Paris Bakery gone soon to make way for shopping centre

Qualitymark

It could be such a beautiful area.

What happened in Temple Bar is instructive. This area was in the ownership of CIE and designated for a city centre bus garage (an equally nutty idea) in the 1960s, and was as run-down as the north inner city is now.

Artists rented some of the buildings as studios, because being semi-derelict they were available for half nothing. The Project Theatre opened in an empty warehouse. Resistance to the bus garage dragged on and on; and meanwhile small shopkeepers rented buildings and set up shops.

It gradually turned into a clean, pleasant, slightly left-of-centre shopping district with a bohemian flair. The bus garage plan went away.

Then the profit motive reared its head again, and local pubs started offering stag night party rates, and it turned - not overnight, but quite slowly - into the ugly place it is now.

It could have been wonderful, and it was for a while. If the Corporation had kept its hand on the reins, and not been constantly starving for higher rates, we'd still have a nice area of local shops, craftworkers, artists and theatres.

With Moore Street and the surrounding streets, it would be possible to do it right this time.

the_syco

ScottSF wrote: »

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!).

I can see it going the way of St Stephens Green Shopping Centre; lots of little shops. If it goes the way of the Ilac Centre, I could see the existing stalls moving to another street. Also, the stalls pay a license, but I'm guessing shops would need a deposit and rent?

=-=

I'll ask the question everyone is missing; will it have the snow slope or not?

hfallada

dharma200 wrote: »

As someone who visits Dublin, I think its a disgrace. Have these planners no understanding of cultural capital.. only consumer capital it seems, stick a few multinationals, and robots will shop. Moore street and the surrounding areas should be subtly regenerated, the character of the area should be protected for the people who have lived and worked in the area all their lives, not for jumped up little twats who fancy a grafton street experience on the other side of the river. I think it is sad, very very sad, misguided and a travesty. If it goes ahead I will make a point of not going near the place to buy crappy clothes and goods that can be bought in any out of town crappy shopping centre. Ugh.. poor dublin.. the few bits of the heart of it going down the swanky, i thought all this crap stopped in 2008.......

The whole area around it is either council housing, vacant sites or run down buildings. It's not like they are the ESB tearing down a strip of Georgian buildings. They are knocking down a tiny strip of featureless two storey buildings.


If people are concerned about Dublin losing historical buildings. Then energy should be focused on the countless historical buildings rotting away in Dublin 1or Dublin 2

Qualitymark

hfallada wrote: »

The whole area around it is either council housing, vacant sites or run down buildings. It's not like they are the ESB tearing down a strip of Georgian buildings. They are knocking down a tiny strip of featureless two storey buildings.

Yes, and it's insane that a city centre of a capital city should be ceded to drabness like this. Dublin's city centre should be vibrant and full of homes and businesses. To think the solution is a strip-lighted mall is not good planning, I think.

If people are concerned about Dublin losing historical buildings. Then energy should be focused on the countless historical buildings rotting away in Dublin 1or Dublin 2

Well, I'll leave it to you to begin that battle, and give any help in it I can.

Boulevardier

Qualitymark, I do not agree that the bus station in Temple Bar would have been a nutty idea.

If you look at bus stations in many other cities, such as in Spain, the areas close to bus stations are often very vibrant and full of small businesses.

As it is, the quays are inundated with coaches which have to pick up on places like George's Quay. A Temple Bar bus station would have been a much better idea.

Qualitymark

Boulevardier wrote: »

Qualitymark, I do not agree that the bus station in Temple Bar would have been a nutty idea.

If you look at bus stations in many other cities, such as in Spain, the areas close to bus stations are often very vibrant and full of small businesses.

As it is, the quays are inundated with coaches which have to pick up on places like George's Quay. A Temple Bar bus station would have been a much better idea.

Maybe if they put it underground!

Boulevardier

God, can you imagine the fumes and smells! No thanks.

TheBandicoot

Boulevardier wrote: »

God, can you imagine the fumes and smells! No thanks.

As opposed to the fumes and smells of piss and vomit and **** and beer that now infests Temple Bar? The transport hub would have been much better.

Qualitymark

Piece in The Irish Times about this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/development-takes-moore-street-site-from-baking-dough-to-making-dough-1.1693771

The success of the Paris Bakery on Moore Street in Dublin is an example of an entrepreneurial spirit that brings life back to urban areas. In November 2010, it started out with four employees. Now it has 70. But not so fast, hard-working, employment-creating, quality produce-making folk. Because what the Paris Bakery forgot in its desire to build something from the bottom up and succeed are the numbskull environmental factors that call a halt to such endeavours.

Boulevardier

Bandicoot, I was only disparaging having an Underground bus station. I agree that a bus station would on the whole have been a better idea.

expectationlost

even if Paris Bakery were told they be safe for another 7 - 10 years they knew that they were plans to restore the '1916' buildings before 2016 those plans included knocking down the surrounding buildings, they'd have to move even if the shopping centre didn't progress.

Aard

Qualitymark wrote: »

Then the profit motive reared its head again, and local pubs started offering stag night party rates, and it turned - not overnight, but quite slowly - into the ugly place it is now.

It could have been wonderful, and it was for a while. If the Corporation had kept its hand on the reins, and not been constantly starving for higher rates, we'd still have a nice area of local shops, craftworkers, artists and theatres.

I would be inclined to disagree with this assessment. A firm's motive is to maximise profit. You can't blame the City Council for pubs wanting to squeeze every penny. (Licencing is a different, though related issue.) The pubs would be doing it whether or not there were high rates to be paid. The reason that "big" businesses have come in to the detriment of the smaller, nicer ones you mention is purely down to popularity. Originally Temple Bar was seen as a risky bet. That's why the artist types moved in with their associated businesses. No international business would be interested in taking the bet; there were much better offers elsewhere in the city like Exchequer Street or Henry Street. Over time though, Temple Bar has become completely mainstream. There's a Costa there now, which imo says it all. I'd put it out there that this is a perfectly normal cycle, and not one that can be prevented no matter how much we would like it. The "bohemian"/neighbourhood vibe slowly erodes, and the area becomes less edgy (for want of better terminology), and the artists etc move on to the next cheap/cool place.

Having lower rates would just mean that the businesses would make a bigger profit.

But you can't say that all of Temple Bar has lost its character. The western end retains that vibe that I think you're talking about. One of the best ways to retain those "neighbourhood"-y uses is to mandate small retail unit sizes. Of course if the market is willing to pay top price for them, there is little that can be done -- instead of a cornershop you'll get a ladies boutique; instead of a barber, you'll get a men's salon. (Both charging through the nose!)

Places change over time, and Temple Bar is lucky to have had a heyday. Some areas are continuously run-down and never really amount to anything. To get really soppy about the whole thing -- "Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."

CatLou

For what is worth, the Paris Bakery launched a sort of online petition on their website. It's only about the demolition of numbers 18 and 19.

http://www.parisbakery.ie/savemoorestreet

So what could possibly be done about the broader picture and future developments on that street?

Qualitymark

Aard wrote: »

I would be inclined to disagree with this assessment. A firm's motive is to maximise profit.

What need you, being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till
And add the ha’pence to the pence…

But you can't say that all of Temple Bar has lost its character. The western end retains that vibe that I think you're talking about.

The plan for Temple Bar was to knock the lot and make it an immense parking space for all the buses in the city. There was huge worry at the time about the pollution, quite apart from the insanity of razing this historic quarter.

I don't understand why we don't make a small subway serving Dublin - the objection is always a) that it would be too expensive, and b) that Dublin has too many rivers. But Tokyo is more river-filled by far, and has built a superb subway system without great cost.

Aard

That's great about a subway, but my posts hasn't really been adressed so I don't understand why it's quoted.

Qualitymark

Aard wrote: »

That's great about a subway, but my posts hasn't really been adressed so I don't understand why it's quoted.

The parts quoted were addressed.

By the way, good letter today in The Irish Times about this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/closure-of-paris-bakery-1.1694949

wowy

Qualitymark wrote: »

The parts quoted were addressed.

By the way, good letter today in The Irish Times about this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/closure-of-paris-bakery-1.1694949

I'd hardly says it's a good letter. It's the same "tugging at the heart-string" arguments about the "devastation" of closing the business* (at the end of the day, they're a business and if they can't deal with business decisions going against them, they're in the wrong game).

Re. his point about the proximity to the 1916 buildings; he's acknowledging himself that they should be saved not because of their history in relation to the rising, but because they're adjacent to buildings that are linked to the history of the rising. (Note, those buildings will be protected by this move, but of course he's not applauding that, is he?) That's a very tenuous argument, and one that could be made by any person, in any part of the country, to contest any development.

Finally his claim that it's not in the public interest to demolish them, but public interest is a very broad idea; for example NAMA have a mandate to generate the best return for the taxpayer. Calculations have been done, and it seems that developing Dublin Central will generate a better return for the taxpayer than leaving it as is.

It's now down to which public interest is the most important. The planners (through granting permission) obviously feel the economic public benefit is more important, and the Government obviously agree (by the Minister of Environment not stepping in), albeit with the caveat that protecting only the relevant historic buildings (i.e. no. 14-17) is also in the public interest.

*Before I get accused of being a heartless so-and-so, I of course think it's a shame that 70 jobs will be lost. (I contest earlier claims of 70 "families being devastated" as I understand that a lot of these jobs are part-time with few hours. Their case hasn't been helped by the stories that have emerged of them being pretty sh1tty employers. But that's another matter.) However, I lay the blame for the loss of these jobs squarely on the management, as they knew was coming, and yet they still made no provisions or plans for a relocation. Now, they've been caught short, and they're trying to blame everyone but themselves.

Qualitymark

wowy wrote: »

Re. his point about the proximity to the 1916 buildings; he's acknowledging himself that they should be saved not because of their history in relation to the rising, but because they're adjacent to buildings that are linked to the history of the rising.

Actually, no. The whole terrace was involved; the rebels broke in through No 10 and 300 men and women tunnelled through from house to house until all were full.

(Note, those buildings will be protected by this move, but of course he's not applauding that, is he?) That's a very tenuous argument

Indeed they will not! The nearest to 'protection' is NAMA giving the developers money to preserve them. These are the development group whose first response to the request to preserve one of the very few actual buildings still remaining that was central to the Rising, was to place a plaque with pictures of the seven signatories of the Proclamation on the gate to the rubbish chute.

Again, here's the TG4 programme about the history of this development:

wowy

Qualitymark wrote: »

Actually, no. The whole terrace was involved; the rebels broke in through No 10 and 300 men and women tunnelled through from house to house until all were full.

14-17 is where the final surrender took place; that's why it's important. If you want to preserve where they tunnelled in from, why not just preserve the entire city as it was at the end of Rising? Is it a burnt-out GPO not as relevant as an entrance point to a tunnel?

Qualitymark wrote: »

Again, here's the TG4 programme about the history of this development:

That documentary dealt with alleged corruption in the planning and CPO process, which isn't being discussed here; the relevance of Moore Street as a historic setting is at issue here.

1. In 2007, 14-17 Moore Street got Monument Status. Save Moore Street campaign and other parties seemed happy with that.

2. The 2010 application by Chartered Land sought to develop over no. 14-17. Naturally, campaigners weren't happy.

3. In 2013, the Minister for Heritage signed the Order of Consent, ensuring that 14-17 Moore Street's Monument Status would be preserved. The works (which will be funded by the Government via NAMA) ensure that 14-17 will be restored and a National Monument created at the site. This is what was ensured in 2007, and which appeared to be a success by the campaign at the time. However, the campaigners aren't happy now; they're looking for the rest of Moore Street to be preserved. What's changed in 7 years? Where does this creepage end?

What the documentary again highlights is (as I said in my 1st post) the Irish nature of complaining after the fact. The campaigners didn't know the impact of the original Clinton permission on Moore Street until after permission had been granted. The Monument Status campaigned for, announced in 2007, and signed in 2013, suddenly isn't good enough for the campaign anymore.

SimonQuinlank

Qualitymark wrote: »

What need you, being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till
And add the ha’pence to the pence…




The plan for Temple Bar was to knock the lot and make it an immense parking space for all the buses in the city. There was huge worry at the time about the pollution, quite apart from the insanity of razing this historic quarter.

I don't understand why we don't make a small subway serving Dublin - the objection is always a) that it would be too expensive, and b) that Dublin has too many rivers. But Tokyo is more river-filled by far, and has built a superb subway system without great cost.

Country politicians don't like seeing Dublin get anything useful like a Metro.So we got a half baked light rail system that was hugely expensive to build but didn't link both lines,and now we are getting a souped up bus system that only has minimal at best journey time improvement's over the current bus network at a cost of €650m+,instead of building a metro and doing things properly for once.

Qualitymark

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 were; however, their desired development included knocking every building in the square from GPO to Moore Street, etc and putting up a plastic mall, with the historic lanes where O'Rahilly died and where Pearse and Connolly and Plunkett and Clarke and MacDermott led their troops, and Michael Collins first fought for Ireland, turned into walkways inside the mall, where shoppers can stroll and admire the window displays of multinational chain clones to the tinkling muzak of Irish Blood, English Heart.

cson

Qualitymark wrote: »

They were; however, their desired development included knocking every building in the square from GPO to Moore Street, etc and putting up a plastic mall, with the historic lanes where O'Rahilly died and where Pearse and Connolly and Plunkett and Clarke and MacDermott led their troops, and Michael Collins first fought for Ireland, turned into walkways inside the mall, where shoppers can stroll and admire the window displays of multinational chain clones to the tinkling muzak of Irish Blood, English Heart.

As opposed to the national shrine to them it is now?

expectationlost

wowy wrote: »

14-17 is where the final surrender took place; that's why it's important. If you want to preserve where they tunnelled in from, why not just preserve the entire city as it was at the end of Rising? Is it a burnt-out GPO not as relevant as an entrance point to a tunnel?



That documentary dealt with alleged corruption in the planning and CPO process, which isn't being discussed here; the relevance of Moore Street as a historic setting is at issue here.

1. In 2007, 14-17 Moore Street got Monument Status. Save Moore Street campaign and other parties seemed happy with that.

were they?, or was it the Save No. 16 Moore Street group (which is aligned with Chartered Lands 1916 Museum) who said they were happy?

Aard

wowy wrote: »

It's now down to which public interest is the most important. The planners (through granting permission) obviously feel the economic public benefit is more important, and the Government obviously agree (by the Minister of Environment not stepping in), albeit with the caveat that protecting only the relevant historic buildings (i.e. no. 14-17) is also in the public interest.

I broadly agree with you. Just a few comments though:

Usually "public interest" is taken to mean "consensus", which in itself means something that everybody can agree on. So really there is only ever one version of the public interest; there can't be several to choose from.

Secondly, planners do not have an opinion on "economic public benefit". Planners interpret national and local policy to decide upon whether a development is permissible. Whether or not it is economically viable doesn't come into play. That's a matter for the developer to worry about in private developments, and the Council to worry about in public developments. The planners also do not have final say on which buildings go on the Record of Protected Structures. They may make suggestions, but the city architect will have more of a say, not to mention of course the Councillors themselves.

Qualitymark

expectationlost wrote: »

were they?, or was it the Save No. 16 Moore Street group (which is aligned with Chartered Lands 1916 Museum) who said they were happy?

cson wrote: »

As opposed to the national shrine to them it is now?

Well, a typical developer tactic is known as 'dereliction', when you allow a building to degenerate to the point where people say "Sure, anything would be better than the way it is now!"

Sundew

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd challenge that.


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.

Ah the old "I can't care less attitude"...thats why so many of our historic buildings and places have been obliterated over the last few years! Sad!

Qualitymark

Also, for those who think 1916 was an awfully bad idea, and we'd be better off with dear old Blighty, what, what, these houses were described by An Taisce as incredibly valuable rare examples of Irish Georgian houses that weren't grand, but were built in the same classic proportions; the people who lived there ran shops and businesses that served the great squares and streets to their north - Mountjoy Square, Henrietta Street, etc - streets which themselves are a shameful example of our neglect of our built heritage.

cson

The celebration of 1916 always makes me uneasy; broadsiding an up until then moderately successful Home Rule movement, doing it while WW1 was going on with a lot of Irishmen involved and destroying a City to boot. But for the British making Martyrs out of the leaders the history books might have a different take.

Anyways, I digress; it is a starting point for the War of Independence and the beginnings of the Republic so it is of some cultural significance. The National Monument should be the GPO, where the first beginnings of an Independent Republic were made via the Proclamation, not some houses on a side alley street where a surrender was carried out.

As for the Georgian houses; I'd suggest addressing the state of O'Connell St itself in this respect first. Some fantastic architecture that's been shat on with a mixture of fast food restaurants and arcades.

While I wouldn't be for a shopping centre in its place given the proximity of Jervis, Henry St and the ILAC, as mentioned earlier a Meeting house Square type of redevelopment would be most welcome for the area.

expectationlost

Moore Street traders voice their support for Paris Bakery as rally planned against demolition job http://www.herald.ie/news/moore-street-traders-voice-their-support-for-paris-bakery-as-rally-planned-against-demolition-job-30024106.html

In a statement, developers Chartered Land said: "The bakery was outside the 14-17 Moore Street National Monument boundary and so the demolition is a planning matter.

wut?

"The demolition of these buildings has already been approved by Dublin City Council and An Bord Pleanala as part of the overall permission for the Dublin Central development,"

Qualitymark

cson wrote: »

The celebration of 1916 always makes me uneasy…

As for the Georgian houses; I'd suggest addressing the state of O'Connell St itself in this respect first. Some fantastic architecture that's been shat on with a mixture of fast food restaurants and arcades.

The celebration of anything where people were killed makes me uneasy, usually to the greatest extent when the greatest numbers were killed - world wars, Pol Pot, etc.

Thanks for your suggestion on saving O'Connell Street. When I see you struggling in the Liffey I promise to hold out my hand to help, and not to say "I'd much rather save your more attractive sister."