Before the Bulldozers: Images of a Doomed Suburb

@alonso wrote:

Another victim of progress on Newtownpark Avenue

I think this may be one of the actual locations in which Gainor Christ lived – subsequently immortalised by JP Donleavy in “The Gingerman”. Any further descriptions as to the location of this? Its a while since I was out that way, but if you could let me know as to whether that is on the left or right as one comes down from the N11 that would be helpful.

Also, I dont suppose that you might have a map of the route of this road to post up here, as regretably I have not yet been able to find a map online. Many thanks Alonso, and happy Easter 🙂

Same to you Hutton – go easy on the eggs. I’m going on a chocco binge after that liverpool result!!!

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.289802,-6.175132&spn=0.002899,0.009978&t=h&z=17

Anyone else having trouble embedding Google Map images these days?

here’s links to the scheme itself
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/roads/MonkstownRingRoad/NTS/NTSFIG1.pdf
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/roads/MonkstownRingRoad/NTS/NTSFIG2.pdf

Anyway that house is on the left as you come down from the N11 just beyond the Playwright pub at the junction of Newtownpark Avenue and Yankee Terrace.

Alonso – I know people who live beside yankee terrace and also in some of the houses up for demolition. It is not all bad news. Some of these people have moved to larger houses due to this road.
I have lived in this immediate area for over 30 years and for most people this road will work fine for reducing the trip from stillorgan to monkstown, I appreciate that people living on the direct route may not be in favour but:
The space along yankee terrace and castlebyrne has been kept for this road for years
Likewise roanbyrne and the farm / strip of land along the side on newpark school hockey pitch
Whoever built fluervile would also have known this road was in planning and the residents there should have looked into it or have been made aware of it.

Classic Irish NIMBY’s- you cannot defer a road that will benefit the wider area due to it affecting a few houses. It would take a lot to doom blackrock. Severnace for some people will be interation for others.

Proper seperated cycle lanes could make this an excellent road.

30,000 vehicles – the M50 only handles 100k!

PS I am having a choc feast to toast the red army’s might win:D

CC105, It is not my intention to rehash the debate merely to document what will be lost before it happens. Perhaps you should research this road, read the EIS, then read the Inspectors report which will trash every silly 1970’s Road Engineer dinosaur argument you’ve made here, including the NIMBY one which is as irrelevant as it is hackneyed.

My first post on this site referred to this issue here.

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5253

The council vote ended 16-11 in favour of the road by the way. The argument is over and those that supported rational proper and sustainable planning lost. I accept that.

From todays Irish Times – puzzling use of the word “historic”; ‘old’ yes – but ‘historic’? :confused:

Anyhow…

Demolition of historic cottages to begin today
GENEVIEVE CARBERY

THE DEMOLITION of a 19th century terrace of cottages in south Dublin will begin this morning to make way for the Monkstown ring road.

Nearby residents received a notice from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council last week informing them of the “emergency demolition” of 16 vacant houses at Yankee Terrace, Roseville Terrace and at Annavilla Avenue, off Newtownpark Avenue.

Concerns over anti-social behaviour and health and safety in the cottages are the reasons the council has given for beginning the emergency demolition.

The council bought the houses by compulsory purchase order following the approval of the road by An Bord Pleanála in 2006. The 1.2km road will link the Stradbrook area of Blackrock to Stillorgan Park.

The demolition is much sooner than expected, but was inevitable once the plans for the ring road were passed, Blackrock Fianna Fáil councillor Barry Conway said.

“It is sad to see something that is part of local history being demolished,” he added.

Blackrock Green Party councillor Nessa Childers said: “It will be unpleasant and unfortunate to see them going. They should have been left intact in the first place and the road shouldn’t be there,” she said.

The road will cut through two communities in Fleurville and Rowanville, she said.

Caroline Liddy, a former resident of the Annavilla cottages who moved out last October after 25 years, said she was “a bit shocked” at the speed of the demolition.

“It is hard enough leaving home, but knowing it is going to be flattened is more difficult, she said.

@hutton wrote:

I think this may be one of the actual locations in which Gainor Christ lived – subsequently immortalised by JP Donleavy in “The Gingerman”. Any further descriptions as to the location of this? Its a while since I was out that way, but if you could let me know as to whether that is on the left or right as one comes down from the N11 that would be helpful.

Also, I dont suppose that you might have a map of the route of this road to post up here, as regretably I have not yet been able to find a map online. Many thanks Alonso, and happy Easter 🙂

Just for the record, turns out this is not where Christ lived – he lived at the Blackrock end, no. 1 apparently.

ffs it’s RowanBYRN, not RowanVILLE – every bloody report on this Road has a mistake in relation to one name or another. Anyway yeh heard about this yesterday. A shame but inevitable once the last Development Plan was adopted and the subsequent vote in 06. But as you can see, these houses had no great value historically or aesthetically, just another chip chip away at the urban fabric of our suburbs to be replaced by absolute shite.

When I’m out that way again i’ll bring the camera and we can chart the “progress”… It’s a sad day indeed for the residents of Yanke Terrace and ominous for the poor bastards in Castlebyrne

@alonso wrote:

ffs it’s RowanBYRN, not RowanVILLE – every bloody report on this Road has a mistake in relation to one name or another.

@alonso wrote:

Yanke Terrace

😀

(Sorry, couldn’t resist. :o)

I took a stroll into Fleurville the other day – it’s fairly obvious that this was designed and built with this road in mind (why else would the estate have such a wide connection to stillorgan park and no house entrance directly on to it). Also I think the line of “ashphalt will replace this playground” is a bit of hyperbole as the road itself will only cut a small corner out of the green space and there’s no good reason that at least 85% of it will be unaffected as the road will skirt the edge of the green.

Not really wanting to intrude here, but most of the pics show areas of mown grass or poorly-maintained road areas, as well as ugly concrete walls abruptly terminating streets. I dislike road projects intensely, especially when concerned with inner-city demolition, but the environment shown in this suburban location does not look very attractive to begin with.

Rory All these estates were designed with the Road in mind. However the debate was about this road being put back on the Development Plan having been trashed years ago. If any case for this route being reintroduced had been put forward people could have accepted it, No case was presented by the Local Authority, not even at the Oral Hearing, which is why the Inspector tore it asunder. Read the original thread for more info.

johnglas you well know, once a road scheme is adopted, blight sets in very quickly. YankeE (capital E for ctesiphon 🙂 ) Terrace didn’t always look like sh1te. These pics weren’t for Failte Ireland and anyone who believes that it’s ok to replace barely trafficked residential streets like Fleurville and Rowanbyrn (whether up to your lofty ideals of attractive suburbia or not) is truly out of touch with proper planning.

I don’t have ‘lofty ideals’ of suburbia (which I don’t really like anyway) and I have enormous sympathy for anyone blighted or moved by a road scheme. But you can’t over-romanticise andit is often the residents of suburbia who clog up their own and everyone else’s streets with their school-runs and SUVs and car-borne shopping, needing more roadspace, leading to the opening of new routes, leading to the destruction of houses, etc…

@johnglas wrote:

I don’t have ‘lofty ideals’ of suburbia (which I don’t really like anyway) and I have enormous sympathy for anyone blighted or moved by a road scheme. But you can’t over-romanticise andit is often the residents of suburbia who clog up their own and everyone else’s streets with their school-runs and SUVs and car-borne shopping, needing more roadspace, leading to the opening of new routes, leading to the destruction of houses, etc…

But that’s the key point of this entire debate that we had almost 2 years ago. Congestion doesn’t lead to the opening of new routes. There are other solutions. If you don’t like suburbia fair enough, don’t judge it. I hate sprouts so I always stay off threads on whoruinedmychristmasdinner.com/forum

Anyway the debates been had. This thread is merely a swansong for this area.

But is anyone interested in solutions that curtail the use of the car? Densification, etc.

you’re here too!!!

Eh not really. Strangely the same people who opposed this opposed the rezoning of DL Golf Club – higher densities on a QBC – the irony wasn’t lost on me. In fact in conversation with a local campaigner/election candidate, i was astounded at the depths of the nonsense that some people come out with. They have no idea out there, none at all.

This road, coupled with the baths fiascos, and the total planning stasis at Cherrywood, Sandyford, Stillorgan, Blackrock and other areas does nothing but make me weep for the County in general. Blessed with a coastine, mountains, and some pretty fine residential areas, and they’re making a balls of the whole thing….

My main knowledge of your area was based on a bus trip from Dublin centre to Dalkey – I just thought it was one of the most pleasant and urbane ‘suburbs’ (and it all seemed to be suburb) I’d seen anywhere. No wonder you’re frustrated. DL was a bit of a let-down, but I think it’s moved on. Do we really deserve the politicians we’ve got? (Don’t answer.)

The new road converts some cul-de-sacs into a distributor road. The EIS predicted this would cut 30 seconds off the car journey time between stillorgan and dun laoghaire. There are scraps of bus lane along the new route but it is mostly single carriageway. So there is virtually no time benefit to the route yet it will add capacity to the road network and change sleepy residential cul-de sacs into through routes.

The right thing to do here would have been a cycle path or a bus only through-route, preserving local car access.

As alonso says the argument is now over and everyone had their say. This is Owen Keegan’s contribution to transport in Dun Laoghaire.

well the terrace has now gone and the other old houses, the walls have been “punched” and a line of trees has been decapitated in Brookville Park and removed entirely from Grange Grove. Apparently there’s a new scheme designed which no one has seen. Great stuff altogether. i’ll get some photos some day…

The Dun laoghaire inner tangent is now under construction

some updated pics

Fleurville

View from Fleurville into what once was Yankee Terrace to the right – what they technically call “punching through a road”

From Newtownpark avenue into Castlebyrne. The mudpatch was Yankee Terrace



ironic signage

New apartments being built on the old farm

The end of the green space at Brookville

Grange Grove. Those brown lumps on the ground used to be massive pesky overmature old trees

ironic signage part deux

the punch at Rowanbyrn

sensitive treatment of trees in Rowanbyrn, which were meant to be replanted according to the EIS as far as I can make out

All in all it’s quite a mess. In the name of saving 30 seconds on the trip from Dun Laoghaire to Stillorgan.

Don`t be worrying lads,the design competition for the Owen Keegan memorial Toll Booth is well under way…..;)

Then

Now

Then

Now

a few more

the old farm reservation between Marian Park and Newpark School

Then

Now

the urban environment we’ve always dreamed of

Message from DLRCoCo to the mobility impaired, elderly, parents with buggies etc – Fuck off we got ourselves a highway to build

alonso: cruel but accurate.

Alonso,

Your “before and after” images will be looked upon in years to come as a measure of the progress gained in the early part of this century.

I, for one, will be able to refer back to them and explain such “progress” to my grandkids’.

I’ll explain it like this…..

“Here’s how we destroyed yet another part of old Dublin in order to take 30 seconds off your car journey”

All we have now are your pictures Alonso.

Thanks for the ones you took before the “punch through”.

Alonso thanks for taking the time to document this project, and comment, especially considering that it passes through a “set-in” area. However, I absolutely don’t agree with you.

When the area was fields, a line would have been marked on a map for the future transport corridor. Then the area was built out. The only mistake was that the transport corridor was not then built on. This error is now being corrected. If this road had been provided in the 70s, we would never have noticed anything amiss.

Building out the area’s infrastructure is not optional, it must take place. We cannot have a city in which roads are incomplete or missing. It increases delay for all road users, pushes up bus journey times, and makes it hard to navigate. I absolutely do not accept the “30 second time saving” statistic. This is clearly not the case, as the distance from the Carysfort Ave/Stillorgan Park junction to Monkstown Ave/Stadbrook Close roundabout is 1200 m longer than will be the case when the road opens (see attachment which details the current Stillorgan-Monkstown alignment). In rush hour this would be at least an extra 5 or 10 mins. In addition, your 30k figure for the daily traffic was just off the top of your head. You constantly complain about all the cars in the area but never mention improved services for bus users, cyclists, and pedestrians. I believe it is not even possible to walk this route at the moment due to walls – please confirm.

Your photo essay was highly emotive and you got carried away several times. I was particularly confused by the one about the asphalt replacing the playground – there was no playground in the picture unless you mean the plain grassed over area, which in any case is not in fact being removed by the road. The green space in the final picture is not play space for kids, it is dead space next to the roundabout junction.

Where you see a row of charming old cottages, I see sub-standard, poky accommodation unfit for modern needs, on a worn down street greatly in need of rehabilitation and widening, and a weed-choked, litter-strewn footpath. But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Your assertion that “ah sure it’d be a shame not to link this all up” ignores the fact that completing this road isn’t a new idea – in fact it predates the building up of the area.

We cannot have a patchy, disconnected road network. This is the sign of a city unable to plan on a large scale and relying on the legacy network of winding country lanes. This is not a rural village where a bit of tar on the country lane is enough. This is a capital city and appropriate infrastructure isn’t an extra it’s a prerequisite.

30 seconds is the time given by the promoters of the scheme in the EIS. I didn’t make it up. Nor was the 30000 vehicles figure – it was 28,000 in the EIS from 2005 and given rises in volumes in suburban areas in the interim (pre-recession at least), it was far from the top of the head as you disparagingly and lazily state. The asphalt will replace the area where I played as a kid. In most urban areas the street is the playground – there are still kids playing there today depsite the construction. If the walls prevent walking, knock down the walls, if you want better movement for bus and cycles, build a green route for buses and cycles (as was proposed by others). Plugging gaps in urban networks with more roadspace is a tired, failed and mostly now abandoned approach to urban transportation.

I appreciate this reply but i would appreciate it more if you read some of the EIS at least and also the Bord’s Inspector’s Report which accompanied the decision. Bear in mind it’s 2009 and we could apply your exact philosophy to the DUblin City Inner Tangent, a contemporary of this senseless scheme. Had we done that in the 70’s “we would never have noticed anything amiss” either but we’d have a rotten hovel for a city centre.

You guys call this old Dublin! It’s another 1970s low density suburban area. That road was planned over 30 years ago and should have been built then. It is part of the road network required for the area to properly distribute motor traffic away from certain chokepoints e.g. stradbrook road. It is also a port access route. Yes, it’s called progress.

None of that is relevant. The question before the councillors in 1998 was should this road be put back on the Development Plan. No real need was proven in the Needs Study but they put it back on anyway. The question put before the Oral Hearing in 2006 was the same. The Inspector trashed the scheme in its entirety in a manner more fortright than any planning report I have ever seen, and i’ve seen thousands. The question was put again before the councillors and they narrowly approved it.

Anyone who deems this progress is not living in the real world. Anyone who regards building sub/urban roads as a solution to congestion is deluded. Had the road been built in the 70’s it would be a choke point now, like every other road in suburban Dublin, and you’d probably support punching through another cul-de-sac. What is so difficult to grasp about this simple principle? Demand increases to fill supply. Always has. Always will. A busway and ped/cycle route would have achieved more than this road in terms of accessibility, mobility, reducing congestion and environmental benefits.

As I said earlier, many many many roads were planned in the 70s. That’s one of the great arguments against this scheme. By that logic we should complete the inner tangent, the eastern bypass, concrete over the Royal Canal, have a multi level interchange at Macken/Pearse St etc. The same mentality that promoted this scheme promoted this – should all of these areas be subject to demolition just because a bunch of middle aged men smoking pipes over a drawing board said so in 1972

I wanted this thread to catalogue what happens when these schemes progress. The debate has been had on the planning matters forum, on politics.ie and through the planning process. I accept that my battle was lost but in no way accept that I was wrong. It’s only that there still seems to be people, seemingly intelligent people with an interest in our environment, who can’t see this for the engineering folly and dangerous precedent that it represents, that I am willing to engage again. We need to make it clear and persist in our beliefs that this cannot happen again. We are repeating every damn mistake we made in the past. When will we actually learn? Never?

It is costing DLRCoCo around €20m to do this – a council that like any other is constantly scrapping for funding. Now can you really tell me this type of investment is a priority in the current climate. It was a waste of taxpayers money in 2005. It’s nothing short of folly now. I acknowledge this scheme was reborn in a time of plenty but there are schemes like this all over the country, thankfully many have been shelved for now, unfortunately none for the right reasons. When are people gonna wake up to those right reasons?

Heyyy! Lay off the pipe smokers!

Otherwise, good post. Would read again.

That map is hilarious!! Never seen it before. Real sensitive.

@reddy wrote:

That map is hilarious!! Never seen it before. Real sensitive.

Operation ‘OEW’ – aka Obliterate East Wall, sure they could all be relocated to Abercrombie’s reclaimed Sandymount lands:D

@reddy wrote:

That map is hilarious!! Never seen it before. Real sensitive.

Ha Reddy, you never saw that map before? I originally posted it on this site to remind people of what the official’s plans were, lest people forget – environmental war crimes as it were, were what was intended, thankfully stopped due to the efforts of Deirdre Kelly, Kevin B. Nowlan and others 🙂

Btw I think I got the map out of an issue of Plan magazine from the early ’70s

You’re now comparing a suburban distributor road with a plan to bulldoze parts of inner city Dublin for the introduction of multi-lane highways…

Regarding your comment about cul-de-sacs, such dead ends do not aid permeability, they hinder it, and as a result traffic gets focused on a few distributor roads. your point about expanded road space filling demand is valid but beside the point.

The reason stradbrook road is a choke point is because it’s a radial into the city. people coming from dun laoghaire area have to get on to a congested radial to go towards stillorgan, better to just provide a more direct route as the council are doing.

I suspect you’ve a vendetta against motorised traffic.

SD, the 1971 DTS referred to in the caption also included this road and many other suburban distributors, many were built, some weren’t. It’s the same philosophy and the same outcome. For the City as a whole…. the evidence has been all around us ever since. It never worked in the past and can never work in the future.

As for linking Dun Laoghaire to Stillorgan… why? What demand is there for that movement? Why should estates be destroyed to facilitate this? The 30,000 vehicles won’t be making that trip, they will only go as far as NP Ave to the N11 and M50 – either commuting by car in an area where a myriad alternatives exist or compounding the problem of orbital movements being almost exclusively by car.

As for vendettas, I have plenty. Against State-sponsored vandalism, against designing our cities for an obsolete mode, against compromising the ability of mass transit to operate, against redundant failed philosophies determining our futures and against backward governance.

Did you at least do the decent thing and have a quick look at the EIS and the inspector’s assessment at the end of his ABP report?

@SunnyDub wrote:

I suspect you’ve a vendetta against motorised traffic.

You say this as if it’s a bad thing.

I won’t speak for alonso, but do I have a vendetta against motorised traffic? You’re goddamn right I do.

Can you tell me anything else which has had a worse – hell, I’d settle for equivalent, never mind worse – effect on the quality of Dublin’s built environment and the quality of life of the citizens who live here?

Want to improve permeability? Create links for sustainable modes.
Why is Stradbrook Road a choke point? There are too many cars on it.
As for induced demand, it most certainly isn’t beside the point- it is the bloody point.

*ctesiphon takes a long, satisfying draw on his pipe*

@ctesiphon wrote:

Can you tell me anything else which has had a worse – hell, I’d settle for equivalent, never mind worse – effect on the quality of Dublin’s built environment and the quality of life of the citizens who live here?

The local authority formerly known as Dublin Corporation?

i agree with ctesiphon. i think when the history books are written people will look back in horror at what designing for the car has done to our quality of life.And i am speaking as someone who loves driving (and cars). But we should never have sacrificed so much for this mode of mobility. Surely we could have and can in future have the best of both worlds.

Most of our modern suburbs are severely compromised. So far i have concluded that this is due to brown envelope decisions (political corruption), ignorant/juvanile planning officials and the concequences of the strong influence of road engineers /designers alongside single function development plan zoning objectives.

Road designers had/have an obsession with high boundary walls and setbacks ( to allow cars to race and not worry about human connectivity). Resulting in isolated communities, killed connections and sub – urban blight. Look at Lucan south ( a maze of roundabouts and walls and cul de sac communites or the road from Claire Hall to Baldoyle with its beautiful high wall either side.Road engineers have to stop designing roads only from the perspective of facilitating fast moving traffic. (the speed of the traffic is the key to destruction by the way).

And dont get me wrong – motorways, district and primary distributors have their place but….

On a positve note : Take a look at the plans south dublin county council have prepared for the new clonburiss area in clondalkin. At last we have public servants who are prepared to tackle the blight of road design led urban design. Public servants have really messed up this city in the past but here we seem to have people who actually know how to reverse this trend. Dare i say this plan may even go some way towards helping us forgive SDCC for the SUB-urban horror which is south Lucan.

Don’t get me wrong, I recognise the negative effects of car traffic as much as the next man. There are ways in which it can be mitigated, for example narrower laneways, safe cycle tracks, building frontage, congestion charges etc. but the infrastructure is still required unless you want to ban cars…hmmm

To say that the road will destroy the suburb is another example of over-blown claims, it will merely result in the destruction of a small terrace of houses, generous compensation for which is required to be paid.

BTW I am not the one who turned this thread into a debate on this subject, that was done by statements made against the lawfully approved project.

This was never about the law (as noted by alonso previously)- this is about Principles and Best Practice, neither of which is in evidence in this road scheme.

I’ll say it again- this infrastructure is not required. Whatever problem you think this resolves can be resolved in other ways far less destructive than a road.

And while you are (Jesuitically) correct regarding the destruction of houses vs the ‘destruction’ of a suburb (though I would infer that alonso didn’t mean the physical destruction of the suburb), I would contend that it is not necessary to damage the physical fabric of a place in order to severely damage the character of that place.

This is an updated version of the well known Donald Appleyard study from 1969. Care to comment?

http://onthelevelblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/no-friends-blame-the-traffic/

@gunter wrote:

The local authority formerly known as Dublin Corporation?

🙂

To clarify (and to agree)- it’s not motorised traffic that has compromised the built and social fabric of our towns and cities, it’s the accommodation and encouragement of it by our local authorities. Really, they’re two sides of the same coin.

Don’t provide the space and it won’t come into town. Simple.

(Aaaand, we’ve come full circle!)

very sad indeed,thanks for the report

“I would contend that it is not necessary to damage the physical fabric of a place in order to severely damage the character of that place“. Agreed, I think the character will be altered rather than damaged.I’m willing to bet that just like Stillorgan Park bypass, the new road will improve life in the immediate vicinity and on Stradbrook Road which does have houses fronting a very heavily trafficked road.

Regarding your diagram, that is presumably why heavily trafficked distributor roads such as this one are designed without houses fronting them.

But that very fact underlines why these roads are so inimical to townscape and good urban planning.

@johnglas wrote:

But that very fact underlines why these roads are so inimical to townscape and good urban planning.

According to this logic, if you line the street with houses, you get community severance and complaints about noise; it you don’t, architects complain about blank walls and disconnection. You can’t win.

@pippin101 wrote:

According to this logic, if you line the street with houses, you get community severance; it you don’t, architects complain about blank walls and disconnection. You can’t win.

You’re mixing up ‘sufficient’ and ‘necessary’. As I understand johnglas’s position, street frontage is necessary for townscape, but not sufficient on its own.

SunnyDub-

@SunnyDub wrote:

Regarding your diagram, that is presumably why heavily trafficked distributor roads such as this one are designed without houses fronting them.

Still haven’t inspected the EIS or the Inspector’s Report? I’m out of this debate for now. Let me know when you’ve read up on this a bit more.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Still haven’t inspected the EIS or the Inspector’s Report? I’m out of this debate for now. Let me know when you’ve read up on this a bit more.

As I pointed out above, considering the EIS contains the “30 seconds” canard which I disproved, and the 30,000 AADT figure which is highly suspect, I think the EIS cannot be trusted to impart an impartial view on this.

a) You disproved nothing. You put forward a weak counter argument.

b) Your response is to a point I made in response to SunnyDub, specifically regarding frontage development on a road like this. It had nothing to do with the ’30 second’ debate.

c) One debatable point (however debatable its debatability) does not undermine the rest of a document.

Next!

@pippin101 wrote:

According to this logic, if you line the street with houses, you get community severance and complaints about noise; it you don’t, architects complain about blank walls and disconnection. You can’t win.

I agree, it’s a can’t win situation, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What you want is the least worst outcome and that’s what the road is for. It eases traffic problems on other roads and will serve its distributor function well.

@pippin101 wrote:

As I pointed out above, considering the EIS contains the “30 seconds” canard which I disproved, and the 30,000 AADT figure which is highly suspect, I think the EIS cannot be trusted to impart an impartial view on this.

disproved? When? Where’s your data? Where’s your evidence? Where is there a semblance of substance in anything you’ve posted?

Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that the promoters of this scheme, DLRCoCo, took the two most fundamental elements of any argument in relation to road infrastructure – time saving and traffic impact – and rather than present an impartial view, they skewed the argument in a way that made the acceptability of their own proposal even less difficult to find. They twisted their own evidence against themselves. That’s what you are claiming.

That’s an incredible way of saying you couldn’t be arsed arming yourself with the facts before wading into a debate.

@pippin101 wrote:

In addition, your 30k figure for the daily traffic was just off the top of your head.

still not prepared to accept that? Still not prepared to retract that nonsense ill-informed claim?

I’m from the area in question, and I think this road is a perfectly reasonable development.

It fills a very obvious gap in the local network. I don’t support road building for the sake of road building, but I do support it when it fulfills a logical function for the larger community.

The current journey from Dun Laoghaire town to the Stillorgan/Dundrum/Sandyford area is at the moment a choice of varying rat runs. There’s no “main” route so to speak. All the traffic must funnel through Stradbrook or Deansgrange, which are bottlenecks at the best of times.

There’s ‘destroying suburbs’, and there’s improving suburban traffic flow. Its a tradeoff and I think this particular instance is a fair and equitable one. Suburbs after all are not the countryside, they are suburbs. There’s nothing exceptional about this area, its very typical dublin suburbia.

@SunnyDub wrote:

@pippin101 wrote:

According to this logic, if you line the street with houses, you get community severance and complaints about noise; it you don’t, architects complain about blank walls and disconnection. You can’t win.

I agree, it’s a can’t win situation, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What you want is the least worst outcome and that’s what the road is for. It eases traffic problems on other roads and will serve its distributor function well.

I think it’s time to give up on this debate, alonso. Our opponents appear to have resorted to talking among themselves, which is a sure sign they haven’t got a comeback to our questions/comments. I fear we’re debating with fans of Truthiness rather than truth.

No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.

Hey lads, I hear George Bush is looking for a new best friend.

I’ll say it one more time (and ignoring it doesn’t mean I’m wrong)-

It is not a can’t win situation.
Road ≠ street.
Building more roads does not ease traffic. It encourages it.
It may serve a distributor function (note the absence of ‘well’ from that clause), but that’s precisely the point- this prioritises (non-local) traffic over the needs of residential areas. If the benefits were indisputable, there may be a case for this road, but as has been demonstrated – repeatedly – the so-called benefits are anything but obvious, whereas the disbenefits are as clear as day.

@Andrew Bird – ‘Sovay’ wrote:

and i swear this time, yeah this time
they’ll blow us back to the seventies
and this time
they’re playin Ride of the Valkyries
with no semblance of grace or ease
and they’re acting on vagaries, with their violent proclivities
and they’re playing ride, playing ride
playing ride, ride, Ride of the Valkyries

ctesiphon, on behalf of the Factinistas.

PS Andy O- for the record, I’m from the area too, though now departed, and I think alonso may be from the area or environs. I don’t claim this gives me any special insight. I’d make the same comments about a road in Lucan or Swords assuming the circumstances were the same.

@Andy O wrote:

It fills a very obvious gap in the local network. I don’t support road building for the sake of road building, but I do support it when it fulfills a logical function for the larger community.

The current journey from Dun Laoghaire town to the Stillorgan/Dundrum/Sandyford area is at the moment a choice of varying rat runs. There’s no “main” route so to speak.

Agreed, pretty obvious, also obvious that street does not equal road, and also obvious that new road gets traffic off streets.

Also fact, that the planning authority should be impartial (An Bord Pleanala) not the scheme promoter (the Council). Also obvious and a fact, that the experts (An Bord Pleanala) took into account the EIS and weighed it as part of a number of planning considerations and rightly judged that the benefits far outweight the drawbacks.

The idea that this road will encourage traffic is laughable notwithstanding the general point. Fact: you guys lose! or truthiiness!!

*sigh*

good God. What a shambolic post SD

The EIS finds that the scheme will have significant effects on the environment, you think we need an EIS to tell us that a road will do that. Planning is about wider considerations. I know you don’t like to admit it, but roads do actually deliver benefits.

SD unless you read the Inspector’s recommendation please stop posting here. This thread was meant to show the construction process and how things change as often these things are forgotten once new infrastructure is in place. The debate has been had and I can’t keep repeating myself to someone unwilling to listen or do any basic research on the topic.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Andy O- for the record, I’m from the area too, though now departed, and I think alonso may be from the area or environs. I don’t claim this gives me any special insight.

I claim to know the area intimately, including its particular traffic problems. Call it what you like.

Andy we are all aware of congestion, we see it everywhere every day. This area is not special and does not have any unique issues. The simple basic fact of this debate is that this road will not solve any of these problems in the long term, whether you live there or not.

@Andy O wrote:

I claim to know the area intimately, including its particular traffic problems. Call it what you like.

I too claim to know the area intimately- 25 years of my life was spent there. What I’m saying is that this intimate knowledge doesn’t confer any special privileges or insight. The points I’m making here are Principles and Best Practice, which would apply to any similar situation. The fact that I remember the dead cat behind the rotting tree trunk on the corner of Meadow Close and Newtownpark Avenue in the summer of 1981 is neither here nor there.

OK this is getting a bit fruity. Alonso, I think it will solve a lot of problems to be fair. Not to build it just because traffic will increase overall in the long term..don’t buy that argument. Traffic has to be managed today. If a few access roads help, then do it. I’m not saying tar the whole city, just organise main routes in a more coherent way. Omlette, egg etc.

@alonso wrote:

disproved? When? Where’s your data? Where’s your evidence? Where is there a semblance of substance in anything you’ve posted?

Sigh. Here.

@alonso wrote:

Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that the promoters of this scheme, DLRCoCo, took the two most fundamental elements of any argument in relation to road infrastructure – time saving and traffic impact – and rather than present an impartial view, they skewed the argument in a way that made the acceptability of their own proposal even less difficult to find. They twisted their own evidence against themselves. That’s what you are claiming.

No. This is the sequence of events as I understand it. The reports on the road were prepared by separate groups from DLR. It recommended that they not proceed with the road. They rejected this and proceeded with the road. Is this not correct? And is it not reasonable? They weighed pros and cons, and made a decision. They weren’t required to accept the findings.

@alonso wrote:

As for vendettas, I have plenty. Against State-sponsored vandalism, against designing our cities for an obsolete mode, against compromising the ability of mass transit to operate, against redundant failed philosophies determining our futures and against backward governance.

What utter guff. “An obsolete mode”. I’m seriously raging at this comment, and the mindset that must have produced it. How you can expect the private car to quietly vanish in the next few decades is totally beyond me. It’s not going anywhere.

Your posts on this topic so far have been loaded with more emotion than an Oscar speech – so much for “knowing with the heart”. Your evidence against the road consists entirely of ephithets and exaggerations, “devastated”, “punched”, “soon-to-be-eliminated tranquillity”, “major new highway” .

The EIS isn’t wrong as such; Yes the road will have drawbacks, it will bring traffic down streets that currently have little or none. But this is all very subjective. Many of the people on those streets may actually – whisper it – want the road access that this provides, combatting their current severance from surrounding areas. What makes you think that creating a route through their estate is necessarily a bad thing? Does everyone living in a suburb want to be on a cul-de-sac? Of course not. This lack of through-routes contributes to longer journeys, inefficiency, increased fuel use, and urban incoherency.

@alonso wrote:

The debate has been had and I can’t keep repeating myself to someone unwilling to listen or do any basic research on the topic.

Yes, but some people disagree with you. Your view is being challenged. That’s the whole point of a discussion group after all; leading the thread by saying “It’s a done deal; it shouldn’t be happening; I’m just going to document the vandalism” is arrogant: implying that everyone agrees with you and no debate should be had.

alonso, the title of this thread says it all, “a doomed suburb“

while knowing the area, I also have no special insight but I know that roads are built to cater for traffic.

@pippin101 wrote:

Sigh. Here.

Seriously. That post is complete nonsense

No. This is the sequence of events as I understand it. The reports on the road were prepared by separate groups from DLR. It recommended that they not proceed with the road. They rejected this and proceeded with the road. Is this not correct? And is it not reasonable? They weighed pros and cons, and made a decision. They weren’t required to accept the findings.

No it’s total arse. The road dates from the 70’s like the Royal Canal Motorway etc. It was removed as an objective in 1993 as it was deemed unnecessary and environmentally damaging. In 1997 DLR did a Needs Study, the results of which were not made public, and the Councillors voted to put it back on the plan.

In 2005 DLR commissioned Faber Maunsell consultants to draw up an EIS and it went to planning. The ABP Inspector totally rubbished the scheme in his report (ANY CHANCE ANY OF YOU HAVE READ EITHER OF THESE REPORTS????). He rubished it from all angles – policy, modelling, need for scheme, environmental effects etc etc. ABP ignored this and granted as it was on the DEvelopment Plan and fulfilled the objective. The Councillors were then forced again to vote on this element of the Plan by a Green Councillor and voted 16-11 in favour of it.

What utter guff. “An obsolete mode”. I’m seriously raging at this comment, and the mindset that must have produced it. How you can expect the private car to quietly vanish in the next few decades is totally beyond me. It’s not going anywhere.

As a mode of commuting to work in urban areas YES it is obsolete. We have destroyed tracts of the urban in a vain attempt to predict and provide. Facilitating people driving to work and school is the greatest failure in urban planning history. Do you really not see this? Do you need to go to LA where 80% of urban land caters directly for the private car yet there’s still massive congestion?

Perhaps a few words from DLR County Manager Owen Keegan, someone who i give the benefit of the doubt to on this scheme as it was in progress before he got there, will paint a clearer picture. From his days in Dublin City Council:

“The argument that private car capacity should be increased was lost a long time ago.”
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2002/1224/3649369068HM1CITYTRAFFIC.html

“We have given up trying to cater for the private car and if people haven’t worked that out yet then there is a serious problem with IQ.”
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2002/1228/2113072661OPQUOTES.html

Yeh I dug em up a few years ago. And he is spot on.

Your posts on this topic so far have been loaded with more emotion than an Oscar speech – so much for “knowing with the heart”. Your evidence against the road consists entirely of ephithets and exaggerations, “devastated”, “punched”, “soon-to-be-eliminated tranquillity”, “major new highway” .

My evidence against this road is from reading the EIS, the Inspector’s Report and from my education and training. What’s yours in favour? Google Map scribbles with no data to back it up?

The EIS isn’t wrong as such; Yes the road will have drawbacks, it will bring traffic down streets that currently have little or none. But this is all very subjective. Many of the people on those streets may actually – whisper it – want the road access that this provides, combatting their current severance from surrounding areas. What makes you think that creating a route through their estate is necessarily a bad thing? Does everyone living in a suburb want to be on a cul-de-sac? Of course not. This lack of through-routes contributes to longer journeys, inefficiency, increased fuel use, and urban incoherency.

Hmmm, no. The only supporters were Yankee tce landlords and residents on the lower part of Newtown Park Avenue.

Yes, but some people disagree with you. Your view is being challenged. That’s the whole point of a discussion group after all; leading the thread by saying “It’s a done deal; it shouldn’t be happening; I’m just going to document the vandalism” is arrogant: implying that everyone agrees with you and no debate should be had.

And for the FIFTH time, the debate was had on a previous thread in 2006!!! Read that for fucks sake. But please for the sanity of any readers please read the only 2 things you need to know about this scheme – the EIS and the ABP reports.

Until then go for a drive along Ongar Road or Sallyglen Road and come back here with your experience and dare to tell me or anyone else that these developments are anything but damn wrong. Maybe even have a look at how this scheme is progressing in the flesh.

And Pippin, next time you start to debate with me, never start by claiming that the facts I present were “off the top of the head”. You were always gonna lose this debate but if you annoy me you’ll lose it horribly/.

well if you couldn’t be arsed readin a report available online, i guess you’re unlikely to take a trip out to see the effects of your mode of thinking

Sallyglen Road

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=swb9w6ggnx5v&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=29513836&where1=dublin&encType=1

Ongar Road

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=swy3q4gfz2bj&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=29500281&where1=dublin&encType=1

Oooh yeh! it’s urban utopia. Check out those walls, check out the severance and the location of the bus stop in the latter. We should definitely be encouraging this. It’s pure beauty

PS but make sure you drag out the map/photo to it’s full width – it really gives the full impact

@pippin101 wrote:

I’m seriously raging at this comment

Seriously? Great!

@pippin101 wrote:

It’s not going anywhere.

I know. I cycle past it every day. It’s called congestion.

@alonso wrote:

Sallyglen Road

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=swb9w6ggnx5v&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=29513836&where1=dublin&encType=1

Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours!

Tra-la-la! 🙂

Regarding commuting to work by car, nobody disagrees with you, obsolescence is a bit over the top. The road will function as a distributor route which will also be used by commuters no doubt.

Regarding the road objective being removed in 1993, did this have anything to do with lobbying from a certain vocal residents group who bought their houses along the route knowing full well that a road was planned there?

@alonso wrote:

And Pippin, next time you start to debate with me, never start by claiming that the facts I present were “off the top of the head”. You were always gonna lose this debate but if you annoy me you’ll lose it horribly/.

Whatever.. they weren’t off the top of your head… they were in a report which I or the council don’t agree with. And the council has the final decision here.

Did I really lose this argument? Since the road is being built and is now nearly finished, it would seem not.

Monkstown, and the entire southside in general, is low-density suburbia. If you don’t like its car orientation, complain about the density… but don’t complain when function follows form i.e. low density development spurs road building. The area needs roads as it is designed for cars.

What’s the lesson? In future, don’t design for the car. As for Monkstown, it’s too late.

@pippin101 wrote:

Whatever.. they weren’t off the top of your head… they were in a report which I or the council don’t agree with. And the council has the final decision here.

Did I really lose this argument? Since the road is being built and is now nearly finished, it would seem not.

Monkstown, and the entire southside in general, is low-density suburbia. If you don’t like its car orientation, complain about the density… but don’t complain when function follows form i.e. low density development spurs road building. The area needs roads as it is designed for cars.

What’s the lesson? In future, don’t design for the car. As for Monkstown, it’s too late.

eh the Council Executive wrote the report and the Council members voted for the road to proceed. What part of that is “the council don’t agree with”??. My point stands re your ignorant bullheaded plunge into this debate armed with just about everything bar the facts.

You lost this argument whether the road is built or not. The M3 is built, was that right? Tyrellstown was built, East Meath was built, the building at City hall was built, the ghost estates of Leinster were all built – I disagree with every single one of those developments but they all happened – was I wrong? Are my arguments against them null and void?

As for your latest spurious justification, it makes some sense, not a lot but sure i’ll try and counter it anyway. Have you heard of infill? have you heard of intensification? Have you been to Sandyford? Have you seen the plans for DLR Golf Club (on this route) have you seen the amount and scale of the apartment building in this area? Have you been along the N11 in recent years? or the DART line? The solution to low density sprawl is to build higher densities to alter the urban form not roads to save 30 seconds on a journey no one makes.

@SunnyDub wrote:

Regarding commuting to work by car, nobody disagrees with you, obsolescence is a bit over the top. The road will function as a distributor route which will also be used by commuters no doubt.

Regarding the road objective being removed in 1993, did this have anything to do with lobbying from a certain vocal residents group who bought their houses along the route knowing full well that a road was planned there?

Hey sorry SD never replied there. Maybe obsolescence seems over the top but perhaps if we ever deliver the rail netowrk we;ve been promised for the past 2 generations the futility of sitting in traffic on brand new roads will become clear.

I was too young in 1993 to know but I guarantee it had a lot to do with lobbying. I’d like to know what changed between 93 and 98 though when it was put back on. The most annoying irony is that had this scheme been delayed for even 12 months there would be no chance whatsoever of such a folly being built in such a recessionary penny pinching climate.