Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:07 am

That letter is not factually incorrect- it described the existing conditions under the current DDDA planning scheme for that area.

What caught my eye is the inability of the author to spell 'storeys'.

(Also, there is nothing on that *uck Planning website that you won't find on Archiseek, and Archiseek isn't a... Hmmm, better not finish that sentence.)
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 gunter » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:05 am

lightswitch wrote:Maybe this is a bit off the wall, but do you guys feel strongly enough about this discussion to form an action group/ commitee?

Im suggesting a public pressure group to discuss and address the concerns as voiced in this mail thread, perhaps engage with various other local community groups/parties and representatives?

Just a thought....


I understand where you're coming from, lightswitch, but the words 'Action Group' and 'Commitee' send a shiver down my spine.

By rights, this whole proposal is setting itself up to be a test case of whether we have a planning system that works, or not. We'll also find out, who in DCC still has any functioning critical faculties and who's been staring too long at all the shiny new planning application. DCC, albeit as the 'Corpo.' has been around since 1200, or so, and presumably will be around for a while yet, DDDA are essentially a development agency and they'll be history in a few years. It's DCC that I would be inclined to hold responsible if someone, in a position of influence, doesn't fire out a warning shot over this pretty soon.

The laying out and construction of the Quays was a hugely visionary undertaking that appears to have taken about one hundred and seventy years to complete (from about 1680 to 1850) and 'complete' is the operative word.

From Heuston to the Point, the Liffey quays are a complete set-piece entity that every architectural visitor to Dublin agrees 'Define the city'. What DDDA appear to be attempting to do here is akin to what the ESB did to Fitzwilliam Street in the '60s, take one of Dublin's defining set-pieces (that they had nothing to do with creating) fracture it's integrity and treat it as a new architectural play thing.

So long as we don't allow others to under-value what we have and over-value what they're trying to give us and so long as we don't underestimate the capacity of people to make the wrong decisions for the right reasons, all that ought to be required here is to keep writing in, use the process, and there should be no need to break out the burning torches just yet.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rusty Cogs » Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:31 pm

cagey wrote:As regards the DDDA Draft plan and other Blogs see
http://buckplanning.blogspot.com/search?q=DDDa


I have read the Q&A session the DDDA had with local residents.
At first glance it seems the residents are regarding as "fait accompli" the acceptance of the 2008 DDDA plan.

Personally, if I heard of just one 20 storey block just south of my 2 storey dwelling I would be ....... !!!
Well put it like this, Rossport would seem like a tea-party.

I would need to know exactly where any such block was about to be placed and I would be up in arms against any "Draft" plan that did not specify the exact area where the current planning regulations re building height were to be altered. I would most definitely not want to swop an amentity like the Campshires for a daft canal. And, I would not want any authority with such daft ideas to exist beyond the statutory 2013, never mind the expansion of their influence.

I think the DDDA are hoping that lack of info will make it easier for their Grand Plan to be acceptable ...... W R O N G.


So you've read the Q&A session with the DDDA and the local residents ? Then you'll know that your fears about the canal being used for grey water were unfounded ?
Rusty Cogs
Member
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:10 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:55 pm

Rusty Cogs wrote:So you've read the Q&A session with the DDDA and the local residents ? Then you'll know that your fears about the canal being used for grey water were unfounded ?


I wish that were the case Rusty but no. OK a DDDA answer stated that the canal was not for Grey Water but the wrong question was asked. The questioner should have asked if "treated" grey water would be allowed to run into the canal. Of course untreated grey water cannot be allowed into the canal as its later entry into the Liffey would cause a fishkill for miles.
You must realise I have been showing how two-faced the DDDA are in regards to this whole Liffey Island, and since the answer was very short I suspect the DDDA answered the question as asked, without any elaboration. Besides, a canal of just surface water from the immediate area will be even worse cesspool wise (tho' less dangerous) than treated grey water.
Why do you think their is no mention of a water feed from the adjacent Royal Canal and the DDDA statement that it will "not be tidal"?

Have you not watched the recent RTE news explain that the Ringsend Sewage Plant is now treating way over capacity (over 18% over I think), and reductions in inputs (other than sewage water) are urgently required? DCC cannot (and will not) allow any more surface water to enter the sewer (as is the case for a huge part of Dublin with its singlebore pipe system), and that is why the DDDA require a "Canal" as a storm surge storage. They call it a
sustainable urban rainwater drainage facility

Again that is wrong. It would be surface water, a big difference.

I suspect that the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant (not to be confused with sewage) is now also overcapacity considering it also has bad ongoing odour problems.

Rusty! are you hinting that the "Canal" is a good thing? The DDDA haven't even made a Zone 9 for it. They dont even dare think of it as an amenity, and neither should we.

Back to that "Island":
Look at it again this way .... No Canal = no Island ..... noIsland = no excuse to extend out over the Campshires and into the Liffey.... or indeed vice versa.

At least Rusty I think we agree on the absurdity of that "Liffey Island" and the failure of no EIS on the Liffey Vistas.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:26 am

ctesiphon wrote:That letter is not factually incorrect- it described the existing conditions under the current DDDA planning scheme for that area.
Maybe I was a bit vague, sorry ctesiphon.
The point I was making is that it is twofaced to object to 6 "Stories" (one higher) when the DDDA are aiming to have 20 "Stories" ... That's the "storie"... lol
B4 n e of u say n e tin ... I shuda spelt "their is" as "there is" in my post 229.

Sigh!!! gunter says "no burning torches" just a lightswitch.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:08 am

I said 'no burning torches just yet'.

I'm well equiped to join an ugly mob, if that's what it comes to, but for now, I'd like to see how far a bit of reason goes.

The Fitzwilliam Street event was a bit before my time, but it shouldn't be a forgotten lesson. As far as I know, it was only the old codgers, Old Dublin Society stalwarts, some long-haired students and the odd aged litterary icon, like John Betjeman etc. who actively campaigned against the proposal, all the forward looking, open mind-set, types were for it.

The ESB's Fitzwilliam Street project produced a quality building, but it was still a mistake and an irrevsible mistake at that!

To me this case looks even more clear cut that Fitzwilliam Street may ever have appeared. The campshires aren't some crumbling edifaces that are unsuitable to their present use, they are pristine prominades that have demonstrated, in the short period of time that they have been cleared of transit sheds, that they have the capacity to host public festivals as well as casual day to day recreation. Dublin is not well endowed with hard surface urban spaces! If you want to hold a public event in Dublin you have hold it on grass or close off a street somewhere.

As quay front development progresses and bridge access inproves, there is no way that the existing public engagement with the campshire spaces will not increase and intensify. The riverscape at North wall/Sir John Rogerson's Quay has grand city scale to it like no where else in Dublin. What's required here is good planning and decent architecture with a couple of new gems thrown in, if possible, not radical intervention of a potentially very crude type.

We should keep the burning torches well tarred up, just in case.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:29 pm

gunter wrote:What's required here is good planning and decent architecture with a couple of new gems thrown in, if possible, not radical intervention of a potentially very crude type.

As usual, very well said gunter.

OK, all you Archi (and non Archi too) types, let's have lots of ideas for the Campshires. Please post ideas no matter how daft. This thread will sort them. Besides, I cannot conceive of any Campshire idea more daft than a "Liffey Island", unless it is to concrete over the Liffey to make a motorway. At least a motorway would leave the Liffey Vista. Only joking, but it shows how bad the "Liffey Island" idea is. I have some positive ideas.

I suggest the best Campshire ideas be posted to Minister John Gormley so we help him to veto this crazy Island.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:17 pm

What's the prize, a canal trip for two?
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby reddy » Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:20 pm

In Lyon the riverside quays have been transformed into underground car parks.

It would be a major undertaking the DDDA could spend this money engineering to cut and cover the road down the North quays, bringing major traffic underground for a stretch, allowing new buildings along here to directly relate to the campshires, opening up real potential for riverside eating/ cafes etc and activated public space.

I’m sure it’d cost a fortune and I’ve heard some real reservations before about the impact on the city of bringing traffic underground, but sure its worth throwing out there.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyber_chof/251112435/
reddy
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:03 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:16 am

reddy wrote:.......I’ve heard some real reservations before about the impact on the city of bringing traffic underground, but sure its worth throwing out there.

Pedestrianise the North Quays along the proposed Liffey Island stretch.....No need to go underground ... so no great costs .... the traffic can be diverted along that stretch where they have proposed that canal ... 60ft wide should be enough. The "surface water facility" can be under the road. I am aware that the wool store stretch might be too narrow and needs to be further east and maybe even as far as New Wapping St.

I have no objections to the DDDA renting or leasing the current roadway to waterfront pubs and cafes and getting their "Pound Of Flesh" but not the Campshires. ... Rear car park entrances to the waterfront buildings can be via the Cul De Sac of Castleforbes St.
How about awnings, canopies, colourful umbrellas, windbreaks, tables and even that Marina (or not). .... Have the southside envy the northside for a change ... lol.
All the above meets with the DCC zoning, preservation and conservation, as should be the case.
Attachments
DCCObjexs01.jpg
DCCObjexs01.jpg (88.54 KiB) Viewed 4498 times
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby lightswitch » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:56 pm

Cagey, interesting idea above; where did the image with the conservation area hashed in red come from?

-is this your own idea or is this an earlier council drawing/ proposal?

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

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:18 pm

Apologies to lightswitch et al. I assumed you all know of the DCC development plan 2005 to 2011. Sorry!

I got the map starting from the Dublin City Council site.
http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Pages/CityDevelopmentPlan.aspx
and then using the pdf view controls after expanding the map view to 100%

I patched in the "Specific Objectives" of the plan.
These are not just Zoning Oblectives but more serious.

http://www.dublincity.ie/development_plan/Maps/mapeset.pdf
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:31 am

Dublin docklands agency faces massive compensation claim - FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor

DUBLIN DOCKLANDS Development Authority (DDDA) faces the possibility of a multimillion euro compensation claim from developer Liam Carroll following a High Court judgment yesterday, according to a well-placed source.

Upholding a legal challenge by rival developer Seán Dunne, Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan quashed the DDDA's fast-track planning permission for a €200 million development project by Mr Carroll on the former Brooks Thomas site at North Wall Quay.

The judge's ruling renders the authority's approval for this scheme - intended as a new headquarters for Anglo Irish Bank - null and void. Work carried out on the site by Mr Carroll's company, North Quay Investments Ltd (NQI), now constitutes "unauthorised development".

Deals done by NQI with Anglo Irish as well as with AIB Capital Markets and solicitors O'Donnell Sweeney to pre-let other office space on the site were now "dead in the water" as they were also made on foot of the same planning approval granted by the DDDA, the source said.

Since the authority has no power to grant retrospective permission, or retention, it seems unlikely that the development work under way on the former Brooks Thomas site can be legitimised - unless the DDDA was successful in an appeal to the Supreme Court.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan found that there was "a direct relationship" between the decision to grant approval under section 25 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 and the company ceding part of the site to the DDDA for public space.

The effect of a section 25 approval under the 1997 Act is to exempt a development from the normal planning process, under which a planning application would be made to a local authority and then be open to public objections and possibly appeals to An Bord Pleanála.

The judge said the nature of a confidential agreement reached in May 2007 between the DDDA and Mr Carroll's company before the exemption was issued in July 2007 gave rise to a "reasonable apprehension of bias" by the DDDA in reaching its decision.

The Treasury Holdings-led Spencer Dock consortium also took a High Court action contesting the DDDA's deal with Mr Carroll's company. Another casualty of yesterday's High Court judgment could be the DDDA's plans to create a high-rise quarter jutting out into the river Liffey along North Wall Quay, east of Spencer Dock. This scheme would have been facilitated by NQI's ceding of land, free of charge.

© 2008 The Irish Times


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1010/1223560351724.html

Steamroller for sale- one careless owner. Contact the DDDA for details.
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 gunter » Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:11 pm

''a reasonable apprehension of bias''

You can't read the planning files of any local authority without coming away with a reasonable apprehension of bias!

Leaving DDDA out of it for the moment, every decision to grant permission by DCC, which on the face of it contravenes the Development Plan, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, does it not? In the context where the planning authority gets to share in the gain through future rates, development levies etc. etc.

What's that nice legal phrase from a different jurisdiction about 'appalling vistas'?
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:09 pm

Fair point. I thought about it over the weekend and, in essence, I think the difference is that a development plan is intended to provide good guidance with an element of latitude in interpretation, but a planning scheme is a much more binding document (like an SDZ) with no latitude.

I would favour development plans that provides greater guidance and certainty, to avoid the bias you mention, but that's a debate for another day.
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 gunter » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:53 pm

Ah this is as good a time as any.

I would like to think that any good planning regime would have the flexibility to react to a 'bright idea' that hadn't been anticipated when the relevant 'Development Plan' had been laid down. As for horse trading, of one kind or another, this has to be accommodated in the system to overcome stumbling blocks, or push through an imaginative idea.

Luke Gardiner did land himself a nice apartment in the Custom House after all and Baron Hausman undoubtedly applied the steam roller approach to existing property interests in delivering the Champs Elysees etc., but surely the fundamental test is whether the 'stroke' being pulled is in the public interest, or not.

Then we're just into a debate about how to you adjudicate on what may, or may not, be in the public interest. Given that there are probably as many interpretation of the public interest as there are planning consultants. one obvious solution might be just to ask the public!
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:30 pm

Game on! ;)

I think you've hit the nail on the head, in both your previous posts. The door should never be shut, or at least never be locked, where a development plan is concerned. However, re the Docklands planning schemes, if the island is considered a worthy amendment (not in my eyes, but that's neither here nor there is this debate), it should go through the appropriate channels of consultation. From the evidence reported recently, there's a suspicion of fait accompli before the yoke was even unveiled. Are they asking, or are they telling?

Where I have an issue with the horse trading is, as you say, when it becomes a way of, say, generating income for a local authority, acquiring housing that should really be provided via more traditional channels, or funding public transport. Then, the bait is too tempting and the compromises can be too extreme. Recent years have encouraged this approach, as has the prevailing economic philosophy in the country during the boom years.

Time and again, these questions seem to come back to the very basic fact that successive governments during the boom have not tackled the issue of the provision of 'public goods', and have failed to realise that certain things simply must be provided by a central authority if there is any aspiration towards social equity. Such a failure tells me that the aspiration doesn't exist, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

PS I'm not equating 'public goods' with 'public interest'. The former is meant in its narrow welfare economics sense (i.e. can't be provided profitably by the private sector, so must be provided by the public [= state]); to the latter I would give a very wide berth. Past experience (no details, sorry) hasn't filled me with confidence that the public knows best what it needs or wants. As I mentioned recently elsewhere, the common good is not just the sum of all individual goods.
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 Rory W » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:34 pm

gunter wrote:Luke Gardiner did land himself a nice apartment in the Custom House after all


Pedantry alert - not Luke Gardner but John Beresford (of whom Beresford Place is named) who got himself the apartment in the Custom House
Rory W
Old Master
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Drogheda & Blackrock

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:50 pm

Rory W wrote:Pedantry alert - not Luke Gardner but John Beresford


This is not about the facts, and anyway Luke Gardner and John Beresford were the same person, everybody knows that! :)
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:32 pm

Sorry I didn't see this reply earlier

ctesiphon wrote:
I'm not equating 'public goods' with 'public interest' . . . to the latter I would give a very wide berth. Past experience (no details, sorry) hasn't filled me with confidence that the public knows best what it needs or wants.


I'm not sure about that ctesiphon.

I have a feeling that the public may be pretty tuned in to all of this now. All these design programmes on TV and short city breaks are eating into our head start. Now, when you're trying to come across all knowledgable and authoritive in a client meeting about a house extension, there's a good chance that 'Joe six pints' has a couple of shots on his mobile phone of the apartment he rented in barcelona.

If we take the 'Liffey Island' idea, since were on that thread, I think DDDA should have been challenged to stick this proposal up in a public exhibition and see if it stood up to a full blown public reaction, not just a couple of well marshaled 'residents' meetings. A scheme like this for the quays affects the whole city, it's not just a local issue.

If Dunne's proposal for Ballsbridge is anything to go by, they could have re-floated the post office with the number of letters of support that would have flooded in.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:34 pm

North Quay Investments Ltd and Anglo Irish and a good few more gone but the DDDA survive ... I cannot help thinking they all should have read this thread.
And now the DDDA input into the Dart Underground Railway Order is spelling disaster (more about that in another FORUM) as the Docklands Underground Station (DUS) has caused a rail alignment where Pierce Underground is not under Pierce Mainline ... 15 minutes walk at least.
What worries me even more is that the DU entry under the Liffey is way too shallow.
The south entrance to the DUS the DURO plan to put through the POOR OULD LMS building.

I hope all you "good guys" are weathering this recession (or is that DEpression? ).

I was told yesterday by a "know-all" that the hole in the ground (canal) is for an underground car park. You know what they say about "casting pearls"? I kept stfumb.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:29 am

Sorry!! that should be Pearse Station
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Previous

Return to Ireland