New Advertising in Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:51 pm

Ooh- good work there sir. The more councillors who can be made aware of the nonsense of this scheme the better.

hutton wrote:Fellows - jimg, Newgrange et all, well done - your research and breakdowns has been particularily useful in informing our local representatives, and the process as a whole.

Seconded. Your input here, jimg and newgrange, proved most beneficial. I can assure you the work was used for the greater good of the city (I can say no more for now). So thanks for that.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby StephenC » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:02 pm

I also got on to my councillor this morning....a bit late maybe. I am intrigued by your post ctesiphon....
User avatar
StephenC
Old Master
 
Posts: 2483
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:20 pm

Well suffice to say that the work of jimg and newgrange would have been of considerable assistance to anyone making a submission, observation or representation on this matter. ;)
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

We are making progress...BUT!!!

Postby hutton » Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:01 am

ctesiphon wrote:Ooh- good work there sir. The more councillors who can be made aware of the nonsense of this scheme the better.
Seconded. Your input here, jimg and newgrange, proved most beneficial. I can assure you the work was used for the greater good of the city (I can say no more for now). So thanks for that.


Many thanks + like Stephen, I too am intrigued :)

Folks serious progress is being made on this. Tonight it was raised in the monthly DCC council meeting by the Vincent Jackson, under Lord Mayor's business, and he is known for rarely allowing anything additional last minute. I understand that other councillors also raised it, stating their opposition. Aside from this it is my understanding that there are now senior officials, who now that theyre aware of this are not at all happy. Anyhow keep on the case and well done out there on the job thats getting done :)

BUT...

There are more applications in by JCDeCon:eek: :mad:!!!

A fresh appliication has been made for, wait for it, *builds suspense*; once again in Dublin 1 outside the Ilac Centre, at the top of Henry Street, with the date signed off as Jan 29 :mad:

The site notice is on a black lampost, giving the proposed site as opposite Golden Discs.I dont know if I am mistyping the details on the DCC online planning search, but I cannot find it on their site. :confused:
If anyone can find iit or better navigate the DCC website, Id be fierce grateful + they would be supercool :cool:

However what I have been able to find on DCC site is a number of other new and reapplications as follows -

1084/07 Permission for advertisement structure Grass verge eastern side of Malahide Rd, South Of Blunden Drive/Priorswood Road Roundabout, Adjacent To The Rear Of 5 Ayrefield Drive, Site Located Opposite McDonalds, Dublin 17
1115/07 Permission for extension of footpath and advertisement structure car parking bay beside public footpath, Adjacent To The Failte Ireland Building, Eastern Side Of Amiens Street, Dublin 1
1116/07 'Metropole' double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure On the public footpath, on the western side of Ballymun Road, after junction of Ballymun Road and Balbutcher Lane, Dublin 11
1119/07 'Metropole' single sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure On the lay-by adjacent to the grass verge on the eastern side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 5, adjacent to 43 - 44, Saint Brendan's Avenue.
1120/07 'Metropole' single sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure The grass verge on the western side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 17 approaching the Blunden Drive / Priorswood Road Roundabout. The site is located to the front of McDonalds and north of the entrance to Coolock Retail Park.
1122/07 metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure The public footpath on the western side of Swords Road, Dublin 9 to the front of Plunket College school grounds opposite the junction with Seven Oaks in close proximity to the Regency Hotel.
1123/07 metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure A car parking bay adjacent to the public footpath on the eastern side of Macken Street, Dublin 2. The site is located adjacent to 'Trinity College Enterprise Centre' to the east and opposite Conway court (Nos 1-30) to the west.
1124/07 metropole single sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure On the public footpath, on the eastern side of St Lukes Avenue, at the junction of St Lukes Avenue and The Coombe, Dublin 8

In at least one of these instances - so far I havent had a chaance to go thru comprehensively - it is a reapplication after being declared invalid, that being at Amiiens St - and so results in a fresh pp application. Do we know of any more other than these? Or any new locations? (Im open to correction, but for example it is my understanding that the Ilac application is a new location).

The whole scheme is a total disgrace. I hope once the matter breaks and becomes public knowledge that all political parties make sure they never use JCdeCon

Im pasting a development description underneath, just to remind people of what is to be dropped on the city at dozens of locations:

"Full Development Description
The development will include the provision of a concrete extension to the public footpath in place of the existing car parking space. The precise location of the site is marked by an x in a circle directly onto the ground in red paint. The overall area of the site is 10.4m2. The development will consist of a metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure comprising a display case mounted on an offset leg. The structure shall display civic information or an advertisement. The display panels shall be scrolling or static The structure has an overall height of 4.85 metres and a width of 3.48 metres. The area of each of the display panels is 6.82m2."


And remind me again what public consultation about this program? Like WTF.
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:52 am

You're not wrong, hutton.

50 more are on the way. This picture was taken today on Grafton Street. Note the smaller dimensions of the proposed signage. Is it fair to say that the smaller signs on pedestrian streets wouldn't be so bad? The scale seems more human, and they might be genuinely useful?

Image

All metropoles on the list you posted above were on the original list, and I know that, in addition to Amiens Street, the one on St Luke's Avenue (Coombe Relief road) was declared invalid. Perhaps all of the above were invalidated and then resubmitted? In that case, those numbers will be useful.

It's good to hear that the councillors are becoming involved. I'm not sure of the extent to which people generally are aware of the scale of this proposal. And then to discover that the presumed quid pro quo is not in fact true...?
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby AndrewP » Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:01 pm

There was a bit about this on Morning Ireland today. Councillor Emer Costello spoke out against the disproportionate numbers of them on the northside. Otherwise, details were sketchy and the thrust of it seemed to be "we're all getting free bikes but we might have to put up with a few ads to fund it".
AndrewP
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 2:56 pm
Location: Whitehall, Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:26 pm

Heard it alright. Seemed to get the basics right, but focussed almost exclusively on the visual clutter / intrusion aspect of the metropoles, ignoring the traffic safety aspect. At the outset, there was a comment to the effect that the sites were chosen so as not to distract drivers (criteria, people?) and then the discussion moved on. I think more attention should have been paid to the fact that-
a) these are located at junctions (5 No. at the Bolton / Capel junction alone),
b) their express purpose, as advertising boards, is to catch the eye, and
c) they will be internally illuminated.

Can you imagine the effect that an internally-illuminated, 7 sq.m., double-sided advertising board showing a scantily clad model will have on a worker driving home after 10 hours on a wet November evening?
Cyclist? What cyclist? G-d I didn't even see him! I'm so sorry. I was just looking at...

Not that I'm downplaying the visual clutter aspect, but the traffic hazard is surely key to this. Or has DCC no objection to having blood on its hands? Sure, it's only a few drops...
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby AndrewP » Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:56 pm

I just noticed the "double-sided" bit. Does this mean they'll be perpendicular to the traffic?
AndrewP
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 2:56 pm
Location: Whitehall, Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:02 pm

Exactly. On the footpath and perpendicular to the direction of the traffic. They are designed to catch the eyes of motorists.

Of the original total, fewer than 10 were single-sided, and these only at points where the back would be invisible anyway.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:14 pm

ctesiphon wrote:You're not wrong, hutton.

50 more are on the way. This picture was taken today on Grafton Street. Note the smaller dimensions of the proposed signage. Is it fair to say that the smaller signs on pedestrian streets wouldn't be so bad? The scale seems more human, and they might be genuinely useful?

All metropoles on the list you posted above were on the original list, and I know that, in addition to Amiens Street, the one on St Luke's Avenue (Coombe Relief road) was declared invalid. Perhaps all of the above were invalidated and then resubmitted? In that case, those numbers will be useful.

It's good to hear that the councillors are becoming involved. I'm not sure of the extent to which people generally are aware of the scale of this proposal. And then to discover that the presumed quid pro quo is not in fact true...?


On this Hutton would have liked to be wrong :(
But this monsterous scheme just gets worse and worse - more simultaneous applications :mad:

However helpful fellow that I am, some more about the process by which this has come about. It was mentioned not at the planning or environment committeess, but at a road-safety sub-committee :eek:

Now so far, in addition to criticisms already above, it is emerging that:

No section 183 motion has been passed at council - this is the part of the local government act relating to sale of council land, and is a reserved function, ie councillors have to have a vote. Strange that :rolleyes:

JCDecaux, their consultants RPS and the city officials involved should all interviewed - afterall they do have a right to their good name.

Now that it has been on Morning Ireland hopefully both the right authorities and the public will be better aware of this program that unchallenged would amount to a visual swindle :mad:
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:11 pm

One clarification might be in order here- I don't think that we can attach any blame to the consultants on this one. It's the nature of private sector planning work. Client comes to the boss with a job, boss passes it on to employee to do to the best of his/her ability- the opinions of the planner don't really enter into it at all. It's simply that the planner makes the case based on available policies and objectives of the relevant Development Plan and other documents.

We may as well blame whoever put up the site notices.;) (Quality notices too, by the looks of things.)

For the record, I don't know the RPS planner involved, but I do have some experience of being held partly responsible for a scheme that I wouldn't have chosen to work on in a million years. As I say, it's the nature of the work.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby PVC King » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:28 pm

The real issue here is the failure of the last three ministers for the environment to issue guidelines to local auhtorities in respect of Margot Walstroms reasoned opinion clarifying the regulation on project splitting.

I also agree on doing work that you don't particularly like but is technically legal; it comes with the territory and the most you can do is put forward a number of options to your client and hope that they make a balanced decision. There is in this issue a large division between private space and public realm and it is up to the elected reps to look after the public interest.
PVC King
 

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:39 pm

[quote="ctesiphon"]One clarification might be in order here- I don't think that we can attach any blame to the consultants on this one. It's the nature of private sector planning work. Client comes to the boss with a job, boss passes it on to employee to do to the best of his/her ability- the opinions of the planner don't really enter into it at all. It's simply that the planner makes the case based on available policies and objectives of the relevant Development Plan and other documents.

We may as well blame whoever put up the site notices.]

Point taken. Its not the job of the private sector to protect the public domain - but it is the city councils. The scheme apparently was put out out on the Govs tender website.

However, as councillors were not aware of the scheme and as there was no sale via section 183, imo it most certainly merits a proper investigation within the council.

Good points too by PVCking.

On foot of these I am editing my previous post as in retrospect it is slightly unfair to mention the private consultant by name.
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:50 pm

FROM RTE: "JCDecaux in 'free bicycles for ads' offer: Cllr Emer Costello (Lab) is concerned about the 70 proposed billboards; Cllr Naoise Ó Muirí (FG) says the planning decision must be revisited"

Well worth a listen - coucillors state they were not properly informed of the scheme - except of the bikes aspect. FFS :eek: .

Oh good - the fridges at Capel Street bridge were criticised too, described as "monstrosities"!!

"DCC cannot be a council that litters its own constituency" - well done to Emer Costelloe :)

The more I hear about this the more apparent that there needs to be an investigation within DCC. Like WTF x 2 :eek:

Clicky linky to hear Morning Ireland clip:

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby publicrealm » Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:26 pm

[quote="hutton"]

However, as councillors were not aware of the scheme and as there was no sale via section 183, imo it most certainly merits a proper investigation within the council. QUOTE]


I don't believe that any such motion is required. The Applicant only needs the consent of the landowner (presumably, in this case, DCC) to make a valid application.

The granting of consent is an administrartive function - the Councillors have no say in it.

(Generally, imho, it is best that the Councillors have no say in such matters (ideally no say in anything except their own expenses) - as they have repeatedly disgraced themselves over the years - putting their personal/party interest ahead of the national interest.)

see http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?p=62802#post62802
publicrealm
Member
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:50 am
Location: D6

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 pm

publicrealm wrote:
hutton wrote:
However, as councillors were not aware of the scheme and as there was no sale via section 183, imo it most certainly merits a proper investigation within the council. QUOTE]


I don't believe that any such motion is required. The Applicant only needs the consent of the landowner (presumably, in this case, DCC) to make a valid application.

The granting of consent is an administrartive function - the Councillors have no say in it.

(Generally, imho, it is best that the Councillors have no say in such matters (ideally no say in anything except their own expenses) - as they have repeatedly disgraced themselves over the years - putting their personal/party interest ahead of the national interest.)


Dublin City Councillors have been excellent in recent times - look at Moore St etc, the problems have been with officials.

With respect, either I did not make myself clear, or I totally disagree with your analysis as to section 183 - disposal of local authority land is a reserved function of the councillors, not simply "an administrative" matter, and therefore requires mandate by councillors voting on it. It would be my opinion that in this case the law has not been applied - simple as that.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA37Y2001S183.html
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby PVC King » Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:49 pm

I agree on the disposal issue it is a reserved function.

To lump DCC in with other councils that required Tribunal examination or were considered beyond redemption is simply not fair or accurate.

Totally disagree on Moore Street which was a politically motivated decision and had nothing to do with the built environment but in general the councils record is at the very least acceptable if not exemplary in the context of their peers.
PVC King
 

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:14 pm

PVC King wrote:I agree on the disposal issue it is a reserved function.

To lump DCC in with other councils that required Tribunal examination or were considered beyond redemption is simply not fair or accurate.

Totally disagree on Moore Street which was a ploitically motivated dicesion and had nothing to do with the built environment but in general the councils record is at the very least acceptable.


Just re 16 Moore Street, councillors had voted on that numerous times - at the same time that deals were being done by officials regarding those sites in genral. It is my understanding that at every turn advice and actions taking by officials was consistently unhelpfful - even down to detail of the age of the house... It took intervention by the late Arthur Gibney to "inform" the process. If I am mistaken, please correct me as that whole story sure is some saga - Carlton etc
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:31 pm

PVC King wrote:ITo lump DCC in with other councils that required Tribunal examination or were considered beyond redemption is simply not fair...in general the councils record is at the very least acceptable if not exemplary in the context of their peers.


Agreed, although there are some problems :)
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby alonso » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:22 pm

I hope you guys forgive me but I referred this thread to the forum on http://www.politics.ie. The forum there is read by and contributed to by a number of Dublin representatives, of both Leinster House and the City and County Councils. It will be interesting to see if, and how, they react. I copied sections of the discussion here, as I couldn't have put it any better myself, mostly the wealth of information garnered by various archiseekers, especially on the proposed locations. If there's any problem with me doing so, i'll take down my post.
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:37 pm

alonso wrote:I hope you guys forgive me but I referred this thread to the forum on http://www.politics.ie. The forum there is read by and contributed to by a number of Dublin representatives, of both Leinster House and the City and County Councils. It will be interesting to see if, and how, they react. I copied sections of the discussion here, as I couldn't have put it any better myself, mostly the wealth of information garnered by various archiseekers, especially on the proposed locations. If there's any problem with me doing so, i'll take down my post.


Well done alonso, the more word that gets out about this - the sooner the better.... it is a total scandal :eek: :mad:

Hutton has done his bit also and I can assure you that the story is moving very fast ;)

One other poiint is urban districts around the country now need to be ultra-vigilant to make sure that it doesnt happen to them.

Now lets start getting some answers -

Again well done all round :) :cool:

H
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby phil » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:41 pm

ctesiphon wrote:You're not wrong, hutton.

50 more are on the way. This picture was taken today on Grafton Street. Note the smaller dimensions of the proposed signage. Is it fair to say that the smaller signs on pedestrian streets wouldn't be so bad? The scale seems more human, and they might be genuinely useful?

Image

All metropoles on the list you posted above were on the original list, and I know that, in addition to Amiens Street, the one on St Luke's Avenue (Coombe Relief road) was declared invalid. Perhaps all of the above were invalidated and then resubmitted? In that case, those numbers will be useful.

It's good to hear that the councillors are becoming involved. I'm not sure of the extent to which people generally are aware of the scale of this proposal. And then to discover that the presumed quid pro quo is not in fact true...?


The manner in which this is being carried out is like an invasion. They seem to be constantly multiplying. Of course in reality their location on Grafton Street, or other similar streets, may provide an automatic busking point;)

It is funny (as in the ridiculous sort) to see such a thing going up in the weeks following the official announcement of the plans to make Grafton Street and its surroundings an area of Special Planning Control
phil
Old Master
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:32 pm

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby ctesiphon » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:06 pm

alonso wrote:I hope you guys forgive me but I referred this thread to the forum on http://www.politics.ie.

Any chance you could post a link to the politics.ie thread on here, alonso? Cheers.

phil wrote:It is funny (as in the ridiculous sort) to see such a thing going up in the weeks following the official announcement of the plans to make Grafton Street and its surroundings an area of Special Planning Control

OTM, phil. Sure why would the right hand need to know what the left hand is doing? Sure aren't they different hands?!?!
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby phil » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:23 pm

Since making that post I have had a look at the Draft Scheme of Special Planning Control for Grafton Street. It raises some very pressing issues, and I would recommend people interested in this issue to have a look at it.

For example, The Council seem determined that the advertising located on buildings, such as the Budweiser ad, is inappropriate and should be removed. Whilst I personally don't have much against these form of hoardings, I can appreciate the argument against them. However, I raise it as it illustrates the subjectivity of the issue quite effectively in that the council seem to want to promote the location of advertising hoardings at multple places within the public domain whilst objecting to it in areas that I assume to be privately owned, yet visible from the street. Meanwhile, the extent to which these are deemed to clutter a fairly narrow street does not seem to matter, despite it being raised within another section of the draft:

Dublin City Council wrote: 5.5.3 In general, given the relatively narrow width of Grafton Street and the high pedestrian footfall the provision of certain elements of street furniture on the public footpath or private landings will not be favourably considered. These elements include newspaper stands, A-frames and spinner stands erected by retailers or tables and chairs for cafes, restaurants or bars.


Incidently, Ctesiphon, what does OTM mean? You have obviously brushed up on all the fancy new terms!
phil
Old Master
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:32 pm

Re: You thought Dublin's streets were cluttered already?

Postby hutton » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:26 pm

Link as sought - http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=16813

This must be one of the hottest threads in quite some time - 20 postings within a day. Well done StephenC - the timing in talking to councillors could not have been better, partcularily as it has only just become apparent at what exactly is being proposed.

I shudder to think as to what the consequences might have been had it not made it onto the DCC agenda :eek: :eek:
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron