Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby lightswitch » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:20 pm

Guys... some information taken from north port residents association.....

North Port Residents’ Association

from Catherine Byrne

Consultation Process on the North Lotts Revised Plan

The North Lotts is the area of land bounded by North Wall Quay, Sheriff Street, Guild Street and East Wall Road at the Point Theatre. As you know, a plan for this area was drawn up in 2002 and is now being revised. The revised plan will be finalised by December 2008.

Our meeting with the Chief Executive and the planners of the DDDA on March 25th was the first step in the consultation process on the revised plan. The next stage will be a question and answer session with the planners which will take place on June 10th 2008 at 7.00pm in the Clarion Hotel.

In July, notices will be published in the national newspapers inviting anyone who is interested to attend a display of the revised plan in a number of community venues around the north and south quays, including the DDDA head office. The plans will be on display for one month and will coincide with displays of the revised Master Plan for the entire Docklands. At the end of the month on display, communities will have one month to submit their views.

The DDDA will review the submissions in October, with the intention of presenting a final plan to its council in November. The Council will then accept or reject the recommendations. In the event that the plan is accepted, it will be submitted to Dublin City Council and to the Minister for the Environment for approval in December.

As part of the planning process, an environmental mpact statement (EIS) is currently being prepared. This is to determine the impact of major structural changes such as the proposed Liffey Island, the new canal and the increased heights of buildings on the local area. A shadow study will be carried out as part of the EIS and this will be available to residents during the public display stage.

In preparation for the question and answer session on June 10th, residents are invited to a meeting in the Clarion Hotel at 7.00pm on Tuesday, June 3rd. The purpose is to prepare a full and comprehensive list of questions to ensure that we get as much information as possible from the meeting with the planners.

I look forward to seeing as many people as possible on June 3rd and June 10th at 7.00pm. If you can’t make both meetings, the one on June 10th is probably the most important.
lightswitch
Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby darkman » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:47 pm

I fully support this plan. I think its great. :)
darkman
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Dublin North

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:52 pm

Why?
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby darkman » Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:14 pm

Because it shows a bit of initiative and the plan itself is designed to increase the ammenities in the area - not reduce them. There would be a sort of new canal around the development and extra green space and the buildings themselves will help alleviate the sterile, repetitve building heights in the area and could look very nice (once we see detailed designs). Sure it juts out into the Liffey a bit and that may rest uneasy with some who dont like change but overall I dont see a problem here.
darkman
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Dublin North

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:14 pm

darkman wrote:Because it shows a bit of initiative and the plan itself is designed to increase the ammenities in the area - not reduce them. ....... but overall I dont see a problem here.


The only excuse for the above is that you must work for the DDDA.
Before you submit any more ill thought out submissions to this thread darkman, please read the previous submissions and you will read the truth about the "Canal" proposed. It is an insult to the fine submissions of others that you would submit to this thread without reading it.

Who wants "Green Space" next to a "Grey water facility"?
Who wants to spoil the campshires?
Who wants to spoil the Liffey vista?

The answer ... Only mad "Empire Builders".

"Juts out into the Liffey a bit" .... you are either joking darkman or again have you not read the thread.

As pointed out by gunter (well said, especially the prediction bit), if the Liffey Island were to go ahead the amenities of the campshires will be drastically reduced and the Zone 9 ammenities idea of the Dublin City Council trampled upon. The DDDA are intending to "Empire Build" ... that is it in a nutshell.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby darkman » Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:34 pm

cagey wrote: the amenities of the campshires will be drastically reduced .


Ive been reading the thread for months and ive not changed my opinion. What I see is typical scare mongering. The campshires may be reduced but you have misread what I said, probrably intentionally because you refuse to look at the merits of the project, always pointing out the negatives. Amenities in general will be increased.....fact. We have not yet seen exact proposals for the buildings even and yet some are shooting it down. I mean god forbid anyone is too daring and ambitious with plans for the docklands. That would be tragic. And since when have Dublin City Council been the experts at providing amenities for communities? Never. They always make a balls of it.
darkman
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Dublin North

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:29 pm

This isn't your average daft proposal, darkman, the difference with this one is there won't be any going back. Your average building horror (like Hawkin's House for example) gets to be torn down and replaced within thirty years or so, but something like this is essentially irreversible.

I'm not slow to see manipulative bastards behind the occasional development proposal and I have a lot of sympathy for cagey's viewpoint on this, but deep down, I believe that this is not what we're dealing with here. I think this is a genuine bright idea! I'm inclined to think it is well intentioned and I would be 95% certain that the concept is 'design led' as opposed to 'empire building' as postulated by cagey.

Although again we're indebted to cageys dogged persistence in keeping this issue to the forefront, I can't quite accept that the proposed canal would be as problematic as he suggests. Is there some fundamental difference between this proposed canal and the canals in Venice and Bruges and Amsterdam?

I think what darkman is picking up on are the good intentions, the innovation, the element of daring, I have to accept that that's all there! What it's missing, IMO, is critical judgement.

It's one skill to come up with a bold imaginative idea, but it's another skill entirely to be able to stand back and say 'actually, this isn't the right place to use this bright idea'.

If this is an architect led idea, then the architects deserve credit for their daring and imagination and DDDA deserve credit for having the balls to run this far with this scheme, but that's as far as it should go. The North Wall campshire is just too valuable, it is an outstanding public amenity space and Dublin hasn't got that many outstanding public amenity spaces that it can afford to give this one away.

Nobody disputes that the whole docklands development to date has been a bit underwhelming, but that's like saying the early Georgian quays were a bit boring. Both statements are true, but the precedent shows us that we could be just two or three great buildings away from transforming boring into outstanding and that's what we should be concentrating on, not throwing away the whole quayside concept.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby lightswitch » Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:55 pm

Eloquent and well spoken Gunter,

thank you
lightswitch
Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:27 pm

gunter wrote:This isn't your average daft proposal, darkman, the difference with this one is there won't be any going back.

................Is there some fundamental difference between this proposed canal and the canals in Venice and Bruges and Amsterdam? .........

It's one skill to come up with a bold imaginative idea, but it's another skill entirely to be able to stand back and say 'actually, this isn't the right place to use this bright idea'.

.......just two or three great buildings away from transforming boring into outstanding and that's what we should be concentrating on, not throwing away the whole quayside concept.


Congrats gunter, well said.

Now for the truths :
1) This Island anywhere else, where there is an adequate (clean) running water supply, would be great. I like the idea of an "Island". That is what the DDDA proposes, but they hide the fact of an "Island" surrounded by a grey water "Canal". The lack of a water supply (other than grey) sets this "Canal" apart from normal canals.

2) A Grey Water facility is necessary for any more buildings (see Post 142)/, so the DDDA are trying to sell the "Canal" idea to us, in order to achieve this facility inexpensively. If they were honest, they would call it what it is, a "Grey Water Facility" with no navigation element.

3) In order to get the "Canal" idea across, they propose an "Island" and that means breaching the Liffey Wall. The Liffey horror is what most in here abhor and what those who like tall buildings shut their minds to. I like tall buildings (I have never said otherwise), but not high or small if the Campshires are spoilt.

4) In order to pay for it all and have ongoing income they need a large area they "Own" with buildings on it. Hence they propose not just building on the Campshires but out into the Liffey as well.

For all the above and other reasons, to quote gunther "This isn't your average daft proposal" but a well though out "sell" to alleviate a building bottleneck at the expence (forever?) of locals, Dubliners, tourists and all river landscape lovers.


Isn't it now time for all of us to propose an imaginative better solution?

Please look at it this way: .......no "Canal" = no "Island" = no Campshires buildings = no Liffey breach ...... let's start with an underground grey water facility built over, and that would leave a nice long 60Ft wide covered area running alongside the Luas.... 4 lenghts would be a nice 1 mile run ???
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:14 pm

cagey wrote:
A Grey Water facility is necessary for any more buildings so the DDDA are trying to sell the "Canal" idea to us, in order to achieve this facility inexpensively.

In order to pay for it all and have ongoing income they need a large area they "Own" with buildings on it. Hence they propose not just building on the Campshires but out into the Liffey as well.



I take your point that the apparent absence of a fresh water supply differentiates this canal from other canals, but that's only true if the level of the water in the canal is perminantly higher than the high tide level in the Liffey. Do we know that this is intended to be the case, or is that part of what the tender study procedure is supposed to advise on?

I don't remember any special 'grey water' facility in the Kevin Roche / Spencer Dock mega-plan, surely a 'grey water facility' in normal circumstances, is just a big drainage pipe! The 'grey water' is going to end up in the Liffey one way or another, why would they take on all of this extra expense of digging a broad, recreational scale canal? When you say 'inexpensively' cagey, are you factoring in the extra value DDDA accrue from presiding over a bigger development footprint?

I'm not sure if the 'ongoing income' argument stands up. On a map, the amount of actual building footprint looks about the same! What DDDA gain by building on the campshire and out over the Liffey, they lose by digging the canal!

It all adds to the puzzle of the whole thing, as far as I'm concerned, but, with the information available to date, it's like trying to put together a 500 piece puzzle when we've only got six pieces in the box.

Like I said before, I was pretty sure that this was just a kite flying exercise until I saw Dick Gleeson include it in a 'What's in the pipeline for Dublin' presentation a few weeks back, followed quickly by cagey's post on the tender notice procedure and suddenly it's time to stop cracking jokes about this and get serious about what it means for the future development of Dublin, and what it tell us about the level of vision, or otherwise, of the people in charge of planning in this city.

P.S. [INDENT]Definitely looks like it would be worth trying to get into the Q & A session with the planners on Tuesday (10th June) at 7pm in the Clarion, as posted by lightswitch, or is that just for residents? What was the upshot of the information meeting on the 3rd?[/INDENT]
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby lightswitch » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:32 am

I didnt attend the information session on the 03/06 I do plan to be there this Tuesday 10/06

If you have a view to this project and you feel strongly enough to read this thread or post a response,
your presence should be welcomed at this meeting (10/06), given that this project is a public one,
which as outlined above will have an impact on the (public) space in OUR city centre,
you should be there-

I look forward to hearing you present your views.
lightswitch
Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Peter Fitz » Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:34 am

gunter wrote:I'm not sure if the 'ongoing income' argument stands up. On a map, the amount of actual building footprint looks about the same! What DDDA gain by building on the campshire and out over the Liffey, they lose by digging the canal!


Nail on head and all that gunter ! Its extremely difficult to see the reasoning behind the canal element, worse still they appear to be using this fairly pointless indulgence as justification for breaking the line of the liffey - one of few structural constants in a city that can otherwise appear overly jumbled.
Peter Fitz
 

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rusty Cogs » Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:12 pm

HAVING PROBLEMS WITH MY QUOTE FUNCTION HERE, I'M REPLYING TO CAGEY'S POST FROM 9.27AM

QUOTE=cagey;81949]Congrats gunter, well said.

"Now for the truths :
1) This Island anywhere else, where there is an adequate (clean) running water supply, would be great. I like the idea of an "Island". That is what the DDDA proposes, but they hide the fact of an "Island" surrounded by a grey water "Canal". The lack of a water supply (other than grey) sets this "Canal" apart from normal canals. "

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. "This Island anywhere else, where there is an adequate (clean) running water supply, would be great" There is a clean water supply for any building proposed for the area via the water mains which have been upgraded only last month in conjunction with the Luas works. So the canal is grey rather than fresh water ?, I don't think anyone is suggesting we drink out of it. The Liffey could be considered grey water, it doesn't seem to pose health issues to those living near it.

"2) A Grey Water facility is necessary for any more buildings (see Post 142)/, so the DDDA are trying to sell the "Canal" idea to us, in order to achieve this facility inexpensively. If they were honest, they would call it what it is, a "Grey Water Facility" with no navigation element."

If the 'new' canal is connected to the Liffey then there is no need to build a whole canal system merely to take future builds 'grey' water. It would simply be piped into the Liffey directly.

"3) In order to get the "Canal" idea across, they propose an "Island" and that means breaching the Liffey Wall. The Liffey horror is what most in here abhor and what those who like tall buildings shut their minds to. I like tall buildings (I have never said otherwise), but not high or small if the Campshires are spoilt."

"The Liffey horror is what most in here abhor and what those who like tall buildings shut their minds to." I've read this one a couple of times to no avail but (if I understand you correctly) you can't make the arguement that those in favour of or against the 'island' determine if they like tall buildings or not.

"4) In order to pay for it all and have ongoing income they need a large area they "Own" with buildings on it. Hence they propose not just building on the Campshires but out into the Liffey as well. "

This is pure conjecture, I understood that the canal would be paid for by the in situ land owners in return for increased height restrictions in the 2008 development plan. The DDDA is due to wrap up in 2013 around the same time as the completion of the canal. Stating that the Liffey extension is some sort of self-perpetuating income stream for the DDDA has no basis in fact but by all means, go along to one of the many DDDA presentations and put it to them.

"For all the above and other reasons, to quote gunther "This isn't your average daft proposal" but a well though out "sell" to alleviate a building bottleneck at the expence (forever?) of locals, Dubliners, tourists and all river landscape lovers.


Isn't it now time for all of us to propose an imaginative better solution?

Please look at it this way: .......no "Canal" = no "Island" = no Campshires buildings = no Liffey breach ...... let's start with an underground grey water facility built over, and that would leave a nice long 60Ft wide covered area running alongside the Luas.... 4 lenghts would be a nice 1 mile run ???[/QUOTE]"

They don't need to build a canal for grey water, they could simply culvert that underground. They don't need to build a canal to for the extension, the former will pre-date the latter.

The Island with the canal and extension is being sold as one package but I see them as two separate pieces of infrastructure to be judged on their merits as such. You seem to rail against either / or with spurious arguments, selective quotes from other posters and a few ' here here's '. And as you've never posted on this forum about anything but the canal and the Island I can only surmise you've got the whole think stuck in your graw for some reason (?), cannot view the project objectively and will post anything to damage it's prospects.
Rusty Cogs
Member
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:10 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:27 pm

All you're missing is the opening square bracket! (i.e. [QUOTE=cagey;81949] rather than QUOTE=cagey;81949])
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rusty Cogs » Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:47 am

No, they are there. What's the process. Do I start by clicking them, then highlight the quote ? or open up a reply first ???:confused:
Rusty Cogs
Member
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:10 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby alonso » Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:54 pm

Hit Post Reply, then find the text you wanna quote, paste it in to your reply, highlight it, then hit the quote buttons like so.

No, they are there. What's the process. Do I start by clicking them, then highlight the quote ? or open up a reply first ???


If you wanna quote an entire post just hit the quote button in that post at the outset
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:57 am

Any word from last night? jdivision in a dress?
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby jdivision » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:58 am

ctesiphon wrote: jdivision in a dress?

A very scary thought. Believe me. Wasn't aware of any meeting last night tbh.
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rusty Cogs » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:15 am

Couldn't make it myself. I'll should get notice of proceedings in the next week or so. Anything of public interest I'll pass on.
Rusty Cogs
Member
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:10 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:39 am

Thanks RC. I had similar intentions too but got stuck in work.

jdivision wrote:A very scary thought. Believe me. Wasn't aware of any meeting last night tbh.


Heh- I was wondering how far you'd go to get in after your little incident last time. No aspersions intended. :)
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby jdivision » Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:42 pm

ctesiphon wrote:
Heh- I was wondering how far you'd go to get in after your little incident last time. No aspersions intended. :)

Believe me if I knew it was on I'd have been there:D Not on here often enough anymore to keep up as much as before.
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rusty Cogs » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:22 am

I could drop this article into a couple of different threads but the end of it gives a little more clarity on the canal/island plan.

THE HIGH Court is set to scrutinise a Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) decision to grant a planning exemption to one of property player Liam Carroll’s companies for a major office scheme.

The DDDA granted the exemption last year to North Quay Investments Ltd (NQIL) for a development of three office blocks on the Liffey’s north quays, which will provide new homes for Anglo Irish Bank’s headquarters, AIB Capital Markets and O’Donnell Sweeney solicitors.

However, the High Court yesterday granted the Treasury Holdings-backed Spencer Dock Development Company leave to seek to have the DDDA’s decision judicially reviewed.

In a series of affidavits, Spencer Dock and Treasury Holdings managing director John Bruder told the High Court that the authority was acting outside its own powers in granting the exemption.

The DDDA can grant exemptions from the planning process, known as section 25 certificates, where a proposed development fits in with its own master plan.

Spencer Dock argues that North Quay Investment’s proposals are in breach of the existing plan because they do not have the required balance between commercial and residential development.

The docklands authority is currently reviewing its master plan for the area, a process that is supposed to involve consultation with interested parties.

However, Spencer Dock claims that in granting the certificate to North Quay, the DDDA committed itself in advance “to a particular course of action in relation to at least one area” of the docklands which benefited NQIL.

Spencer Dock told the court that in return for getting the exemption, NQIL has agreed to give the authority some land at the rear of its development.

The DDDA wants to build a canal on this as part of a plan to create an “island” feature in the docklands. This would form part of the new master plan.

Spencer Dock says this would damage its own interests in the area. The company’s affidavit states that it believes that the “agreement is fundamentally at variance with the manner in which the system is supposed to work”.

Spencer Dock also points out that the DDDA objected to the NQIL proposal when it originally sought planning permission for the office scheme from Dublin City Council.

Spencer Dock says the objection, prepared by the same DDDA planner who completed the report for the exemption, expressed concern at the proposed eight-storey height of one of the buildings, and the fact that the development was solely commercial. The DDDA subsequently granted a planning exemption to a proposal that was largely the same.

The issue is due back in court next month. If Spencer Dock succeeds in getting permission to have the decision reviewed, it is likely that it will ask that the Commercial Court deals with the issue.
Rusty Cogs
Member
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:10 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:54 am

Reading even that brief account of one legal wrangle involving one tiny part of the 'Liffey Island' proposal, a person would be tempted to say that this whole thing is a murky cesspool.

Then you're reminded that Hausmann's re-making of Paris involved dipping into a very large murky legal cesspool and that creating Gandon's masterpiece by shifting the location of the Customs House a mile down stream was once a bitterly contested murky legal cesspool and you say to yourself:

'if something is really worth doing, it's worth getting your hands dirty to do it!.

Lets all get down into the cesspool together and clean it out, forge ahead, push it through, be fearless, strike a contemporary blow for Dublin.

Then you look at what being proposed and you're inclined to say 'The only problem is, this isn't worth doing!'

I'm sorry I couldn't make it to that information meeting on Tuesday evening, I take it nobody here actually made it down. Where's cagey? I thought you lived down there.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby lightswitch » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:02 am

Hey Rusty, If the court decides that the decison is to be reviewed, i.e. finds in favour of Spencer Dock, what does this mean, i.e review by "the commercial court deals with the decision"?

Does this mean that the proposed canal/island scheme could be blocked by Treasury?
..hence stall the entire new master plan process?

Also as a side; I note that DDDA hasnt yet published any information re: revising the exixting master plan on its website, seems to me that they are in a hurry to revise thier master plan to force this "island of atlantis" on Dublin,

Lets hope this island with its blind virture and wisdom dissapears under the water together with the Lost Island of Atlantis...
lightswitch
Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby notjim » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:03 am

I wonder where all the naked people are going to go: if I was Stencer Tunnick looking for a classic naked people enhanced Dublin vista, I would line them (us) along the quay side, but would the DDDA be happy about a celebration of the threatened campshire.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron