Bruce Arnold should be ashamed of himself…

He should know a lot better

And he makes the mistake (as many others have done) of calling the Spire a memorial sculpture. It’s not- it’s just a sculpture. To be a memorial, it has to be in memory of something, no?

Though why we’re even dignifying this nonsense with our ire is beyone me. He was a force for good once, but I fear those days have passed based on this evidence- almost as if he rang his mates and asked “What do the plain people of Dublin not like these days?” Is he thinking of running in the local elections or something?

Brucie has certainly lost the plot. His ramblings about the Abbey theatre in The Dubliner and the Indo have been incoherent and off the point. I don’t think he interacts with the real world any more. The attack on Bus Aras was mind boggling, and Hawkins House wasn’t even included on Things That Should Be Sacrificed. It was clearly a quick back-of-the-envelope job

You see this in the papers from time to time; when people who normally write about something else write write about environment or architecture & come across twat-ish. Liam Fay of the Sunday Times would be another example for me.

I think anybody who hasn’t read the full article should hold fire.
What it actually discusses is what the Irish people should try to save in the event of a disaster a la Hurricane Katrina.
And while it’s hard to argue with the save list of: the National Collections, Trinity College, Custom House, Dublin Castle, Newgrange, Hill of Tara, Cashel, Trim, Henrietta Street, Castletown, IMMA, Collins Barracks, and Hugh Lane, he also seems to have a soft spot for the “Garden of Remembrance at Islandbridge”.
It would take a tornado, not a hurricane, for the Garden of Remembrance to end up down there.
But the “sacrifice list” is bizarre. Forget about Busarus and the Loop Line.
As bad as the Westlink bridges are, can you imagine what life in Dublin would be like without them.

I’m guessing he means the Lutyens War Memorial at Islandbridge?

I note from the quote Paul chose that the wording is

…AND WHAT WE SHOULD SACRIFICE, VOLUNTARILY

So it’s by choice rather than by force of nature, at least in those cases.

Interesting premise for an article, and questionable use of a tragedy for such ends. How would one ‘save’ Tara (or any other fixed-location entry on the list) from a Katrina-like event? Encase them in concrete a la the Wax Museum? :rolleyes:

And even then his desire to rid us of the West Link(s) is dubious – the original was an elegant piece of design: until its twin came along.

I think he’s just borrowing a move from Myres, chucking in a few contentious points to stir it up.
Not worth bothering about.

Abbey theatre he’s having a go at Michael Scott

I think where Brucie got the idea for his article was some coverage in British newspapers of the British government’s plans to draw up a list of buildings protected under the Hague Convention. Basically, you nominate about 50 buildings/monuments of huge importance – in Britain’s case the likes of Stonehenge – and the list is circulated to other signatories of the convention. If there’s a war, they’re not allowed to bomb anything on the list. Serious! Any military commander bombing a building on the list can be done under the Hague Convention for war crimes.

The British short list includes Trinity College Dublin! Ireland isn’t a signatory to the convention, and hence doesn’t have a list, so in theory Newgrange, Trinity, the Custom House etc are all fair game if we get involved in a war.

As I say, this has all been covered in the British newspapers, and prompted Brucie’s inferior follow-up.

were there not similar arrangements in place during World War II with regard to certain cities such as Rome and Paris. I have a feeling that Dresden, Berlin and Stalingrad may have dropped of the list at some point.

there may well have been, PPDL. But the Hague Convention in question was drawn up in 1951. Maybe it was in response to the destruction done in those cities?

I’m not sure why Ireland hasn’t signed up, though

he’s right to some extent –

loop line and liberty hall should go – two horrible structures with nothing going for them in my opinion.

If by toll bridges he’s talking about the eastlink then he’s bang on.

@Sue wrote:

there may well have been, PPDL. But the Hague Convention in question was drawn up in 1951. Maybe it was in response to the destruction done in those cities?

I’m not sure why Ireland hasn’t signed up, though

I remember hearing somewhere that there was somekind of prohibition on bombing Paris and Rome which may be true since they survived largely unscathed by aerial bombardment. I presume other cities such as Venice etc must have been included. Maybe it was just a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ – you don’t bomb my nice cities and I won’t bomb your’s’.

Trinity’s inclusion on the British long-list is intriguing. The list was produced for the purposes of consultation and debate, and a final list will be published then.
But good to see West Britain being included… 🙂

@Sue wrote:

Trinity’s inclusion on the British long-list is intriguing. The list was produced for the purposes of consultation and debate, and a final list will be published then.
But good to see West Britain being included… 🙂

Ya – one has to feel sorry for the Brits – history doesn’t seem to be their strong point. I have heard of people having difficulties getting over broken relationships, but this is taking it a bit too far. I really would love to hear their rationalization of this!

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

unless you are my nuremberg inlaws who are still a little bitter about the flattening of the aldtsadt

Definitions of civility were somewhat liberal in the closing years of the war – I think Bomber Harris had particular
difficulties with the word. Mind you, I have a feeling that your in-laws from Nuremberg are probably not in a very strong position to pontificate on such issues – the German’s were not the world’s greatest appreciators of fine architecture between 1939 and 1945. Good job you didn’t marry a woman from Stalingrad – now there’s a tale of urban renewal for you.

Ya – one has to feel sorry for the Brits – history doesn’t seem to be their strong point. I have heard of people having difficulties getting over broken relationships, but this is taking it a bit too far. I really would love to hear their rationalization of this!

While I have verbally smacked people on this board for saying that the Wide Street commision was British ( it was Anglo Irish, or just Irish), I think the British have a claim on Trinity which was a State project, not a City Project. The Queen of England, Ireland, and France ordered it built, and I assume paid for it.

@asdasd wrote:

While I have verbally smacked people on this board for saying that the Wide Street commision was British ( it was Anglo Irish, or just Irish), I think the British have a claim on Trinity which was a State project, not a City Project. The Queen of England, Ireland, and France ordered it built, and I assume paid for it.

This is an interesting argument, the logical consequences of which I suspect you probably have not thought through. In this case, the British state can claim rightful protectorship of a great number of public/state buildings in the Republic which – regardless of whoever actually physically built them – were initiated or funded in some way by the great British empire. Perhaps you could offer a list and we will see just how much of the Republic the British feel should be protected in the event of a war.

The natural extension of this argument is that every structure of merit built by a colonial or occupying power in another country should be registered on that former power’s list. In this case, can Italy lay protective claim to Hadrian’s Wall and can the German’s lay protective claim to the defensive structures along the coast of Normandy? I could go on with hundreds of international examples but I think the argument is clear. Of course, what one country may consider nothing more than a symbol of colonial oppression and may be quite happy to have obliterated, might have pride of place on the list of another country.

What you argue Asdasd would result in some extremely interesting international situations. The fact is, whatever happened in Ireland centuries ago happened is over. The British cannot legally lay protective claim to any object in the 26 counties at this moment in time, in the same way that some Celtic family on the continent cannot lay claim to some bronze brooch in the National Museum because their long-lost cousin twice removed decided to emigrate 3,000 years ago.

This is the type of patronising imperial logic that the British have applied to other colonial possessions, such as the Elgin Marbles, with the implicit suggestion that the rightful owners of the objects are incapable or unwilling to protect them. I would also argue that if this is indeed the case and the British have a right to include Trinners on their list, then give us back all of those valuable Celtic metalwork pieces in the British Museum that were stolen from Ireland – even the ‘stupid’ Irish can surely take care of a few bits of metal.

…and all the buildings/works in Britain that were built by Irish migrant labour.
If they British lay claim to monuments on foreign soil, they should uphold their duty of care- it would solve many of our funding problems.

Quite right, PDLL. Time has moved on.

Yeah, time certainly has moved on. Like, where the heck are “the 26 counties”? Does PDLL mean the Republic of Ireland?

Without being offensive, Bruce Arnold is up there with the top west Brits. He yearns to go back to a time when Ireland and Dublin was ‘great’ under British rule. Great, maybe for those who lived in their cocooned ivory towers. So, I am not surprised that he dislikes anything the present Irish state has erected.

If Mr Arnold and others had there way, Dublin would be as architectually bereft as Carlisle or Sheffield (no offense to their inhabitants) or some other God foresaken middle ranking English city. That is because the British government wouldn’t have given a damn about us.

So, I am not surprised or annoyed by his comments in the slightest. Look at his ‘contributions’ down over the years to see his record…………….

@Sue wrote:

Yeah, time certainly has moved on. Like, where the heck are “the 26 counties”? Does PDLL mean the Republic of Ireland?

I specified the 26 counties of the Irish Republic, as whether we like it or not, the British have some claim (legitimate or not) to the 6 counties of Northern Ireland. I was trying to avoid any ambiguity in the interests of a clearer argument. Regardless, many Irish people do still refer to the ’26 counties’ as an interchangeable name for the Republic of Ireland, unless Sue knows of another county lurking out that that has crept into the Republic unbeknownst to me.