving Moore Street, and you're seriously over-estimating the resources and abilities of those of want to preserve it.

Qualitymark

wowy wrote: »

You're over-exaggerating the numbers in support of preserving Moore Street, and you're seriously over-estimating the resources and abilities of those of want to preserve it.

This is true; it's hard when history comes up against millionaire developers.

wowy

Qualitymark wrote: »

This is true; it's hard when history comes up against millionaire developers.

Or when a vocal minority try to represent the views of all Dubliners.

alastair

Qualitymark wrote: »

It's an interesting point - what makes a place a battlefield. Not, apparently, machine gun posts and sniper nests that shot down The O'Rahilly and others as they charged…?

The man was shot by a soldier at the top of the street. That's no battle. The memoirs of the participants make clear that the British army just secured each end of the street and made no attempt to engage with the rebels unless they ran out on the street. Now, compare that to the various actual battle sites where military engagements took place. It's an inconsequential sideshow, the rising having run out of steam.

alastair

not yet wrote: »

So where the leaders of the 1916 rising spent their last night of freedom is not of note, nor is the building where the surrender note was written...?

The shop where (some) of the leaders of the rising spent their last night of freedom is being preserved - remember? And the surrender took place on Parnell street, not Moore street - Pearse's note notwithstanding.

not yet

alastair wrote: »

The shop where (some) of the leaders of the rising spent their last night of freedom is being preserved - remember? And the surrender took place on Parnell street, not Moore street - Pearse's note notwithstanding.

Sorry did I miss something here, Show me where I say the surrender took place on Moore St.

alastair

not yet wrote: »

Sorry did I miss something here, Show me where I say the surrender took place on Moore St.

Did anyone state you did?:rolleyes:

not yet

alastair wrote: »

And the surrender took place on Parnell street, not Moore street - Pearse's note notwithstanding.

This was in reply to my post, I'm assuming you were trying to correct me, if not then my mistake....:D

alastair

not yet wrote: »

This was in reply to my post, I'm assuming you were trying to correct me, if not then my mistake....:D

Your assumption is wrong - as the reference to the note would have made clear. Moore street isn't historical on the basis of the surrender, because the surrender didn't take place there - that's the point. In fact, all told, Moore street is about as unimportant a location of the rising as you could choose - way down the pecking order below the GPO (not destroyed in the rising - despite the claims of some), Kilmainham Gaol, and the various locations of actual military engagements. Preserving 14-17 is more than sufficient to mark the importance of the location in the rising.

not yet

alastair wrote: »

Your assumption is wrong - as the reference to the note would have made clear. Moore street isn't historical on the basis of the surrender, because the surrender didn't take place there - that's the point. In fact, all told, Moore street is about as unimportant a location of the rising as you could choose - way down the pecking order below the GPO (not destroyed in the rising - despite the claims of some), Kilmainham Gaol, and the various locations of actual military engagements. Preserving 14-17 is more than sufficient to mark the importance of the location in the rising.

Smugness becomes you..

tricky D

not yet wrote: »

Smugness becomes you..

Mod note: warning for attacking poster. Don't post in this thread again.

cowicklow

Wurzelbert wrote: »

if what i read here and elsewhere is true, if it is true that

1. they knew when the lease was signed that it would expire in june 2014 and the building was marked for demolition after that
2. they are guilty of tax evasion (read about a few hundred thousand euros)
3. they just stopped paying their employees and generally treated them like ****

if all that is true, then i don’t get the whole commotion...and they would certainly not be the kind of people i would want to support or do business with anyway, and good riddance to them...having said that, i sort of liked the place and it was certainly a nice addition in an otherwise horrible area of dublin...

All of the above is true. To make matters worse, the woman who owns the bakery got a massive multi-million divorce settlement a few years ago so definitely has the money. Just a bad businesswoman. Investing all that money in a building with a short lease knowing that the lease was never going to be extended is madness. Then she gets her staff to protest saying their Landlord was kicking them out which was never the case. And now doesn't pay them. Or Revenue. And no doubt a long list of others as well. And now says she has nothing to do with the business. She only has herself to blame for teaching her former staff the value of organised protests now since they are camped outside her house. She deserves everything she gets. If she doesn't pay, she should be locked up for trading whilst insolvent - that would send a message out to others considering treating their staff the same way.

schemingbohemia

cowicklow wrote: »

All of the above is true. To make matters worse, the woman who owns the bakery got a massive multi-million divorce settlement a few years ago so definitely has the money. Just a bad businesswoman. Investing all that money in a building with a short lease knowing that the lease was never going to be extended is madness. Then she gets her staff to protest saying their Landlord was kicking them out which was never the case. And now doesn't pay them. Or Revenue. And no doubt a long list of others as well. And now says she has nothing to do with the business. She only has herself to blame for teaching her former staff the value of organised protests now since they are camped outside her house. She deserves everything she gets. If she doesn't pay, she should be locked up for trading whilst insolvent - that would send a message out to others considering treating their staff the same way.

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you state, there are 2 owners and picking solely on one isn't fair.

expectationlost

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you state, there are 2 owners and picking solely on one isn't fair.

she has so much money she could probably find the workers wages down the back of her sofa, she can pay half tmw if she wanted

Thomas D

Shame on the media again for giving this person a free ride in their original reporting.

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

remember how this started http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/moore-street-bakery-to-close-with-the-loss-of-70-jobs-1.1689241 MigrantRightsCentre ‏@MigrantRightsIR 4h

We spoke to Ruth Savill; she's distancing herself from #parisbakery, says it's Yannick's business. This is from Feb


http://www.parisbakery.ie/_blog/Blog/post/save-18-19-moore-street/

Bakery closure has destroyed my life – owner
http://www.herald.ie/news/bakery-closure-has-destroyed-my-life-owner-30309159.html

He said that his reputation had been destroyed and that the episode had taken a serious toll on his life.“My name is gone now, everyone thinks I’m the bad guy in Ireland.”

Ms Savill told the Herald

“Obviously I have sympathy for the workers and their situation. I resigned six months ago and I also stand to lose money,” she explained.

says she quit as director in November but still acting as if owner in February

which seems to the time Yannick stopped paying people
https://twitter.com/Sweeney_Peter/status/472067955162087424

lolo62

The workers are picketing outside her house

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo3YktwNu20&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Wurzelbert

lolo62 wrote: »

The workers are picketing outside her house

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo3YktwNu20&feature=youtube_gdata_player

somehow shop closures tend to turn messy quite often around here...remember that game shop a couple of years ago where the (ex-)employees barricaded themselves inside, and i have seen ex-employees picketing outside shops quite a lot over the years...
and just out of curiosity, does anyone have info or a link to how exactly they are planning to “develop” the area? what’s the story with that “shopping centre”? what happens to that ilac place? etc...

Gyalist

expectationlost wrote: »

she has so much money she could probably find the workers wages down the back of her sofa, she can pay half tmw if she wanted

Boarding at English public schools isn't cheap, you know.

Qualitymark

Wurzelbert wrote: »

somehow shop closures tend to turn messy quite often around here...

Only when wages haven't been paid, surely?

and just out of curiosity, does anyone have info or a link to how exactly they are planning to “develop” the area? what’s the story with that “shopping centre”? what happens to that ilac place? etc...

A few random links:

http://buckplanning.blogspot.ie/2009/04/carlton-cinema-site-development-could.html (from 2009 when one of the planning appeals was going on, with the Georgian Society and An Taisce among the objectors)

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=swrhb3ggb8yr&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=29507191&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1&mapurl=http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=108692096314893578946.00044c18f5b57f4c5b604&output=kml

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/park-in-the-sky-at-heart-of-1bn-oconnell-street-plan-26441190.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plans-for-carlton-site-rocked-by-arsenic-find-26672074.html

http://sla-pdc.com/dublin-central.html

Qualitymark

And a couple of nice blogs about O'Connell Street:

http://theirishaesthete.com/tag/oconnell-street/
http://comeheretome.com/2013/02/07/42-oconnell-street/

Wurzelbert

Qualitymark wrote: »

Only when wages haven't been paid, surely?



A few random links:

http://buckplanning.blogspot.ie/2009/04/carlton-cinema-site-development-could.html (from 2009 when one of the planning appeals was going on, with the Georgian Society and An Taisce among the objectors)

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=swrhb3ggb8yr&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=29507191&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1&mapurl=http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=108692096314893578946.00044c18f5b57f4c5b604&output=kml

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/park-in-the-sky-at-heart-of-1bn-oconnell-street-plan-26441190.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plans-for-carlton-site-rocked-by-arsenic-find-26672074.html

http://sla-pdc.com/dublin-central.html

cheers...now let’s see how much of that they can get completed before the developers go bust and new bubble bursts in a few years time...

expectationlost

Qualitymark wrote: »

Only when wages haven't been paid, surely?



A few random links:

http://buckplanning.blogspot.ie/2009/04/carlton-cinema-site-development-could.html (from 2009 when one of the planning appeals was going on, with the Georgian Society and An Taisce among the objectors)

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=swrhb3ggb8yr&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=29507191&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1&mapurl=http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=108692096314893578946.00044c18f5b57f4c5b604&output=kml

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/park-in-the-sky-at-heart-of-1bn-oconnell-street-plan-26441190.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plans-for-carlton-site-rocked-by-arsenic-find-26672074.html

http://sla-pdc.com/dublin-central.html

thats the old plan the slope park was rejected

note those sayingthe street doesn't need a another shopping centre, the plans for two shopping centres


http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=swrhb3ggb8yr&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=29507191&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1&mapurl=http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=108692096314893578946.00044c18f5b57f4c5b604&output=kml

Wurzelbert

expectationlost wrote: »

that the old plan the slope park was rejected
[...]

that’s good to know...looks totally out of place and out of proportion and very much like typical boom era madness...

Sulla Felix

Wurzelbert wrote: »

that’s good to know...looks totally out of place and out of proportion and very much like typical boom era madness...

Dunno, I'd love to see the city be brave enough to embrace some high density structures.

Qualitymark

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Dunno, I'd love to see the city be brave enough to embrace some high density structures.

So would I - but as a planned area like La Défense in Paris, not just flung at the city at random so it looks like a gappy mouth. I'm pretty sad that U2's interesting Twisted Tower

and the other glass tower that was to be on the quay opposite failed to happen - they could have formed the centrepiece of a beautiful glass-and-steel docklands.

Wurzelbert

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Dunno, I'd love to see the city be brave enough to embrace some high density structures.

yeah well...i just don‘t think dublin should be made to look like manhattan – the attempt would fail miserably anyway - and we don’t need steel and glass high-rise everywhere...munich is a great example for a nice big modern city without any of that stuff in the inner city...and dublin already has enough horrible “modern” buildings that are completely out of proportion in their surroundings...

Aard

Wurzelbert wrote: »

...and dublin already has enough horrible “modern” buildings that are completely out of proportion in their surroundings...

Are there really that many that are so out of proportion with their surroundings?

---

The argument re Manhattanisation yay or nay is a bit blinkered whenever it comes up. It ignores the idea of architecture of time versus architecture of place. London for example tends to favour the former, building what ever is fashionable at the time pretty much anywhere. That's why there are skyscrapers dotted about the place. Then there is Paris which operates more on architecture of place, where different architectural styles tend to be clustered rather than mixed. Paris 75 is generally Haussmannian, Beaux Arts, whereas the skyscrapers are in there own district. The exceptions therefore really stand out, like the Tour Montparnasse.

Neither is more correct than the other. But when people say Dublin needs skyscrapers or modern buidlings, it's a vague statement. In the centre? In the Georgian city? In the Docklands? Along the M50? In Sandyford? Or just generally dotted around. It's important to make the distinction and be more precise.

Wurzelbert

Aard wrote: »

Are there really that many that are so out of proportion with their surroundings?

well, not many but (more than) enough...i think the most extreme example is the central bank which completely screws up an otherwise rather nice area of dublin and towers over everything else like a menacing ufo...built with no regard for traditional city planning principles like eaves heights or anything...a complete monstrosity of a building in that location...and that proposed u2 tower would look totally out of place out there as well...

Aard wrote: »

The argument re Manhattanisation yay or nay is a bit blinkered whenever it comes up. It ignores the idea of architecture of time versus architecture of place. London for example tends to favour the former, building what ever is fashionable at the time pretty much anywhere. That's why there are skyscrapers dotted about the place. Then there is Paris which operates more on architecture of place, where different architectural styles tend to be clustered rather than mixed. Paris 75 is generally Haussmannian, Beaux Arts, whereas the skyscrapers are in there own district. The exceptions therefore really stand out, like the Tour Montparnasse.

Neither is more correct than the other. But when people say Dublin needs skyscrapers or modern buidlings, it's a vague statement. In the centre? In the Georgian city? In the Docklands? Along the M50? In Sandyford? Or just generally dotted around. It's important to make the distinction and be more precise.

good point

Cool Mo D

Wurzelbert wrote: »

well, not many but (more than) enough...i think the most extreme example is the central bank which completely screws up an otherwise rather nice area of dublin and towers over everything else like a menacing ufo...built with no regard for traditional city planning principles like eaves heights or anything...a complete monstrosity of a building in that location...and that proposed u2 tower would look totally out of place out there as well...



good point

I think the Central Bank actually looks great - it's not overpoweringly tall, and provides a nice contrast with its surroundings. The plaza around the building allows some breathing room in the streetscape too. Too much uniformity is dull - a mix of heights and architectural styles can be good for a street.

Part of my liking for it is because the facade has been well maintained, and it still looks fresh compared to the miserable stained concrete of Hawkins House, or the painted over mosaic work of Liberty Hall.