ctesiphon wrote:I think you hit the nail on the head, garethace, when you said Foster Place was "a small urban space with real potential"- which is why it can't be compared to, say, Quartier Bloom (or whatever it's called), which was created from nothing. Also, I disagree about the quality of the latter- you mightn't like it, but the bums-on-seats every time I pass through there would suggest it is one of the more successful recent attempts at designing an outdoor space from scratch.
In Foster Place, the setts were in place, the trees were in place, the buildings were in place, even the planning application for change of use to cafe-restaurant was in place, all before Starbucks arrived, so I don't think they are as deserving of praise as you seem to think. .
CTESiphon you are spot on - summed up my thoughts exactly, which I did not have the time to type in earlier.
However just to open up a separate flank, what say about the idea that "Foster Place" be renamed "Grattan Place"? John Foster, after whom I believe the place was named was a miserable misadministrator, whose bigoted & sectarian views were repulsive, and who along with John Fitzgibbon and John Beresford helped mismanage the country during 1790s to a point where it was goaded into rebellion. It is an irony that Foster opposed the Act of Union in case it led to emancipation for persons other than members of the Established Church.
Would it not be better that the names of Foster, Beresford and Fitzgibbon be simply left in the history books, marked along with their deeds, rather than having streets left named after them as if they were honourable sorts?
So what about then, "Grattan Place" rather than "Foster Place"?