Paris Bakery gone soon to make way for shopping centre

expectationlost

Mamo wrote: »

Something else stopped the development. In the middle of the terrace of houses, 10 - 25, is 14 - 17. These houses, along with their yards, outbuildings and the mews of 16 and 17 on Moore Lane are designated both Protected Structures and a National Monument. The developers intended to demolish 60% of this and in order to do so they had to have the permission of the Minister of (then) the Environment (now) Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

This was refused last July and rather strict conditions for the proper management of the National Monument were demanded (owners of such buildings are required to maintain them properly, which has not been done).

it wasn't moore street that stopped the developement and had the whole of o'connell street in limbo for 20 years

expectationlost

its gonna look like this when its done


http://onthesetofnewyork.com/batteriesnotincluded.html

... not quite


Don't worry the minister has made sure as part of moore development they have put up a hoarding with the demolished buildings printed on it
http://issuu.com/info_/docs/revised_project_design_response_rep?e=11214589/7088730 pg 10 2.1.8 p2

expectationlost

https://www.facebook.com/parisbakerydublin

expectationlost

outline drawing of what moore steet will look when dublin central shopping centre built

http://issuu.com/info_/docs/0707_02_201_dmc_rpd_revised_project?e=11214589/7112651

side view http://issuu.com/info_/docs/0707_02_203_dmc_rpd_revised_project_dbbc05736cf95c?e=11214589/7113169

expectationlost

are these really the best plans we got http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/232347.htm click related links on right then view documents on dublin city site

there this http://sla-pdc.com/dublin-central.html and this http://dublincentral.ie/ but that's the old plan right

Aard

The original and more detailed plans should be on the city council website.

Poxyshamrock

John Lewis isn't still lined up as the anchor to the proposed centre, is it?

expectationlost

Aard wrote: »

The original and more detailed plans should be on the city council website.

yes and I linked to them above but can't find a good image can you find image of what the street will look like...

the 2010 plans included knocking down everything but 14-17 didn't they, they were just relatively minor revision from then till now and no skislope on top of the shopping centre

carlmango11

I would have no issue with the plans if it wasn't another boring shopping centre. Would have been so much better if they redeveloped the laneways with proper retail units or even built new streets.

Something like the pedestrianised shopping streets in Central Amsterdam would be great

Qualitymark

Poxyshamrock wrote: »

John Lewis isn't still lined up as the anchor to the proposed centre, is it?

I heard a couple of years ago that they'd pulled out, but don't know whether this is so.

conorhal

carlmango11 wrote: »

I would have no issue with the plans if it wasn't another boring shopping centre. Would have been so much better if they redeveloped the laneways with proper retail units or even built new streets.

Something like the pedestrianised shopping streets in Central Amsterdam would be great

We don't think creatively in this country, or in a civic manner. The O'Connell St. frontage is hidiously out of character with the rest of street, a concrete cube? Really?

Bandana boy

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Planners dont seem to care who locates in a premises.

they Do not care and should not care.
It would be very unfair if Dublin city planners started judging two competing bussiness on some sort of aesthetic appeal.

the zone for categories and let the free market decide what gets placed ,as is right to do.

miss no stars

Bandana boy wrote: »

they Do not care and should not care.
It would be very unfair if Dublin city planners started judging two competing bussiness on some sort of aesthetic appeal.

the zone for categories and let the free market decide what gets placed ,as is right to do.

Of course they should care. Imagine an empty premises right in the heart of Temple Bar. It has planning permission for use as a cafe. Now, bearing in mind the area in which it's located... Two businesses want to open - one a McCafe and the other an independent store selling artisan baked goods and high quality coffees and teas. Allowing the McCafe to open would be irresponsible.

wowy

miss no stars wrote: »

Of course they should care. Imagine an empty premises right in the heart of Temple Bar. It has planning permission for use as a cafe. Now, bearing in mind the area in which it's located... Two businesses want to open - one a McCafe and the other an independent store selling artisan baked goods and high quality coffees and teas. Allowing the McCafe to open would be irresponsible.

In that situation either would be permissible under the planning, so it's down to the landlord to decide who they want.

It would be unreasonable to insist that a commercial landlord leases the premises to the independent operator (with a poorer covenant and most likely at a lower rent) than to McDonalds.

Justify why it would be irresponsible. The Council sets and enforces planning conditions for operators to trade; once operators all comply with that, it's down to the open market to determine who trades where.

Boulevardier

Yes and no. A city council has a responsibility to take account of the social aspects of any emerging pattern of retail, but on the other hand, that cannot be used as an excuse for elitism.

miss no stars

wowy wrote: »

In that situation either would be permissible under the planning, so it's down to the landlord to decide who they want.

It would be unreasonable to insist that a commercial landlord leases the premises to the independent operator (with a poorer covenant and most likely at a lower rent) than to McDonalds.

Justify why it would be irresponsible. The Council sets and enforces planning conditions for operators to trade; once operators all comply with that, it's down to the open market to determine who trades where.

Under planning, yes, but there should be more control than that. Have it on a high street area - fine. But if you're trying to create cultural zones having a huge franchise move in won't help.

I'm not saying there's anything to prevent it, I'm saying that the planners really should care who moves into units.

Bandana boy

miss no stars wrote: »

Of course they should care. Imagine an empty premises right in the heart of Temple Bar. It has planning permission for use as a cafe. Now, bearing in mind the area in which it's located... Two businesses want to open - one a McCafe and the other an independent store selling artisan baked goods and high quality coffees and teas. Allowing the McCafe to open would be irresponsible.

Irresponsible ?
How
They are both Cafes ,what criteria does the planner use when zoning a building that allows one type of cafe that you find pleasing but disallows another you have a problem with.
What about if the Franchisee holder of the cafe you did not like was African,how do we know your problem is not racial ?.
You need to take opinion and preference away from people with this type of responsibility, the goal is to be fair and equitable to everybody, no opinions just facts.

miss no stars

Bandana boy wrote: »

Irresponsible ?
How
They are both Cafes ,what criteria does the planner use when zoning a building that allows one type of cafe that you find pleasing but disallows another you have a problem with.
What about if the Franchisee holder of the cafe you did not like was African,how do we know your problem is not racial ?.
You need to take opinion and preference away from people with this type of responsibility, the goal is to be fair and equitable to everybody, no opinions just facts.

It's irresponsible if you're trying to create a cultural centre because there's nothing cultural about huge multinationals (actually it's quite the opposite). Surely you want small, diverse, interesting and unique places within a cultural centre. Businesses that show the creativity and diversity of the people of the area. A multinational chain does none of that. What does a McCafe or Starbucks say about Ireland? Nothing. It genuinely gives you no clues as to the area or even the country you're in. Go order a big mac in Rotterdam or Swords. There'll be no difference and that's great in places like airports and main thoroughfares - but we should be offering an alternative and to do so you have to have a certain amount of protection for smaller businesses. Small businesses really struggle to compete against huge multinationals. If you want a cultural zone with lots of interesting small businesses you have to make sure they won't be just driven straight out of the area by a competing multinational with deep pockets opening up beside them.

If you wanted to you could state that businesses opening up in an area intended as a cultural centre must either be independent; or have fewer than X number of outlets within the country and no others within a certain radius.

Outside of cultural centres I really wish they'd impose a requirement for signage to be in keeping with the history and architectural surroundings of the building. There's nothing attractive about horrid brightly coloured plastic signs on a beautiful old building.

Aard

miss no stars wrote: »

Under planning, yes, but there should be more control than that. Have it on a high street area - fine. But if you're trying to create cultural zones having a huge franchise move in won't help.

I'm not saying there's anything to prevent it, I'm saying that the planners really should care who moves into units.

Planning Authorities do not intervene in competition like that. If lands have permission for use as a cafe, it is up to the market to determine which cafe business is most suitable. At any rate there will never be competing applications for the same property as you are suggesting.

hfallada

miss no stars wrote: »

It's irresponsible if you're trying to create a cultural centre because there's nothing cultural about huge multinationals (actually it's quite the opposite). Surely you want small, diverse, interesting and unique places within a cultural centre. Businesses that show the creativity and diversity of the people of the area. A multinational chain does none of that. What does a McCafe or Starbucks say about Ireland? Nothing. It genuinely gives you no clues as to the area or even the country you're in. Go order a big mac in Rotterdam or Swords. There'll be no difference and that's great in places like airports and main thoroughfares - but we should be offering an alternative and to do so you have to have a certain amount of protection for smaller businesses. Small businesses really struggle to compete against huge multinationals. If you want a cultural zone with lots of interesting small businesses you have to make sure they won't be just driven straight out of the area by a competing multinational with deep pockets opening up beside them.

If you wanted to you could state that businesses opening up in an area intended as a cultural centre must either be independent; or have fewer than X number of outlets within the country and no others within a certain radius.

Outside of cultural centres I really wish they'd impose a requirement for signage to be in keeping with the history and architectural surroundings of the building. There's nothing attractive about horrid brightly coloured plastic signs on a beautiful old building.

If a state body favoured an Irish company over an American company for the simple reason of the Irish cafe being Irish. The government would get a fine from the EU. There has to be far competition in the market place and the government can't distort that. Personally I would take a mccafe selling €2 that is pretty good compared to some ****ty Irish company charging €3,50 for a mug of piss

miss no stars

Folks, these attitudes are why Ireland's been shat all over. No reason to specifically favour Irish over American businesses, just state that an area is zoned for small businesses and/or those that do not already have a stronghold in Ireland. Example: Pinkberry. Big American franchise. Not over here. Would be fine to move in because there isn't already one on every street corner. Brings diversity. It's not anti-competition to preserve an area for the promotion of diversity, culture and small business. Bigger businesses are free to open up elsewhere. I'm not talking about restricting the whole city, just saying like "Moore street and the laneways off it are preserved as a cultural zone". O'Connell street, Henry Street and Parnell Street are still fair game for the bigger multinationals. Just preserve a small area with old and interesting buildings for cultural reasons.

And I don't care that people are hopping up and down saying "you can't do that". I'm saying they should be able to say "no, a large multinational is not appropriate to the area".

wowy

miss no stars wrote: »

If you wanted to you could state that businesses opening up in an area intended as a cultural centre must either be independent; or have fewer than X number of outlets within the country and no others within a certain radius.

Here's an example; KC Peaches is an irish owned independent cafe started about 3 years ago. They're doing very well and now have 3 units. If they continued to prosper and expand, they would fall foul of your proposal. Would you then insist that they close units in these "cultural zones" so that a small independent operator could take their place?

expectationlost

the last page of comments started off with people comparing the closure of the paris street bakery with the loss (or hopefully relocation) of 70 jobs with a shopping centre, not comparable, how many times it size would dublin central be! how many jobs would be there when built ?

Qualitymark

Aard wrote: »

Planning Authorities do not intervene in competition like that. If lands have permission for use as a cafe, it is up to the market to determine which cafe business is most suitable. At any rate there will never be competing applications for the same property as you are suggesting.

Internationally, planners actually do take an interest in what kind of businesses exist in a particular area; for instance, in Paris they're very, very definite that a French and a Parisian and a local culture be kept in each arondissement.

I'm imagining the dreadfully poor men and women of the Citizen Army who went into the GPO with Jim Connolly shaking their heads over Dubliners favouring this huge commercial enterprise over a commemoration of their Rising!

But since commerce is the most important consideration for Ireland, not love and gratitude for those men and women, who'd been starved out of jobs by William Martin Murphy and his fellow-employers (the very types who would absolutely back the planned mall), let's look at the raw commercial reality. Let's look at the effect in America of the Gettysburg battle trail:

http://www.witf.org/news/2014/03/nps-publicizes-econ-impact-hoping-to-prove-worth.php

Gettysburg battlefield has major economic impact
Written by Ben Allen, Mar 26, 2014

(Gettysburg) -- A new National Park Service report is highlighting the Gettysburg battlefield's importance to the midstate's economy. Visitors to the national military park spent more than $66 million in the region in 2012 -- including spending in restaurants, hotels and shops.

(snip)

Between the battlefield and Eisenhower farm, nearly 900 people held either full time, part time, or temporary jobs as a result of the estimated 66 million dollars in spending.

(snip)

alastair

Qualitymark wrote: »

I'm imagining the dreadfully poor men and women of the Citizen Army who went into the GPO with Jim Connolly shaking their heads over Dubliners favouring this huge commercial enterprise over a commemoration of their Rising!

Nothing new there - given that, in the main, Dubliners wouldn't have favoured or approved of their actions that weekend. The preciousness regarding the connection between Moore St and the rising, and how it should impinge on current urban development, is pretty deluded. The majority of 1916 locations are, and have always been, commercial enterprises. Not surprising, given that it took place in a commercial city.

Gettysburg was/is a bunch of fields, not a living part of a city engaged in commerce and retail.

You can argue the merits or otherwise of this new shopping centre (I would personally welcome a John Lewis, but that possibility seems to have died), but better any shade of commercial activity - the lifeblood of a city, than preserving a peripheral location to a historical event in aspic.

Qualitymark

Alistair, there's no question of preserving anything in aspic.

http://www.njht.org/dca/njht/touring/New%20Jersey%20Econ%20Impact%20HT%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

A national market study released October 2009 reports that “78% of all U.S. leisure travelers participate in cultural and/or heritage activities while traveling, translation to 118.3 million adults each year. With cultural and heritage travelers spending an average of $994 per trip, they contribute more than $192 billion annually to the U.S. economy.”

What others do:

The top five markets interested in cultural and heritage tourism as a share of their total visitors are: United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France and Australia.

alastair

Tourists to Dublin are perfectly well served with heritage activities - including 1916 related activities, without the need to turn a couple of old Moore street shops into an additional shrine. It wouldn't make any noticeable difference to the cultural tourism revenue stream.

Qualitymark

alastair wrote: »

Tourists to Dublin are perfectly well served with heritage activities - including 1916 related activities, without the need to turn a couple of old Moore street shops into an additional shrine. It wouldn't make any noticeable difference to the cultural tourism revenue stream.

Perhaps less emotional language?

I've been asked by tourists "Where are the sites of the 1916 Rising" and taken them on personal tours; nothing is marked, nothing is guided, there's little pride in our national heritage, from a municipal viewpoint anyway, whatever about the people of Dublin.

expectationlost

alastair wrote: »

Tourists to Dublin are perfectly well served with heritage activities - including 1916 related activities, without the need to turn a couple of old Moore street shops into an additional shrine. It wouldn't make any noticeable difference to the cultural tourism revenue stream.

then why and redeveloping the GPO with a 1916 museum?

alastair

Qualitymark wrote: »

Perhaps less emotional language?

I've been asked by tourists "Where are the sites of the 1916 Rising" and taken them on personal tours; nothing is marked, nothing is guided, there's little pride in our national heritage, from a municipal viewpoint anyway, whatever about the people of Dublin.

The various locations around the city are marked with plaques. You can see tourists on guided tours of 1916 Dublin on any day of the week (1916rising.com), and there's already an exhibit about the GPO's role in 1916 in the, eh, GPO. That's not to mention the excellent 1916 heritage resource that is Kilmainham Gaol, or the permanent exhibition in the National Museum. The imminent broadened exhibition in the GPO makes absolute sense compared to Moore St, given the under-utilisation of the building by An Post, and it's central role within the rebellion.