High Rise Hotel for Dublin's Ha'penny Bridge

arachne

A 365-bedroom budget hotel, 9 storeys tall with a ground floor bar is planned for a sensitive site on the corner of Liffey Street Upper and Middle Abbey Street. The proposed building is a bulky eyesore that will disfigure the surroundings of Dublin's Ha'penny Bridge, Dublin's most recognisable landmark and tourist attraction. It will also dominate the skyline from the River Liffey and many other vantage points
The plans will require demolition of at least two historic buildings, one Georgian house and one house which may be much older.
This hotel will be a magnet for hen and stag parties which already overwhelm the Temple Bar area

The deadline for objections to Dublin City Council Planning Department is 25th of September

I would be grateful if anyone who agrees that this is a bad idea would sign the petition: http://chn.ge/2wjt4vp

]

Further information and link below:
It will be 11,780 sq m and include a public bar.
The planning application can be viewed here (application reference 3697/17): http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display
View the proposals: http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00648788.pdf
Lodge an objection to the proposal: http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-planning-planning-permission/object-or-support-planning-application

accensi0n

That's not high rise.

arachne

it will be much taller than everything else around, bar the Central Bank south of the river. And much uglier. And visible from the Ha'penny Bridge

Cookie_Monster

Sounds like a great idea to me...

Great to see some planning going in to replace that tired old corner of the city with something useful, instead of a couple of damp old redbricks with little to no significance for the history of the city in any case. It'll be great to have something other than second hand book shops, discount jeans shops and crappy hairdressers on that site!

And as for being visible from Dublin's very first toll bridge on the Liffey, so what?

Anyone who wanted to communicate their support for the proposal can send an email to planning@dublincity.ie .. Just in the interests of balance and all that.

arachne

Don't you think we could demand something better in terms of design? This is crap design and way too greedy in terms of how much they want to plonk here

arachne

It'll look like a much bigger version of the Skyline or Tara Tower Hotel, except with brick panels -- and will stand out like a sore bum looking north from Ha'penny Bridge.
It's a matter of opinion but of all of the places in Dublin to put this, I don't think a budget hotel of low design quality should close the vista looking north from the one landmark that really symbolises Dublin.
Why don't we turn the GPO into a wetherspoons while we're at it?

arachne

arachne wrote: »

Don't you think we could demand something better in terms of design? This is crap design and way too greedy in terms of how much they want to plonk here

No, you don't really get to demand anything.

You've every right to express your own opinion on the matter but sensationalist nonsense about high rise eyesores alongside the ha'penny bridge is just that.

arachne wrote: »

It'll look like a much bigger version of the Skyline or Tara Tower Hotel, except with brick panels -- and will stand out like a sore bum looking north from Ha'penny Bridge.
It's a matter of opinion but of all of the places in Dublin to put this, I don't think a budget hotel of low design quality should close the vista looking north from the one landmark that really symbolises Dublin.
Why don't we turn the GPO into a wetherspoons while we're at it?

Yeah, more of the same.

arachne

JayZeus wrote: »

No, you don't really get to demand anything.

You've every right to express your own opinion on the matter but sensationalist nonsense about high rise eyesores alongside the ha'penny bridge is just that.





Yeah, more of the same.

Not sure what you mean. Calling someone's argument nonsense isn't an argument. I already argued the high rise point (in the Dublin context, the Central Bank is high rise; in Manhattan it would be a phone booth -- it's all relative, there's no cut-off in metres etc.). You can disagree but just say so.

As for putting me in my place by telling me I 'don't get to demand' -- well thank you for the heads up. I know some basics of planning law actually and while I may not 'get to demand' anything as a citizen I have a right to submit an observation (read 'objection').

In any case, when I said 'demand' I mean that we (as in the public, and of course I don't speak for anyone but myself) are not so desperate for development that we can't demand (yes!) standards. We're not a third world country and if someone wants to build in our city, their proposal should meet design standards. Every other European city with self-respect demands this and in fact so do we. If permission for the Children's Hospital at the Mater site was turned down partly on design/scaling grounds, there is an excellent case for this relatively unimportant piece of infrastructure to be refused permission.

arachne

Anyone who wanted to communicate their support for the proposal can send an email to planning@dublincity.ie .. Just in the interests of balance and all that.[/QUOTE]
Any observation has to be posted (my post has the link to the details) and accompanied by a fee of €20. Emails in support or against the proposal won't be considered.

arachne

JayZeus wrote: »

Anyone who wanted to communicate their support for the proposal can send an email to planning@dublincity.ie .. Just in the interests of balance and all that.

Any observation has to be posted (my post has the link to the details) and accompanied by a fee of €20. Emails in support or against the proposal won't be considered.

arachne

arachne wrote: »

Not sure what you mean. Calling someone's argument nonsense isn't an argument. I already argued the high rise point (in the Dublin context, the Central Bank is high rise; in Manhattan it would be a phone booth -- it's all relative, there's no cut-off in metres etc.). You can disagree but just say so.

As for putting me in my place by telling me I 'don't get to demand' -- well thank you for the heads up. I know some basics of planning law actually and while I may not 'get to demand' anything as a citizen I have a right to submit an observation (read 'objection').

In any case, when I said 'demand' I mean that we (as in the public, and of course I don't speak for anyone but myself) are not so desperate for development that we can't demand (yes!) standards. We're not a third world country and if someone wants to build in our city, their proposal should meet design standards. Every other European city with self-respect demands this and in fact so do we. If permission for the Children's Hospital at the Mater site was turned down partly on design/scaling grounds, there is an excellent case for this relatively unimportant piece of infrastructure to be refused permission.

You start out going on about two old buildings being demolished, about high-rise buildings, about landmark footbridges , stag and hen nights and then go on to the design standards, the low cost nature of the proposed hotel and how we should demand more.

There's little to argue about to be fair when you cut through the noise.

365 rooms available for reasonably priced stays, located bang in the city centre, a stones throw from nightlife, shopping etc?

Horse, if that seems like a terrible purpose for an otherwise fairly rundown site, you'd probably complain no matter what was proposed.

Anyway, good luck to you and have a great time there arguing with yourself and anyone else who decides to engage with you. I've said what I wanted so say and I'm not getting dragged into a bun fight with you.

arachne

JayZeus wrote: »

You start out going on about two old buildings being demolished, about high-rise buildings, about landmark footbridges , stag and hen nights and then go on to the design standards, the low cost nature of the proposed hotel and how we should demand more.

There's little to argue about to be fair when you cut through the noise.

365 rooms available for reasonably priced stays, located bang in the city centre, a stones throw from nightlife, shopping etc?

Horse, if that seems like a terrible purpose for an otherwise fairly rundown site, you'd probably complain no matter what was proposed.

The location is great and deserves decent development. For me, the problem with this proposal, isn't the old buildings going (but yes I did mention them, and the other stuff too!) -- it's the intrusion into the skyline and as I said, from Ha'penny Bridge. Not sure the Parisians would like a Tara Tower Hotel popping up beside the Arc de Triomphe. I definitely wouldn't complain no matter what was proposed. I could name hundreds of uncompromisingly modern buildings all over the city, including the historic core, that I think are a welcome addition e.g. the Wooden Building in Temple Bar, Montevetro, Busáras.

sdanseo

This is a fantastic idea, the only submission I might make to DCC is that it's not tall enough.

We have wasted space in Dublin for half a century causing urban sprawl of LA proportions. We need to start being sensible and having this or higher as the minimum for any building.

arachne

sdanseo wrote: »

This is a fantastic idea, the only submission I might make to DCC is that it's not tall enough.

We have wasted space in Dublin for half a century causing urban sprawl of LA proportions. We need to start being sensible and having this or higher as the minimum for any building.

It's not that simple. We DO need to build at higher density. It does NOT need to be here. Incidentally, the old Ballymun tower blocks were low density despite the height.
The urban sprawl we have is not caused by restrictions on height which exist in many European cities -- it's inevitable when housing units for families are nearly all houses rather than apartments. Stockholm is a much more populous city than Dublin with similar height restrictions, but far less sprawl than we have. We have thousands of miles of 2 storey semis and they are still the most popular housing type. I'm not here to argue whether that's right or wrong. For whatever reason, the two storey semi is a popular housing type and, at least in the past, apartments weren't designed for families and weren't popular with them.
In any case, plonking an eyesore (or several) in the tiny historic core (the area within the canal ring -- a fraction of the area of the Dublin conurbation) won't make any difference to the issue of sprawl. So with the greatest respect, you're totally wrong

L1011

I think that's the first time I've seen a NIMBY admit to being a NIMBY...

It's not going to ruin any views. It replaces a hodgepodge of hideous, ruinous buildings.

Hotels are not "magnets" for stag and hen parties; if anything they're dying out due to weak Sterling (they were mostly British). Bars in that area have not done well - Keilys across the road closed and there was one built and never opened in what is now GSOC. Its unlikely to be anything more than a fairly quiet bar used mostly by hotel guests.

If you start applying ludicrous "view protection" concepts, Dublin stays four stories high max everywhere.

arachne

'Visual amenity' is a thing. It stops something like the Ballymun tower blocks being built on O'Connell Street. It's not called 'view protection' which does sound ludicrous.

What's there is dilapidated and ruinous and ripe for redevelopment. It doesn't mean we should not set standards for what is built. Personally I don't think the conservation argument is the strongest one here so I won't waste energy making it (unless by popular demand!).

No one says Dublin should be limited to 4 storeys. I think they could and should have gone much higher in the docklands. Even in the (tiny) historic core, 6 and 7 storeys should be routinely permitted, higher in certain locations.

You may be right about stag and hen parties, I hope you are. Ditto the bar. Temple Bar is only 200 metres away and is saturated with bars but maybe that is irrelevant. You obviously know things I don't about Kelly's and GSOC.

I don't think currency fluctuations and short term economic trends should dictate the whole concept of planning. It's very possible that we could be living with whatever is built for a hundred years. Of course they're a factor, though.

All of the replies I've heard basically dismiss the whole concept of planning. I speak only for myself, but when I visit Amsterdam, Stockholm, Barcelona, Paris etc there are some height restrictions, and there are strict planning laws. There are all flourishing metropolises with good quality of life and healthy tourist industries.

I had to re-read my posts to see where I confessed to being a NIMBY. I didn't, but if you're asking me if I would want the Tara Tower Hotel in my back garden, the answer is no!