Any new streets?

There was Balgaddy A by Howley Harrington Architects. I tried to get some images of it, but as this partnership has ended it is hard to find details of their older work. I will have a better look later and try to find something though.

Didn’t HH produce a book on good housing practice/principles based partly on their work at Balgaddy? Might have some images. There was certainly one image from it – a drawing, though, not a photo – in the Irish Times around the time they published it.

Some developments since 1999 (date of Residential Density Guidelines) have claimed that their designs are a return to traditional urban forms, in the manner of the New Urbanists (ugh). One example I know of is Applewood Village near Swords, in which it was claimed in the agent’s brochure that the ‘village centre’ was modelled on a Spanish hilltop town. But I’m sure you don’t need to be told that there can be something of a gaping chasm between an agent’s guff and the truth.

Aside from these NU-inspired developments, which really aren’t what you’re asking about, I can think of none off the top of my head. A real shame, as I’m a great believer in good streets as the key element of any successful urban area.

And FTR, I don’t think that a linear strip of land framed by apartment buildings qualifies as a street- see, say, the new proposal for Sandyford recently submitted to DLRCoCo for an example of this. Boulevard my backside. A street is more than just a bit of flat ground that’s longer than it is wide… (As an aside, Georges Perec in ‘Species of Spaces’ writes well on streets- well worth checking out, as is the rest of that book for anyone interested in ‘space’ of the non-astronaut variety.)

Why the “ugh” when mentioning with New Urbanism? The residential options in Ireland seem to be once-off rural houses, expansive suburban housing estates, relatively poorly constructed infill apartment blocks or office-park style suburban apartment complexes. In my opinion, much of the IFSC for example would be a far more interesting place if some effort at creating an urban space had been attempted. I would say the same about most of the 80K or so new residential units being built around the country every year,

In answer to the original question, I doubt there is more than one or two examples of new urban streetscape development in Ireland in the last 50 or even 100 years. Besides infill or replacement, all new development has been once-off, suburban or business/industrial parks with one or two modernist attempts – Ballymun or Shannon town. All other urban or even village streetscapes seem to date from around 75 years ago or more.

This has been one of the greatest failures of planning in Ireland over the past ten years: the lack of logical extensions to existing village/town/city cores. Frank sums up the ‘insulating’ phenomenon of suburbia very well – particularly relevant to large villages and towns.

One type of situation you often see is the ending of the traditional Main Street or other major street, and it turning back into the main road again – a typical occurrence of course, only now this external road is gradually getting built up again, not with typical one-off ribbon development, but with housing estates, small-scale apartment developments, a petrol station, an isolated Spar with a couple of res units overhead etc etc. So instead of the main street being logically extended and then stopped, it is left stunted as is, resulting in an almost semi-industrial entrance to these places: the busy major road flanked by incoherent (rubbish) development, with new footpaths too hostile to encourage use, not a cycle lane to be seen, disparate retail units, and often acres of flat ‘prairie’ space behind railings flanking the road that buffers new housing estates from the passing traffic.

Of course it’s not easy to plan new streets, but pretty much no attempt has been made at doing it by any local authority, even in conjunction with major private development schemes. An opportunity was lost in this respect in the 1970s and 1980s, where in nearly every town in Ireland a 20-30 unit shopping centre and surface car park was built to the rear of traditional terraced streets on wasteland, on former industrial lands, on commandeered Georgian back gardens etc.

Surely there must be one example of a recently planned street somewhere on the island?!

As far as I can remember Dingle has a nice residential terrace extending its main street, maybe someone will correct me on this.

It’s probably not quite what you are looking for but the O’Mahony Pike development at Mount St Anne’s in Milltown has a number of internal streets.

One in particular (Leading from Milltown Road to the LUAS line) is not bad – 4/5 storey apartments on one side with 2/3 storey houses on the other, and small side streets running off.

The side streets themselves are quite good and there is a coherent feel to the place.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Surely there must be one example of a recently planned street somewhere on the island?!

Tram Street, running between Church Street and Smithfield, is a new street. (Though probably not what you had in mind).

Cruises Street in Limerick – about 10/15 years old now?

I never liked it – but at the time I suppose the city council was grateful for any development.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Is Mount St Annes a gated development?

I guess if a new street is added in the style of the rest of the town it might go unnoticed. Maybe DIngle is like this?

Do streets need to be planned? Surely the old streets in Irish towns were the result of organic development rather than centralised guidelines?

Mount St Annes is not a gated development. The estate is privately maintained with very extensive central parkland containing several mature trees – worth a visit .

@publicrealm wrote:

Mount St Annes is not a gated development. The estate is privately maintained with very extensive central parkland containing several mature trees – worth a visit .

It is gated where it matters : access to the luas line is for residents only . the rest of milltown has to walk around .

@a boyle wrote:

It is gated where it matters : access to the luas line is for residents only . the rest of milltown has to walk around .

It is true that while the public can enter the privately owned and maintained estate and gardens they cannot use the privately installed gate, from the back of the development, to the LUAS line.

This is perfectly reasonable in my view.

If you care to measure the distance to the Milltown Station from the entrance to Mount St Anne’s you will find that the public route (by the public footpath) is shorter than going via the private grounds of Mount St Annes (although this fact is not particularly relevant).

Theres going to be a new road built along the northern edge of the Eglington Street developement in Cork to the best of my Knowledge.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Surely there must be one example of a recently planned street somewhere on the island?!

Curved Street in Temple Bar. Barely qualifies, I suppose, but it hasn’t been mentioned yet.

jimg-
The ‘ugh’ for New Urbanism was because the movement really bothers me. New Urbanists see themselves as nothing less than the saviours of American community and society, when in truth all they really do is design prelapsarian suburbs replete with white picket fences and gingerbread bargeboards. Most of their rhetoric is nonsensical if you scratch the surface. One area in which they’ve had a positive effect is zoning ordinances, which in the US were almost entirely car-based, but their social aspirations aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. In short, New Urbanism isn’t the answer to our problems, and its growing influence in planning/urban design circles (John Prescott is a fan, for example) is cause for concern because the more rational voices on the margins of US suburban-alternative planning, not to mention the other voices this side of the pond, get drowned out by the seductive rhetoric.
I have a 4,000 word essay saved somewhere if you want to know more.

publicrealm-
Which route on public roads is the one to which you refer? Last year I worked on an appeal to ABP against a scheme in your vicinity (not the one recently in the courts over the access issue). The application used access to Luas through MSA as grounds for seeking higher density, whereas permission hadn’t even been sought from the management company, never mind given. They got a grant which ABP overturned.:)
In our appeal, we stated that it was something like 17 minutes walk on public roads to the Luas from the site in question, unlike the 10 minutes if MSA were to be used (so the density was too high according to the 1999 RDGs). I got the info from my client, who claimed to have timed it. Was she lying to me?

PS I once got moved along in Mount St Anne’s for playing frisbee, and I was with a resident. Maybe not gated, but a long way from being public.

@ctesiphon wrote:

publicrealm-
Which route on public roads is the one to which you refer? Last year I worked on an appeal to ABP against a scheme in your vicinity (not the one recently in the courts over the access issue). The application used access to Luas through MSA as grounds for seeking higher density, whereas permission hadn’t even been sought from the management company, never mind given. They got a grant which ABP overturned.:)
In our appeal, we stated that it was something like 17 minutes walk on public roads to the Luas from the site in question, unlike the 10 minutes if MSA were to be used (so the density was too high according to the 1999 RDGs). I got the info from my client, who claimed to have timed it. Was she lying to me?

PS I once got moved along in Mount St Anne’s for playing frisbee, and I was with a resident. Maybe not gated, but a long way from being public.

The public route to the LUAS (from the entrance to MSA) is along the Milltown Road (footpath), under the 9 arch bridge and right up the hill to the Milltown stop. Intuitively you would think it longer than the more ‘direct’ route through MSA but in fact it is shorter (I think by the order of about 100m – I cannot remember the exact detail – it was measured as pert of the case against the Board’s decision to make the MSA residents fund a public park and access to the LUAS). The reason for this is that the access gate within MSA provides a very indirect route – instead of a straight line it involves two long sides of a triangle. Anyway this is not the issue in the MSA Court case – the land is privately owned and simply cannot be appropriated for the public in the way attempted by the Board

Incidentally the Board folded their case on Wednesday – agreed to drop the two conditions and pay all the costs of the residents of MSA (will certainly be in the 100’s of thousands. How’s that for value for the public – the Board knew what it was doing was illegal and went all the way to the wire! Sure it only taxpayer’s money).
.
You are correct about it not being a public place. However generally there is no problem for strollers or people using the parkland to sun themselves, etc. Playing of sport is discouraged – otherwise the parkland would likely become a football/scateboard fixture) although being moved on for frisbee playing is a bit extreme.

I know that people instinctively feel that this is somehow wrong – but if you want a public park then it should be funded by the public – not by the annual management levy of the owners who own it and maintain it. And – if your frisbee/skateboard injures someone – who is liable for the cost of compensation?

Frank, sorry for the delay in finding this. I knew I had seen it somewhere, but couldn’t remember where.

http://www.riai.ie/gallery.html?type=regional&year=2004&item=1

I also found this whilst looking at the RIAI web-page and thought I might post it, despite being a little bit off the subject

http://www.riai.ie/gallery.html?type=regional&year=2006&item=13

New Urbanists see themselves as nothing less than the saviours of American community and society, when in truth all they really do is design prelapsarian suburbs replete with white picket fences and gingerbread bargeboards.

Bear in mind that I have no background in architecture or planning – nor have I any real understanding of New Urbanism besides what I’ve picked up in the popular media. But I’ve noticed that even in those sources, it is considered “naff” or unfashionable. However I’ve struggled to discover why this is the case.

When the the social and environmental failures of the other forms of 20th century development patterns are so obvious and easy to enumerate, I find it hard to understand why new urbanism is so despised and yet none of the criticisms I’ve read of it list its failings in terms of economics, sociology or the environment. It seems that it’s objectionable on some sort of intellectual level or that it’s considered completely naive. Also I’m wondering whether the fact that the likes of Prince Charles are fans would automatically make people hostile. And admittedly, the unbearable tweeness of Poundbury (which I presume is considered New Urbanist?) is offensive. But if it (Poundbury) was built in Holland, say, and featured a more modern style of buildings and with a less “repressed middle English” social approach, I could easily imagine it being held up as a model.

As for it being prelapsarian, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with recognising the revolutionary affect of the motor car on development patterns since Henry started churning them out about 100 years ago. For example, there would be little or no once-offs in Ireland without the explosion in car ownership. Even the less dispersed patterns – suburban housing estates with the odd shopping centre – largely depend on car ownership to function. Even if it’s considered sentimental or falsely nostalgic, there is a basic appeal for me in a planning ideology which demotes the car and promotes being able to go about your daily business by walking or cycling.

Still like I said, I haven’t read anything on the movement outside of the sunday supplements and the like so I would be interested in reading your essay or if you had any pointers to analysis/criticism of New Urbanism. Ok, this is completely off topic, but it strikes me that (extreme) modernism in architecture and Marxism in politics are similar in the way that despite the fact that their basic premises have been discredited and that nearly all implementations of them have been almost unmitigated failures, they are still viewed as being more intellectually “pure” than their rivals and still consume far more academic effort.

@publicrealm wrote:

it was measured as pert of the case against the Board’s decision to make the MSA residents fund a public park and access to the LUAS

To my mind there was never an issue of the residents funding the public park, but I’m open to correction on this, the “park” which is a green space which already exists was to be taken in charge by the local authority. A condition of planning that people be allowed walk through an estate that has been taken in charge to use public transport is not unreasonable, I submit. In fact it might well have been residents benefit to allow the estate be taken in charge – the management charges there are huge and I know one person who had to sell because she could no longer afford them. I have been around Mount St Annes on a number of occasions and had no idea how to get to the Luas any other way (last time I was in the area there the alternative route you mentioned was not signposted, I’d be interested to know if it is now) so I ended up walking to Ranelagh and getting the bus. V frustrating.

@phil wrote:

http://www.riai.ie/gallery.html?type=regional&year=2004&item=1

I also found this whilst looking at the RIAI web-page and thought I might post it, despite being a little bit off the subject

http://www.riai.ie/gallery.html?type=regional&year=2006&item=13

Sorry for going off topic here but can I ask why there is blue and red used on certain walls in developments such as the first URL posted above. I have noticed an increasing trend of this and think it looks a little Lego like. Is it purely a “feature” thing in terms of making a colour statement or is there cost and other considerations such as materials involved. By the way I really like the second example you posted phil.

Thanks for that, publicrealm. I’ll check it out when I’m next in the neighbourhood.

Wasn’t the outcome of the courtcase something along the lines of the new residents of the adjoining development being given swipe cards to use the gate? Maybe I’m getting mixed up. Fully agreed, though, about the mistake of ABP in challenging this one- can’t do their public profile much good, which is hardly what they need right now.

The other debate probably doesn’t belong in this thread, but in essence I don’t necessarily think it’s ‘instinctively wrong’- I respect a right to private open space. But I do think that many Councils around the country – city and county – are in dereliction of their duties re public open space generally. A talk for another day.

Re insurance- I’m a simple man (sorry- a simple 60 year old alcoholic woman). I believe that if my frisbee takes out someone’s eye or my skateboard cracks a shinbone, then it’s (usually) my responsibility but hardly ever the responsibility of the landowner/lord. And if I fall off my skateboard, then there’s no debate at all in my mind (unless street surfaces were appaling). I have a rehearsed rant on Ireland’s increasingly litigious culture, but it puts me in a bad mood and I don’t want to spoil such a nice day.

EDIT: jimg- your post arrived while I was writing. Haven’t time to respond now, just in case you thought I was ignoring it. I’ll try later.

@jdivision wrote:

To my mind there was never an issue of the residents funding the public park, but I’m open to correction on this, the “park” which is a green space which already exists was to be taken in charge by the local authority. A condition of planning that people be allowed walk through an estate that has been taken in charge to use public transport is not unreasonable, I submit. .

The gate is at the end of the spine road which leads in from the Milltown Road – just about as far as possible from the LUAS station! It really is a longer bloody route.

There was never any proposal to take any of the estate in charge – on the contrary it was explicutly stated that it would not be taken in charge. To add insult the Board actually required the Management company to maintain the ‘Public Park’ at its own expense (including installation of benches and lighting) and for the hours of public parks generally, “in perpetuity”.

The residents raised absolutely no issue about the creation of a publically funded park – I’m sure many would welcome it as a relief from their Management Company charges – but the council ruled this out.

@jdivision wrote:

Sorry for going off topic here but can I ask why there is blue and red used on certain walls in developments such as the first URL posted above. I have noticed an increasing trend of this and think it looks a little Lego like. Is it purely a “feature” thing in terms of making a colour statement or is there cost and other considerations such as materials involved. By the way I really like the second example you posted phil.

I think it is because developments that are built by county councils often seem to have more architectural freedom due to the fact that they don’t have to take the market into account as much.

@publicrealm wrote:

There was never any proposal to take any of the estate in charge – on the contrary it was explicutly stated that it would not be taken in charge. To add insult the Board actually required the Management company to maintain the ‘Public Park’ at its own expense (including installation of benches and lighting) and for the hours of public parks generally, “in perpetuity”.

The residents raised absolutely no issue about the creation of a publically funded park – I’m sure many would welcome it as a relief from their Management Company charges – but the council ruled this out.

I stand corrected. 😮 I had done some research on this previously and from memory there had been a proposal for it to be taken in charge and turned into a park. Must have been wrong. The residents were completely right to act that way so. I’d go so far as to say that ABP had some cheek

QUOTE=ctesiphon]

Wasn’t the outcome of the courtcase something along the lines of the new residents of the adjoining development being given swipe cards to use the gate? Maybe I’m getting mixed up. Fully agreed, though, about the mistake of ABP in challenging this one- can’t do their public profile much good, which is hardly what they need right now.

The adjoining residents will be allowed to use the parkland and access the LUAS – this was always offered by the current residents (provided the maintenance costs are shared pro-rata) and there is no reasonable planning argument against such an arrangement (certainly not a winnable argument in my view).

. I have a rehearsed rant on Ireland’s increasingly litigious culture, but it puts me in a bad mood and I don’t want to spoil such a nice day.

I know, I know – the residents were probably not so concerned by 60 year old married (you are married?)alcoholic women frisbee players such as yourself (any photographs?;) ). To be honest they probably had more middle class concerns about Anto and his mates with their beer cans and the fear that Anto might claim that the seating/lighting/maintenance of same/whatever (erected on Anto’s behalf by the middle class residents, by dictat of the Commissariat/Board) caused him to slip on a pool of Jacinta’s vomit causing emotional suffering and irreparable damage to his ability to work. An open and shut case m’lud – disadvantaged youth v middle class bastards in (gated) community. Must be worth a mill?

.[/QUOTE]

I am enjoying reading other peoples posts on this thread. Very interesting issues being raised in that case Publicrealm.

Jimg, here is an article from Harvard Design Magazine that I think sums up the ‘academic’ issues with New Urbanism: http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/1harvey.html

I also think it brings together some of the issues being discussed on this thread nicely.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Desirable developments achieve higher market values, so rich people tend to live there. This is just a validation of the success of New Urbanist districts.

It could also be argued that such development raises the bar as savvy developers acheive higher prices the volume builders imitate and this continues to filter down until those on the housing list will not accept lower standards. I find the entire social exclusivity argument tedious as the market regulates itself and clientist politicians do the business for those who lack the resources to do it independently.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

5. That it ‘privileges spatial forms over social processes’
I have no idea what this means! Anyone?

I think it is basically pointing out how New Urbanism offers the image of a ‘traditional community’, without any of its reality.

Maybe it’s possible to have a town with no urban area at all, just a collection of housing estates, retail and office parks and industrial estates. Does this exist already in Ireland?

You’ve just described Shannon. I think they are trying to change it at the moment by building a “town centre” but that’s what was there the last time I visited the place,

@jimg wrote:

You’ve just described Shannon. I think they are trying to change it at the moment by building a “town centre” but that’s what was there the last time I visited the place,

I don’t know much about Shannon apar t from it being what it’s described above. The new SC is trying to change it but it seems to me it’s still shite… as it’s just replacing the mall. the Lidl store is still beside it, it’s bloody awful… I just hate the stupid idea of calling strategic malls town centres. it wrecks my head. like Liffy vally and Tallaght and the new Shannon town centre, they all consists of malls and retails sprawling ware houses.

A town centre should have a number of streets with a square with mixed developments that a town centre should have like residental,retail, commericial, industrial, recreational etc…

Wasn’t shannon a planned town to have at least 30,000 in it’s height. but it’s only around 11,000. The new shannon road is fantastic and has made the gateway into the town much more attractive.

Bedford row between Henry street is currently being revamped and changed into a new pedstrian street. Dunno about this being relevant to the thread, but there were plans for another new street near by. it’s on the Limerick thread a few pages back. Again don’t know the ins and outs of this since the new propasals for Arthurs quay has sparked interest.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Maybe it’s possible to have a town with no urban area at all, just a collection of housing estates, retail and office parks and industrial estates. Does this exist already in Ireland?

could this describe tallaght also??
(although i’ve heard there is a lot of development in and around ‘the square’)
sprawling estates with no main street or real centre (excluding a shopping mall)

these type of communities exist everywhere here outside the cities
suburban hell in my opinion, where car is king

@paul h wrote:

could this describe tallaght also??
(although i’ve heard there is a lot of development in and around ‘the square’)
sprawling estates with no main street or real centre (excluding a shopping mall)

these type of communities exist everywhere here outside the cities
suburban hell in my opinion, where car is king

This is true of the early development of Tallaght but the local planners are making reasonable efforts to redress the matter.

The latest is the Tallaght Town Centre Masterplan which is at public consultation stage – may be adopted as soon as late August 2006. It’s not a bad effort although a little lacking in imagination. You can view a copy at http://www.sdublincoco.ie/index.aspx?pageid=123&deptid=11&dpageid=869

Here are some pics from Traynor O’Tooles’ website showing a mixed use development near the square. The link is http://www.totarch.ie/dez_developments_tallaght_Dublin.html

yes yes very nice!!
a massive project, is it going ahead? like a new pedestrian only town. more of this please
is this a case where we have a grat looking and dense(very important) plan but the place is surrounded by
carparks or something? i mean people have to get here and the only way is to drive, right?

You could take Luas to within 3-4 minutes walk of the development; the pedestrian environment in Tallaght will need a real makeover to stitch these types of developments in if the town is to become a pleasant environment for retail and leisure activities.

On balance it is good to see the direction Tallaght is taking and there must be a real case for the metro west alignment to be able to facilitate DARTvia a spur onto the Heuston line and CC via the interconnector (if its ever built) as at the rate this area is developing Luas will be out of capacity before too long.

Here are a few photos of some new developments in Tallaght. Apologies for the picture quality, they were taken quickly from the 75 bus:)

a quick 75 is a contradiction in terms.

The Ongar Village development in D15 has a ‘proper’ street feel to it, with shops, pub etc. on ground level and accomodation overhead. Don’t know if this counts though.

Any pictures murphaph would be greatly appreciated!

Nice pics jackwade

@paul h wrote:

Any pictures murphaph would be greatly appreciated!

Nice pics jackwade

Give me a couple of days. 🙂

@paul h wrote:

yes yes very nice!!
a massive project, is it going ahead? like a new pedestrian only town. more of this please

Isn’t that Belgard Square West by Shelbourne developments?

Was the Gasworks’ new street (below) mentioned? It’s a pedestrian street linking Barrow Street and South Lotts Road – though there seems to be no place on earth where White Van is not allowed to go! 🙁

I think the Gasworks is excellent – one of the best high density developments yet built in Dublin. O’Mahony Pike, isn’t it?
.