Reply To: Senator McSharry – defender of democratic purity

Originally posted by alan d
Diaspora, my old friend. It’s you who is missing the point.

don’t mind Diaspora, he wrote that when he was pissed last night (i know cos i was talking to him earlier)

The heritage perspective is being articulated, without regard to all the physical and tangible considerations that have to be considered. An Taisce, if they are going to be taken seriously by people like me have to know this and not bury their head in the sand

At present, within the existing indigenous housing that makes up the historic footprint. it is possible to make your breakfast, turn on the light switch and stoke the fire without leaving your bed, so small are the houses.

People need to have their bins emptied and have central heating and a place to park their car. Service vehicles, fire engines, ambulances, electricity providers who need 24 hour access need to be accomodated. They need sunlight and air.

The developer needs to make money, unless An taisce can underwrite the work or public funds can be provided………. other wise they won’t do it and why should they?

Seriously though, I don’t think it is fair of you to paint anybody who would like to see that building retained as unrealistic or daft.

France and Britain are full of beautiful historic towns and villages who manage to keep AND use their historic buildings, and get on with modern life with no particular problems.

In my area (dublin city), the planning authority has just produced a study – http://www.dublincity.ie/services/building.htm – on this very subject; Comparing reuse of older buildings with their demolition and new build in environmental, economic and cultural terms. In many of the case studies taken, the report finds in favour of reuse & rehabilitation.