CutePanda wrote: A) The construction footprint is tiny compared to the massive engineering involved. The RPA and CIE deserve praise for keep about 80% of the Green open to the public.
Temporary closure or restricted access during construction is not the fucking point, as stated ad nauseum. Its about the significant & permanent alteration of a landscape set piece as laid out by A.E. Guinness circa 1880, that has matured in tandem, without significant interference.
CutePanda wrote:B) McDonald has been anti metro from day one and this stinks of sour grapes. He was anti-Luas and wanted it underground in the city centre, now 8 years later he is against underground railways and wants more tracks on streets.
I don't agree with McDonald's stance on 'Metro', save to say that if your going to go to the trouble of constructing tunnels capable of accommodating an actual metro type system, you might want to put something a little better than a glorified luas in it. An actual metro travelling @ 120kph, nothing too difficult to achieve, would reach O'Connell Street in 6 minutes.
CutePanda wrote:C) The Nostalgia Nazis in this country are still trying to hold us back.
This nazi grouping obviously now includes me, now perhaps that is actually a little OTT.
CutePanda wrote:D) Dublin need this more for the future well being of the city, more so than harking back to the legacy of the days of powdered wigs
Of course it does, despite the lack of ambition embedded in metro north. There are alternatives.
CutePanda wrote:E) Everything will be replaced as it was before and amazingly enough I have been told that trees can grow again.
Obviously the aesthetic benefit derived from a 120 year+ maturation process means nothing to you.
Cute Panda wrote:The title of this thread is so OTT and inflamatory - it should be rebanded to 'Metro/Interconnector Works' without the OP hysterical editorial swing based on a IT article written by a person who does not need to take public transport to work.
If as a result of these works, substantial felling in the affected areas of the green is necessary, coupled with the introduction of several above ground installations, it is reasonable to suggest that the integrity of the green as set out in 1880 will in fact be destroyed.