Demolition Watch
- This topic has 17 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 24 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
I just love the idea that this is called the ‘demolition watch’ site!!
Do any of you actually know how you would identify whether a building was listed?, whether it’s demolition was permitted or even what to do if the demolition was illegal???.
I don’t mind talking shops but for heavens sakes don’t put on airs!!!
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
Paul
If you are really serious about a worthwhile demolition watch – do as follows:
Buy a copy of the current development plan which gives details of listing.
Ask An Taisce’s Planning Officer (in writing not unsigned e-mail like the plonker complaining about AT’s appeals re: the west side of Smithfield) to forward you monthly a copy of the current register of planning decisions and applications.
Buy a large scale OS sheet to locate addresses for cross referencing to the lists and register.
As a rule of thumb – generally all development be it construction or demolition carried out on weekends after 1pm on saturday or before 8 am and on weekdays after 5.30pm and on bank holidays all day – is illegal development as such works are usually conditioned (except in the case of dangerous buildings works) to take place under thes time criteria.
You should also contact the dangerous buildings inspectors on the emergency phone no given in the telephone book to check whether the works being carried out are permitted or not.
Finally did you find out whether the works carried out are being done so legitimately??
The answer is – no they are not- the developer has permission for demolition but has not yet lodged commencement notices or compliance documentation.
As to my absence from my perch – apologies – I do take the occassional break.
Regards
James (the local / native / objector)
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
PS:
Joining An Taisces Dublin City Association and helping out on the planning register objections and responses is probably the best way to make a contribution to the protection of the built heritage. They are always under-resourced and can do with a hand so any assistance available will be gladly accepted. They will also show you the ropes re: planning legislation, objection and assessment.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
I used the title “demolition watch” as a quick off the cuff thread title, not a suggestion that we start to monitor this stuff actively as Archeire is voluntary with no funding unlike An Taisce. (I’ve seen the size of the monthly register of planning decisions and applications, and do not have the time to duplicate their work.) Archeire is also not a “heritage” site but rather an “architecture” site and I’d hate to see it bogged down in conservation.
I’ll gladly pursue developments and causes that interest me in the extreme but I simply dont have the time to follow up on every demolition I see while wandering around the city. I posted it for your information.
Also As for joining An Taisce, I’m of the opinion that its the plaything of people in big houses and not at all a democratic organisation.
Paul
I thought you were serious about architecture. All that sturm und drang about illegal demolition, checking it out etc. You disappoint me.
For the record there can be no contradiction between conservation and architecture, buildings are buildings – all buildings once they enter the past become historic (everything in Temple Bar is now almost ten years old, office buildings built last year are now out of date.
To understand the impact of built historic architecture on contemporary architecture, have a look at some of Oliver Hill’s built work and compare it with his writings on early Georgian Architecture likewise Corbusiers Vers Une Architecure is based almost entirely on the principles of design established in the setting out of the Acropolis.
Mies Van der Rohe and Corbusier would’nt be too impressed either, they were very much historicists.
As to ‘playthings’ Methinks the Lady doth protest too much!! after all, if you’re not serious about conservation why bother with this web topic and title.
Lastly, as to big houses and grant aid. Dublin City Association is unfunded and operates on a voluntary evening and lunchtime basis only. You might care to explain (to the impecunious, students, housewives, unemployed and others involved), those views directly yourself, so if you would like to make your views known I would be happy to arrange for you to meet with DCA, have a look at the work they do, give your opinion and have it either confirmed or disproved by the people you will meet.
Frankly you comments in that regard are pretty insulting and worse still, ignorant,(not to me – my place is positively monumental) and I’m sorry to see them in print.
On the ‘plaything’ note though – it surely can’t have escaped your attention that those involved actually achieve a great deal in relation to the built and natural environment
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
1) I’m not against conservation per se, its just I have no interest in getting involved in the day to day grind of it as I have no free time as it is, working on average 14hour days.
2) I am well aware that history starts yesterday (excuse the mixed tenses)
Whatever about the grassroots of the Dublin area association, I contend that nationally An Taisce is a disaster.
And as for An Taisce, having sat in on meetings in Tailors Hall, I am surprised that they achieve anything, as the meeting seem to be cyclical and non-productive. Also how does a body with a ruling council of over 50 achieve results? Does the council have a say on anything in which case, it must take forever or does the council merely rubberstamp the chairman’s decision in which case its hardly a democratic organisation.
I also feel quite strongly that An Taisce often supports the unachieveable / the impossible in campaigns in order to appear a gallant loser – the glorious failure. Look how late they highlighted the presbyterian churches at Sandymount and Adelaide Road. Ahh you might say “but we were trying long before you read about it in the media” but thats no use, if you’re going to do something, its best to do it in the public eye for support, otherwise by the time you garner widespread public support outside of the immediate area, its too late. In my view An Taisce is pretty good at being seen to be the party pooper, the organisation saying “dont do that” as opposed to offering solutions. What’s An Taisce’s policy on 20th century architecture?
Also as regards “big houses”, a cursory glance through the chairs and hon. secs of the local associations of An Taisce reveals an awful amount of Blah Hall, and Blahblah House as addresses, not your common or garden terraced house of bungalow you will agree. A pattern also reflected in the addresses of the leading officers of the association.
I think this is also reflected in the types of buildings An Taisce attempts to save – the rural country house, the townhouse and grand commercial / public buildings of a certain era. Did An Taisce issue any statement on Pelican House? Archer’s Garage? the Ritz cinema in Athlone? or does it have a position on Busaras? This is probably reflected by An Taisce’s own figures that “Only 10% of our membership is under 40”. I wonder why? And An Taisce finally having an opinion on a building of the 20th century, shock, horror, do you have this opinion on Cork County Hall because its the tallest building in the state and will get you column inches?
Before you launch an answer with “stop talking about it, join us and change it from within”, I’ve seen enough of the internal workings to know that would be an impossible task. “So stop talking and do something yourself, Paul”, well I think I’m doing as much as I can, expanding Archeire into a site that will attempt to cover as much of the architecture of the country as I can photograph (no motorised transport you see, I might save a few square yards of countryside from being turned into a road yet
) .The country needs a proper architectural heritage organisation that will look at all buildings equally and not have a list of buildings worth hanging on to and concentrate on protecting them instead of jumping on every bandwagon. An Taisce has enough to deal with in the natural environment.
[This message has been edited by Paul Clerkin (edited 02 July 2001).]
Paul
I have to say you are a tolerant soul to take the slagging you got with such grace.
I am a member of An Traiskey myself but being a member of the Knights of Malta might be more relevant in dealing with the redevelopers. An Fashce has found Victorian, coming after Georgian, but has no view on 20th century architecture.
Was just reading your above post………I might be wandering of the point of this topic…….but what happened to the Ritz.
And in response to James’ posts……… I think Paul does enough…….. a website is probably the best way to serve architecture in this day and age………you can’t expect Paul to be running around like a blue arsed fly checking everything……no one person can be ‘Mr Architecture’
RE: James’s 2nd post.
Yes, i think i must be the ‘plonker’ who sent the email (unsigned) about Smithfield!!!!!
There is no need to be insulting really, i thought i had sent a fairly well reasoned letter to you on my thoughts. My name was not important to my arguments/comments. I did not include my name for two reasons 1. One of my relations is in your organisation so, i don’t want to cause them any hassle because of the views of myself, and i don’t want to argue with them. 2. I’m not really in the postion (job) were i want my opinions to be known either way.At least now i know the letter was read, no matter how dismisivly. I also remember that like Paul above, i suggested that your organisation might not seem such a party pooper if it did things like laud builings that it thougth were good e.g. the ‘Green’ Fingal Co.Co. offices in Swords or something anyway, to shed a more positve light on your organisation.
On the whole though, i fully support the aims of An Taisce (as long as it is reasonable in its pursuance of its aims e.g. not objecting to a building solely because it is a floor taller than its older neighbour).
All the best,
DARA ‘the plonker’ H!!
[This message has been edited by DARA H (edited 03 July 2001).]
Interesting although not very knowledgable responses!!
To take a few points:
Firstly AT has a very strong policy on modern Architecture is vehemently opposed to pastiche, has taken very forward positions on the Ritz, Archers, Cork Town Hall, the old Dublin Airport Building by Des Fitzgerald, and a whole host of others. All well reported.
AT fully supports DOCOMOMO on the listing and protection of 20th century Architecture, has gone to considerable effort to add to those lists and is ‘busting a gut’ to have the best recognised and protected.
All of the buildings referred to were the subject of very public support on the part of AT and consumed a huge amount of members personal time and resources (which we were all very glad to provide).
As to the democracy issue: AT is represented on a county and town basis hence the 50 or more council members – to have any other structure would be precisely what Paul accuses us of ‘non-democracy’ oligarchy or whatever you want to call it. Of course this means meetings of council take hours – everything has to be out to the vote, more work for unpaid volunteers.
Frankly the comment about ‘addresses’ is laughable and untrue – it is also potentially libellous so be warned – I don’t particularly mind but some people get very upset about that kind of thing.
In terms of successes and failures, Modern V Georgian it seems to be a bit of a case here of damned if you do damned if you don’t.
What is interesting is to hear so much inaccurate nonsense about Design, Architecture An Taisce and Conservation on a public media – namely the web!!.
If the kind of comments published on this public website were made in the pages of the Irish Times a plethora of libel actions would follow: As I said I don’t care much for that type of thing but I do find it sad that bright people with an obvious interest in architecure cannot get to grips with factual information and persist in the type of disinformation which is so prevalent (and I believe damaging to) this web site.
The ‘I’ve no time to do anything’ argument is fine but – how much time do you all spend on the web in this type of onanistic nonsense. Personally, I tend to work 14 to 16 hours a day often 7 days a week, I represent AT on usually about two to three Oral Hearings per year (no fees)advise on matters relating to architecture and planning (no fee) probably for as much as twenty workig days per year -each of those days not working costs me about £300.00 in business that I hav’nt done. I’m no exception in doing this, in fact I would be one of the less ‘commited’ members.
If you don’t want to do anything or can’t find the time to do so – fair enough – BUT don’t slag off those who do.
As to my original comment re: the name of thtis website – it is all vey much a par of a greater concern which I have regarding this media – the potential that it has to educate, form communities, generate positive proactive action not just in respect of architecture but Social Scienc, Arts medicine etc as opposed to the reality – Mindless, ignorant, prejudiced and not very informative CHATTER!!. It seems such a shame.
Regards
James
Contact John O’Sullivan – Planning Officer by phone at AT and he will give you the general policy and approach.
In general and in brief however, – policy is to seek the protection of the built heritage of ALL buildings of Architectural, Artistic, Historical or typological merit, to oppose the destruction of such building stock, to discourage the use of pastiche in favour of modern idioms of architecure.
In relation to the protection of 20th century Architecture An Taisce is particularly concerned at the failure of local Authorities (despite regular requests) to adequately pursue the listing and protection of such architecture on a generic level.
The issues highlighted today in relation to Cork City Hall pretty well synopsise An Taisce’s position in relation to the protection of the (too) few 20th century buildings which are already protected structures.
An Taisce’s position in this regard is fairly straightforward and in fact is exactly the same as in relation to Georgian, or Victorian era Architecture.
With regard to new build work AT rigorously opposes historical pastiche(as you would note from the planning files of Dublin Corporation for example) and strongly recommends the use of high quality contemporary architecture on new build projects.
An Taisce does not set down standards of design for modern architecture however it does seek that such architecture should fully comply with current planning and development plan standards.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 03 July 2001).]
[This message has been edited by James (edited 03 July 2001).]
Mr James. I think you really need to hop off your high horse. This website may not aspire to your high intellectual ideals, but it has done more to encourage interest in architecture and conservation than An Taisce ever has. Unfortunately for you, everybody here doesn’t have a degree in architecture and isn’t a member of a right-on lobby group. But surely bringing architecture to a wider audience is worthwhile in itself. Look at the amount of comments written here and ask yourself whether any forum has ever generated as much public interest in these matters.
As a side point, a massive thank you to An Taisce for inflicting the dreadful Tara/Marckiviecz Street white triangle towers on us. That was a master stroke. You got rid of what would have been the finest tall buildings ever to grace the capital, and replaced it with yet more of your favourite pastiche. Funny the way An Taisce never stand up and admit how wrong they got it there.A list of protected structures (Dublin city) is viewable at:
http://www.dublincorp.ie/services/devplan/conserbld.pdfI don’t know how well maintained the document is but it appears to be up to date (for now).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
