Re: Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!
There’s nothing wrong with the guidelines.
The guidelines in the ACA strike a careful balance between the protection of architectural heritage and the legitimate concerns to create good contemporary architecture. In the context of urban development and the protection of architectural heritage, the ACA is capable of being quite a good tool.
Like any tool, however, you need to put it in the hands of someone who at least knows which is the sharp end.
Certainly when you’re dealing with something as complex and layered as Thomas Street. It’s one thing to implement an ACA for somewhere like Dartmouth Square where all the houses are exactly same and the only thing yo have worry about is someone going off reservation with their paint colour choice. The layers of heritage behind every façade on a street like Thomas Street demand a carefully crafted approach to each redevelopment proposal . . . . as outlined in the bloody ACA. This is just a classic case of RTFM; read the f*-king manual.
How demoralizing must it be for the case officer to have her carefully detailed and well argued report set aside by one of those lets-get-the-city-moving-again-stuffed-suit-types that always seem to inhabit the loftiest pay grades in local authority land.
Like you, I’m jaded by this kind of bullshit, but I can’t let this stand. There must be an Ombudsman, or somebody, that these people are ultimately accountable to.