A city constrained by a Frank McDonald credo would be ‘dismal and prissy’ –

@lexington wrote:

I would only ask that when people do choose to voice [an opinion] that they do so in a sense that does not ill-portray their character.

You did your fair share of this when you first joined the forum.

@Devin wrote:

You did your fair share of this when you first joined the forum.

@lexington wrote:

….maturity dictates one can see past these things…

…of course for some people it still poses a problem! :rolleyes:

To reply Devin, as I’ve said before, this forum is about debate and learning…you learn a lot and you change with it as you do. I’ve never shyed away from someone else’s perspective, but I’ve learned to not be so hardlined about my own when addressing others and in reading what others have had to say, it teaches you something about how attitudes are more favourably portrayed. Your track record isn’t unbleamished either, only just recently, I think DUCK would agree given your response to his query about 1 off housing. How can you expect persons to more clearly understand your positions when you distance yourself with comments such as that? What I would rather is that instead of to-ing and fro-ing is that you consider republicofcork‘s points made earlier in this thread and then consider them with respect to the points I made in response and then offer your own deliberation – again noting the issues raised by both sides – that would be far more interesting that cheap-whipping and would do the debate, the thread and your position a great deal of service…so without the need to quip back, please, engage in the discussion – share your perspective on the issues under discussion…otherwise there was little point in offering any comments on this thread in the first place. I’m much more interested to hear what you have to say in active debate.

@Devin wrote:

&#8230]

@lexington wrote:

How is that the last straw? The fact is, at the time of the proposal, the car-park is in existence and under the management of Cork City Council. Timeframe for site development, subject to planning, is at the discretion of the property owner. Furthermore, please address the context of the overall quayside development plan and what would you alternatively propose? Comments regarding its standing nature is like commenting on a proposal half-way through construction without consideration for the empirical agenda. How would a lower rise building affect the visual depth of the quayside? Do you not concede that it would look woefully more disproportionate? How would such structures address the North Wall of the Opera House? Surely the prominency of the ugly facade would continue to dominate?

And the number of words was appropriate to the lengthy post first initiated and with respect to the comments I sought to make. The points made by republicofcork are valid opinion but factually flawed as well. As for prolonging the debate – the very fact you disagree with me means it still remains. The explanation of ‘opinion being invalid’ was contradictory – were it so, your opinion would be invalid equally.

:rolleyes:

Well that was my reply, but frankly some people are so fixed they’ll never be able to see another side…time to move on…

…and Devin I could argue with you all day, but I doubt it would result in any mutual benefit. We’ll agree to disagree on this one.

@anto wrote:

What’s your opinion on the Cobh Cathedral thread Lex? You usually have an opinion on all things Cork 🙂

Any of the rest of you Cork dudes have an opinion. What’s the opinion on the streets down there?

Personally I think it would be terrible if this National Treasure was damaged.

Well like I said at the start of the thread – I can’t understand the logic behind tampering with something that is not only beautiful as it is, but holds such important historic value for the sake of something rather inessential. See -> https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=41225&postcount=6

@lexington wrote:

…of course for some people it still poses a problem! :rolleyes:

Indiscriminate cheerleading will always be a problem.

@lexington wrote:

…To reply Devin, as I’ve said before, this forum is about debate and learning…

Learning to be concise would be a start, like architecture debate is about quality and not quantity] you learn a lot and you change with it as you do. I’ve never shyed away from someone else’s perspective, but I’ve learned to not be so hardlined about my own when addressing others and in reading what others have had to say, it teaches you something about how attitudes are more favourably portrayed. Your track record isn’t unbleamished either, only just recently – again noting the issues raised by both sides – that would be far more interesting that cheap-whipping and would do the debate, [/QUOTE]

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2134&page=37

Would you please at least leave your posts intact as opposed to editing them 5 months later.

@Thomond Park wrote:

A good observation but analysing the style of langauge below it is not hard to see why.

Indiscriminate cheerleading will always be a problem.

Learning to be concise would be a start, like architecture debate is about quality and not quantity]https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2134&page=37[/url]

Would you please at least leave your posts intact as opposed to editing them 5 months later.

Thomond Park,

rather than adequately respond to the topics at heart, as you said was your original intention, I see you have taken the route which allows you get a nice dig in at myself – I’m sure you’ve been itching for an excuse to do so. I’m still trying to figure you out sir, as you vary wildly from making some excellent and well-received contributions – even with respect to Cork issues and with which I very genuinely endorse, like that of the Pedestrian Bridges of Cork thread…

@lexington wrote:

This thread is based on an idea put forward by Thomond Park – and I think it’s a great one. It would be nice hear to discuss the many pedestrian bridges that traverse the Lee as well as others, such as the so-called ‘Pink Link’ bridge which crossed the N8 near Glanmire – all our worthy of a mention.

Most notably, bridges such as the wonderful Daly’s “Shakey” Bridge and Mardyke Pedestrian Bridge spring to mind – but their are many more from which to discuss. I’ll have some images up soon – but all contributions are greatfully received.

…to snide comments such as the guff in the press thread:

@Thomond Park wrote:

Bollox I asked to see a copy of this more than 12 hours ago,

I’ve seen a million commercially generated images and all I’m asking for is one scanned image and this proves impossible.

If I was landlord I’d set a deadline before closing a certain free space.

or

@Thomond Park wrote:

But the lesson has got to be learned about abusing groups of people, some of the discussion in relation to old age pensions and childrens allowance being removed demeans everyone.

Your critiques of me (whether direct or indirect) and the Cork threads are interestingly contradicted by such posts you have made on Boards.ie – like below:

@Thomond Pk wrote:

The look at the state of Cork thread like, is one of the greatest acheivments in on-line discussion in the history of Irish web discussion, I know because I made significant contributions to a rival thread that now sits at 171,000 views.

The look at the state of Cork like thread was an amazing mish-mash of discussion with everything from conservation, development, architecture, street layout, traffic, airports discussed. Where it fell down was that certain contributors were a little eager to see projects gain planning consent quickly and without comment from third parties, some individuals although not many went a little far in their criticism of particular groups and even individuals. I am proud to say that I amongst others challenged these individuals and had remarks withdrawn voluntarily or simply agreed to disagree. The only annoying part about it is that the thread would take about five hours to read and that the v-bulletin software doesn’t lead to specific pages in the search function.

Even from the private messages you have sent me in the past – your position seems conflicting at times.

In trying to understand your bitterness, I have assessed a number of considerations which may justify your position – some sensical, others seem a little far fetched. Since your apparent ‘turn’ on me and the Cork threads (well at least the 2 that concern development) – I have been monitoring your input and comments, on so many occassions with which I could have easily picked you up on – like the comments quoted above, I have not ~ and most certainly, this is not the thread to do so.

You have singled out particular comments made by me (without consideration for the larger context in which they were posted) and failed to identify the tones of other comments made in response to my input – which to say the least, were not exactly unbiased or positive in tone. However, that is another issue on which I tried to leave it not confrontational (I refer to my last comments in my last reply to Devin). I would like to think I can amend some of the comments I may have made which he found offensive, and likewise.

Thomond Park – you seem to have either spent a lot of time researching comments I’ve made by either trawling through a thread you yourself commented takes forever to do so – either that, or I conclude that you’ve harboured it for the right opportunity. With reference to that particular post you highlight, that concerned a comment I made stating a quite genuine question whether or not people in anti-highrise communities would object to a church of equal or greater height (as a comparitive to other building heights) were it proposed. I did, at the time of those inaccurate articles (articles since proven inaccurate and false) alter that post until such a time that I could review the comments apparently made on the subject thread and so that I could investigate the claims – I did write a rebuttal and proof of the inaccuracy of the article claims – which took even defensive responses such as those made by Diaspora and quotes not even on this site at all and twisted them to attack the site (as a whole). For the comment you highlight, I did take full responsibility – but at any stage, it was never meant as a dig to the group, it was a genuine query (take that as you will). I believe a great deal of the rebuttal I posted was in the end adopted by Paul Clerkin and posted here -> https://archiseek.com/cork.html as part of his defensive of the site. And quite rightly. If this is the issue with which you have a problem – I’d be curious to know.

Furthermore, Thomond Park – in my capacity, I have tried to expand my contributions beyond development threads. Development is my area of understanding – but this site is very much a learning tool and I am greatful for what I have learned since my participation, I have tried to translate that learning more and more into a number of articles I have written for publications beyond this website. Furthermore, I have toned down my own hardline stance (which was partially initial ignorance to be blunt) and generally resort to making news posts rather than comments – you yourself have commented on the fact that such comments do not appear so much on threads like the Cork threads:

@Thomond Park wrote:

…some of the discussion in relation to old age pensions and childrens allowance being removed demeans everyone. It has stopped over recent months and the timing of the article surprised me…….

Furthermore, I have tried to push more architectural awareness into the development threads –

some recent examples
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=43610&postcount=1133
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=43223&postcount=1084
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=43515&postcount=1122

although I do recognise they predominantly centre on development (which was represented by Paul Clerkin‘s recent name change of the latest thread). For my own part, I try generally in other threads I contribute to keep it more focused in line with architectural issues – but my discipline is not rooted in pure architecture and I comment generally on my area of understanding which is beyond this. That said, my interest in architecture is an increasingly developing one – and the reason I became interested and by extension involved in these forums was based on my interest of the subject. I’m still learning and have much further to go, I know that, whether concerning the content of my posts, the way in which I post them or my insight into various topics architectural or so related.

Rather than continue on pointing fingers and backlashing – I don’t wish to protract this discussion on this thread any further. You have made your points, I have responded – if you do have issues with me and you feel the need to air them – by all means contact me whether through PM or e-mail. You can let it rip there and I will listen. I don’t understand why you would dilute your good input with the need to dig me or my opinions in a non-constructive manner – you critique my comments on a topic and yet don’t add any yourself to the topic matter, why is that? Are you above it? Curious. You can be such a great contributor let down by a very strange sense of petty behaviour – I’m no dear myself, especially on first beginning to partake in Archiseek.com – but I am aware and trying to improve. I do not initiate specific targetting of users on these forums (if you wish to point out my early issues with An Taisce – may I point out that on agreement with you (I believe) I do not make damaging references to the organisation anymore]https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=15190&postcount=1[/url]

Sincerely, and quite genuinely,

Lex

@Devin wrote:

…..Going off track.

Post 34 by republicofcork is one of the best contributions ever on Cork on the site. You can’t keep calling black white. As republicofcork carefully explained, why No. 21 Lavitt’s Quay is wrong is not a matter of opinion. Writing a 4,000 word reply does not validate your reply. You are prolonging a debate when there is none.

Defending No. 21 Lavitt’s Quay on the basis that it hides a multi-storey carpark is the last straw. Stockholm is demolishing its multi-storey carparks. The cark park is irrelevant – it could be gone in 5 or 10 years. Even if it weren’t, it has no relevance to the ridiculous inapprpriateness of the below building.

Shield your eyes, people

I have to say, I can’t see how anyone could defend this. I was in Cork last week and saw it in the flesh. I took the time to read the above (lengthy!) posts but they don’t tally with what I saw. It would be foolish to think that the architects made a considered and informed decision to adhere to existing conditions and hierarchy. This is pure ‘get ’em in ‘ developer driven crap. The curved facade is not a thought-out attempt to give emphasis to the the laneway. It comes from the ‘lets throw a curve on the corner, what?’ school of design. The economic argument always makes me laugh (especially re: liffey valley), often you hear it on the radio when people that raise legitimate questions about a proposal are tarred as ‘anti-development’. A proposed project may provide a load of construction and post-construction jobs, it may provide much needed facilities and it may also be supported by 80% of the local population but if it means catastrophically destroying the very fabric of a city, town or village then sometimes, all of the above shouldn’t be enough to get it built (extreme example, I know).

O’Callaghan Properties are there to make money, their architects will give them what they wan’t. Maybe planning authorities should employ people with both planning and architectural expertise during the planning process, I would like to see the architects try to justify No. 21 Lavitt’s Quay at a pre-planning meeting to not just planners, but also other architects!

the url for his latest book is

http://chaosatthecrossroads.com

The Clarion Quay award got a piece on Six One on Mon. Good on all involved.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0326/6news_av.html?2232466,null,230

That thread surprised me as there is an astroturf pitch on nearby Sherrif Street which would be the envy of most suburban children as a hangout.