Smithfield – decision

Scheme go ahead minus tall tower and one storey across the board.

What a pity.

In what way? that the height was removed or that the scheme goes ahead?

I think its a shame that the tower isnt going to be built, as we need to start higher density developments.

Who were the architects?

[This message has been edited by Paul Clerkin (edited 01 May 2001).]

One gets the feeling that if you propose a sacrificial element to a scheme, ie a tower,
it takes the focus off an ultimately mediocre
design….making anbody opposing the scheme feel like they have won (when this element is removed)….when in reality thats what was intended all along……i mean a tower so slender as in this scheme (how many units off the one core?) is just not economical….

Well the locals are still up in arms about it. I do believe taht they want the site to remain derelict.

Po, I formed the same opinion on the Smithfield tower.If you win,bonus
as far as I can remember,I think it was one apartment per floor in the tower

Nice acceptable loss so – 23 apartments.

Such a boring building though, the tower was the best bit.

Where will An Taicse get off? Praising the decision in today’s papers – “oh yes, lets have loads of low rise and build until Athlone” “oh no, you cannot build on the countryside”

MAKE UP YOUR COLLECTIVE MIND AN TAISCE

I’ve said it time and time again, amidst a building boom, Dublin instead, is getting a colection of visually boring buildings…all low rise, all ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! What a missed opportunity……….and what a crap mediocre city it is amounting too …..all designed by accountants and people who left school at the age of seven or don’t have a spark of ingenuity. ….Oh dear, no renaissance for us then. Lord save us…from the dopes!

Regarding Po’s point yesterday on the sacrificial tower
this quote is in today’s Irish Times

Mr Jerry Ryan, of architects Horan Keogan Ryan, said his clients were “very pleased with the result” because it would still allow them to build some 600,000 sq ft (55,741 sq m) of space on the two-acre site.

speaks volumes

This decision confirms that the policy of An Bord Pleanala remains committed to low-rise, suburban sprawl out of Dublin. How long more can this near-sighted, gutless policy be condoned. Even from a design perspective, which is less appealling, the proposed Smithfield tower, or the inevitable swarm of semi-d’s in the country? Does An Taisce have anything to say about what implications low-density, low rise will have, it means more cars, pollution, traffic congestion, ineffective public transport etc. An Taisce, An Bord Pleanala, I firmly believe, will one day be exposed for these HUGE failures. Do we want an American or European urban model? L.A. or Barcelona? Take your pick.

Looking at the image reproduced it would have made a good focal point……and it’s not that big either. We really are elf like here….in mind……..’Lilliputlians’

[This message has been edited by GregF (edited 03 May 2001).]

Yeah, the tower looks pretty good, would have made a nice bit of contrast to the surrounding squat-looking developments. Talking of the general buildings height and the one storey been chopped across the board – they don’t even look to be the 6-7 storey ‘European City’ – style that I thought Dublin was meant to be emulating anyway(not that what I’ve seen in the Docks looks convincingly ‘European’ either).

What is the general building height going to be?

An Taisce should make up its mind where it thinks ‘sacrifices’ in the built environment have to be made to accommodate growth (commercial, residential etc.), in existing urban areas or greenfield sites?
i.e. is it better to have a ‘visually inappropriate’, seven storey office block in a city centre location or… Object to it, get five storeys instead, and have the other two floors of lost capacity met eventually by a two storey office block on a former green field in a new, ‘landscaped’ business park out in west Dublin -well served by lots of private cars and no public transport ???

Im off again…………………………. but I can’t help commenting on the air of ignorance and pessimism that fills everyone regarding new developments in Dublin/Ireland. Anything of an ‘unusuality’ gets the thumbs down ….full stop. Not only was the Smithfield scheme scaled down and losing it’s only outstanding feature (ie the tower) but Calatrava’s bridge down the docks is in jeopardy now because of some stupid ignorant locals complaining spurred on by the stupid ignorant vote catching councillors/politicians. It looks now as if everything that will be planned will be scaled down…. ending up like run of the mill shit. Are Irish people so thick. It is a stiffling air of pessimism and ignorance and Dublin city the capital city of Ireland will lose out in the end. So amidst a building boom as I have said already we will develop a rather insignificant mediocre city on a par with secondary cities found in the rest of the world and we have only our stupid ignorant Irish selves to blame.
(Please give us a job regarding such I could do a damn lot better). I only hope too that a wave of architectural students with flair and a great understanding is on the way up……otherwise we are lost.
We now supposedly identify with a mythological past (in part) who produced the likes of ‘Newgrange’ or the newly found colonial past who produced the likes of Georgiana and Victoriana and all it’s trappings (at least such a people built), but we are so stupid and scared today to put a mark on the landscape representing our generation. An Taisce can kiss my arse ….what a futile stick in the mud organisation ….you don’t count when it really matters……..Food for thought? Reply if you can.

…….and to add the Dublin docks is developing into one big boring shithole thanks to the complainers and Scott Tallon & Walker the now appointed architects ….. (which I foresaw) ……even Kevin Roches bombastic overblown scheme would have been far better.
(Just too add……. did anyone see the locals who had objected to Roches scheme…the handful were nearly all over 60 years of age ….they’ll be dead in a few years time ….and what a ”great”legacy …not….they have now left the city of Dublin.)

Cork, will shortly face a similar dilemma being experienced in Dublin at present i.e. that of the need for taller buildings/high densities v’s local’s, An Taisce’s fears and so on. Some people here are quick off the mark, and probably have protest posters printed already. For example, Urban Initiatives are engaged in A Building Heights study for Cork City and are creating a strategy for the city’s docklands, the only significant city centre site which remains undeveloped. Cork, due to its land shortage needs higher buildings..fact. However, I hope it can learn from the mistakes in Dublin..but I doubt it. I read an article by Jo Kerrigan last week (in the Examiner)who was trying to rally locals into protest…about projects that are only at a conceptual stage presently, the Green Party recently recommended that no new buildings in the city should be over THREE storeys! This is the situation architects and planners have to face, a society so pathetically opposed to anything innovative, that we have the most mundane cityscapes in Europe. Did people protest and complain when other tall buildings were constructed in the city eg. St. Finbarr’s Cathedral, Shandon etc. They were courageous, unusual, TALL, higher than surrounding buildings etc. Today, they are treasured. Are we more conservative now than we were 100 years ago? Local authority planning departments and Bord Pleanala should be encouraging height and adding floors to proposed schemes, not the opposite. Anyway, Cork’s situation will be interesting in the next few years, and could shape the city’s morphology for a long time afterwards. Also, I do believe that in Dublin, An Taisce is letting the city, and its people down, and so called ‘planners’ in that body should think about what they are really doing to a city with so much potential. People are right to be angry about it. Perhaps we should petition An Taisce to call for a reduction in height of old churches cathedrals etc. because they impede our views of the suburbs.

I agree with Gregf about the docks, it’s a shame that todays Scott Tallon walker have somewhat lost the ideals and originality of Michael Scott

Green Party says 3 storeys only for Cork City. AAArrrrrrrrrrrr! They’ve got to be joking!!!!?? Have they no sustainability agenda? Do they not aknowledge like most other environmental groups, that variety in the urbanscape enriches the built environment for EVERYONE?

Do An Taisce have a website? I feel inspired to send them a note complaining/ questioning their disapointingly, over-conservitive views that are not doing the nation at large any favours.

DARA

Letter sent via-email!

coord@antaisce.org will get you their national co-ordinator

i totally agree with greg f…im not an architect (musician)but i can tell you some major bum notes are being played out in dublin city!! whats with all this conservatisim? where are the ideas? it just seems so depressingly backward .ive lived in many countries but this one(im irish)is, despite “celtic boom” still a developing nation with a serious famine mentality within its decision makers.
you only have to look at how dart stations are signposted on the platforms!..two small signs on each platform indicating the station name….half the punters on board cant see the sign(if its night time forget it!) ..this is an example of a monoculture in action…completely inward looking
dont get me started on the roads!what are they thinking? third world style signposting?
residental architecture in ireland is got to be a joke? …i live on the coast road to howth and fail to see any house which even nods to the sea in its design.houses are being demolished and rebuilt in the same fuddy duddy style as before…..lots of bedrooms please !!space? whats that?youre WEIRD!!!…anyway i live in hope ..maybe as more people travel and are exposed to inspiring buildings they will commission new projects from up comming irish architects
keep the faith

Just a few comments:

1. Paul I’m surprisd at you, you should, be wel aware that high rise development does not equal high density development.

2. Greg, I am, unfortunately not in th least bit surprised by you. Please apply to either Bolton Street or UCD for admission to the architectural courses as it is clear that you need a great deal of education in this regard. Also, easy on the blood pressure, you’re going to hav a stroke!!.

3. An Taisce happens to be the best line of defense against bad development in this country. If you want to change or influence their atitude or direction in these matters join your local association, get involved and volunteer your services in the same way as their members have.

4. The ‘Locals’ at Mackin Street actually support the Calatrava Bridge. They are opposed to its use for private vehicles as opposed to public service vehicles.

5. How many of you have actually read the Bord’s Decision on Smithfield??. It’s actually quite a good and well considered one as these things go.

6. Paul I notice from another Forum that you were complaining abouts ‘Locals’ objections to concerts – You live in the area – you are a local yourself. If you have an opinion locally make yourself known and do something about it.

Regards

James

Hope you enjoyed the concerts yourself James, I noted that you had people in almost every window of your building on Saturday night for Buena Vista Social Club

I am perfectly aware that high rise does not equal high density but the culture of complaint and nimbyism is this country is now out of control….

and as for the other locals in Smithfield I have observed much recently… from the complaints about litter (and looked at the state of their front yards) to their incredible scare tactics of screaming about paedophiles coming into their area… to be associated with such scare tactics and approaches does not particularly appeal to me….

obviously it appeals to an taisce and others though..

today i was on the spot when a tourist sporting a nice camera and obviously interested in the plaze, asked a local woman leaning over her garden wall in Smithfield Terrace where Smithfield Plaza was, she sent him down Friary Avenue…. very friendly, i reckon they want to be left back in the decaying 1970s around here….

i would also like to say how great it was that the spar in smithfield that normally closes at 8 stayed open until after 11 on the concert nights… well needed… of course the locals probably didnt like that either…

Ah James, but what a boring city we’ll live in……..perhaps you’ll never understand…..ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

….and to add it is a ‘city’ which supposedly is full of noise, hustle and bustle, not the gloomy silence of Connemara.

I suppose that I should make some effort to respond.

Paul, one of the main reasons that I have ceased to cast anything but a cursory eye over this website is it’s ‘us and them’ attitude when it comes down to ‘locals’.

Judging by your own statements in the past I least expected this kind of thing from yourself. I am pretty well involved in local groups and organisations in the area and don’t grudge the time spent. I have never heard anything in the nature of the complaints that you have mentioned.

Most ‘locals’ are pretty smart, hard working people – it ain’t the wild west around here you know. I must admit that I am also suspicious of those who fail to get involved on the type of highly spurious grounds that you mention, very often the reality is laziness and snobbishness combined leading to gentrification and ghetto – isation.

Yes we had a great night on Saturday, my wife’s 40th Birthday as it happens.

Ultimately however the point that I am making is that this website has degenerated into a general slagging off match dominated by people who actually contribute nothing to the city.

Let me put it this way, I am opposed to high rise development in my area, I make the time to appeal and commit myself to working with local groups against it.

You on the other hand support it as is your right, yet you will do nothing to make your case. For example it would be perfectly in order to contact the developers, say to theme that you support their development and make a statement of support as a ‘local’ yourself -you hav’nt and for all the verbiage, unpleasant language and bad attitude, Greg F doesn’t appear likely to either.

Likewise if you want to influence the manner in which the city develops generally it is quite possible to do so but…it involves work and commitment. Whinging is too easy!!

Judging by your own statements in the past I least expected this kind of thing from yourself. I am pretty well involved in local groups and
organisations in the area and don’t grudge the time spent. I have never heard anything in the nature of the complaints that you have
mentioned.

have you seen the ‘macro’ newsletter of march 2001? Basically I’ve had it with the ‘natives’ around here who figure they have more rights than the ‘blow-ins’ living in the apartments and developments around here. As far as I can see the inhabitants of around 40 houses are getting way more airspace and newspaper columnage than they should. Exaggerating everything from toiletes 10 feet from their doors to paedophiles to businesses losing out.

This isnt just aimed at the people of Smithfield, its ‘locals’ everywhere holding the city to ransom while the money to do something with the city drips away piecemeal.

[This message has been edited by Paul Clerkin (edited 08 May 2001).]

Folks, you’re getting bogged down in the minute details of a particular case: you need to look at the bigger picture – high density, how do we achieve it and still maintain a high quality of life?
http://www.archforums.com/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000488.html

It appears quite difficult to fight such cases now especially when the ‘locals’ play the auld trump card of ‘us, we poor natives born and ‘reard’ in Dublin and we’re not gonna have outsiders tell us what to do’…Blah! Blah! (hence the racist attacks on foreign nationals too)and especially when you have the likes of (as I have said before) shitty local TD’s who are maybe of a rural stock too spurring such people on for the sake of a few votes. The ‘locals’ what an enigma….all recent developments of a considerable height have been turned down due too ludicrous complaints such as shadowing…this is a bloody city do they not realize that and now Caltrava’s bridge down the docks is threatened due to ‘car pollution which may cause asthma’ in the locals….Jesus…..any excuse. Such major schemes which would benefit the whole of the city are been jeopardized by handfuls of people. I am a true blue Dub and I would love to see the city develop into something of international renown not a mediocre post colonial third rate British town…which at the moment is taking on all the trappings of such. Shame on you.
Too add I work with many foreign people of all walks and all complain that Dublin city ‘lacks infrastructure’, ‘aesthetic beauty’, ‘landmarks and features’, ‘is far too expensive’…….and the only form of entertainment to do on a rainy day is ‘go to the pub’ …which not many of them do as they are not alcoholics like a considerable ammount of us Irish.
(Pity the Romans never landed in Ireland…we may have had a good grounding in civics and architecture)….True!

[This message has been edited by GregF (edited 09 May 2001).]

I actually heard Smithfield people on the radio playing the “born and reared in Dublin” card at the weekend.

To James,in relation to your first post.

1. High rise can facilitate higher densities. Why do C.B.D.s usually attract higher buildings? Demand is higher, values and costs increase, skyscrapers accommodate more users in same space, cost effectiveness and economies of scale.

2. You suggest to Greg that he should apply to UCD or Bolton Street so he can be educated in architecture. Presumably, (and I do recognise your sarcasm)those without architectural qualifications should refrain in commenting about such matters. Perhaps, according to this logic the ‘locals’ should automatically do the same.

3 Although An Taisce has a very important role to play in conservation and architectural heritage, it also appears to be the best line of defence against ‘good’ development in this country.

Quite frankly, it’ no skin off my nose if you guys prefer moaning on the web to actually achieving something either by supporting or objecting to development that you don’t like. In fact it probably suits me and the other ‘local’s or ‘natives’ (as it was so charmingly put), that we are left unopposed in the planning arena.

It is sad though to see so much apathy, general laziness and prejudice prevalent among people who have presumably been well enough educated to become computer literate and use this somewhat odd medium. I may not like it but I can understand racism among the ignorant and dispossessed of our society. I find the comments of most of those on this website to be far more depressing in that they have no excuse whatsoever for that ignorance and rpejudice (Read Gregs rant about out of town politicians in the same breath as his comments about racism among ‘locals’ and I think you’ll see what I mean.

On a more general note it simply isn’t good enough to tritely equate high rise with high density or good architecture. Most of the pertinent factors such as impact upon daylight, overshadowing, negative environmental impact formation of wind vortices, non sustainability, scale, context, etc hav’nt even been addressed on this site.

With regard to the Oral Hearing for example, the ‘locals’ submission took nearly two days and was supported by several hundred pages of technical evidence. I am pretty certain that nobody comenting here could even be bothered to attend the hearing much less comment upon the calibre and substance of that evidence.

Even the Bord’s actual decision seems unfamiliar territory – only the 23 storey tower is referred to – does anybody on this site have any comment about the other conditions and exclusions?.

Strangely it may be that all of this nonsense is specific to this web site – I notice a second site quite rationally debating the merits of high rise in a fairly intelligent sense.

….once the sarcasm creeps in one detects the defence stragedy….the siege mentality.
How anyone can give a general populace an oppinion on architecture…….. the same populace who sees alluminium/PVC doors and windows, stone cladding et all as ‘tres chic’ who identifies with Man Utd, Coronation Street,and yet who could’nt tell you where the National Gallery of Ireland is…is way beyond me. Fashion and Pop culture is so fickle. I am of such stock too but I had gumption enough to learn…….
don’t patronize me James …my views are as valid as yours….and the truth hurts too…..as I can see.In years to come we will have regretted what we have done in our building boom now….please don’t lament then….when the penny has finally dropped.

Cheers!

James, all i was doing was engaging you on some of your arguments, by offering an opinion. As for your comment about the futility of using a site such as this for debate, it is only a forum for discussion in which views are exchanged and people learn etc.In relation to the ‘locals’ debate. Often, established residents assume their opinions ooutweigh blow-ins and outsiders, while, in fact, every resident in a particular area is a citizen with equal rights. A person living in Smithfield for 2 years, for example, has the very same rights as someone resident there for ten. In addition, I saw a newspaper article about a man in Cork County complaining about the fact that he was refused planning for a house extension, and was baffled because neighbours on both sides had received permission in recent years. The reason he was so vexed was because one was Chinese, the other Italian. The Examiner obviously sympathised by giving him this platform. Now, James can u see anything worrying about that at all? On a general level, residents often tend to, conveniently fall into a role of victimhood and siege. Cites are not fixed ‘things’, they are a process of continual change, urbanity is about community, not selfishness and narrow concerns.

Go to An Bord Pleanala’s website for their decision on Smithfield.
http://www.pleanala.ie/recent.html

James, its interesting to get the views of someone who does not seem to agree with the majority on this particular website. I personally believe that there is plenty of potential to get local people more involved in big developments. I also think that most people howerever do not take the bigger picture into mind when making their comments on developments. i.e. a development may be good for the city/country but not good for them so they’ll object.

As for sustainability – some higher heights for buildings are probably the way forward. As for shadowing, unless a building is absolutely huge, the shadow will only be cast on any one spot for a short while. You mentioned wind problems i think, i doubt because of the building heights proposed and the location of Smithfield that there would be too much problem with gusts of wind e.g. wind tunnel effect – these can be mitigated anyway e.g. by trees and hard landscaping, building shapes.

Still, all opinions welcome.

p.s. haven’t heard a response yet from An Taisce as regards my letter i sent to them.

DARA

I kind of agree with much of what Daragh is saying here. Not so much as to the impact of high rise, i think that that can really only be determined by looking at local impact (hence the requirement for environmental impact statements) yes there is far too much on the way of ‘gut’ reaction when it comes down to the debate about high rise and not enough considered discussion.

There are a number of consultation procedures and strategies which were originally intended to open up planning impact issues to public debate and consultation. These (HARP etc) have more or less collapsed because of an unwillingness on the part of Dublin Corporation to enter into the spirit of such consultation.

As to the bigger picture, its true to say that development can be a very beneficial element in the growth of cities however it is equally true to say that it can also be very damaging. For example many of the ‘brave new world’schemes of the 60’s and 70’s were actually quite well intentioned and considered in this regard but in reality had a horrendous long term impact upon the urban and social fabric of cities.

Much of the problem comes I think from the scale of development generally proposed, often sites of 2-3acres which constitute a large proportion of a neighbourhood, undergo too much change too rapidly, the key to this is an understanding ofthe urban grain or site plot coupled with longer term more gradual redevelopment which is less subject to the vagaries of the property market and immediate ‘short term trends’for example it is perfectly normal to find that many of the high rises bult in New York and London in the 60’s are now completely obsolete in terms of their layout and services, another example is the changing demographics of the workplace, more people working from home via internet connections, this has the potential to bring to bear a situation where high rise office developments may become unrentable in 10 years time and thereby become unsustainable in terms of maintenance.

Anyway, what i am basically concern at is the very outdated notion that cities ned to respond to short term development pressures as opposed to longer term strategies.

[This message has been edited by James (edited 11 May 2001).]

James, are you happy with the way the Docklands are developing?, Whatever about Smithfield, I think there is scope to build high quality, high-rise buildings in the docklands. Building heights of 4 and 5 stories along the Liffey are ridiculous, particularly as the river is very wide in this area, the buildings are making no impact. Bland, faceless, featureless, boring rubbish is appearing everywhere in the docks and to this extent the DDDA are making a mess of the area’s redevelopment.

Certainly the opinions of locals are to be respected and taken in to account, but more often than not their actions result in good quality buildings being refused permission for some 4 story red-brick crap.

There is a real danger that the locals around Macken Street may halt or seriously delay the construction of the new bridge, they are grossly exaggerating whatever impact the bridge may have on the area.

Take the SOM scheme that was proposed for Georges Quay, okay the scheme was by no means perfect but given that permission had already been given for the ‘portals of darkness’ which are dreadful, and that the portals were nearly the same height, what the hell was the local thinking behind their campaign against the SOM scheme which to my mind was far superior to the portals?….the outcome of course is that the portals are now under construction and a massive collection of severely out-dated, bland rubbish will be directly facing one most beautiful buildings in the city. Can somebody explain? !

[This message has been edited by Peter FitzPatrick (edited 12 May 2001).]

What type of methods were meant to be used to consult with the public? Was it meant to be the usual public meetings were the council officials etc. sit on a podium and the public face them – sitting in rows of chairs. Or,was it the type of thing like an exhibition with photos, maps etc. pinned to walls and officials floating around telling people whats going to happen?

Or, was it meant to be one of those things were officials, councillors and members of the public sit in groups around tables ‘working things out'(problems) and/or sticking pins and post-it notes and so on, on maps saying what they’d like to see in their areas?

Just wondering because i spent a day of training yesterday with a ‘consensus building facilitator’ i.e. learning how to get interest groups together to ‘work things out’. It was quite interesting and guy who was training us does lots of this work, for a consultancy in Britian (and Italy & the States). He is also writing guidlines on consensus building for the British Dept. of Environment.

Is there much in the way of ‘planning for real’, consensus building, community planning etc. etc. in Ireland???

Re: Docklands – As with Smithfield and practically every other part of Dublin – what is seriously lacking is a centralised masterplan, which should have been prepared by the Local Authority in this case Dublin Corporation.

Without such a masterplan development is commercially – developer led, without consideration as to local conditions and context and the overall general needs of the city.

The preparation of such a masterplan is fairly fundamental in terms of the order of change which everybody agrees is now taking place within the city.

It is the lack of sch a masterplan which leads directly to situations such as that in docklands an Smithfield.

The issue of building height in respect of such developments is only one factor, there are also issues of infrastructure, social cohesion, energy use, crime, demographics and work trends.

It is naive to look ot developers to resolve these issues themselves. Their agenda will always be to achieve the greatest quantum of development irrespective of whether or not it is desirable or appropriate.

This is really the core issue facing the city and which, unless resolved will lead to chaos, overdevelopment, and non sustainability.