Some more people pissed off at U2 (what a surprise)

[kellyahern]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some more people pissed off at U2 (what a surprise)

And what does it matter in this case I don't get that... yes you are paying taxes in Ireland... and what does that have to do with the Clarence?

He's saying that as a tax paying citizen of Ireland (specifically Dublin) he has a right to voice his objections to the plans, which he does.

The objection I have to the article is the quotes by Mr. Smith. An Taisce and the Georgian Society may have some valid concerns, but Mr. Smith makes it sound like those objecting are a bunch of hysterical ninnies (imho of course ).

"Unfortunately for its owners, the Clarence Hotel is not a pair of sunglasses or a hat"

"The owners clearly still have not found what they are looking for."

Come on .

I still think the new plans sound cool though .

 

[evillaurd]

Re: Re: Some more people pissed off at U2 (what a surprise)

An Taisce and the Irish Georgian Society have raised some very valid points here, which hopefully will carry weight when the decision is made.

That is my opinion speaking as someone who actually

(a) pays taxes in Ireland
(b) is a citizen of Dublin city
(c) has not and will not be accepting any honours off of a foreign queen

You do realise, don't you, the Irish Georgian Society won't have a valid arguement a couple of years down the line? Once property developers see the two towers and the Clarence in the docklands, they're going to demolish old, direlict buildings no longer in use to modernise the waterway. Then the hotel won't be 'dwarfing' anything. That's how it goes, and the fact that riverside venues can take in a lot of money means that people will be jumping at the chance to give it a new look. And that's not even adding to the fact that it already dwarfs the buildings either side of it, yet no-one has complained about that. But believe me, The Clarence won't look out of place for long once it's been rebuilt.

That would also nullify An Taisce's arguement as well. Inappropriate? No, everyone will be joining in, and I don't think losing some of the old buildings will be as much of a bad thing than you think. Now, I can't be certain, because I'm no soothsayer, but I fail to see how the removal of old, direlict buildings could be a problem to the scenery. As far as I see it, if I were paying taxes, I'd prefer to put my money into buildings that will get used, rather than fund the preservation of long-since abandoned ones (or at least, they certainly look it).

No?

 

[manu_s]

OK . i am usually a very quiet reader of this forum. But i hope no one will be pissed of at my opinion here. I know in which state the clarence was bout 15 years ago, and i admire all the energy these guys put in that project.
But i dare to say the re-development won't be too good for Tourism. First of all its the most expensive Hotel in Dublin. Not too many visitors would consider a overnight stay there as Dublin itself is already one of the most expensive metropoles worldwide.
So Dublin is famous for the gregorian Buildings, however many of them dissapeard in the last decade and made room for modern buildings. Actually the Dublin City Council is not exactly famous for clever decisions (eg. The unique Viking site who had to move for a office building at Wood Quay in 1976)
Then the new U2 Towers change the whole skyline completely. Off course they are further east in the Dockland and they need some reconstruction. Mr Smith might feel like U2 have taken over the gouverment, and he would be not the only one.
And Honestly Dublin has got enough super modern Hotels. I see where they are coming from with the prostest and i also share the concern but they should choose the words more careful.

 

[Niamh_Saoirse]

OK . i am usually a very quiet reader of this forum. But i hope no one will be pissed of at my opinion here. I know in which state the clarence was bout 15 years ago, and i admire all the energy these guys put in that project.
But i dare to say the re-development won't be too good for Tourism. First of all its the most expensive Hotel in Dublin. Not too many visitors would consider a overnight stay there as Dublin itself is already one of the most expensive metropoles worldwide.
So Dublin is famous for the gregorian Buildings, however many of them dissapeard in the last decade and made room for modern buildings. Actually the Dublin City Council is not exactly famous for clever decisions (eg. The unique Viking site who had to move for a office building at Wood Quay in 1976)
Then the new U2 Towers change the whole skyline completely. Off course they are further east in the Dockland and they need some reconstruction. Mr Smith might feel like U2 have taken over the gouverment, and he would be not the only one.
And Honestly Dublin has got enough super modern Hotels. I see where they are coming from with the prostest and i also share the concern but they should choose the words more careful.

Well said.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Re: Re: Some more people pissed off at U2 (what a surprise)

An Taisce and the Irish Georgian Society have raised some very valid points here, which hopefully will carry weight when the decision is made.

That is my opinion speaking as someone who actually

(a) pays taxes in Ireland
(b) is a citizen of Dublin city
(c) has not and will not be accepting any honours off of a foreign queen

When I first read this post, I ujderstood it to mean that Financeguy was a resident of Dublin city and a taxpayer thereof, certainly no implication into his views on U2's tax business, so Galeongirl, I think you jumped to your own conclusions on that one.

Having visited Ireland, Dublin and drank in the Clarence (but paid no taxes other than VAT ) I admit when I first read of the plans in the other thread I was a bit concerned about this redevelopment. I mean 9 storeys where it is now? It's gonna stick out like a sore thumb. And from reading Hot Press from the 80s, I know Dublic City Corporation is infamous for its appalling planning decisions and wholesale demolishing of heritage buildings in the past (and having been to Dublin twice, I can say that you don't go there for the scenery, sorry).

If this development is sympathetic to its surroundings and the heritage implications, then it might be alright. If it's gonna bugger up the neighbourhood, then it's not. And whoever happens to own it has no importance there. But yeah I couldn't afford to stay at the Clarence the last time, I doubt I will in the future.

 

[hcbiggs2002]

Of course anyone living in Dublin has the right to voice their concerns, and to make sure that whatever gets built isn't an eye sore. I've no problem with that. My beef was the disrespectful tone this bloke (i.e. Mr. Smith!) spoke of Bono and Edge! Coz, has I've already said, Bono and Edge saved the Clarence from certain doom back in the early nineties and have spent a ton of money refurbishing the hotel into is present condition, so a bit of respect and gratitude for their efforts wouldn't go a miss!!

 

[Zoobaby14]

What a toser!
its just a hotel being done up it happens all the time, I don't see the big deal over it.

 

[fly so high!]

what's this guy's problem??? they're changing the hotel in a more luxurious one, which will be good for the tourism right?

and sicne when did Larry and Adam also own the Clarence? I thought it was just Bono and Edge all the time!

What's this guy's problem? They want to tear down a heritage listed building, that's the problem...........i agree with the council they should not demolish!
Why can't they extend the current building

 

[last unicorn]

What a toser!
its just a hotel being done up it happens all the time, I don't see the big deal over it.

The big deal is that it involves those two very famous guys from a certain band.

I have mixed emotions about the whole thing.
First it's a good thing that Bono and Edge saved the Clarence, that they are investing in Dublin and in tourism (and yes, paying taxes!) and that they are creating jobs. I don't see anything wrong with what they are doing, it happens everywhere and all the time and people are usually not making a fuss out of it, unless some famous rock stars are involved.
But I hope they will NOT demolish the old building, it would be a shame if that happens.
Where I live, such a thing wouldn't even be possible, because people don't get permission to make drastic changes to old, traditional buildings in certain areas of our city. Every transformation has to be a very careful thing and is always a delicate matter. Heritage listed buildings simply cannot be torn down or altered in a radical way. There's no way to get a permission to do so, and it's absolutly right that way.
I doubt that the laws in Dublin would be very different from ours. I just don't see them messing up the neighbourhood, I hope it won't happen.
On the other hand I totally understand that they are going for a new concept since they lost so much money with the hotel as it is now.
So I hope they find a way to change the building without having to tear down anything.

 

[greety]

What's this guy's problem? They want to tear down a heritage listed building, that's the problem...........i agree with the council they should not demolish!
Why can't they extend the current building

Everyone seems to be concerned about the way it will look, mess up th eskyline etc.
Sure the skyline will change, but from the quayside, it may not be a whole lot different (street level anyway), since it was stated that the facades will not be demolished.

Only the quayside facades of the existing hotel and adjoining buildings - all of which are protected structures - would be retained, although the oak panelling from the Clarence's Octagon Bar is to be salvaged for re-use.

On the onther side, I don't really understand how an even bigger/modern (thus more expensive) hotel is gonna bring more money in the drawer and reduce the millions they already lost in the past.
It's certainly not the U2 fans who are gonna foot the bills.

 

[Zoobaby14]

last unicorn I see where you are coming from i didnt notice that it was Heritage listed.

But as you said they have lost so much money maybe its for the best that they just start all over again

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Maybe Bono and Edge should admit they are not hoteliers and just sell the thing. They are very good musicians, doesn't necessarily mean they are experts at other things.

 

[silvrlvr]

At least one thing is clear from this site: Dubliners are very proud of their city.

I'm glad you're debating this. Too much has just disappeared from the American landscape.

 

[Liesje]

I've not been to Dublin, so go ahead and take this with a grain of salt, but why not just remodel the inside of the building? I don't think the article was written appropriately at all, but just based on this thread I'm more in agreement with those opposing the plans. From what I understand, The Clarence hasn't been doing all that great for years now. It would be sad to see them rip it down and put up a modern structure because of financial motivations, not what's best for the city as a whole. It would be even more sad if they did so and it STILL failed after a couple of years.

The city I live in has done some major development over the years, but unlike Dublin we do have very high skyscrapers so the new ones fit in quite well with the skyline. However, there are many old factories in areas of downtown that are some of the coolest buildings I've ever seen. Many of these have been redeveloped into swanky flats or sectioned off into leased office spaces, BUT they did not do much to the general architecture or the exterior of the buildings. They still have their "old" look to them. Some even restored the interior and worked with that rather than going for modern remodels.

I'm glad there are city counsels in place to decide what is best for the city, whatever decision that may be. If every contemporary entrepreneur had their way with the buildings in all of our cities, our world would look a lot different and we'd all regret losing so many unique and historical structures.

 

[MooMoo!]

Ive never been around that area of Dublin, and cant say I remember all that much from when I was there, but judging by the experiances of whats happening where I live (the Isle of Man), I wouldnt think this is altogether a great idea.

I see no problem with the idea of redevelopment, but there are certain places or areas where it is inapropriate. Many old buildings here have been knocked down to make way for modern designs, and I can wholeheartedly say its scarred the area in places.

perhaps a wiser decision would be to sell up and build in a more modernised area, so at least then any new ideas will fit in well. that way everyone wins. B+E get a better hotel, and wont be held responsible for the future of the clarence.

Just a thought.

 

[rihannsu]

I am laughing myself silly over the idea that Bono and Edge's names have swayed things in their favor with the planning boards. According to articles I've read just about everything either one of them has ever brought up before a planning board has been denied. Look up all the references to problems they had about improvements to their houses. If anything, the fact that it's Bono and Edge is more likely to mean it would be turned down. If they did in fact approve it first time through, that's a miracle.

Dana

 

[yolland]

What are your views on An Taisce, the Irish Georgian Society?

Are you familar with the work of these organisations, as I am?

*pindrop*

 

[jaynejenjune]

Why are people so against change ?? I've stayed at The Clarence Hotel in '93 ,when they first started renovations (They neglected to tell my friend and I that when we booked our reservations). It's a nice Boutique Hotel . I've seen what they have done to it since.It's beautiful.now. But, if the hotel is not profitable as it is now , and they want to invest and do something totally different and even more beautiful they should be able to do so. Bono and Edge should be commended not attacked. If they feel the time is right and they want to take it down and build something more beautiful, they have that right , it's their property!
As for tourism , People always want to visit or stay in beautiful hotels, If you can't afford to stay there , you could just visit and have a drink , or lunch ,or use the spa ,etc.I work in Manhatten and I talk with tourists all the time , all they want to do is go to "the Plaza" or "the Waldorf"these are very expensive hotels, doesn't mean they have to stay there .
Honestly from the sound of their plans it should be fantastic .

 

[blueeyedgirl]

But, if the hotel is not profitable as it is now , and they want to invest and do something totally different and even more beautiful they should be able to do so. Bono and Edge should be commended not attacked. If they feel the time is right and they want to take it down and build something more beautiful, they have that right , it's their property!

For some reason, this reminded me of something Bill Bryson wrote in one of his books, can't remember which one, he was travelling around the US after many years of living in the UK I think, and he was astounded at how differently some towns looked after being away only a few years. And then he realised what the change was: even fairly new buildings ie 20 years old, had been demolished and rebuilt. And he was astounded that in the US, 20 years was considered "old".

If the plans for the Clarence are sympathetic for the buildings in the vicinity and do not impinge on heritage considerations, then the redevelopment may be a good idea. If they do not, then the local population are well within their rights to complain.

 

[biff]

Here is something that most complainers have ignored about the plan:

"Only the quayside facades of the existing hotel and adjoining buildings - all of which are protected structures - would be retained, although the oak panelling from the Clarence's Octagon Bar is to be salvaged for re-use.

The rear elevations of the hotel and adjoining buildings on East Essex Street would be demolished in their entirety and replaced by a undulating glazed facade, with shops and cafés at street level and bedrooms above."

It's a compromise, and it sounds to me like a good one. Save what's salvagable/historically important about the structure and modernize the rest. This is a model that has been used countless times in older cities that are facing a rapid push towards the future.

 

[jaynejenjune]

Biff, i agree with you , it does sound like a good compromise. I'm sure they will be sensitive to the surrounding area. . They live there too !

 

[yolland]

Clarence Hotel (current)

the architect's proposed redesign, front and back

 

[corianderstem]

The new design is kind of cool, but very cold and sterile. The current building has character in its history.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Thanks for those links, I was interested in seeing what it would look like.

I dunno about the rear view, what's cool about Temple Bar is its "cobblestoney" vibe, and the new Clarence is very steely and yes sterile. Do they go together?

And cant' say the river view does much for me, it's got that "Soviet concrete block" vibe Not to mention it's twice the size of anything else along the Liffey.

Really, why does "redevelopment" always have to mean "bigger"? Why does it almost never mean "better"?

 

[Carmelu2fan]

The new design is kind of cool, but very cold and sterile. The current building has character in its history.

True, I would hate to be the one that has to decide to demolish a historical landmark. Besides, the fact I will never be able to afford to stay there.

 

[hcbiggs2002]

the architect's proposed redesign, front and back

Thanks for the link! Oh my, it looks like the mother ship of an alien fleet has landed atop the Clarence!! Now we know, it's really all Edge's fault!!

The design of the back doesn't too bad, IMO, coz from visiting the Clarence on my trips to Dublin, I know the back of the hotel has it is now, is nothing to write home about!! And lots of shops, pubs and restaurants along the temple bar have renewed and modernised their street front, so it wouldn't look too out of place. But that saucer like roof is really radical and probably will be the sticking point when it comes to getting building permission!!

 

[redhotswami]

Clarence Hotel (current)

the architect's proposed redesign, front and back

damn. i'm all about the progressive sustainability technology, but the proposed redesign looks as though it belongs in vegas more than dublin. i remember appreciating the look of the clarence when i walked by it this summer. if i were to walk by that proposed monolith, i'd be tempted to scoff, regardless of whose names are attached to it.

but...that's just me.

 

[last unicorn]

Clarence Hotel (current)

the architect's proposed redesign, front and back

I understand they want to redesign, but this is just wrong. I think the guys spent too much time in the US. Modern architecture, okay, but this simply does not fit in with the environment. I really hope this glass front and the roof thing won't happen, makes me feel bad about the good old architecture. Man, people need some more sensitivity when handling such objects.

Sorry, Bono and Edge.

 

[Liesje]

I'm really not into that glowing white UFO-esque thing on the top of the "new" building.

 

[greety]

Here is something that most complainers have ignored about the plan:

"Only the quayside facades of the existing hotel and adjoining buildings - all of which are protected structures - would be retained, although the oak panelling from the Clarence's Octagon Bar is to be salvaged for re-use.

The rear elevations of the hotel and adjoining buildings on East Essex Street would be demolished in their entirety and replaced by a undulating glazed facade, with shops and cafés at street level and bedrooms above."

It's a compromise, and it sounds to me like a good one. Save what's salvagable/historically important about the structure and modernize the rest. This is a model that has been used countless times in older cities that are facing a rapid push towards the future.

thanks biff , it seems my above post seems to have gone unnoticed


I think the front looks massive,but the facade hasn't changed at all, you can clearly see how the existing buildings (also left and right) have been included in the whole project.

Now, the roof, that's quite another thing