The original alignment for the pedestrian bridge (Jervis Street/Meeting House Square) would indeed have created much greater connectivity (sorry about the pretentious word), but I'd prefer the Howley Harrington bridge design any day to the Group 91 bridge, which was an architectural conceit (does an "all hail group 91" thing exist on on this site???).
That is very good, you have managed to construct a decent and clear piece of communicative writing there. You have separated the issues excellently:
1) Aesthetic value of Group 91 bridge - I agree with you, I didn't like it at all - it was crap, even if it did try to be 'stylish' etc, etc. The same guy did the lamps up in Smithfield too btw, and many think those are a bit over the top too.
2) The placement of the Group 91 bridge though was far superior. No one will actually use that new burrowed tunnel after a while, and just opt to do the ZIG_ZAG
maneuvre instead, which is a disgrace in my opinion, considering these public projects do cost as much as they do and are 'once off'.
It is well worth noting, that Group 91 in their original planning submission to the council, made only one small mistake, which did become their undoing in this matter. They didn't draw their site boundary over as far as the opposite bank of the Liffey to Temple Bar. Instead opting to just draw the boundary along the mid-course of the Liffey. Meaning, when they came to building the Poddle Bridge, they didn't have any jurisdiction on the opposite bank of the river. That is how DCC eventually won - on a technicality.
Apparently, sources tell me that DCC were quite miffed about not being part of the whole Temple Bar thing, and went out of their way to enforce their dominance in this small matter. It was unfortunate that such a public project, with so much potential to improve north/south connectivity in the broader context of Dublin city, became engulfed in such political bashing - but such is life. DCC only know one trick you see - this tunnel burrowing idea, which was kind of novel in the 1980s but has since then gotten very tired indeed. But what do DCC do? They continue to pull this one trick they know, out of the drawer every time they need to actually think.
I think we need to try harder to separate issues in that manner here at Archiseek - it is only a point about communication, but would lend increased weigh and value to contributors writing here.
It is definitely harder to do and requires more work, in an effort to express oneself properly, but it is worth practicising - it gets easier with practice - being able to juggle the various strands of an argument about the built environment.
Archiseek is thought of by many people out there involved in the built environment, as an aesthetic ping-pong match, a group of 'style-police' like the Georgian society or something at its lowest and most ridiculous. However, the opportunity does exist here at Archiseek to expand one's own awareness of the many strands associated with problem solving in the area of the built environment - a lot of which I never even knew about until visiting the board here at Archiseek. I am sure I do not stand alone in that experience.