Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

there’s a fairly obscure model of the stilts project featured in todays IT, can’t make it out to be honest. It seems like the proposal encompases the north quays from east link to the new beckett bridge …

strange idea …

From today’s IT
What is shown in the model is a series of notional towers, some with extraordinary shapes and colours, that would be built on stilts in the Liffey – if the amended planning scheme is approved by Minister for the Environment John Gormley.

According to John McLaughlin, the authority’s director of architecture, the proposed cluster would provide a dramatic counterpoint to the generally low-rise nature of the new buildings that have sprung up along the riverfront in the past decade.

Is this not what should have happened on the north quays anyway ? are DDDA now acknowledging the blandness of their 5 storey stretch? (supplied mainly by STW it has to be said).

its a scandal that expensive land is being wasted on 5/6 story building, the blocks going up in Sandyford and Tallaght are much more impressive especially given their location, the scale of building down in the docks is a joke…

Under the amended scheme, this Manhattan-style cluster would straddle North Wall Quay between the East Link Bridge and the proposed suspension bridge near Spencer Dock designed by Spanish architect-engineer Santiago Calatrava.

A block model of the radical plan formed part of the docklands presentation in Ireland’s much-praised exhibition at the Lisbon Architectural Triennale, which closes later this month. It has yet to be officially unveiled by the docklands authority.

What is shown in the model is a series of notional towers, some with extraordinary shapes and colours, that would be built on stilts in the Liffey – if the amended planning scheme is approved by Minister for the Environment John Gormley.

So don’t worry – it will never happen – for me standing on a bridge in Dublin, and looking out to sea, with liffey getting wider and wider is one of the glories of Dublin.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

So don’t worry – it will never happen – for me standing on a bridge in Dublin, and looking out to sea, with liffey getting wider and wider is one of the glories of Dublin.

Looks like most of that area is not outside the liffey, in the undeveloped area between Spencer Dock and the Point (possibly including the remainder of Spencer Dock?)

Even if the buildings on the Liffey do not go ahead it would be nice to see some higher buildings going in on the other parts.

i really like this…… you can find more info here PDF http://www.linetosurface.org/downloads/10.pdf

and the website for Ireland at Lisbon Architecture Triennale http://www.linetosurface.org/ …has some other pretty interesting projects by 11 Irish architects

Does Frank Gehry know that people have been pinching his off-cuts? 😉

My main reservation about the short-lived images of the Heneghan Peng plan for Custom House Quay (temporarily posted on this site; might surface again in the next while…?) was the way it compromised the integrity of the quay wall with a series of projecting jetties/slips/wharves. This scheme proposes much the same, with the added problem of height. As I’ve said before, I’ve no problem with appropriate height in appropriate locations in the docklands, but this is categorically not an appropriate location. Haven’t they ever heard the phrase ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right?’ Atoning for the excessive conservatism of the original docklands developments with some eleventh-hour spectacular eye-catcher won’t fool anyone. Will it?

@ctesiphon wrote:

As I’ve said before, I’ve no problem with appropriate height in appropriate locations in the docklands, but this is categorically not an appropriate location.

I would have no problem with some well designed taller buildings here, but not in this manner. I assume this high rise change of heart must be to do with a change of personnel within the DDDA & the realisation that their new river front along north wall quay is really pretty poor.

If Spencer Dock as currently under construction could be erased & replaced by something similar to what is proposed here, without breaking the line of the river or quay wall, i’d be quite happy. Thats what should have happened on this site, this attempt to try & fix it is odd & belated.

Having said that, I’m not dismissing it entirely, very little detail at this stage.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

If Spencer Dock as currently under construction could be erased & replaced by something similar to what is proposed here, without breaking the line of the river or quay wall, i’d be quite happy. Thats what should have happened on this site, this attempt to try & fix it is odd & belated.

Isn’t this east of Spencer Dock, couldn’t the high buildings and fun u-shaped canal be built without breaking the sweep of the river?

@notjim wrote:

I can’t decide straight-off if this is brilliant or terrible idea or whether that would just depend on the quality of the buildings.

It’s a terrible idea.

they’re in effect diverting the river to Mayor St and then back out again – it doesn’t jut out from the quay quite as much I’d intially thought.

This will be a fairly major ammendment to the North Lotts area plan. Last update was for Point Village tower.

How will this affect Spencer Dock?

Ridiculous waste of time-please tell me this is some 2:2 undergrad project? Do the DDDA even have statutory control over the riverbed on which this idiocy is proposed? I would have thought that is vested in the Dept. of marine or some such central govt. body

The best project on that is the one that suggests that the M50 can be turned into a quasi-park during off-peak times: http://www.linetosurface.org/03.html

whether this goes ahead or not is not the issue… is this the DDDA finally acknowledging the wasted opportunity they had with the IFSC, Spencer and Grand Canal Dock… it never ceases to amaze me how bland the IFSC is Grand Canal Dock is only marginally better as for Spencer Dock well we will have to wait and see

i think it’s quite cool, apart from breaching the river line. Surely this space could be compensated by going up a little higher. In general though if this can be done I can’t see the problem here…

@kefu wrote:

The best project on that is the one that suggests that the M50 can be turned into a quasi-park during off-peak times: http://www.linetosurface.org/03.html

Heh, reminds me of the elevated motorway in Sao Paulo which is gridlocked during the week, then closed to traffic at the weekends and open to the public for walks, football (obviously) or whatever they choose.

I was trying to work out where the inspiration for the building shapes might have come from- Gehry, perhaps, but where have I seen those contortions before?
Aah yes… ring any bells?

😮

ha ha …very good ….though they seem more shakey like this one http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=7-XWmw7KzPE&mode=related&search= 😀

All very interesting. But the whole thing is situated on a site currently owned (mostly) by Liam Carroll (Old Brooks Thomas) and under construction to build Anglo Irish Banks new headquarters (amongst other offices). Changing the whole landscape of the area would require an enormous amount of CPO’s or deals and rethinks.

like much biennale stuff, it’s more of a thesis project, a “what if we did this”

Hey – was walking to work this morning and I noticed in the river at O’Connell Bridge – there’s some construction going on in the river. Not sure what it’s going on, anyone have any ideas?

Geotechnical investigations for Metro North, i.e. they’re drilling small boreholes to extract a sample core. There are at least 3 in the area: in the Liffey immediately west of O’Connell Bridge, outside the Laughter Lounge and on O’Connell St. outside the NIB. There are, and have been, many more on the route out to Lissenhall, north of Swords.

Is it already too late for the Northwall quay? Walking down there today there is the equivalent land area of the entire IFSC still undeveloped between Spencer Dock and the Point Village. Is the stilts proposal a desperate realisation by DDDA that it is already too late to amend their plan for the North Wall quay to create a decent high rise district as all this undeveloped land has already had planning permission granted? There is a scary number of cranes down about the North wall already – scary because I can only imagine it’s more bland shite being built.

Can the DDDA amend their plan to allow a number of high rises of outstanding architectual quality in this area? Thinking U2 tower not watchtower or Heuston Gate in my definition of outstanding. Surely with a bit of political will and the carrot to developers of selling 30+ stories worth of apartments, this could be done.

The IFSC is a dud, but maybe it would work ok as a buffer zone between the low rise city centre and a high rise district down river.

Guys

I know this has been posted previously but I can’t find the thread. It looks like the DDDA are set to proceed with this. I’m told it’s going out to tender on March 17th.

So this rears its head again. It seems the DDDA are totally hung up on breaking the line of the liffey one way or another whether it be gormely’s sculpture, custom house proposal or this yoke. I’ve no issue with the canal idea but why the need to breach the quay wall & indeed their own campshires project ??

So I said I’d be back with all guns blazing, but I didn’t honestly expect the DDDA to hand me this one on a plate. It’s all starting to feel a bit Truman Show for my liking.

*checks for cameras*

I worried when this was discussed before that Paul’s comment re ‘thesis proposal’ was too good to be true. I don’t like doubting you, P, but this is the DDDA, remember? And guess what- yup. The DDDA- Where Nightmares Become Reality.

The canal could be a nice feature (or it could become another dustbin- Portobello College, anyone?), but why introduce one here? Is there a history of canals along this stretch? Not that I know of. (Except for the existing one, obviously. But that’s OLD! And this is NEW!)

And yes, it counts as open space of a sort, but open water is the least flexible/usable space there is. Not only that, it creates a barrier wherever it’s not bridged. What’s so wrong with the idea of a linear park? Too boring? Too dependable? Not avant-garde enough?

But as Peter said, the issue of the quay wall breach / quay line interruption is of another mangitude altogether, if not remotely surprising from the Agency that brought you the infilling of George’s Dock, the heneghan.peng.timber.jetties.proposal, the Martha! Schwartz! Red! Thing! With! The! Poles!, and many more misadventures. It just seems incapable of understanding that, as the responsible agency, it is supposed to be guardian of the bodies of water. Isn’t it? *checks website* Oh hang on. I see what’s going on. It’s got the word Development in it’s title, but not the word Protection, or even Planning.

But this previous lack of understanding of water makes this canal all the more baffling. If it gets the go-ahead (please no!), how long before they propose to pave over it for security reasons?

A (reiterated) message to the DDDA- LEAVE THE RIVER ALONE. Please?

This presumably has to be discussed in public, and the relevant planning scheme amended? Or is it like the U2 tower, where the argument will be along the lines that the proposal is close enough to the existing scheme, and anyway, it’s Shiny! And New! And Dynamic! And Progressive!

Please reconsider this nonsense, DDDA.

PS Can anyone confirm / deny if this is the one West 8 is involved in?

EDIT: ‘magnitude’. I’d change it, but ‘mangitude’ has a certain ring to it in this context, no?

There was meant to be a visual presentation to the local residents last night by the DDDA in the NCI but some ‘community integration’ individual turned up who essentially didn’t know anything about it. The residents were not best pleased and didn’t appreciate the lack of perceived respect the DDDA were showing them. If tender to completion on the Macken St bridge takes 6 years you can only imagine how long the local community will be dealing with this.

Sounds about right for an organisation where the Marketing Dept is three times the size of the Planning Dept.*

A colleague who lives nearby got that image through his lettterbox too, but that’s all for now. Keep us posted if you hear any more, thanks.

*These figures have not been audited.

um what is the point of this? Am I correct in assuming that the DDDA plans to tear down all those buildings and streets, buil a canal around and bridges to the new island, all for what? why not just develope the land that is already there? I’m having a hard time getting my head around this one as it seems to be a pointless exercise

So they’re infilling one body of water and creating another?!

Maybe they want a better use for the granite facings of the soon to be destroyed George’s Dock.

A destructive and entirely unnecessary scheme that will have the added bonus of being enormously expensive to create.

@GrahamH wrote:

A destructive and entirely unnecessary scheme that will have the added bonus of being enormously expensive to create.

Exactly! How else are they going to spend their money? It is not enough to make progress, we must be seen to make progress! Lots of big, unnecessary, visible progress.

(Progress is the right word here, yes?)

@ctesiphon wrote:

we must be seen to make progress! Lots of big, unnecessary, visible progress.

(Progress is the right word here, yes?)

think i’d opt for regress 😉

IS anyone else disappointed when ctesiphon holds back like he did above? C’mon lay it on the table! Tell us what you really think 😉

Anyway I can’t but agree with every point made here. I mean, what the hell is the point of all this? Are DDDA constantly looking for that prestige project that they think will display how innovative they are, when in reality it will expose their meddlesome silly ways for the world to see? Here’s an idea lads.. Build for the people! Human scale spaces, variety, legibility and permeability, not daft nonsense like this! We have a river. We have canals/. Use them, don’t molest them.

This hits the nail on the head – “It is not enough to make progress, we must be seen to make progress! Lots of big, unnecessary, visible progress”

None of that hippy crap like social cohesion or a sense of place. Sure how would that look in a brochure or on the hoardings!!!

Now the DDDA is going to give us “venice”, when can we expect their version of ‘paris”

Guys: I can’t see why you’re all getting so excited about this pile of j*****s. It is some demented adman’s ‘vision’ (as oppoosed to Vision). The canal -great!- why haven’t they done it already? Building out on stilts? Possible but pointless. I agree that the prospect of the Liffey broadening out to the sea is magical. They’ll waste enough energy fretting about U2’s Tower (of Babel) to have any time to ‘plan’ this.

@ctesiphon wrote:

PS Can anyone confirm / deny if this is the one West 8 is involved in?

West 8 were involved in the master planning, this looks like their work ok. It is based on the model they did a whiloe back.

If you think this is mad, West 8 were also looking atr filling in the grand canal basin and creating a similar feature, with an island in the middle linked by numerous bridges.

The DDDA have totally lost the plot here, it is being driven by egos rather than the need to build quality facilities. You only have to look at other similar dockland redevelopment in Europe to see that our regeneration is built upon big egotistical projects.

I’ve had about all I can take from this shower of wasters. DDDA-FOAD:mad::mad:

@tommyt wrote:

I’ve had about all I can take from this shower of wasters. DDDA-FOAD:mad::mad:

doubt you’d be very popular with them either if they ever heard of you

This is a great idea – in theory,
Something different , even a little daring, but of course it would depend on the quality of design and maintenance.

Nothing surprising from the usual serial objectors on this forum to absolutely anything different proposed , how dull, bordering on embarrassing .
I am truly baffled by it.

Is the sacred River Liffey our holy Ganges or something?
Or is it the slight re-routing? Last tried by probably the Vikings and the Normans
I would hope it is just disdain for the DDDA, but our bland docklands are a direct result to this serial objection to anything other than the mundane.

theman – you actually think our docklands is filled with big egotistical projects:confused:
I would have thought the exact opposite

I think you misunderstood paul h: the anger against the ddda is based on the idea that they are trying to compensate for the mess they have made, the blandness etc, with grandiose and ill-thought out gestures which lack a sense of place, in this case, a lack of respect for the line of the campshire, a grandness which distinguishes Dublin’s river landscape. I would certainly welcome something bold from the ddda, but I think they could do this without damaging what has been entrusted to them: the docks, the river landscape, the remanents of the industrial heritage.

@joanlemmon wrote:

doubt you’d be very popular with them either if they ever heard of you

Joan- I’ve professional first hand dealings with sections of this organisation. I thought the tide would be turning now they have appointed Dutch and Danish built envirnment companies recently, but this proposal is just beneath contempt. I can barely even think of a glib ‘credit where it’s due’ comment to pass on their record down through the years. It’s getting beyond a joke at this stage, I’ve said enough in previous docklands threads of substance but this proposal is the final straw. Gloves off-it’s a pile of wank not worthy of serious discussion.

@alonso wrote:

IS anyone else disappointed when ctesiphon holds back like he did above? C’mon lay it on the table! Tell us what you really think 😉

What can I say? I’m a little rusty after the holiday.

@theman wrote:

West 8 were involved in the master planning, this looks like their work ok. It is based on the model they did a whiloe back.

Thanks. I had high hopes when I heard they were getting involved, sadly now not justified.

@notjim wrote:

the anger against the ddda is based on the idea that they are trying to compensate for the mess they have made, the blandness etc, with grandiose and ill-thought out gestures which lack a sense of place, in this case, a lack of respect for the line of the campshire, a grandness which distinguishes Dublin’s river landscape. I would certainly welcome something bold from the ddda, but I think they could do this without damaging what has been entrusted to them: the docks, the river landscape, the remanents of the industrial heritage.

Precisely.

@paul h wrote:

our bland docklands are a direct result to this serial objection to anything other than the mundane.

Examples please.

@GrahamH wrote:

Examples please.

Examples of slightly more interesting docklands projects that people moan about incessantly?

The U2 Tower.
Gormley’s statue.
Schwartz’s plaza.
Liebskind’s theatre.
Calatrava’s bridge.
Everything else that isn’t a 5-7 storey square box.

Not built;
not built;
built;
not built;
not built.

@johnglas wrote:

Not built;
not built;
built;
not built;
not built.

Actually –

not built
not built
built
under construction
under construction

Not sure what your point is though?

Well – it’s all very well going on about ‘iconic’ buildings in amongst the dross, but actually the South Docklands – from what I can remember of it – is much better than the north. It’s the large footprint of modern developments and the overweaning need to be trendy (e.g. the flavour of the month is glass frontages) that renders these developments monotonous. Equally, bldgs by starchitects are neither here nor there until they’re built (and been in use for a while). Liebeskind and Calatrava are uber-trendy, but are their structures any good? Only time will tell and the problem now is that you will get the product of the studio, with the ‘great man’ merely supervising. It was always thus, but the absolute craving for these people does not necessarily justify the end-product.

With regards to Mr Calatrava, does anyone else get the feeling that he’s pootling around natural history museums, ticking off designs? That said, his second bridge for the Liffey will be nice, albeit in a “look! it’s a harp! in Ireland! clever!!” kind of way :p

I would hope it is just disdain for the DDDA, but our bland docklands are a direct result to this serial objection to anything other than the mundane.

Proposed developments in the area under the remit of the DDDA are generally not subject to planning objections. Almost everything that has been built there has been directly and completely guided by the DDDA and they bear full responsibility for the result. A couple of developers have tried to bypass the DDDA by appealing to the council for planning but in the vast majority of cases objection is impossible. You’d appear less like an idiot if you stopped blaming “serial objecters” and actually learned something about the planning system before commenting on what has caused the docklands mess.

@JoePublic wrote:

Schwartz’s plaza.
Liebskind’s theatre.
Calatrava’s bridge.

Fairly sparse negative comment on these 3 i’d suggest.

@jimg wrote:

A couple of developers have tried to bypass the DDDA by appealing to the council

Just a correction. You don’t appeal to the council. You only appeal to An Bord Pleanala.

@jimg wrote:

[To paul h] You’d appear less like an idiot if you stopped blaming “serial objecters” and actually learned something about the planning system before commenting

Have you not noticed by now? paul h writes the same thing in every post!

@jimg wrote:

on what has caused the docklands mess.

A mess? It may be considered to be boring but it’s carefully planned. It’s not a mess.

@jimg wrote:

Proposed developments in the area under the remit of the DDDA are generally not subject to planning objections. Almost everything that has been built there has been directly and completely guided by the DDDA and they bear full responsibility for the result. A couple of developers have tried to bypass the DDDA by appealing to the council for planning but in the vast majority of cases objection is impossible. You’d appear less like an idiot if you stopped blaming “serial objecters” and actually learned something about the planning system before commenting on what has caused the docklands mess.

ok DDDA are directly resonsible for what we got, but i do seem to remember the say no to drugs… or..er… i mean say no to high high rise banners everywhere, there was actual marches against the old spencer dock proposal by Roche if memory serves me. Of course they make the final descision but there are also a lot of outside factors, or am i being idiotic?

So i seem to ruffled some feathers, some of you dull kids really need to loosen up.

Have you not noticed by now? paul h writes the same thing in every post!

Yes Devin there is a general theme of common sense:p

@paul h wrote:

ok DDDA are directly resonsible for what we got, but i do seem to remember the say no to drugs… or..er… i mean say no to high high rise banners everywhere, there was actual marches against the old spencer dock proposal by Roche if memory serves me. Of course they make the final descision but there are also a lot of outside factors, or am i being idiotic?

So i seem to ruffled some feathers, some of you dull kids really need to loosen up.

Yes Devin there is a general theme of common sense:p

The old Spencer Dock proposals were rubbish, the DDDA didn’t make the final call on it as it was subject to a Judicial review and the developers applied to the city council to develop. Once Dermot Desmond laid the smackdown on the developers, they then came back with a revised proposal that took into account the DDDA and the community groups in the area.

How you think making a pointless Island and building on the campshires is common sense I don’t know?

This is a quick one as i’m writing on my cell phone. Where’s common sense in constantly complaining about the boring docklands and as soon as any unusual idea is floated pardon the pun , as in this proposal, its gets ripped apart. Tell me that. I call it the old man in the bar syndrome, always complaining but as soon as there is sign of change we dont want that either.

@paul h wrote:

This is a quick one as i’m writing on my cell phone. Where’s common sense in constantly complaining about the boring docklands and as soon as any unusual idea is floated pardon the pun , as in this proposal, its gets ripped apart. Tell me that. I call it the old man in the bar syndrome, always complaining but as soon as there is sign of change we dont want that either.

No as per lack of complaints about the Libeskind theatre and the Calatrava bridge these are considered as good. The complaints about this pointless exercise mean that a lot of us consider it “ill thought out wank”

Seriously – if you can think how this proposal is going to do anything fantastic I’d like to hear it

You ask why, and i ask why not. Leave it at that

If only you displayed such a positive attitude, paul h. Mostly you seem to fantasize about taking on bogey “serial objectors”, shaking up the dull board and championing high buildings no matter what their merits. The reality of your contributions is less impressive than what you fondly imagine.

Mrs jimg handing out the smackdown, i like to see it , you go girl!

Anyways, yes im sure you are correct my contributions are not fantastic, terrible even, lord knows how i reached this number of posts. (jayzus i remember when Heuston gate and u2 tower were only holes in the ground:rolleyes:)
Im am merely a lay man with a interest to what goes on in Dublin
Any place you go in the world you will find nimby’s and people who object to anything, but the huge difference is that in Ireland the objectors seem to get their way more often. Nothing new , this has been discussed to death before, but as far as i can see it is true

edit – ftr i did not like ncc hotel tower, well balanced or what

A tender for this was posted on etenders on Friday

This is a different project – it is to develop the old graving dock site. Another one that DDDA have being messing about with. Scheme is to build apartments each side of the 3 graving docks.

This is only a PIN notice – not a tender. So they must be getting something ready…unless it is an admin cock up….

sorry, thought it was too coincidental timewise to be anything else

I’m all for their idea for building a high rise cluster but I’m really stumped by the island idea. Butchuring the urban landscape, damaging the enviornment and eco systems, waisting public money, dissrupting natural currents all for the sake of havin an island in a river, that has roughly the same amount of land as the current site that it’d destroy, has no raison d’etre. Is there actually one good reason why this proposal should go ahead other than showing off and trying to imitate other cities with islands in their rivers eg Paris, London etc? anyone? anyone?

bit “dubai palm” syndrome in DCC?? if they are really mad enought to go ahead with something like this, could they have at least made the shape of the island a bit more interesting.-its just a rectangle with water around it! what i dont like about it is the obstruction of the river view while walking/driving along the river, when suddenly there will be office blocks seperating the road and river.

Looks like their pretty serious about this and is not just some “grand plan”.Not much of an urban landscape to butcher last time I was down there.Im suprised the liffey even has an ecosystem and “oh no” the natural currents,gime a break!! They have admitted themselves north docklands is boring and repetitive, finally we might be getting something just a little bit exciting and all people can do is moan.I’m convinced the average age on this forum is at least 50.

@cubix wrote:

Looks like their pretty serious about this and is not just some “grand plan”.Not much of an urban landscape to butcher last time I was down there.Im suprised the liffey even has an ecosystem and “oh no” the natural currents,gime a break!! They have admitted themselves north docklands is boring and repetitive, finally we might be getting something just a little bit exciting and all people can do is moan.I’m convinced the average age on this forum is at least 50.

So why exactly is there a need to break the quay wall, quay side & campshire that has stood for a couple of hundred years ? The Liffey comes in to its own at this point with a consistency & scale that when coupled with the armour of its broad campshires is almost stately. You can have your gimicky canal & high rise pocket if you like just leave the river alone, and for the record I am 27.

The only reason I’d even consider buying somewhere to live on the North side of the quays is the amazing amenity which the south facing Campshires present. Its a great place for a walk or for just sitting on the quay walls.

I’m all for exciting schemes to break the repetition in the area but this is hardly the way to do it.

Agree with that reddy. As well as being a decent south facing sedentary space for most of the year, the North Wall campshire functions very well as an elongated event space during the Docklands Festival in June. I know last year’s festival got rained out a bit, but, in general, the Docklands Festival is fast becoming my favorite annual Dublin event.

The grand scale of the river, the generous cobble stoned space, an eclectic mix of musical entertainment, a couple of tall ships, bratwurst stands, a touch of sea air, it’s everthing you want from a low key urban event.

cubix: why do you think conservatism equates with being 50? Obviously you’re pre-pubescent and accept every trendy thing you read and are fixated with the ‘new’ (as in ‘nothing under the sun’). Maybe this is just a crap idea.

@cubix wrote:

finally we might be getting something just a little bit exciting and all people can do is moan.

Please tell me in what way is this project exciting?

Well I know why people find it exciting: they have this image of Manhattan with its fantastic skyline seen across water and most particularly the southern tip seen in wideangle from the Staten Island ferry: the stuff of a thousand posters. The idea they have is that this could be that and when it is, we will be them: New Yorkers, dressing in black and having meaningless sex in limos after ligging at glamourous alphabet-city exhibition opening and east village poetry slams. However, Manhattan, par excellence, is a response to context: the grid, the strong zoning, the existing stock of fine valued buildings, the topography, the bed rock, this proposal, in contrast, defies context; it is artificial, inorganic and, ultimately, lame. Ironically, Dublin will have tall buildings surrounded by water and towering over disused, picturesque, harbourworks, just like the lower westside, but it won’t be, I hope, on this piecemeal fragment breaking the line of the liffey, it will be where Dublin port is now. And even if the DDDA does go ahead with this gimmickry, we will still be ourselves getting lonely drunk in decrepit pubs before having meaningless sex in front of our computer screens.

@notjim wrote:

Well I know why people find it exciting: they have this image of Manhattan with its fantastic skyline seen across water and most particularly the southern tip seen in wideangle from the Staten Island ferry: the stuff of a thousand posters. The idea they have is that this could be that and when it is, we will be them: New Yorkers, dressing in black and having meaningless sex in limos after ligging at glamourous alphabet-city exhibition opening and east village poetry slams. However, Manhattan, par excellence, is a response to context: the grid, the strong zoning, the existing stock of fine valued buildings, the topography, the bed rock, this proposal, in contrast, defies context; it is artificial, inorganic and, ultimately, lame. Ironically, Dublin will have tall buildings surrounded by water and towering over disused, picturesque, harbourworks, just like the lower westside, but it won’t be, I hope, on this piecemeal fragment breaking the line of the liffey, it will be where Dublin port is now. And even if the DDDA does go ahead with this gimmickry, we will still be ourselves getting lonely drunk in decrepit pubs before having meaningless sex in front of our computer screens.

Hopefully not on this site though :p

are they actually going to gain any land from this? its looks like any land they gain will be offset by land lost from the new canal.why dont they just build towers on the existing land and save a lot of time and money.

@cubix wrote:

Looks like their pretty serious about this and is not just some “grand plan”.Not much of an urban landscape to butcher last time I was down there.Im suprised the liffey even has an ecosystem and “oh no” the natural currents,gime a break!! They have admitted themselves north docklands is boring and repetitive, finally we might be getting something just a little bit exciting and all people can do is moan.I’m convinced the average age on this forum is at least 50.

There’e no nead to get personal here. And for your information, I’m18

Well for any 18 – 80 year olds who are interested, there is a presentation on this development as well as the ‘new’ plans for the North Docklands (read, increase in height restrictions) by the DDDA in the Clarion Hotel tonight at 7.30pm (Tuesday, Mar 25th). It’s aimed at the local residents but I’m sure the DDDA would be happy to accomodate all interested parties. I’ll be going along to see where my tax dollars are heading over the next 10 years 😉 .

The Clarion is between Jury’s and Spencer Dock on the North Quay’s.

@Rory W wrote:

Please tell me in what way is this project exciting?

There’s a new canal.
Maybe exciting is too strong a word but its certainly interesting

I love to see this ‘New Canal’ at low tide. I wonder what it will look like. Will it be full of silt deposits in years time…:rolleyes:

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

Well for any 18 – 80 year olds who are interested, there is a presentation on this development as well as the ‘new’ plans for the North Docklands (read, increase in height restrictions) by the DDDA in the Clarion Hotel tonight at 7.30pm (Tuesday, Mar 25th). It’s aimed at the local residents but I’m sure the DDDA would be happy to accomodate all interested parties. I’ll be going along to see where my tax dollars are heading over the next 10 years 😉 .

The Clarion is between Jury’s and Spencer Dock on the North Quay’s.

anybody go? Could you pm me details if you did.

& post publicly if you get a chance !

🙂

I tagged along (thanks Rusty for lunging me into a bearpit of a local residents meeting – much obliged!).

The CEO of the DDDA Peter Coyne was there, as well as their architect and social/community person. Peter Coyne is an excellent operator: somebody one would have confidence in delivering. He only took the job on two years ago as well, so we he’s fortunate in not having to explain away the past decade.

It was admitted that the first phase of north Docklands failed insofar as mixed use, public space and urban vitality are concerned. It was often emphasised that this is a learning curve – something that’s a little hard to swallow when it deals with people’s quality of life and multiple acres of prime urban land…

Anyway the proposed new scheme clamped between Spencer Dock and Point Village is part of the 2008 Masterplan that’s currently being drafted. The masterplan was first compiled in 1997 and updated in 2003. This plan is one that seeks to significantly boost the skyline of the the north docks. The base level of heights on and around the ‘island’ will be 6 storeys, punctuated by a number of blocky towers, around ten or so, ranging from 14-15 storeys to 25 storeys – the majority in the former range.

On land proper, to the north, one of the flagship projects will be a family-oriented apartment scheme, centred around existing housing off Mayor Street. To respect the existing scale of housing they will be graduated from about 3 storeys up to around 6-7 storeys, the taller buildings essentially forming an enormous courtyard with parkland in the middle. Everything in this scheme is to be designed around families. Nearby will be a state-of-the-art residential/drop-in facility for the elderly of the area, with accommodation I think for about 80 residents.

Of course the island is centre-stage in all of this. It really won’t have the feel of an island it must be noted – the canal around it just generates that impression on a plan view. The waterway does have some merit, though I’d be concerned that the linear parks will be insufficient for practical use. The canal will be narrow and relatively discreet with small ‘intimate’ bridges crossing it. It is intended that the canal would also serve as a flood defence – absorbing water at high tides, and releasing again afterwards. Personally I cannot imagine such a meagre body to have such impact in the wider context of a flooding Liffey, but it’s an element anyway. It is also proposed that the canal will act as a source for water recycling and grey water use etc.

Along the contentious projection out into the Liffey, it is intended to build a covered arcade along the river frontage, similar to an example in Hamburg, but along modernist lines. This would be lined with artists’ shops and other ‘cultural’ and café uses. It is to be wide and spacious, and provide cover from the wind. Taller buildings would then rise up behind and on top of this, all of which – either to the projection or to the island as whole, I’m not sure – are to be publically-oriented. Given a number of towers are proposed for the island, I imagine it refers just to the river frontage. The roadway of the campshires will continue as normal through the island. Pressed on the projection, the architect argued that this will be a defining development and that such a pronouncement into the river is justified as heralding/marking the new quarter on the river, ‘much as the Custom House does with its river frontage’ – a comparison I fail to make a connection with…

The quayfront to the west before the projection will feature a mixture of parkland and mix-use developments. Some of these developments will include roof gardens open to the public.

The renderings employed were well-executed, but conjectural. I found that things were moving a little too in the opposite direction from what we’ve experienced in Docklands thus far. In an attempt to move away from the homogenity of the previous development, this one seeks to punctuate a landscape with quirky stand-alone buildings. It all looked bizarrely theme-park like, but that could purely be down to the imagery employed. Essentially nothing has been designed yet – aside from the public parts, it’s up to the developers to propose solutions compatable with the plan.

Indeed the latter is the most admirable aspect of the new masterplan – nothing gets built unless it conforms with the plan. Liam Carroll has been refused no less than three applications in the Docklands area in the past short while as indiction of such. The DDDA are emphatic that nothing will be built unless it offers community and social gain (though I would have liked to hear design gain mentioned, even once).

Lots of encouraging aspects, but concerns about the Liffey projection, and the lingering question – why couldn’t we have this thinking a decade ago?

@GrahamH wrote:

🙂
The CEO of the DDDA Peter Coyne was there, as well as their architect and social/community person. Peter Coyne is an excellent operator: somebody one would have confidence in delivering. He only took the job on two years ago as well, so we he’s fortunate in not having to explain away the past decade. ?

Peter Coyne has been involved with the DDDA for far longer than 2 years Graham. During my digging around in the debacle of the original U2 competition, I had dealing with him and his acolytes which were not pleasant.

http://ireland.archiseek.com/news/2003/000250.html

Thanks Graham.

“the taller buildings essentially forming an enormous courtyard with parkland in the middle”

Will there be public access?

@GrahamH wrote:

🙂

IThe CEO of the DDDA Peter Coyne was there, as well as their architect and social/community person. Peter Coyne is an excellent operator: somebody one would have confidence in delivering. He only took the job on two years ago as well, so we he’s fortunate in not having to explain away the past decade.

Given Peter Coyne left two years ago and was widely regarded as being a lightweight I presume you’re referring to Paul Maloney who made a bit of a balls of O’Connell St. Did you get interrogated as to whether you were a resident or not. I was:)

A very interesting read thanks, and what sounds like a very interesting project.

Taller varied buildings
A nice linear park to sit and read a book, eat a sandwich, guzzle cheap beer , sell drugs…hang on maybe not the last two…
Family oriented apartments
Elderly centre
An island , of sorts
Small bridges (who hasn’t stood on a bridge gazing into the water pondering life:D)
A canal

Whats this strange feeling … i think.. yes … it may be mild excitement

SUNDAY BUSINESS POST
Covered arcade planned for Liffey Island scheme
30 March 2008 By Neil Callanan
A covered arcade along part of the Liffey with shops and cafes is being planned by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.

Details of the project were unveiled last week as the authority outlined further details of its Liffey Island plan for the north docklands at a meeting of the North Lotts’ Residents Association.

The authority also said that the land between Spencer Dock and Point Village will have significantly higher development than allowed for under the 2003 masterplan.

The new masterplan will allow buildings of up to 25 storeys, but most of them will be between 14 and 15 storeys.
Those attending the meeting were vetted and this reporter was asked to leave.
However, details of the plans were subsequently posted on architectural discussion forum archiseek.com.

The high-rise cluster would straddle North Wall Quay between the East Link Bridge and the Santiago Calatrava bridge.

The buildings will be mixed use with retail on the ground floor, offices above that and residential units on the top floors. Part of the site would be dug out to create a new canal with small bridges crossing it. Stilts would then be driven into the Liffey, allowing buildings to be built there.

An apartment complex is also to be developed off Mayor Street, with parkland and a courtyard in the middle. New buildings will also have to provide community and social gain before they are given the go-ahead.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=31671-qqqx=1.asp

@jdivision wrote:

Given Peter Coyne left two years ago and was widely regarded as being a lightweight I presume you’re referring to Paul Maloney who made a bit of a balls of O’Connell St. Did you get interrogated as to whether you were a resident or not. I was 🙂

No it definitely was Peter Coyne. Sounds like I got the figure wrong though – maybe he’s been with them a while but was made CEO recently. I found him and his staff all very gracious.

By contrast, I saw that woman asking you to leave and thought her manner extremely rude and your leaving completely unnecessary. There were a couple of empty seats all night. I was just on the verge of being asked who I was, but escaped unharmed. Either way I wasn’t going without a fight: Mr Coyne told me members of the public were quite welcome.

And for the record, jdivision does the best grumpy expression ever 😀

@GrahamH wrote:

No it definitely was Peter Coyne. Sounds like I got the figure wrong though – maybe he’s been with them a while but was made CEO recently. I found him and his staff all very gracious.

By contrast, I saw that woman asking you to leave and thought her manner extremely rude and your leaving completely unnecessary. There were a couple of empty seats all night. I was just on the verge of being asked who I was, but escaped unharmed. Either way I wasn’t going without a fight: Mr Coyne told me members of the public were quite welcome.

And for the record, jdivision does the best grumpy expression ever 😀

Yes, I saw the SBP journo being evicted. He obviously reads this site and figured he’d come along. There seemed to be a bit of confusion as to just who was allowed to attend.

Graham, that was Paul Maloney speaking

http://www.ddda.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=99&3nID=99&pID=139&nID=200

and was that you at the end asking why no one had questioned the architectural merit of the development (with a ‘will somebody think of the children’ expression) ? :p

Ahhh – it is Paul Maloney. Well that’s embarrassing isn’t it? I was under the distinct impression that everyone was calling him Peter all night.
Right – so it was he that was an impressive operator.

Me – ask something of an architectural character? I don’t know what you’re talking about Rusty…
(Says he of “I want my bridge, and I want it now” fame ;))

I like this idea a lot.

As usual the hysterical arm-wringers complaining over nothing reaches epidemic on this board once again

30 Years ago you would of all been members of SPUC – your generation of middle class whiners are just transferring your Oirish irrational terror at something new and different onto buildings, metros, etc these days instead of condoms and divorce.

@Cute Panda wrote:

I like this idea a lot.

Good of you to explain why you like it. Thanks for the insight.

@Cute Panda wrote:

30 Years ago you would of all been members of SPUC – your generation of middle class whiners are just transferring your Oirish irrational terror at something new and different onto buildings, metros, etc these days instead of condoms and divorce.

Another solid argument. (For the record, I see at least four internal contradictions in the sentence quoted above [not to mention the grammatical errors].)

If you want to debate the merits of this development, please do.

*** *** ***

So the DDDA draws up a new approach to the development of this area, but decides to exclude non-residents by vetting the attendees, and then ejects a journalist from the meeting?

You’d think it had something to hide, not something to sing about.

@Cute Panda wrote:

I like this idea a lot.

As usual the hysterical arm-wringers complaining over nothing reaches epidemic on this board once again

30 Years ago you would of all been members of SPUC – your generation of middle class whiners are just transferring your Oirish irrational terror at something new and different onto buildings, metros, etc these days instead of condoms and divorce.

Social and political history not your forte then eh?

Is Cute Panda Joanlemmon in disguise? (I recognise the bile and lack of argument.)

@ctesiphon wrote:

Good of you to explain why you like it. Thanks for the insight.

Another solid argument. (For the record, I see at least four internal contradictions in the sentence quoted above [not to mention the grammatical errors].)

If you want to debate the merits of this development, please do.

*** *** ***

So the DDDA draws up a new approach to the development of this area, but decides to exclude non-residents by vetting the attendees, and then ejects a journalist from the meeting?

You’d think it had something to hide, not something to sing about.

To clarify, it was a member of the residents committee who ejected the Journo, not the DDDA. According to Graham the DDDA didn’t have an issue with members of the public being in attendance.

A week after the fact, and I hope I’m not just being cynical, I hope the whole thing isn’t a bit of a smoke screen to get the residents to accept the new (25 storey) development plans for the area.

@Cute Panda wrote:

I like this idea a lot.

As usual the hysterical arm-wringers complaining over nothing reaches epidemic on this board once again

30 Years ago you would of all been members of SPUC – your generation of middle class whiners are just transferring your Oirish irrational terror at something new and different onto buildings, metros, etc these days instead of condoms and divorce.

Ah jaysus CP you’ve pissed on your chips in my eyes with that tirade. Second time in as many days I’ve been accused of being middle class:(
I would imagine the Lumpen Proles down the docks think this is as RIDICULOUS an idea as the naysyaers here. They probably need the fill from digging this new Venice to finish off reclaiming George’s Dock.:rolleyes:

Just to clarify, the DDDA were fine with others attending from outside the resident’s association. It was a member of the association who forced the hand.

Also jdivision was not ejected because of being a journalist, but simply for being a member of the public. For this reason, and the manner it which it was handled, it was a particularly unwarranted action, and not I would imagine to be representative of the association as a whole, who appeared to be a decent and welcoming bunch.

@GrahamH wrote:

And for the record, jdivision does the best grumpy expression ever 😀

What can I say, I’m an angry man:p

Maybe the solution in future is to go in disguise. We should plan this carefully. We will organise as cells, so even if an individual is discovered (“outed”), they can only give up the names of five people at most. First rule of archiseek: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT ARCHISEEK.

I’ll be the chap in the hoodie with an afro and a large moustache. Codename: Bingo.

DDDA propose a block of 15 – 25 storey towers at spencer Dock, one line of which are stood on stilts in the Liffey, outside the Quay wall. In return, we get a moat! (sorry, perimeter canal and linear park).

This is exciting stuff. Of course this is exciting stuff, running out in front of traffic on the dual carriageway is exciting stuff.

The proposal does a handbrake turn on urban cohesion in pursuit of the missing docklands ‘Wow’ factor!

The proposal turns it’s back of 350 years of quay front planning policy!

The way I see it we have two choices:

1. Lock ’em up and throw away the keys, or

2. Knock ’em up and throw away the quays.

Oh this is a tough one.

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

To clarify, it was a member of the residents committee who ejected the Journo, not the DDDA. According to Graham the DDDA didn’t have an issue with members of the public being in attendance.

A week after the fact, and I hope I’m not just being cynical, I hope the whole thing isn’t a bit of a smoke screen to get the residents to accept the new (25 storey) development plans for the area.

Aah. My apologies to the DDDA. (Thanks RC and GH for the clarification.)

But why in g-d’s name would the residents want to eject non-residents? Aside from anything else, if this goes ahead it will have a city-wide impact, and I don’t want some blinkered local calling the shots for my city based on some spurious local planning gain grounds. (If the meeting was arranged by DDDA, then surely it was solely responsible for the management of attendance. The fact that a single local can get her way is a worry- is the DDDA that worried about local support?)

Same question to the local resident, then: What have you got to hide?

well on the noticeboard in the hotel the room had been booked from 2pm so I was wondering if there was something on beforehand or whether it really took them five hours to stick up a few posters.

Presumably sweeping the joint for listening devices. 😉

But a major issue should be with “The Canal Idea”. Have any of you come across nice smelling “Grey Water” and a building out over the liffey with its Summer Aromas? Wake up all you promoters of this idea. I for one would not like to work over the Liffey in the Summer.
One major Architectural thing; none of this idea allows for the preserved buildings taking their rightful place along the Quays.

It just reinforces the idea of a tidal barrage on the Liffey first, to control tide levels. It’s a good way to delay or obstruct this dev – no barrage, no building out over the river.

To GrahamH and Paul h in particular

I have just figured out the reason for “The Canal” 😮
The link below applies to the Crosbie building just commenced on the corner of Abercorn Road and Sheriff Street. http://www.pleanala.ie/ord/205/D205632.DOC

I quote:
“3. Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of surface water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services. In this regard, foul water shall be treated on site in a private wastewater treatment facility, and shall subsequently be discharged to the River Liffey, along with surface water, via a pumping station and rising main, on an interim basis and to the standard of the planning authority, pending the availability of adequate public drainage facilities. The entire cost of these works shall be at the developer’s own expense.... “

It is in this surreptitious way the DDDA propose their “Canal” with its foul smell and more obviously they have little or no regard for locals or the river Liffey.

@cagey wrote:

I have just figured out the reason for “The Canal” 😮

It is in this surreptitious way the DDDA propose their “Canal” with its foul smell and more obviously they have little or no regard for locals or the river Liffey.

Excellent piece of work.

Everything always looks so much clearer at 3 in the morning. There’s always a motive, you just have to hold your nose and dig deep enough!

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

So this rears its head again. It seems the DDDA are totally hung up on breaking the line of the liffey one way or another whether it be gormely’s sculpture, custom house proposal or this yoke. I’ve no issue with the canal idea but why the need to breach the quay wall & indeed their own campshires project ??

Until last night, I was pretty sure that this proposal was just a bit of kite flying by DDDA to show us how mad and exciting they are, but this scheme was in Dick Gleeson’s presentation at Bolton Street and there was nothing to indicate that DCC might have any issues with it.

If DDDA and DCC are in this together, and if it’s not tecnically ‘high rise’, they can pretty much grant themselves planning permission for this, with just Bord Pleanala between us and an urban jelly mould.

I remember being told a story,I don’t know if it true or not, that around 1990 a bunch or chancers bought up leaseholds on the old transit sheds on the North Wall campshire and put together a proposal for an apartment sheme on the site with some kind of pontoon boardwalk out on the river. As I heard it, they got as far as a pre-planning meeting, which was attended by a senior planner, who is now a very senior planner.

The chancers were duly sent packing, but not because their scheme was daft, or it had a four storey vehicular ramp behind it, they were sent packing because ‘the Duke of Ormonde had set in train a process, in the 17th century, of building formal quays, and thereby, single handedly, he turned the city around to face the river across generous public streets, and no bunch of chancers were going to come along now and interfere with that great vision’, or words to that effect.

I can’t say for sure if this ever happened, and I haven’t seen any of the chancers around in a while, but this is the drawing they went in with.

I’m pretty sure those pictures are for illustrative purposes only, and each buildings design will be submitted by each developer as and when this gets started , or not.

Stop prevaricating Paul h … what do you say to the DDDA idea of expecting people to work in offices (or worse still “Live”) on an “Island” stretching between a stinking Grey Water moat to above the dubious aromas of the Liffey in the Summer time at low tide and hiding the facts by calling the moat a “Canal”? You can guess those judges in Lisbon never smelt the Liffey in summer or opened a window above a Grey Water facility. An award my azz!!

BTW gunter nice drawing; long live the uninterrupted campshires with no DDDA follies.

@cagey wrote:

Stop prevaricating Paul h … what do you say to the DDDA idea of expecting people to work in offices (or worse still “Live”) on an “Island” stretching between a stinking Grey Water moat to above the dubious aromas of the Liffey in the Summer time at low tide and hiding the facts by calling the moat a “Canal”? You can guess those judges in Lisbon never smelt the Liffey in summer or opened a window above a Grey Water facility. An award my azz!!

BTW gunter nice drawing; long live the uninterrupted campshires with no DDDA follies.

Cagey – if that is your real identity…… To you and yours GROW A PAIR.
If you dont like the smell, drop in some of your saturday-night old spice that your mammy gave you for Christmas.
Or alternatively just dont rent any office space there.

I believe that so-called ‘chancer’ was Mr Harry Crosbie – he was turned down on the grounds that it was the stated objective of the DCC to have clear campshires all the way to the East Link (A process started by Ormond in the 1660s!). A process I and most others support.

As someone who has lived and worked in the docklands previously yes it can get whiffy but you’ll survive. However given this moat is a rather pathetic width (appears to be no wider than 20ft from the illustration) and given that they wish to build taller buildings on the site it will be a dark overshadowed ditch esp on its northern stretch (if stretch is the right word as you could walk the island strect in 5 minutes).

Given its tiny-tots scale and the fact it privatises a stretch of the campshires (which is against the original objectives of the ddda/dcc plan) I am firmly opposed to this ‘wheeze of the week’ scheme.

@Rory W wrote:

I believe that so-called ‘chancer’ was Mr Harry Crosbie – he was turned down on the grounds that it was the stated objective of the DCC to have clear campshires all the way to the East Link (A process started by Ormond in the 1660s!). A process I and most others support.

Rory W: That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The clear campshires, particularly the sunny, North Wall campshire, is a hugely valuable part of the city’s public domain and was recognised as such even in the bleak times, twenty years ago, when there were still grotty transit sheds on much of the site.

The wobbly ‘Liffey Island’ scheme might be a nice student project, or a bit of eye candy for a architectural expo, and it’s always good to ripple the inertia by throwing the occassional rock in the pond, but if they start spending public money on this thing, as a legitimate go-ahead project, it’s time to break out the burning torches as far as I’m concerned.

With reference to Harry Crosbie, he wasn’t the ‘chancer’ I was refering to, although, now that you mention it, I think he may have harboured similar ambitions at one stage.

@gunter wrote:

Rory W: That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The clear campshires, particularly the sunny, North Wall campshire, is a hugely valuable part of the city’s public domain and was recognised as such even in the bleak times, twenty years ago, when there were still grotty transit sheds on much of the site.

The wobbly ‘Liffey Island’ scheme might be a nice student project, or a bit of eye candy for a architectural expo, and it’s always good to ripple the inertia by throwing the occassional rock in the pond, but if they start spending public money on this thing, as a legitimate go-ahead project, it’s time to break out the burning torches as far as I’m concerned.

With reference to Harry Crosbie, he wasn’t the ‘chancer’ I was refering to, although, now that you mention it, I think he may have harboured similar ambitions at one stage.

Retaining the historic line of the campshire is a fair arguement but the North Wall campshire doesn’t get a lot of use. It’s barren and windswept and pretty cold a lot of the year. It gets a bit of through ped traffic but hardly anyone stops to hang around (for above reasons). Apart from the excellent tall ships festival it’s very underused. It’s now 1.13pm, lunch time, sunny day and I count five people in situ on the whole stretch between Guild St and the East Link (not forgetting 2,000 people work in the PwC building alone). The idea of a continuous campshire reclaimed from years of neglect is all good but if no one wants to use it then maybe time for a rethink.

Rusty Cogs: Surely when a decent, mixed use, high density development (including a bit of exciting architecture, if at all possible!) eventually happens on the Spencer Dock site, that stretch of campshire between the conference centre and the point should be a bustling little strip.

I wouldn’t mind a few arty ‘pavilions’ etc to bring a bit of focus here and there, but to build out over the campshire, on one of the few stretches of the Liffey with real ‘capital city’ urban scale, would be a blunder to match anything we’ve done before, IMO.

I think the smell thing may be over-stated, but a U-shaped canal with no obvious function (assuming Cagey hasn’t stumbled on the real reason), in no way compensates for the loss of the campshire and the civic scale here that we were just on the point of finally getting.

@Rory W wrote:

I I am firmly opposed to this ‘wheeze of the week’ scheme.

😀 I like, can we retrospectively go back to the original Anthony Gormley Sculpture and call that the ‘wizz of the week’?

Well the Liffey doesn’t smell down by the North Lotts, possibly because the tidal nature of the water is not as pronounced (ie. when the tide is out, no river bed is exposed). Grand Canal Dock doesn’t smell, helped I imagine by the fact that it’s not static (grand canal flowing through it). Georges Inner Dock I’m told does smell (how bad I don’t know but enough people live beside it to know I’m sure). So I guess it’s about how the ‘Liffey Island’ canal is managed. If it’s essentially a still body of water which takes in run off water, building grey water and any kind of waste water then yes it could smell. So is there an engineering soloution to avoid this ?

Regarding the campshire, I’m by no means sold on the extension but I do have issues with it as it is (the campsire that is). Think of the area in front of the Customs House and you get an idea of what it feels like to sit down there (only even more windswept). The extension would be a line of shops, cafe’s, restaurants facing the river with an arcade running alongside. I’d rather cross the North Quay road (no mean feat) and sit at the riverside at a table under cover than on an exposed metal bench with traffic running behind me as my sandwich wrapper blows up the quays.

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

(grand canal flowing through it).

I amn’t arguing, the smell thing is a red herring but . . .

You know canals don’t really flow; there is some small flow I guess, water leaking down through locks, but flowing makes you think rivers and canals certainly don’t do that.

@notjim wrote:

I amn’t arguing, the smell thing is a red herring but . . .

You know canals don’t really flow; there is some small flow I guess, water leaking down through locks, but flowing makes you think rivers and canals certainly don’t do that.

Well the Grand Canal as I’ve ever known it doesn’t smell so I would like there to be some element of ‘flow’ to the LI canal.

Updating my position on this – the bleak windswept campshires are by no means idea and I think that pavillion style cafes and restaurants would be fine on them (but ones a little bit better than the ones by the Clarion please) however I dont support the building of 20 storey buildings over the campshires (I’m fine with them on the other side of the quay road however tall building fans).

@gunter wrote:

one of the few stretches of the Liffey with real ‘capital city’ urban scale, would be a blunder to match anything we’ve done before, IMO.

Yes I think this just about sums it up. I think there’s a supreme elegance in tall buildings being curbed by water – Manhattan in particular works to dramatic effect in that respect, as do many US cities. The subservience of development to a large natural mass of some kind exerts a discipline that is extremely pleasing to the eye (incidentally one of the reasons I still think the Boardwalk is a blight on the city). Of course many cities have various incursions out into their waters, but with the difference with Dublin makes for no comparison. The Liffey cannot absorb such an intrusion without radically altering its form and impacting on the wider riverscape. Also in the longer term, views to any possible development in the Docks proper are also going to be seriously injured, by which time this scheme viewed as a noughties folly to short-sightedness.

Go tall by all accounts, and animate the campshires as much as possible, but the line of the Liffey ought to be maintained.

Photogenic but not functional :rolleyes:

@GrahamH wrote:

Also in the longer term, views to any possible development in the Docks proper are also going to be seriously injured, by which time this scheme viewed as a noughties folly to short-sightedness.

I can see it being up there with the loop line as something future generations will long to have removed …
Reinstate the line of the Liffey – Archiseek thread circa 2040.

Paul h … you haven’t answered the question … and scorn has no place in this very good thread… shame on you.

For the record … I dont mind the Liffey smell, even at its strongest at low tide in the summer. It’s just that it would not be healty to work or “Live” over it.

As the song says I couId “Jump on a bus to Dun Laoghaire … and have a drunk on the bus” (from NYC maybe) tell me he invented the “Liffey Island”. I could believe that, and would “Be glad I wasnt going too far”.

I regularly sit and look out to those green and red lighthouses as Ormond wished, and at night the lights built into the walkways are beautiful as are the indirect light panels all along the campshires. Even the glinting stainless steel rubbish bins enhance the place. A bit cold this time of year to walk there, but the walk was delightful last summer, and for that I sincerely thank the DDDA, but please DDDA don’t spoil the good work.

notjim … please note .. the Grey Water thing is for real and no red herring unless you are equating smells … LOL.
From an attendee at that DDDA/residents meeting was where I heard of the Grey Water idea first, (admitted by the DDDA reps I think) and it shocked me. Greed to gain free building ground and greed not to have to spend on a huge private water treatment plant seems to be the two criteria at the heart of this DDDA “Liffey Island” proposed monstrosity, and like a low water George’s Dock evil smelling in context and presentation.

Again, I am shocked by the DDDA. For sure, John Murphy does not have any regard for this forum.

Check this out:
http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=APR100718

Are these people for real? … they think so, agus as Gaeilge comh maith!!

20 meters wide Grey Water … OMG!

John Gormley I hope you are there when we need you.

To Rusty Cogs … on 20/Mar/2007 1/3 of the river bed was exposed (the bits nearest the Quay Walls), albeit it was a windy night and it didnt smell so badly, but with a building over it to entrap the “vapours” … Phew!!! I hate to think of it.

Cagey you obviously have some issue with smells, my girlfriend is a bit like that too.
If there is the will to keep the water smell-free and reasonably clean then yes it can be done.
You might be surprised to know how much can be done in life with some bright minds on the case.

This could be an exciting little area if it’s developed properly, and maintained properly

If there was maybe a slight lean towards providing decent high calibre nightlife,
with a decent mixture of bars and cafes on the waterfront and elsewhere ,it could be a real destination, such as lets say a mini Temple Bar without the vulgarity
Plus throw in the intensity/density from the mixture of taller buildings (maybe some nice night-lighting schemes for some of the buildings) into the mix and we have a winner.
The only negative is the slight river intrusion but it is only slight so it does not concern me.
I’ll jump to a conclusion and say that if it wasn’t the ‘river intrusion’ upsetting people it would just be something else.

@cagey wrote:

Again, I am shocked by the DDDA.

Check this out:
http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=APR100718

Are these people for real? … they think so, agus as Gaeilge comh maith!!

They’re crossing the line now! This means they’re going to start spending serious money on this little scheme of theirs.

If Archiseek had a van, I’d be for sending it up the M3 about now, pick up a couple of dozen, lightly washed futurephobes, and drop them on the North Wall campshire, where nobody would notice any odour issues, and potentially, they could do some good.

Paul h … next time you are in Dublin, cross the Liffey to Ringsend and travel towards the Pidgeon House (Poolbeg) and I bet you will roll the car windows up (or vomit). How do you propose dealing with the gases and smell (abnoxious odours) from the Liffey (at very low tides), and Grey Water by any standards is dangerous. I don’t object to the smells, just the gathering of them under buildings.
“I remember that summer in Dublin,
And the Liffey as it stank like hell” … http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/518934.html … the words of Bagatelle.
As a perfect example, there is only 1 bar on Georges Dock and it is almost empty when Georges Dock is almost empty.

The proposed Island would stick out from the current line of buildings by over 120 feet, completely blocking any view in either direction.

OK you are not prevaricating but you are deliberately and seriously minimising the effect of blocking the view along the campshires, for what reason I cannot fathom. :confused: Why is it necessary to break the line of the quays to create a night-life area? An example of what can be exciting for daylight hours can be seen in the DDDA area around the National College of Ireland (Lower Mayor Street).

@cagey wrote:

Paul h … next time you are in Dublin, cross the Liffey to Ringsend and travel towards the Pidgeon House (Poolbeg) and I bet you will roll the car windows up (or vomit). How do you propose dealing with the gases and smell (abnoxious odours) from the Liffey (at very low tides), and Grey Water by any standards is dangerous. I don’t object to the smells, just the gathering of them under buildings.
“I remember that summer in Dublin,
And the Liffey as it stank like hell” … http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/518934.html … the words of Bagatelle.
As a perfect example, there is only 1 bar on Georges Dock and it is almost empty when Georges Dock is almost empty.

The proposed Island would stick out from the current line of buildings by over 120 feet, completely blocking any view in either direction.

OK you are not prevaricating but you are deliberately and seriously minimising the effect of blocking the view along the campshires, for what reason I cannot fathom. :confused: Why is it necessary to break the line of the quays to create a night-life area? An example of what can be exciting for daylight hours can be seen in the DDDA area around the National College of Ireland.

A ‘traffic watching’ competition, how exciting 😉

The smell you are talking about comes from the waste treatment plant, not the Liffey itself, there is no smell from the Liffey along the North Campshires and using a 30 year old song is hardly the basis for solid arguement.

Sorry Rusty but you must have never been on the campshires at a really low tide ,,, (you seem to keep missing the really low tide bit), and the song I think desribes the smell better than I can and I only mentioned it so Paul h was not taking my word for Liffey smell,

But Liffey smell was not the point I was making re Ringsend. The smell there is from Grey Water Treatment … I am glad you agree. The sewage treatment plant is south of it.
So much for a sweet smelling grey water “Canal”.

Did you all like that picture of Lower Mayor Street … Alas! spoilt at the moment by Luas works.

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/nlottspart4.pdf ,,, the DDDA words there:
“The Liffey corridor is probably the city’s most important view corridor”
I think the DDDA is so blinded by empire building that it has forgotten its own words above.

@cagey wrote:

“I remember that summer in Dublin,
And the Liffey as it stank like hell” … http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/518934.html … the words of Bagatelle..

Its the weekend i feel like singing too
I’ll let ‘ol blue eyes take it away…

http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/113533.html
I’m post-dating this song 20yrs(if its done right of course)

cagey, are you saying the smell is going to come from the grey water element of the canal or when the tide is out along the northwall campshire ?

Again Paul h you resort to scorn … it just shows a complete lack of any of your arguments left that are not poppycock.

gunter .. I am saying the smell will come from both sources. The most serious is a Grey water moat.

All inlets from the sea smell, (Rogerstown, Dollymount, Malahide estuary, Booterstown etc.) I accept that; but the gases should not be trapped. The proposal here is not over fresh water or sea water but a mixture, so it is especially bad. I gave the example of Georges Dock, which the Liffey is allowed to fill and at a later stage emptied. Mannn!!! it really is bad for anyone’s health when emptied.

The Liffey is regularly dredged to keep the bottom level low. With stilts in the Liffey this dredging will not be possible. I leave the result to your imagination.

My greatest concern is the “Canal”. A Grey Water facility should be out of the question in a built up area, and I see no need and also no merit in doing so. The current pumping station in Castleforbes Street is wholly inadequate, so the DDDA are attempting a solution which is reprehensible.

My second concern is that the view along the campshires will be ruined, by the very Authority which should be protecting it. Did you all know the DDDA have recently asked for Tenders for an alternate Liffey blockage??

How and how often is the Liffey dredged may I ask ? I’ve never seen it done (then again, I’ve never noticed obnoxious smells from the stretch of the Liffey in question so maybe the area leaves me distracted in general).

@cagey wrote:

gunter .. I am saying the smell will come from both sources.

My second concern is that the view along the campshires will be ruined, by the very Authority which should be protecting it. Did you all know the DDDA have recently asked for Tenders for an alternate Liffey blockage??

cagey: When you say the smell will come from both sources, are you talking about the canal and the protestors?

I know you’re pretty passionate about this issue, but to me it just seems a little insignificant compared to your second concern: the building out over the campshire issue.

I imagine that any influence that a forum like this can exert is fairly limited, in the greater scheme of things, but whatever influence it has, surely it’s going to be diminished if secondary issues (which are presumably solveble to some extent) begin to dominate the debate at the expense of the primary issue.

I hadn’t noticed that the Liffey barrage idea was back on the agenda, what info do you have on this?

Yes exactly. Any odours can be sorted. The canal would no doubt be engineered within an inch of its life – it’s distracting from the principal issue which is the river projection.

(Though just as an aside, I heard from one of the underwater divers involved in the construction of (I think) the Sean O’Casey Bridge that the soil and rock samples taken from the bed of the Liffey were so contaminated they weren’t permitted to be put back in the river – they had to be sent to Germany for dispoaal!)

the building out over the campshire issue. is my worst nightmare

So how come GrahamH it hasn’t been sorted … Ringsend, Georges Dock ??

Rusty that dredging barge is an almost permanent presence on the Liffey. It is just a barge , not sophisticated or nice looking.

Not sure if your talking about the large bet down looking ‘Weapon IV’ barge. I don’t believe it’s used to dredge the whole Liffey but if you know it for a fact then I guess it’s inability to get under the Liffey Island will be reflected in the discount given on the LI apartments that have to suffer these odours.

Anyhoo, I’m done on the smell thing, except to say that I am a local and I’m not wary of the canal or the Liffey extension in relation to my proboscis.

GrahamH, I want to go back to a point you made earlier about the DDDA having the opportunity to build something special along this stretch of the campshire. While I wish such a thing came to pass, Liam Carroll owns about 50% of the remaining frontage and what do you think are the chances of him creating such a vista (this being the man who designed his own apartment blocks for years) ?

Sorry Rusty, but as of yet Liam Carroll has a hell of a lot less than 30% of the Liffey Island river frontage part.

http://buckplanning.blogspot.com/search?q=DDDA … I quote:

“The action has been taken by Mr Dunne and North Wall Property Holding Company Ltd, with registered offices in the Isle of Man, against the DDDA and a company called North Quay Investments Ltd, a company controlled by rival developer Liam Carroll.

The DDDA has entered into an agreement with North Quay Investments to develop a site bounded by North Wall Quay, New Wapping Street, Mayor Street and Castleforbes Road.”

As far as I know the above court proceedings have not been completed.
Dunne is surrounded on three sides but not the river side.

The case shows the underhand methods of the DDDA and the Liffey Island project right from the original obscure drawing to the description of how little the stilts will affect the river and the use of the word “Canal”.

How much river frontage does Mr Dunne own ?

Mr Dunne has frontage from Watling Street to Castleforbes Street at least, and this site is now built up to the 3rd storey.
The frontage building to the west of Watling Street is the subject of a CPO by the DDDA.
I dont know about the frontage from Castleforbes Street towards the sea , but the building on that corner is a protected one and was owned by DCC.

What did you think of the DDDA tender seeking, for a Marina off the North Quay just where the stilts would have been ??

@cagey wrote:

Mr Dunne has frontage from Watling Street to Castleforbes Street at least, and this site is now built up to the 3rd storey.
The frontage building to the west of Watling Street is the subject of a CPO by the DDDA.
I dont know about the frontage from Castleforbes Street towards the sea , but the building on that corner is a protected one and was owned by DCC.

What did you think of the DDDA tender seeking, for a Marina off the North Quay just where the stilts would have been ??

(unless Mr Dunne’s empire stretches to Guinness’) I think your thinking of New Wapping St.

The building going on at the river front between New Wapping St. and Castleforbes Rd is a Danninger (Liam Carroll) site. I’m aware of the court case where Sean Dunne is looking for a public road to cross the centre of the old Brooks Thomas site to give him access to his parcel of land but I don’t know where that parcel is (hence my last question). There is a mid sized warehouse totally isolated within the Danninger site at the moment, it could be that.

The building to the west of ‘New Wapping St. does not have a CPO on it that I’m aware of. This site belongs to Treasury holding and they plan for offices on the site to 8 or so stories. You may be thinking of the building ‘Twil Ltd’ further down North Wall Quay and Castleforbe st. This building does have a CPO on it. Details of DDDA CPO’s can be found

http://www.ddda.ie/index.jsp?nID=301&pID=97

The protected building you speak of is one and the same. The remainder of the west side of Castleforbes belongs to Danninger/Carroll (apart from about 30 mts further up towards Sherriff St.).

So if you exclude listed buildings and access roads Liamo has the lions share of river frontage that would sit behind the Liffey Island. His current offices will be long finished before the Island starts so we can decide then if it’s a vista worth protecting.

(A marina instead of the LI extension ?, too exclusive for the are, no public interaction, unless you own a boat).

My apology Rusty … I stand correctly corrected … LOL
I meant East of New Wapping st … the TWIL building, and of course Wapping.

Hmmm !!! the court report stated ” surrounded on three sides” … The plots are obviously smaller than I assumed. I will ask a few more questions. The problem is that it is difficult to get answers.

Maybe that seeking tenders for a “marina village” is intended to confuse?

The more DDDA material I read the more I fear for the area.

For any of you who have doubts re the use of the “Liffey Island Canal”,
below is snippet from the DDDA site (Paragraph 2.7 of http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/nlottspart4.pdf )

As a local resident, there are a few things that can be confirmed following the public presentations by the DDDA (who have not advertised these presentations to all of the residents/owners in the docklands, and neither have they provided any means of feedback, I wonder why?).

1) The DDDA have tried (in the past year) to prevent local groups using the river for pleasure purposes, why? Why do they want to stop boating activities on the Liffey (keep them out of the way of the construction traffic perhaps)?
2) on 1/4/08, Mr Maloney himself confirmed that the reservoir (sorry ‘canal’) will be used for grey water treatment (reed treatment bed system). Will it become a dump for the crowds going to and from the Point?
3) One has to wonder why they are so desperate to open up the liiffey to the builders?
4) They are trying to say the new building are needed to provide shelter from the wind along the river while putting public gardens on top of the buildings (all their words, not mine). In my experience the wind will be stronger the higher you go. They also claim that arched building on the river will provide wind protection!!!!! Yes arches without glass will provide a lot of protection from the wind and rain. They must think people are really thick.
5) The U2 tower will sit at the rivers edge on the south bank (unless based on the new plans it will be built in the river as well) so the closing of the river mouth is even more negative if you take the proposals for the north wall and south wall into account. To combined effect on future flooding needs to be considered as well.

I have seen waters at spring tides lap over the edge of the north wall, restricting the river flow with buildings can only make this worse.

At the meeting on 1/4/08 there was a very strong FF (the only political party there) presence defending the DDDA, why?

Sometimes you would think you were on the Med when they speak of their plans.

As more people are now living in the area, the campshires are being used a lot more, but that does not suit their argument. You can be sure they won’t carry out any studies on that!

I wonder how can this be stopped before we have another Fitzwilliam St. ESB building as a legacy for future generations.

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

The building going on at the river front between New Wapping St. and Castleforbes Rd is a Danninger (Liam Carroll) site.

The remainder of the west side of Castleforbes belongs to Danninger/Carroll (apart from about 30 mts further up towards Sherriff St.).

So if you exclude listed buildings and access roads Liamo has the lions share of river frontage that would sit behind the Liffey Island. .

If I owned a good chunk of the quay frontage, and someone came along with a scheme that hijacked my river front status, there’s no way I’d be having that. Why is this not listed for the High Court already? has some ugly deal been done? Is the canal really that valuable as a water disposal / filtering mechanism, and if it is, who stands to benefit most if it gets the go-ahead?

This gets curiouser and curiouser.

Here’s a recent shot of the North Wall, from the emerging Conference Centre on the right to the IFSC on the left. There’s a great choppy scale to the river here and the campshires are maturing nicely. There’s not a whole lot wrong with how this is shaping up, except some of the buildings are a bit under-scaled and some of the buildings are just duds.

Agree with all that; the campshires are a real plus, and after the Talbot Bridge, the river is suddenly wide enough to think ‘Thalassos! Thalassos!’ (well, after a few pints anyway). The STW Citibank is a real downer (externally), but the rest are OK and set a worthy if monotonous tone.
Remember a mile of tall ships right along the quays? You don’t want to lose that. I’m still nervous about the conference centre -hero or zero? Time will tell.
Is that a bateau mouche? sacre bleu!

It now seems that the proper Docklands Station will not be built where it originally was planned … on a site between Upper and Lower Manor Streets … the rail lines are still there but no station.
(The current Docklands Station was sold to us as “temporary”).

The DDDA promised re the Public Transport Plan (2006) “It will also facilitate easy interchange between
all rail modes”. See the now forgotten DDDA map at:
http://www.ddda.ie/files/20070621123949_MONITORING%20REPORT%202006.pdf

How quickly a meglomanic “Liffey Island” plan can change things.

It now seems that the Dept of Transport is insisting that the Luas (being constructed through Manor Street), and the current Docklands Station (to the North of Sheriff Street) are “integrated”. For those who do not know the area, there is a separation of 500 metres approximately.

The DDDA have room and cash for a 60ft wide “Canal” instead of a properly integrated (with Luas) train station , and now sell the whole Liffey Island project to us under false pretences.

The only reason I can see for this fiasco is that the DDDA “own the Campshires” (for the most part) and would get high rents instead of just levy monies. This is the worst kind of “empire building” at a cost not just to locals but to Dubliners and tourists.

A smelly drain and a river vista ruined? How dare they call it an “Island.“

It now seems that the proper Docklands Station will not be built where it originally was planned … on a site between Upper and Lower Manor Streets … the rail lines are still there but no station. {See map post 25 of this thread where “Station Area” is marked}.

Despite the DDDA quote: http://www.ddda.ie/files/20070621123949_MONITORING%20REPORT%202006.pdf
“The station location, at the junction of Guild Street and Sheriff St Upper, ensures that the
station will remain fully operational during the construction of the Interconnector, which will be
developed at an adjacent site.”

Is the “liffey Island” (and “Canal”) the reason for not going ahead with the Interconnector?
No wonder johnglas is driven to drink … LOL.

Sorry Cagey; I don’t understand your post: what has changed with the Interconnector?

Was in favour of this Island addition to the city but it should not be at the expense of integrated transport. Why cant both be achieved.

Was this the same docklands station mentioned in the original rejected spencer dock scheme. I thought this was central to any development on spencer dock and was one reason why the site was being developed as so.

@gunter wrote:

If I owned a good chunk of the quay frontage, and someone came along with a scheme that hijacked my river front status, there’s no way I’d be having that. Why is this not listed for the High Court already? has some ugly deal been done?

@cagey wrote:

It now seems that the proper Docklands Station will not be built where it originally was planned … on a site between Upper and Lower Manor Streets … the rail lines are still there but no station.

The DDDA promised re the Public Transport Plan (2006) “It will also facilitate easy interchange between
all rail modes”.

How quickly a meglomanic “Liffey Island” plan can change things.

The DDDA have room and cash for a 60ft wide “Canal” instead of a properly integrated (with Luas) train station , and now sell the whole Liffey Island project to us under false pretences.

The only reason I can see for this fiasco is that the DDDA “own the Campshires” (for the most part) and would get high rents instead of just levy monies. This is the worst kind of “empire building” at a cost not just to locals but to Dubliners and tourists.

A smelly drain and a river vista ruined? How dare they call it an “Island.“

cagey, I think I follow your argument on what’s happening to the Docklands station, but I’m not 100% sure. Is there a simple map you could post with a couple of Xs on, just to make it clear! and also to make clear how the ‘Liffey Island’ has changed things in this regard.

There is a Sunday Business Post article of 27/4/08, posted in Archiseek, that appears to state that DDDA ignored their own guidelines to allow Liam Carroll to go higher on the Brook Thomas (Spencer Dock) site, but then confusingly, it states that DDDA had previously objected to something similar when Carroll had applied to DCC. These facts having emerged in the current court case between Dunne and Carroll over access to the, Spencer Dock, land-locked site.

This could be interpreted as a quid pro quo for Liam for usurping his quay frontage status, something not unlike ‘the ugly little deal’, I refered to above!

If DDDA, in their role as planning authority, have put aside their planning standards to further a DDDA (as developer) scheme, this would stink a much as any rancid, grey water, canal.

Are ther no investigative journalists currently working in this city?

@gunter wrote:

.

There is a Sunday Business Post article of 27/4/08, posted in Archiseek, that appears to state that DDDA ignored their own guidelines to allow Liam Carroll to go higher on the Brook Thomas (Spencer Dock) site, but then confusingly, it states that DDDA had previously objected to something similar when Carroll had applied to DCC. These facts having emerged in the current court case between Dunne and Carroll over access to the, Spencer Dock, land-locked site.

This could be interpreted as a quid pro quo for Liam for usurping his quay frontage status, something not unlike ‘the ugly little deal’, I refered to above!

If DDDA, in their role as planning authority, have put aside their planning standards to further a DDDA (as developer) scheme, this would stink a much as any rancid, grey water, canal.

Are ther no investigative journalists currently working in this city?

The guidelines were ignored in order for the DDDA to get some land for a public park.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

I guess the interconnector’s station will be here (marked station area) and interchange with the Luas at this point. I don’t think the interconnector is in doubt as it’s Transport 21 not DDDA however I think they need to clarify the ‘temporary’ docklands station position – will some maynooth lines run to here still?

Perhaps this article cagey has in mind; it is discussed on the Commuter page of boards.ie. I amn’t sure this has anything to do with the island, I thought this gap between the originally temporary new station and the proposed luas stop always existed in the proposals.

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/12707183?view=Eircomnet&cat=National

Mind the gap: commuters face walk at ‘integrated’ rail station
From The Irish Independent
Saturday, 26th April, 2008

THE extension of Luas to the Point Depot in Dublin will link up with the city’s newest train station, as long as commuters don’t mind a 350-metre walk.

The Department of Transport insisted yesterday that the docklands Luas was integrated with the docklands station, but admitted a short walk would be required to move from one public transport system to the other.

The bizarre possibility of an “integrated” public transport system requiring the use of an umbrella to make a connecting journey was raised yesterday, with Fine Gael accusing the Government of making a “huge mistake” and failing to learn the lessons of the past.

Enterprise, Trade and Employment spokesman Leo Varadkar said the decision not to have Luas stopping at the docklands station was “madness”, and urged the Government to re-consider the route.

“Commuters are still scratching their heads about the Government’s decision not to link the red and green Luas lines, this mistake is now being rectified at the cost of millions of euros,” he said.

“Fianna Fail is about to make the same mistake in the docklands. The new Luas docklands extension will not link up with the existing Iarnrod Eireann docklands train station. Once again, Fianna Fail is showing that it cannot learn from its mistakes.

“Minister Noel Dempsey must urgently review this crazy decision. Dublin commuters already have to face traffic gridlock, the M50 car park, the insanity of the Mad Cow, an inadequate bus network and the prospect of a congestion charge. To build a Luas almost half-a-kilometre from an existing train station is a further insult.”

Last week, Mr Dempsey said, in reply to a parliamentary question, that the Luas extension to the Point Depot would include a stop at Spencer Dock.

A spokeswoman for Mr Dempsey said the Luas and docklands rail would be integrated. The Railway Procurement Agency, responsible for delivering the Luas extension, added the Luas would stop “very close” to the docklands.

@Rory W wrote:

I don’t think the interconnector is in doubt as it’s Transport 21 not DDDA

€34 billion is the cost of Transport 21, and they go and put some ten year old in charge!

No wonder nothing joins up.

Isn’t it the case that the new MAIN station for the Docklands will be right underneath Spencer Dock when the interconnector finally goes in, therefore the luas as planned will stop right overhead resulting in a direct transfer between modes? Or did I just dream this at some stage…? Please don’t tell me that the plans for the underground Spencer Dock station have been scrapped and that we’ll be left with the crappy docklands station forever!!

If you look down from Sheriff st. bridge on the East Road side the rail lines are still there and passing underneath.

If one looks at the Liffey Island crappy map, the ground level rail lines no longer exist to where the Interconnector “Station Area” is marked.
I thought this was just an oversight until I saw the Irish Independent article mentioned by notjim. In answer to BTH that Liffey Island map would leave only 2 modes (Underground and Luas with mainline rail missing) instead of all 3 modes being properly integrated.

Maybe gunter’s post (nice one gunter) “Smarter than a 10 yr old” is how the DDDA are going to explain to us ordinary Dublin residents how any of the “Island” on stilts makes even the slightest sense. If they came right out and said “We want an island empire” it would make a lot more sense.

jdivision you got a remarkable insight: the DDDA as both Planning Authority and Developer … you mean an almost unbridled DDDA?

@cagey wrote:

If you look down from Sheriff st. bridge on the East Road side the rail lines are still there and passing underneath.

If one looks at the Liffey Island crappy map, the ground level rail lines no longer exist to where the Interconnector “Station Area” is marked.
I thought this was just an oversight until I saw the Irish Independent article mentioned by notjim. In answer to BTH that Liffey Island map would leave only 2 modes (Underground and Luas with mainline rail missing) instead of all 3 modes being properly integrated.

OK – the issue has been confused

1) the luas will meet the interconnector at ‘station area’,

2) the trains are not ‘underground metro’ but dart on electrified lines to maynooth, balbriggan/drogheda

3) trains on the northern line will run through the interconnector from clontarf road onwards to heuston (and beyond)

4) trains on the maynooth line will run through connolly and on to bray

5) the nothern/heuston and the maynooth/bray lines intersect at Pearse (where you can catch diesel trains)

Thus there is no need for the surface docklands station QED

Also Leo Vakaradar is just stirring the shit and the indo are just helping by refering to the docklands staion as the one that is extant rather than the planned one on the interconnector

PS Cagey if the interconnector lines were on the surface on the liffey island map I don’t think the interconnector would be able to pass under the liffey (unless built by funderland)

BTW can the thread now return to this poxy island idea rather than the interconnector

@cagey wrote:

Are the DDDA going to explain to us ordinary Dublin residents how any of the “Island” on stilts makes even the slightest sense. If they came right out and said “We want an island empire” it would make a lot more sense.

cagey, maybe ‘The Island’ is for the guys with the off-shore accounts!

Oh, gunter, you are awful!

to Rory W … I never once mentioned interconnector rail lines on the surface, so your P.S. to me is not only erroneous but in the realms of scorn. From previous posts you all know my view on those who use scorn.

I and everyone else i know hate to be misquoted.

1. Mainline rails still run under Sheriff St bridge.
2. The current mainline rails mentioned above are NOT on the Liffey Island map.

Both statements are true, but the Liffey Island map is not.

Maynooth guys and gals, it seems you are going to have to “Luas it” from Connolly or “Dart it” from Pearse. I am off to the commuter thread to tell them, that the millions spent on the current Docklands Station will be rendered useless.

Now Rory W, how about a post about the DDDA “Empire building” and the “Liffey Island”.

Awww gunter, you mean not a funderland Island?

cagey: wasn’t this always the plan, that the current Docklands Station was always meant to be temporary, with the main Kildare-Malahide service intended to run as a Dart through the Interconnector some distance from the current station and Bray-Maynooth through Connolly, with the more recent possibility raised that the temporary station remain open long term to handle overflow from Connolly, persumably for mainline rather than Dart services. In other words, I don’t think this is an Island issue.

@notjim wrote:

I don’t think this is an Island issue.

You’re right. It’s not.

@cagey wrote:

to Rory W … I never once mentioned interconnector rail lines on the surface, so your P.S. to me is not only erroneous but in the realms of scorn. From previous posts you all know my view on those who use scorn.

I and everyone else i know hate to be misquoted.

1. Mainline rails still run under Sheriff St bridge.
2. The current mainline rails mentioned above are NOT on the Liffey Island map.

Both statements are true, but the Liffey Island map is not.

Maynooth guys and gals, it seems you are going to have to “Luas it” from Connolly or “Dart it” from Pearse. I am off to the commuter thread to tell them, that the millions spent on the current Docklands Station will be rendered useless.

Now Rory W, how about a post about the DDDA “Empire building” and the “Liffey Island”.

Awww gunter, you mean not a funderland Island?

Ah I have to respond

1) Yes there is rails running under sherriff street bridge at the moment – these were for the freight depot that used to be on the spencer dock site – they will be removed as part of the interconnector scheme. As the interconnector line will be beneath the surface and the current lines will be gone on the map they wont be seen. This is planned for 2015.

2) I think this map is purely for illustration and not a 100% OS map from 2015

3) as someone who commutes from Drogheda to Blackrock on a daily basis I will change trains at Pearse. Maynooth people will also be able to interchange at Pearse. On a daily basis I change change at Connolly in the evening and this is not a problem to anyone who has lived in a city.

4) the Docklands station was always planned to be temporary, but they’ll get about 8 years out of it – what’s the problem It’s hardly St Pancras.

5) posts about my thoughts on Liffey Island? – I think I have already made my position clear with previous posts – it’s ludicrous

The Docklands Maritime Festival is coming up again next month.

Do you think the DDDA will have the courage to put up a public display on this scheme, right there on the North Wall campshire, and invite the public to respond, when they could be pretty assured of a plentiful and an engaged audience, for three or four days?

If they believed in the ‘enhanced public realm’ merit of this scheme, (if there is any), they would!

Looking back at DDDA promontional stuff from a few years ago, they put a lot of stock on the ‘up-grade of the campshire, between the Point and New Wapping Street’ as a wonderful addition to the civic amenity of the city, as recently as 2002.

A couple of random snaps , so we don’t lose focus on the big issue.

@Rory W wrote:

4) the Docklands station was always planned to be temporary, but they’ll get about 8 years out of it – what’s the problem It’s hardly St Pancras.

In reality it will probably be kept with Navan line trains using it – Martin Cullen has said this is likely. The walk from the (existing) Docklands station to where the LuasUnderground station will be is about 5 mins.

@jdivision wrote:

The guidelines were ignored in order for the DDDA to get some land for a public park.

that’s not a good enough reason.

This whole thing has to be an elaborate hoax. I’m going to read back on this thread and find out who hasn’t been contributing.

gunter! How I wish the Liffey Island is a hoax but 700 Mtrs long and 15Mtrs wide of grey water!!!

I posted this already but as Gaeilge. This is the English version:
http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=APR100718

The above is not a tender but a “PIN notice”. Can anyone tell me what that is please?
I quote:
“II.5) Scheduled date for start of award procedures
03-06-2008″
The above is very worrying.
To Rory W … I mostly enjoy reading all of your posts. The DDDA “own” the Campshires or do they?

PIN (Prior Indicative Notice) is effectively tipping off the EU community that DDDA are intending to tender works, althouhgh methinks this is a botch, as DDDA generally don’t have aclue when it comes to EU Procurement. They also publish an annual PIN that shoulkd cover all works they intend to procure.

From the Department of FInance website:

“6.7 Prior Indicative (Information) Notices (PINs)

Contracting Authorities are obliged to publish in the OJEC an annual notice, called a Prior Indicative Notice (or a Prior Information Notice) setting out what the Contracting Authority proposes to purchase in the forthcoming year, or otherwise contract for

For Works Contracting Authorities are required to publish Prior Indicative Notices of their procurement plans, if these entail expenditures of €6,242,028 in any particular works category.

For Supplies and Servicesthe thresholds are €750,000 in any particular product category in the case of supply contracts, or in each priority service category as defined in the Services Directive.

Insertion of the Prior Indicative Notice does not mean that Contracting Authorities are obliged to go ahead with the purchase or with the project, if circumstances change as the year progresses; it is merely for the benefit of suppliers.

All Contracting Authorities should routinely examine the position each year to ensure that the necessary Prior Indicative Notices are placed in the OJEC. (A good time to do this would be January, at the start of the Budgetary year).

The Prior Indicative Notices must be set out in accordance with the models in the Directives.”

Not that is means anything, but, the Zoning Objective for the North Wall Campshire is Z9

‘To protect and improve recreational amenity and open space’

‘Office use’ is neither permissible, nor open for consideration under this zoning objective. Neither is ‘residential use’! The Development Plan states: ‘Specifically, residential development shall not be permitted on public or privately owned open space . . ‘

The boundary of the Z14 zoning, ‘To seek the social, economic and physical development or rejuvination of an area with mixed use, of which residential and ‘Z6′ would be the predominant use’ stops at the building line at the edge of the street.

The current Dublin City Development Plan (2005 – 2011) zoning map further categorises the North Wall Campshire as a ‘Conservation Area’

The Development Plan states, on p 72, under the heading ‘Conservation Areas’, ‘The River Liffey and it’s quays is a designated conservation area. The establishment of riverside quays with buildings facing onto the river was the single most important intervention in shaping the city.’

I know this doesn’t mean anything, but I just wanted to put it down on record.

I know nothing of Joe Costello (and I hate political footballs) but his “blog” (Feb 2007) gives me hope:

http://joecostellotd.blogspot.com/2007/02/planning-news-bord-pleanala-reject.html
“I am pleased to inform you that An Bord Pleanala have notified us on 26 February of their decision to Refuse Permission for this development. The Bord accepted the residents objections and refused permission for the following reasons:

The site is located in an area zoned Z9 in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011, where it is the objective of the planning authority to preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space.”

Thank you theman and gunter for your very informative posts… I wonder if I can get minister John Gormley to read this thread.

There still remains one outstanding question.
I wonder if any of you can answer it.
Are the DDDA plans (especially wild schemes) subject to An Bord Pleanala?
Surely a Green Minister (who is not an architect) whom the DDDA is subject to, would seek the views of An Bord Pleanalla, concerning zone Z9 proposed development.

I surely hope that the “Liffey Island” is not progressing silently (A La Rossport) to a dreadful inevitability.

Not only did DDDA not post up any information boards on their ‘Island’ scheme during this years Docklands Festival (still on-going), as predicted on this thread some weeks ago, but they shamefully rearranged the venue to avoid using the relevant section of North Wall campshire, lest any more Dubliners become aquainted with it’s magnificent amenity and become potential objectors to it’s loss.

Instead and for the first time, a good chunk of the festival was squeezed onto City Quay, where it was uncomfortably crowded at times and in closer proximity to the traffic hazard that is the junction of City Quay and Lombard Street.

In all previous manifestations of the Docklands festival, City Quay was just used as a berth and visitor access point to some of the tall ships. In contrast, the full length of the North Wall Campshire was always used for the promenade of the festival.

DDDA will probably say that the bridge works at Spencer Docks interupted the flow of movement on the campshire and that’s why they had to use City Quay this year, but there are several of other pinch points on the North wall campshire that patrons manage to negotiate and that argument won’t wash, we know the truth.

I’m glad to report that a good sprinkling of citizens still promenaded down the empty section of campshire and enjoyed it’s excellent ammenity despite the absence of a climbing wall and the opportunity to purchase cheap plants there this year.

DDDA run a decent maritime festival (with the reservation noted above), the bratwurst was up to standard and the music free, but as an organisation their vision (for the want of a better word), like their mandate, is short term and someone high up in Dublin City Council, who must know better and has a broader view, must rein these guys in before an irreversible mistake is made. I don’t want to be relying on a deep economic downturn to halt this ‘Island’ nonsence years after millions will have been spent on it and after all focus on the real objective of creating an appropriate interface with the city’s ‘front room’ is lost.

Guys… some information taken from north port residents association…..

North Port Residents’ Association

from Catherine Byrne

Consultation Process on the North Lotts Revised Plan

The North Lotts is the area of land bounded by North Wall Quay, Sheriff Street, Guild Street and East Wall Road at the Point Theatre. As you know, a plan for this area was drawn up in 2002 and is now being revised. The revised plan will be finalised by December 2008.

Our meeting with the Chief Executive and the planners of the DDDA on March 25th was the first step in the consultation process on the revised plan. The next stage will be a question and answer session with the planners which will take place on June 10th 2008 at 7.00pm in the Clarion Hotel.

In July, notices will be published in the national newspapers inviting anyone who is interested to attend a display of the revised plan in a number of community venues around the north and south quays, including the DDDA head office. The plans will be on display for one month and will coincide with displays of the revised Master Plan for the entire Docklands. At the end of the month on display, communities will have one month to submit their views.

The DDDA will review the submissions in October, with the intention of presenting a final plan to its council in November. The Council will then accept or reject the recommendations. In the event that the plan is accepted, it will be submitted to Dublin City Council and to the Minister for the Environment for approval in December.

As part of the planning process, an environmental mpact statement (EIS) is currently being prepared. This is to determine the impact of major structural changes such as the proposed Liffey Island, the new canal and the increased heights of buildings on the local area. A shadow study will be carried out as part of the EIS and this will be available to residents during the public display stage.

In preparation for the question and answer session on June 10th, residents are invited to a meeting in the Clarion Hotel at 7.00pm on Tuesday, June 3rd. The purpose is to prepare a full and comprehensive list of questions to ensure that we get as much information as possible from the meeting with the planners.

I look forward to seeing as many people as possible on June 3rd and June 10th at 7.00pm. If you can’t make both meetings, the one on June 10th is probably the most important.

I fully support this plan. I think its great. 🙂

Why?

Because it shows a bit of initiative and the plan itself is designed to increase the ammenities in the area – not reduce them. There would be a sort of new canal around the development and extra green space and the buildings themselves will help alleviate the sterile, repetitve building heights in the area and could look very nice (once we see detailed designs). Sure it juts out into the Liffey a bit and that may rest uneasy with some who dont like change but overall I dont see a problem here.

@darkman wrote:

Because it shows a bit of initiative and the plan itself is designed to increase the ammenities in the area – not reduce them. ……. but overall I dont see a problem here.

The only excuse for the above is that you must work for the DDDA.
Before you submit any more ill thought out submissions to this thread darkman, please read the previous submissions and you will read the truth about the “Canal” proposed. It is an insult to the fine submissions of others that you would submit to this thread without reading it.

Who wants “Green Space” next to a “Grey water facility”?
Who wants to spoil the campshires?
Who wants to spoil the Liffey vista?

The answer … Only mad “Empire Builders”.

“Juts out into the Liffey a bit” …. you are either joking darkman or again have you not read the thread.

As pointed out by gunter (well said, especially the prediction bit), if the Liffey Island were to go ahead the amenities of the campshires will be drastically reduced and the Zone 9 ammenities idea of the Dublin City Council trampled upon. The DDDA are intending to “Empire Build” … that is it in a nutshell.

@cagey wrote:

the amenities of the campshires will be drastically reduced .

Ive been reading the thread for months and ive not changed my opinion. What I see is typical scare mongering. The campshires may be reduced but you have misread what I said, probrably intentionally because you refuse to look at the merits of the project, always pointing out the negatives. Amenities in general will be increased…..fact. We have not yet seen exact proposals for the buildings even and yet some are shooting it down. I mean god forbid anyone is too daring and ambitious with plans for the docklands. That would be tragic. And since when have Dublin City Council been the experts at providing amenities for communities? Never. They always make a balls of it.

This isn’t your average daft proposal, darkman, the difference with this one is there won’t be any going back. Your average building horror (like Hawkin’s House for example) gets to be torn down and replaced within thirty years or so, but something like this is essentially irreversible.

I’m not slow to see manipulative bastards behind the occasional development proposal and I have a lot of sympathy for cagey’s viewpoint on this, but deep down, I believe that this is not what we’re dealing with here. I think this is a genuine bright idea! I’m inclined to think it is well intentioned and I would be 95% certain that the concept is ‘design led’ as opposed to ’empire building’ as postulated by cagey.

Although again we’re indebted to cageys dogged persistence in keeping this issue to the forefront, I can’t quite accept that the proposed canal would be as problematic as he suggests. Is there some fundamental difference between this proposed canal and the canals in Venice and Bruges and Amsterdam?

I think what darkman is picking up on are the good intentions, the innovation, the element of daring, I have to accept that that’s all there! What it’s missing, IMO, is critical judgement.

It’s one skill to come up with a bold imaginative idea, but it’s another skill entirely to be able to stand back and say ‘actually, this isn’t the right place to use this bright idea’.

If this is an architect led idea, then the architects deserve credit for their daring and imagination and DDDA deserve credit for having the balls to run this far with this scheme, but that’s as far as it should go. The North Wall campshire is just too valuable, it is an outstanding public amenity space and Dublin hasn’t got that many outstanding public amenity spaces that it can afford to give this one away.

Nobody disputes that the whole docklands development to date has been a bit underwhelming, but that’s like saying the early Georgian quays were a bit boring. Both statements are true, but the precedent shows us that we could be just two or three great buildings away from transforming boring into outstanding and that’s what we should be concentrating on, not throwing away the whole quayside concept.

Eloquent and well spoken Gunter,

thank you

@gunter wrote:

This isn’t your average daft proposal, darkman, the difference with this one is there won’t be any going back.

…………….Is there some fundamental difference between this proposed canal and the canals in Venice and Bruges and Amsterdam? ………

It’s one skill to come up with a bold imaginative idea, but it’s another skill entirely to be able to stand back and say ‘actually, this isn’t the right place to use this bright idea’.

…….just two or three great buildings away from transforming boring into outstanding and that’s what we should be concentrating on, not throwing away the whole quayside concept.

Congrats gunter, well said.

Now for the truths :
1) This Island anywhere else, where there is an adequate (clean) running water supply, would be great. I like the idea of an “Island”. That is what the DDDA proposes, but they hide the fact of an “Island” surrounded by a grey water “Canal”. The lack of a water supply (other than grey) sets this “Canal” apart from normal canals.

2) A Grey Water facility is necessary for any more buildings (see Post 142)/, so the DDDA are trying to sell the “Canal” idea to us, in order to achieve this facility inexpensively. If they were honest, they would call it what it is, a “Grey Water Facility” with no navigation element.

3) In order to get the “Canal” idea across, they propose an “Island” and that means breaching the Liffey Wall. The Liffey horror is what most in here abhor and what those who like tall buildings shut their minds to. I like tall buildings (I have never said otherwise), but not high or small if the Campshires are spoilt.

4) In order to pay for it all and have ongoing income they need a large area they “Own” with buildings on it. Hence they propose not just building on the Campshires but out into the Liffey as well.

For all the above and other reasons, to quote gunther “This isn’t your average daft proposal” but a well though out “sell” to alleviate a building bottleneck at the expence (forever?) of locals, Dubliners, tourists and all river landscape lovers.

Isn’t it now time for all of us to propose an imaginative better solution?

Please look at it this way: …….no “Canal” = no “Island” = no Campshires buildings = no Liffey breach …… let’s start with an underground grey water facility built over, and that would leave a nice long 60Ft wide covered area running alongside the Luas…. 4 lenghts would be a nice 1 mile run ???

@cagey wrote:

A Grey Water facility is necessary for any more buildings so the DDDA are trying to sell the “Canal” idea to us, in order to achieve this facility inexpensively.

In order to pay for it all and have ongoing income they need a large area they “Own” with buildings on it. Hence they propose not just building on the Campshires but out into the Liffey as well.

I take your point that the apparent absence of a fresh water supply differentiates this canal from other canals, but that’s only true if the level of the water in the canal is perminantly higher than the high tide level in the Liffey. Do we know that this is intended to be the case, or is that part of what the tender study procedure is supposed to advise on?

I don’t remember any special ‘grey water’ facility in the Kevin Roche / Spencer Dock mega-plan, surely a ‘grey water facility’ in normal circumstances, is just a big drainage pipe! The ‘grey water’ is going to end up in the Liffey one way or another, why would they take on all of this extra expense of digging a broad, recreational scale canal? When you say ‘inexpensively’ cagey, are you factoring in the extra value DDDA accrue from presiding over a bigger development footprint?

I’m not sure if the ‘ongoing income’ argument stands up. On a map, the amount of actual building footprint looks about the same! What DDDA gain by building on the campshire and out over the Liffey, they lose by digging the canal!

It all adds to the puzzle of the whole thing, as far as I’m concerned, but, with the information available to date, it’s like trying to put together a 500 piece puzzle when we’ve only got six pieces in the box.

Like I said before, I was pretty sure that this was just a kite flying exercise until I saw Dick Gleeson include it in a ‘What’s in the pipeline for Dublin’ presentation a few weeks back, followed quickly by cagey’s post on the tender notice procedure and suddenly it’s time to stop cracking jokes about this and get serious about what it means for the future development of Dublin, and what it tell us about the level of vision, or otherwise, of the people in charge of planning in this city.

P.S.

I didnt attend the information session on the 03/06 I do plan to be there this Tuesday 10/06

If you have a view to this project and you feel strongly enough to read this thread or post a response,
your presence should be welcomed at this meeting (10/06), given that this project is a public one,
which as outlined above will have an impact on the (public) space in OUR city centre,
you should be there-

I look forward to hearing you present your views.

@gunter wrote:

I’m not sure if the ‘ongoing income’ argument stands up. On a map, the amount of actual building footprint looks about the same! What DDDA gain by building on the campshire and out over the Liffey, they lose by digging the canal!

Nail on head and all that gunter ! Its extremely difficult to see the reasoning behind the canal element, worse still they appear to be using this fairly pointless indulgence as justification for breaking the line of the liffey – one of few structural constants in a city that can otherwise appear overly jumbled.

HAVING PROBLEMS WITH MY QUOTE FUNCTION HERE, I’M REPLYING TO CAGEY’S POST FROM 9.27AM

QUOTE=cagey;81949]Congrats gunter, well said.

“Now for the truths :
1) This Island anywhere else, where there is an adequate (clean) running water supply, would be great. I like the idea of an “Island”. That is what the DDDA proposes, but they hide the fact of an “Island” surrounded by a grey water “Canal”. The lack of a water supply (other than grey) sets this “Canal” apart from normal canals. “

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make here. “This Island anywhere else, where there is an adequate (clean) running water supply, would be great” There is a clean water supply for any building proposed for the area via the water mains which have been upgraded only last month in conjunction with the Luas works. So the canal is grey rather than fresh water ?, I don’t think anyone is suggesting we drink out of it. The Liffey could be considered grey water, it doesn’t seem to pose health issues to those living near it.

“2) A Grey Water facility is necessary for any more buildings (see Post 142)/, so the DDDA are trying to sell the “Canal” idea to us, in order to achieve this facility inexpensively. If they were honest, they would call it what it is, a “Grey Water Facility” with no navigation element.”

If the ‘new’ canal is connected to the Liffey then there is no need to build a whole canal system merely to take future builds ‘grey’ water. It would simply be piped into the Liffey directly.

“3) In order to get the “Canal” idea across, they propose an “Island” and that means breaching the Liffey Wall. The Liffey horror is what most in here abhor and what those who like tall buildings shut their minds to. I like tall buildings (I have never said otherwise), but not high or small if the Campshires are spoilt.”

“The Liffey horror is what most in here abhor and what those who like tall buildings shut their minds to.” I’ve read this one a couple of times to no avail but (if I understand you correctly) you can’t make the arguement that those in favour of or against the ‘island’ determine if they like tall buildings or not.

“4) In order to pay for it all and have ongoing income they need a large area they “Own” with buildings on it. Hence they propose not just building on the Campshires but out into the Liffey as well. “

This is pure conjecture, I understood that the canal would be paid for by the in situ land owners in return for increased height restrictions in the 2008 development plan. The DDDA is due to wrap up in 2013 around the same time as the completion of the canal. Stating that the Liffey extension is some sort of self-perpetuating income stream for the DDDA has no basis in fact but by all means, go along to one of the many DDDA presentations and put it to them.

“For all the above and other reasons, to quote gunther “This isn’t your average daft proposal” but a well though out “sell” to alleviate a building bottleneck at the expence (forever?) of locals, Dubliners, tourists and all river landscape lovers.

Isn’t it now time for all of us to propose an imaginative better solution?

Please look at it this way: …….no “Canal” = no “Island” = no Campshires buildings = no Liffey breach …… let’s start with an underground grey water facility built over, and that would leave a nice long 60Ft wide covered area running alongside the Luas…. 4 lenghts would be a nice 1 mile run ???[/QUOTE]”

They don’t need to build a canal for grey water, they could simply culvert that underground. They don’t need to build a canal to for the extension, the former will pre-date the latter.

The Island with the canal and extension is being sold as one package but I see them as two separate pieces of infrastructure to be judged on their merits as such. You seem to rail against either / or with spurious arguments, selective quotes from other posters and a few ‘ here here’s ‘. And as you’ve never posted on this forum about anything but the canal and the Island I can only surmise you’ve got the whole think stuck in your graw for some reason (?), cannot view the project objectively and will post anything to damage it’s prospects.

All you’re missing is the opening square bracket! (i.e. [QUOTE=cagey;81949] rather than QUOTE=cagey;81949])

No, they are there. What’s the process. Do I start by clicking them, then highlight the quote ? or open up a reply first ???:confused:

Hit Post Reply, then find the text you wanna quote, paste it in to your reply, highlight it, then hit the quote buttons like so.

No, they are there. What’s the process. Do I start by clicking them, then highlight the quote ? or open up a reply first ???

If you wanna quote an entire post just hit the quote button in that post at the outset

Any word from last night? jdivision in a dress?

@ctesiphon wrote:

jdivision in a dress?

A very scary thought. Believe me. Wasn’t aware of any meeting last night tbh.

Couldn’t make it myself. I’ll should get notice of proceedings in the next week or so. Anything of public interest I’ll pass on.

Thanks RC. I had similar intentions too but got stuck in work.

@jdivision wrote:

A very scary thought. Believe me. Wasn’t aware of any meeting last night tbh.

Heh- I was wondering how far you’d go to get in after your little incident last time. No aspersions intended. 🙂

@ctesiphon wrote:

Heh- I was wondering how far you’d go to get in after your little incident last time. No aspersions intended. 🙂

Believe me if I knew it was on I’d have been there:D Not on here often enough anymore to keep up as much as before.

I could drop this article into a couple of different threads but the end of it gives a little more clarity on the canal/island plan.

THE HIGH Court is set to scrutinise a Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) decision to grant a planning exemption to one of property player Liam Carroll’s companies for a major office scheme.

The DDDA granted the exemption last year to North Quay Investments Ltd (NQIL) for a development of three office blocks on the Liffey’s north quays, which will provide new homes for Anglo Irish Bank’s headquarters, AIB Capital Markets and O’Donnell Sweeney solicitors.

However, the High Court yesterday granted the Treasury Holdings-backed Spencer Dock Development Company leave to seek to have the DDDA’s decision judicially reviewed.

In a series of affidavits, Spencer Dock and Treasury Holdings managing director John Bruder told the High Court that the authority was acting outside its own powers in granting the exemption.

The DDDA can grant exemptions from the planning process, known as section 25 certificates, where a proposed development fits in with its own master plan.

Spencer Dock argues that North Quay Investment’s proposals are in breach of the existing plan because they do not have the required balance between commercial and residential development.

The docklands authority is currently reviewing its master plan for the area, a process that is supposed to involve consultation with interested parties.

However, Spencer Dock claims that in granting the certificate to North Quay, the DDDA committed itself in advance “to a particular course of action in relation to at least one area” of the docklands which benefited NQIL.

Spencer Dock told the court that in return for getting the exemption, NQIL has agreed to give the authority some land at the rear of its development.

The DDDA wants to build a canal on this as part of a plan to create an “island” feature in the docklands. This would form part of the new master plan.

Spencer Dock says this would damage its own interests in the area. The company’s affidavit states that it believes that the “agreement is fundamentally at variance with the manner in which the system is supposed to work”.

Spencer Dock also points out that the DDDA objected to the NQIL proposal when it originally sought planning permission for the office scheme from Dublin City Council.

Spencer Dock says the objection, prepared by the same DDDA planner who completed the report for the exemption, expressed concern at the proposed eight-storey height of one of the buildings, and the fact that the development was solely commercial. The DDDA subsequently granted a planning exemption to a proposal that was largely the same.

The issue is due back in court next month. If Spencer Dock succeeds in getting permission to have the decision reviewed, it is likely that it will ask that the Commercial Court deals with the issue.

Reading even that brief account of one legal wrangle involving one tiny part of the ‘Liffey Island’ proposal, a person would be tempted to say that this whole thing is a murky cesspool.

Then you’re reminded that Hausmann’s re-making of Paris involved dipping into a very large murky legal cesspool and that creating Gandon’s masterpiece by shifting the location of the Customs House a mile down stream was once a bitterly contested murky legal cesspool and you say to yourself:

‘if something is really worth doing, it’s worth getting your hands dirty to do it!.

Lets all get down into the cesspool together and clean it out, forge ahead, push it through, be fearless, strike a contemporary blow for Dublin.

Then you look at what being proposed and you’re inclined to say ‘The only problem is, this isn’t worth doing!’

I’m sorry I couldn’t make it to that information meeting on Tuesday evening, I take it nobody here actually made it down. Where’s cagey? I thought you lived down there.

Hey Rusty, If the court decides that the decison is to be reviewed, i.e. finds in favour of Spencer Dock, what does this mean, i.e review by “the commercial court deals with the decision”?

Does this mean that the proposed canal/island scheme could be blocked by Treasury?
..hence stall the entire new master plan process?

Also as a side; I note that DDDA hasnt yet published any information re: revising the exixting master plan on its website, seems to me that they are in a hurry to revise thier master plan to force this “island of atlantis” on Dublin,

Lets hope this island with its blind virture and wisdom dissapears under the water together with the Lost Island of Atlantis…

I wonder where all the naked people are going to go: if I was Stencer Tunnick looking for a classic naked people enhanced Dublin vista, I would line them (us) along the quay side, but would the DDDA be happy about a celebration of the threatened campshire.

@lightswitch wrote:

Hey Rusty, If the court decides that the decison is to be reviewed, i.e. finds in favour of Spencer Dock, what does this mean, i.e review by “the commercial court deals with the decision”?

Does this mean that the proposed canal/island scheme could be blocked by Treasury?
..hence stall the entire new master plan process?

Also as a side; I note that DDDA hasnt yet published any information re: revising the exixting master plan on its website, seems to me that they are in a hurry to revise thier master plan to force this “island of atlantis” on Dublin,

Lets hope this island with its blind virture and wisdom dissapears under the water together with the Lost Island of Atlantis…

Re the Commercial Court, I wondered about that too. Someone with more knowledge of planning law would have to comment. The funny thing is, the canal is due to cross Treasury land also, so the DDDA will have to do a deal with them too. Again, I imagine, along the lines of, ‘we’ll increase building height in the 2008 development plan for you, if you let us build our canal (and Island)’.

The master plan gets reviewed every five years so we are due one in 2008 although I understand it won’t be finalised until the end of the year.

TBH, I think their website is a load of sloblock, they have not updated their planning application (s25) database in about a year now, so we’ve no idea what’s in the pipeline on that front.

The Carroll deal stuff came out in the court case with Sean Dunne so I expect that it may have to wait til that case is concluded before moving to the commercial court if the review finds in Treasury’s favour – and in fairness it kind of has to. Yet more incompetence from the DDDA.But hey, they’ve a whole new area of Dublin to look forward to developing.

The lack of a water supply (other than grey) sets this “Canal” apart from normal canals. “

There is a clean water supply for any building proposed for the area via the water mains …….

If the ‘new’ canal is connected to the Liffey then there is no need to build a whole canal system merely to take future builds ‘grey’ water. It would simply be piped into the Liffey directly…..

They don’t need to build a canal for grey water, they could simply culvert that underground. They don’t need to build a canal to for the extension, the former will pre-date the latter.

I think you know that no “canal” maintains its level directly from a mains water supply? Enough said.

Please Rusty Cogs, read again posts 103 (http://www.pleanala.ie/ord/205/D205632.DOC), 142 and 143.

2) on 1/4/08, Mr Maloney himself confirmed that the reservoir (sorry ‘canal’) will be used for grey water treatment (reed treatment bed system).

They most certainly need a Grey water treatment facility (a reed bed ?). Not just a small plant but “Six hours storage must be provided based on a five year return period storm.” … I am sure the architects in here can tell us how big that needs to be. (20 X 1200 Square Mtrs ?).

Surely you dont think the DDDA intend to pack up their jobs and go away quietly in 2013?

The DDDA would be landlords not just levy takers in the case of buildings on the Campshires. They claim on their web site to own (with a bit of sharing) the Campshires .

I missed that meeting due to not being able to get back to Dublin in time (SIGH!!!!!) … sorry all.
I hope Lightswitch was there.

One of the meetings I was at, I asked “How on earth can the DDDA be independent when its income (levy based) is derived from developers?” … that was 5 years ago and I still do not have an adequate explanation and the latest posts show that at least it is very difficult for the DDDA to be objective.

Verey informative that post 197 … ty Rusty Cogs.

Can somebody turn on lightswitch. It’s been a week since the information meeting and we’ve not got any information!

On a related matter, has anyone seen the Spencer Dock Development Co.’s (Ronan & Barrett) plan for the ‘Woolstore’ and the ‘LMS Building’, both ‘Protected Structures’ (Reg. no. 2871/08, lodged 19 May)?

Scanned drawing showing the proposed office block above and behind the two storey, red brick, LMS building (former C.I.E. goods depot)

Scanned drawing showing the existing front elevation of the LMS Building.

Scanned drawing of the proposed office block with the protected ‘Woolstore’ warehouse in the foreground and the curved corner of the LMS building on the Quay front to the left.

Existing view of the ‘Woolstore’ warehouse.

The architects are Henry J Lyons and the design approach appears to be ‘Skylon Hotel meets Erno Goldfinger’

The scanned planning documents don’t seem to include a cover letter, or anything to explain the design rational, beyond two short paragraphs at the end of the conservation report by heavy weight conservation architect, David Slattery, which touch on the issue of the juxtaposition of the new and old, but you sense the presence of industrial strength rubber gloves..

Slattery states: ‘The LMS Building and the former Woolstore read strongly and individually and if anything this new backdrop to the rear emphasises the strength of the elevational impact they make.’

‘It’s as if the contrast between the new and utterly modern facades with their high level of glazing succeeds in emphasising the solidity and three dimensional quality of the two Protected Structures.’

I think for ‘utterly modern’ we can read 1960s, but more bafflingly, the report goes on to suggest that the proposed eight storey constructivist block, hanging over the protected roofs of the protected structures ‘ . . provides them with an immediate backdrop and removes the incongruity of their current setting with adjoining buildings on the site immediately west towering over the LMS building and dwarfing it’s appearance’!

This would be a swipe at the ‘Pricewaterhouse-Coopers’ building.

As far as I can tell the western elbow of the ‘Island canal’ is routed between the front of the ‘Woolstore’ and the side of the redbrick hotel on the North Wall, where it doesn’t look like there’s a whole lot of space.

Surprisingly the Planning drawings make no reference to the canal which must surely have some impact on the development if it goes ahead. The absence of any reference to the canal leaves you to wonder whether they’ve considered whether fire engine access will end up being by barge.

Who needs fire engines when you can just dip the end of your hose in a grey water canal? (This is not a euphemism, btw.)

@gunter wrote:

As far as I can tell the western elbow of the ‘Island canal’ is routed between the front of the ‘Woolstore’ and the side of the redbrick hotel on the North Wall, where it doesn’t look like there’s a whole lot of space

On which subject, <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2839/08&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Reg. Ref. 2839/08. It seems someone has applied to DCC for PP for a site that’s ‘in the way’ of the canal- on the inside of the north-west corner. And let’s not forget the developments currently under construction in the area- isn’t there something underway on the Brooks Thomas site?

Up up and away !!!

From today’s IT

The easing of the height restriction will allow three banks and several other major companies to move ahead with plans to relocate to the north docklands where developers have been waiting for the planning concessions, writes Jack Fagan .

A NEW planning scheme and masterplan for the Dublin docklands, due to be unveiled next week, is to recommend that the maximum height for new buildings at the North Lotts, Grand Canal Harbour and Grand Canal Docks should be increased from seven to 20 storeys. Parts of the City Quay area are also expected to benefit from the changes.

The easing of the height restriction will immediately allow three banks and several other major companies to move ahead with plans to relocate to the north docklands where developers have been waiting for the planning concessions.

Most of the high-rise and high density office blocks will be at North Lotts where the landowners include Liam Carroll, Treasury Holdings and Sean Dunne. The two largest sites at Grand Canal Harbour in the south docks are owned by Treasury Holdings and Sean Kelly who bought the former Bolands Mills about three years ago. The Kilsaran-owned cement site at Grand Canal Harbour will also benefit.

The first beneficiary in the busy north docks area will be Carroll who owns the seven-acre Brooks Thomas site next to Treasury’s Spencer Dock.

He has agreed to develop a building of 32,515sq m (350,000sq ft) for Anglo Irish Bank and another one of 5,574sq m (60,000sq ft) for solicitors O’Donnell Sweeney.

AIB Capital Markets is also in discussions with Carroll to rent a new high density office building on the site with a floor area of around 37,160sq m (400,000sq ft).

The third bank involved, Bank of Ireland, is also in “exclusive discussions” with him to occupy a planned new 51,095sq m (550,000sq ft) back office at the rear of the Brooks Thomas site on Mayor Street.

Carroll has attracted the three banks by offering artificially low rents for the first five years in the expectation that they will be reviewed to open market value at the first review.

Without the change of maximum heights from seven to 20 storeys it is doubtful if he could have accommodated the three banks as well as other clients.

Treasury also has large tracts of land in the area, including the former Tedcastles site and Spencer Dock, and they will obviously be hoping to attract other high profile tenants including KPMG, Deloitte, Citco Group, Arthur Cox and the IDA.

Although Treasury has lodged a planning application with Dublin City Council for a 33-storey, 400-bedroom hotel alongside the proposed National Conference Centre in Spencer Dock, the decision by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to limit heights to 20 storeys will make it all the more difficult for the developer to fulfil its ambitions.

The docklands has become the prime location for large new office blocks in the city over the past five years. Since 2002, it has accounted for almost one-third of overall office take-up in the Dublin market.

Paul Maloney, chief executive of the DDDA, says their success has clearly demonstrated how they can continue to attract major headquarter buildings.

The new masterplan, which has been approved by the council and board of the DDDA, will provide for the expenditure of €4 billion in a public private partnership on vital improvements in infrastructure to accommodate major commercial and residential developments in the run up to 2020.

The transport facilities will include a new Luas service, rapid transit bus services, four new bridges, and an interconnector underground station.

The enhanced infrastructure will be required to service the increased office and residential densities to be allowed in designated areas of the docklands, Maloney said.

He added that this would be accompanied by a massive investment in the community through jobs, housing, schools, and arts and culture including three new theatres.

Launch of Docklands Authority’s Draft Master Plan for 2008 to 2013

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority will launch the public
consultation phase of its new draft Master Plan on Wednesday, June 25,
2008, at 11.30am.

The launch will include a briefing from the Docklands Authority’s Chief
Executive, Paul Maloney, on the key aspects of the draft Master Plan, which
provides a framework to guide the development and regeneration of the
Docklands area into the future.

We would like to invite you, or a representative, to attend the briefing in
the former offices of the Docklands Authority, Custom House Quay (opposite
Jurys Inn) where the draft Master Plan will be on public display.

Event: Launch of Docklands Authority’s Draft Master Plan

Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Time: 11.30am

Location: Docklands Authority former offices, Custom House Quay, Dublin 1

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Launch of Docklands Authority’s Draft Master Plan for 2008 to 2013

So finally we find out if the DDDA suggest we lose our Campshires for a “Canal”. The scene below is taken from the middle of where the Liffey Island Extension is proposed, or is it only proposed?

Campshires ruined over our collective “Corpus Mortis”??? John Gormley, Tara, Ringsend, but no strike three please.

Guys. lightswitch is back on!

Sorry for not coming back sooner, however I was on holidays.. on the subject of the North Lotts Residents Associations briefing with DDDA,

First of all I would like to point out that all present were very pleased to have this engagement with the DDDA.

Also the members of DDDA who attended were extremely professional, well prepared and happy to exchange in direct open dialogue with the community. To be fair to them, I was impressed with their approach and willingness to discuss and listen to the fears and concerns of the local residents, so credit where it is due! Well done on this front.

It was absolutely clear that DDDA are proceeding with their plan to develop the campshires and proceed with building into the liffey. When pressed with a direct question from the floor the DDDA speaker (sorry wasn’t taking notes on names) responded that the “motivation and vision” to proceed with this plan is to “engage the campshire”, apparently to date the public has not been using the space adequately, the speaker recognised that this was largely due to the hard finish and lack of planting employed, however he stated they learned from this and felt this plan would correct this (I would also suggest it is more probable that this is due to the fact that the area is under development and also by virtue of the fact that there are no access crossing points across to the other side)

Upon further engagement the (resident) stated that he was honestly not convinced; that the plan to develop the campshires will achieve this vision, building into the river will not engage public recreation of the area, it simply doesn’t make sense (whatever public recreation is defined, as in this instance).

Nor do I personally agree that this plan would engage the public and the campshire, it just doesn’t compute. I would suggest that the real motivation and and vision is much more short term, it’s the balance sheet. Its not about public recreational engagement. Its about returning the campshire back to commerce, albeit a new format.

But lets be honest about this…

If it was about public recreational engagement I suggest to the DDDA, try a new feasibility plan, perhaps pedestrianise the entire north lotts campshire? Creat a green area with rich planting, developing the areas as a usable public space. This could be achieved by diverting port traffic at the Point Depot/ East Link via east wall road/sheriff st, indeed build another bloody tunnel if you have too… This would demonstrate some real vision toward engaging the campshire and the city can still retain our heritage and open vista, campshires AND ALSO build high rise. So long as long as its not in the river?

…just my opinion anyway, lets see what the coming weeks will bring?

@lightswitch wrote:

Guys. lightswitch is back on!
……
…just my opinion anyway, lets see what the coming weeks will bring?

References to the “Liffey Island” are difficult to come across in the new DDDA 2008 plan but ‘tho hidden there is no problem knowing what that “Canal” is for.

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/Environmental%20Report%202008%20Section%208.pdf

The part to notice I quote:

“…Although located in direct proximity to the Ringsend wastewater treatment plant, development under
the Poolbeg Planning Scheme and other Planning Schemes in the Docklands Area may have to
provide local wastewater infrastructure until such time as capacity becomes available at regional level.
The Master Plan acknowledges that temporary treatment facilities may be required to serve short to
medium term needs (S.5.2.2). This issue will be addressed in the relevant Planning Schemes and accompanying EISs.
If adequate wastewater capacity at regional level is unavailable at the time of the roll out of further
development in the Docklands Area e.g. should the Authority decide to extend the North Lotts , Grand
Canal Docks and Custom House Docks Planning Scheme Areas, local wastewater treatment may be
required for development in these areas. This will be addressed in the relevant Planning Schemes and
accompanying Environmental Impact Statements, in agreement with Dublin City Council….”

They call it “Mitigation”. Isn’t that supposed to happen after they have been found guilty and want a reduced punishment?

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/Environmental%20Report%202008%20Section%206.pdf

“…..Until such time as water supply and wastewater infrastructure at regional level becomes
available, mitigation at local Docklands level will be essential…..”

Lightswitch, I would especially like to have a comment from you re the above please.

I like (no way) the DDDA childish tables and final assesment I quote:

6.6 DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED
There were no technical or data diffi culties encountered in compiling the required information to assess
the Master Plan Alternatives.

@lightswitch wrote:

the “motivation and vision” to proceed with this plan is to “engage the campshire”, apparently to date the public has not been using the space adequately, the speaker recognised that this was largely due to the hard finish and lack of planting employed, however he stated they learned from this and felt this plan would correct this (I would also suggest it is more probable that this is due to the fact that the area is under development and also by virtue of the fact that there are no access crossing points across to the other side)

Absolutely – the DDDA say that it is under utilised – so to amend this they want to build over and privatise the space??? What genius thought this up

The fact that there is bugger all between Spencer Dock and the point may be part of the problem (but it’s being built their now) and hence people may start using the north campshires.

The DDDA don’t have a leg to stand on if this is their argument

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/Environmental%20Report%202008%20Section%208.pdf

Above I have provided a full link. It seems some of you made little sense of the link I gave …. sorry … me too.
If you dont get all the way there with the link above … Arrow forward to Section 8.6 Material Assets.
When I save the link it seems to change

Below is why the DDDA need rent more than levy … dont forget they claim to own the Campshires and would get rent, business ground rent, and levy from same.

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/Draft%20Master%20Plan%202008%20Section%208.pdf (fast fwd to pages 8.2.3 also pages 8.2.5 )

The following is a broad breakdown of estimated expenditure over the next fi ve years to 2013:
Public Sector Expenditure: €1.7bn
Private Sector Expenditure: €2.8bn

Policy IM2
Rigorously assess new Authority-funded development to ensure best value
for money.

Policy IM5
Examine the potential for new sources and methods of funding.

In other words “Empire building” and to hell with the Liffey views and Dubliners’ views.

@lightswitch wrote:

Guys. lightswitch is back on!

It was absolutely clear that DDDA are proceeding with their plan to develop the campshires and proceed with building into the liffey. When pressed with a direct question from the floor the DDDA speaker (sorry wasn’t taking notes on names) responded that the “motivation and vision” to proceed with this plan is to “engage the campshire”

The guy actually said this?

Then after they get ‘engaged’, what happens? There’re going to marry this thing aren’t they? This is going to be like some sick inter-species B-movie. There going to start procreating, twenty storey, little monsters all over the place!

I’ve read through most of cagey’s links to the DDDA development plan and I can’t find very many explicit reference to the ‘Island’!

The one that stands out is on p. 106, under the heading 8.7 Cultural Heritage:

‘Although the impact of the Master Plan 2008 on cultural heritage is largely positive, the proposed Amended North Lotts Planning Scheme will potentially impact negatively on the quay wall at North Wall. This is a protected Structure and a recorded National Monument. The extension into the River Liffey is to be supported on piles allowing the historic wall to remain in place without significant intervention.’

This is a pathetic passage that willfully misrepresents the impact of the proposal. The campshire is not just a protected wall, it’s a place, an amenity resource. Shame on whatever spineless weasel wrote that paragraph.

Apart from that and even allowing for any carefully chosen double speak, there not a lot of phrases you could use to justify the campshire build over.

Some sample phrases from DDDA documents:

6.1.2. Aims of the Urban Design Framework (Design, scale and Use)

‘. . . development along the River Liffey shall have regard to the coherent built form that has developed along the corridor, while allowing for appropriate variations that are legible in the wider context’.

Maybe that last bit is the Trojan horse, depending on who gets to define ‘appropriate’, ‘legible’ and how wide is your ‘context’?

6.2.1. Context, (Urban Form)

‘The River Liffey forms the central spine of the Docklands and Dublin City . . which also offers one of Dublin’s most attractive amenity spaces, an all important ‘node’ linking the city’s markers from Heuston Station, the Four Courts, Liberty Hall, and the Custom House, that can be experienced as a central open space floating through the city’.

Maybe you could argue that the fact that the’ve stopped at the Custom House could be interpreted as some sort of ‘get out clause’!

From the Sindo

If ambitious plans go ahead, the IFSC may be turned into a ‘mini Manhattan’, writes Ronald Quinlan

Sunday June 29 2008

THREE of the biggest beasts in Ireland’s property industry have been drawn into an all-out war over ambitious plans by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) to create a ‘mini Manhattan’ in the heart of the IFSC.

Separate claims by high-flying property magnates Johnny Ronan and Sean Dunne of a secret deal given to publicity-shy developer Liam Carroll have now landed the DDDA in the High Court.

The separate cases, which are being taken by Ronan’s Spencer Dock Developments and Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes respectively, centre on the Authority’s agreement last year allowing Carroll to ignore the 2002 North Lotts Planning Scheme, and to pursue a new plan with the DDDA.

That plan allows Carroll to build more office blocks on the site owned by his company, North Quay Investments, changes the location of a garden area, and removes the requirement for him to build a new east-west road across the site.

In return for these concessions, Carroll agreed to cede a strip of land to the DDDA, which it plans to excavate for the construction of a new canal within the IFSC.

The Authority has further plans to obtain two additional strips of land owned by another of Johnny Ronan’s companies, Real Estate Opportunities (REO), on either side of Carroll’s site for the canal project through the execution of a compulsory purchase order.

Should it proceed, the construction of the new canal would see Carroll’s site bounded on all sides by water, transforming it into what industry sources are describing as a ‘mini Manhattan’.

Carroll is understood to be in the process of securing AIB and solicitors O’Donnell Sweeney Eversheds as tenants for the site.

Both Ronan and Dunne are strongly opposed to the proposals, with lawyers for both arguing that the confidential agreement reached between the DDDA and Liam Carroll on May 31 last year has the potential to cause significant damage to their development interests in the IFSC.

Sean Dunne, for his part, believes details of the confidential agreement should have been disclosed to him as a landowner adjoining Liam Carroll’s North Lotts site.

The Mountbrook Homes supremo claims the permission given to Carroll to build to a greater density than the 2002 development plan permitted will lead to a situation where his own planned apartments will look out on to office blocks rather than a garden area, while access to his site will be restricted.

Ronan’s Spencer Dock Developments, meanwhile, are arguing that they have been put at a distinct competitive disadvantage in their dealings with the DDDA as a result of its decision to reach a confidential agreement with Liam Carroll.

In an affidavit submitted by Spencer Dock Developments to the High Court, the company describes the Authority’s move as “astonishing”, adding that it “makes a mockery” of the process of consultation with interested developers.

Turning to the specific issue of the planning permission given to Liam Carroll on the North Lotts site, the affidavit sworn by director John Bruder claims Carroll was effectively given certainty, which allowed him to gain competitive advantage over other developers in terms of negotiating with prospective tenants in the IFSC.

The affidavit further alleges in angry terms: “It is now abundantly clear that the Applicant (Spencer Dock Developments) and all those working on its behalf were at all times wasting their time: the DDDA had a predetermined idea of how the lands should be developed and in the face of all our representations, the DDDA never budged in a material way.

“Now that I know about the agreement between NQIL and the DDDA, I understand why the DDDA did not budge,” it continues.

If there is much frustration on the part of Johnny Ronan and his fellow directors, Sean Dunne would appear to be equally frustrated by events.

The Sunday Independent understands the Mountbrook Homes chief has, in tandem with his High Court case against the DDDA, already requested further information from the Authority about any arrangements it may be planning to enter into with the media-averse developer.

Eyebrows were already raised in property circles when Carroll let a planning permission he had been given by Dublin City Council in 2002 for a site next to the DDDA’s planned U2 Tower on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay lapse.

There was speculation that Carroll decided not to proceed with the site to mollify the DDDA, who sources believe would have been unhappy to see the U2 Tower having to compete with a parallel development.

Asked by the Sunday Independent if the Authority had reached any agreement with Mr Carroll that he would not proceed with developing the Sir John Rogerson’s Quay site, a spokesman for the DDDA gave a categoric denial.

The spokesman said: “The Authority wishes to categorically state that no verbal or written agreement was ever sought or given in relation to Liam Carroll losing his planning permission on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay.

“This planning permission was not renewed by Dublin City Council. There is, therefore, absolutely no linkage between this site and the North Lotts area, or any other area, in which Liam Carroll is developing,” he said.

Dunne’s case against the DDDA is the latest episode in his long-running struggle against Carroll.

Back in 2005, the two crossed paths as Dunne fought to gain control of the Jury’s Doyle Hotel (JDH) Group at the height of the speculative grab for land in the Ballsbridge area of Dublin 4.

With tensions running high, Carroll emerged as the potential kingmaker at a crucial juncture in the struggle for JDH, with an eight per cent shareholding under his belt.

At one point, it is understood he promised to sell those shares to Dunne, before then selling them to the Doyle family instead.

I’ve read through most of cagey’s links to the DDDA development plan and I can’t find very many explicit reference to the ‘Island’!

That is because I cannot find any reference to the “Island” after hours of reading. That makes me wonder why?

A look at that 2008 draft plan shows two very scary things. First is the DDDA proposed enormous expansion of its territory. More empire building. Wake up East Wall unless you want your own “Canal” and “Island”.

The second and most scary is the sneaky changing of zones from zone 9 to zone 14 for that Island part of the Campshires. Isn’t it time to try and stop the DDDA from spending any more public money on trying to fool us so they can destroy the campshires?

Below are excerps from their difficult to read map. Please note the Zone 14 out over the Zone 9 Campshires and Zone 11 river, and there is no “CANAL” (nothing going past the wool store)!!!!
http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/07209_zoning%20objectives_low%20res.jpg

cagey: I take your point, if the heavy blue line denotes Z14, why isn’t there a dark green Z9 graphic outlining the ‘Canal’ and making it a defined recreational amenity?

What are the steps and deadlines for objecting to the change of zoning on this draft Development Plan do you know?

I feel really foolish for giving these people the benefit of the doubt a few weeks ago. If they’re coming out with nonsense about ‘engaging the campshires’ that’s deceit and manipulation by jargon.

@gunter wrote:

What are the steps and deadlines for objecting to the change of zoning on this draft Development Plan do you know?

Pretty sure the deadline is September; the procedure is just to send in a letter, but note the lack of an appeal structure as you get with PPs.

Here’s another interesting phrase buried deep in the new draft DDDA Development Plan:

Under ‘Mitigation’ / 8.8 Landscape / Design Master Plan, policy 30 (page 107)

‘Create an urban design and architectural panal to evaluate new development and proposals within the Docklands Area, including an evaluation of the impact of new development on city views’.

Who gets to hand pick that little group?

@gunter wrote:

Here’s another interesting phrase buried deep in the new draft DDDA Development Plan:

Under ‘Mitigation’ / 8.8 Landscape / Design Master Plan, policy 30 (page 107)

‘Create an urban design and architectural panel to evaluate new development and proposals within the Docklands Area, including an evaluation of the impact of new development on city views’.

Who gets to hand pick that little group?

doesn’t the city council have one of these as well. I think its called the urban design advisory panel or something similar. They review the strategic projects in the planning system every couple of months.

I can’t remember exactly who’s on the panel but it includes Ken Shuttleworth and a couple of others with a fair amount of experience.

Presumably it cant really be a bad thing??

Maybe this is abit off the wall, but do you guys feel strongly enough about this discussion to form an action group/ commitee?

Im suggesting a public pressure group to discuss and address the concerns as voiced in this mail thread, perhaps engage with various other local community groups/parties and representatives?

Just a thought….

Ok lightswitch ….

…form an action group…?

I agree, it is time to become active. I will get back to you on this.
All those of you reading this thread please post if you disagree with the rape of the Campshires. The more voices the better.

How about the following in that DDDA draft plan?

8.7 CULTURAL HERITAGE …..
Although the impact of the Master Plan 2008 on cultural heritage is largely positive, the proposed
Amended North Lotts Planning Scheme will potentially impact negatively on the quay wall at North
Wall. This is a Protected Structure and a recorded archaeological monument. The extension into the
River Liffey is to be supported on piles allowing the historic wall to remain in place without signifi cant
intervention. Nevertheless a specifi c policy in relation to the protection of archaeological material insitu
is considered appropriate.
It is proposed to compensate for this impact by the creation of additional positive impacts elsewhere
in the Docklands Area.

Not good enough… what about impacting negatively …on the view? .. on the river as an amenity? … on the Campshires as an amenity?
Where is the EIS??

Nothing elsewhere would do … what kind of suggestion is that? Hands off our national monument and beautiful Liffey views.

@reddy wrote:

doesn’t the city council have one of these as well. I think its called the urban design advisory panel or something similar. They review the strategic projects in the planning system every couple of months.

I can’t remember exactly who’s on the panel but it includes Ken Shuttleworth and a couple of others with a fair amount of experience.

Presumably it cant really be a bad thing??

I didn’t mean to suggest that an Urban Design / Architectural panel would be a bad thing, just that for something like the campshire proposal to get past such a panel, the DDDA would have to be pretty careful who got nominated to be on the panel.

The way I read it, this panel hasn’t been appointed yet. In the circumstances, it would be hard to believe that the DDDA, having invested so much effort in laying the foundations for this scheme, would then take the risk of having some ‘Advisory Panel’ shoot it out of the water at their first meeting.

If the Sindo article, posted by Rusty Cogs, is anything to go by, there are Machiavellian layers to this thing that would put a bit of panel packing in the halfpenny place.

I hadn’t realized that DCC had a similar panel, they must keep them sedated on drips in a windowless room!

As regards the DDDA Draft plan and other Blogs see
http://buckplanning.blogspot.com/search?q=DDDa

The closing date for submissions is September 12th.

I have read the Q&A session the DDDA had with local residents.
At first glance it seems the residents are regarding as “fait accompli” the acceptance of the 2008 DDDA plan.

Personally, if I heard of just one 20 storey block just south of my 2 storey dwelling I would be ……. !!!
Well put it like this, Rossport would seem like a tea-party.

I would need to know exactly where any such block was about to be placed and I would be up in arms against any “Draft” plan that did not specify the exact area where the current planning regulations re building height were to be altered. I would most definitely not want to swop an amentity like the Campshires for a daft canal. And, I would not want any authority with such daft ideas to exist beyond the statutory 2013, never mind the expansion of their influence.

I think the DDDA are hoping that lack of info will make it easier for their Grand Plan to be acceptable …… W R O N G.

I have just been reading the DDDA objection letter to that PP application on Mayor and New Wapping streets (the building in the path of the “Canal”).
How two faced can the DDDA be?… I let you all decide for yourselves …. your comments please.

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00231655.pdf and arrow forward to top of Page two … I hope this URL works.

The objection letter excerpt is under “Assessment . height”

That letter is not factually incorrect- it described the existing conditions under the current DDDA planning scheme for that area.

What caught my eye is the inability of the author to spell ‘storeys’.

(Also, there is nothing on that *uck Planning website that you won’t find on Archiseek, and Archiseek isn’t a… Hmmm, better not finish that sentence.)

@lightswitch wrote:

Maybe this is a bit off the wall, but do you guys feel strongly enough about this discussion to form an action group/ commitee?

Im suggesting a public pressure group to discuss and address the concerns as voiced in this mail thread, perhaps engage with various other local community groups/parties and representatives?

Just a thought….

I understand where you’re coming from, lightswitch, but the words ‘Action Group’ and ‘Commitee’ send a shiver down my spine.

By rights, this whole proposal is setting itself up to be a test case of whether we have a planning system that works, or not. We’ll also find out, who in DCC still has any functioning critical faculties and who’s been staring too long at all the shiny new planning application. DCC, albeit as the ‘Corpo.’ has been around since 1200, or so, and presumably will be around for a while yet, DDDA are essentially a development agency and they’ll be history in a few years. It’s DCC that I would be inclined to hold responsible if someone, in a position of influence, doesn’t fire out a warning shot over this pretty soon.

The laying out and construction of the Quays was a hugely visionary undertaking that appears to have taken about one hundred and seventy years to complete (from about 1680 to 1850) and ‘complete’ is the operative word.

From Heuston to the Point, the Liffey quays are a complete set-piece entity that every architectural visitor to Dublin agrees ‘Define the city’. What DDDA appear to be attempting to do here is akin to what the ESB did to Fitzwilliam Street in the ’60s, take one of Dublin’s defining set-pieces (that they had nothing to do with creating) fracture it’s integrity and treat it as a new architectural play thing.

So long as we don’t allow others to under-value what we have and over-value what they’re trying to give us and so long as we don’t underestimate the capacity of people to make the wrong decisions for the right reasons, all that ought to be required here is to keep writing in, use the process, and there should be no need to break out the burning torches just yet.

@cagey wrote:

As regards the DDDA Draft plan and other Blogs see
http://buckplanning.blogspot.com/search?q=DDDa

I have read the Q&A session the DDDA had with local residents.
At first glance it seems the residents are regarding as “fait accompli” the acceptance of the 2008 DDDA plan.

Personally, if I heard of just one 20 storey block just south of my 2 storey dwelling I would be ……. !!!
Well put it like this, Rossport would seem like a tea-party.

I would need to know exactly where any such block was about to be placed and I would be up in arms against any “Draft” plan that did not specify the exact area where the current planning regulations re building height were to be altered. I would most definitely not want to swop an amentity like the Campshires for a daft canal. And, I would not want any authority with such daft ideas to exist beyond the statutory 2013, never mind the expansion of their influence.

I think the DDDA are hoping that lack of info will make it easier for their Grand Plan to be acceptable …… W R O N G.

So you’ve read the Q&A session with the DDDA and the local residents ? Then you’ll know that your fears about the canal being used for grey water were unfounded ?

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

So you’ve read the Q&A session with the DDDA and the local residents ? Then you’ll know that your fears about the canal being used for grey water were unfounded ?

I wish that were the case Rusty but no. OK a DDDA answer stated that the canal was not for Grey Water but the wrong question was asked. The questioner should have asked if “treated” grey water would be allowed to run into the canal. Of course untreated grey water cannot be allowed into the canal as its later entry into the Liffey would cause a fishkill for miles.
You must realise I have been showing how two-faced the DDDA are in regards to this whole Liffey Island, and since the answer was very short I suspect the DDDA answered the question as asked, without any elaboration. Besides, a canal of just surface water from the immediate area will be even worse cesspool wise (tho’ less dangerous) than treated grey water.
Why do you think their is no mention of a water feed from the adjacent Royal Canal and the DDDA statement that it will “not be tidal”?

Have you not watched the recent RTE news explain that the Ringsend Sewage Plant is now treating way over capacity (over 18% over I think), and reductions in inputs (other than sewage water) are urgently required? DCC cannot (and will not) allow any more surface water to enter the sewer (as is the case for a huge part of Dublin with its singlebore pipe system), and that is why the DDDA require a “Canal” as a storm surge storage. They call it a

sustainable urban rainwater drainage facility

Again that is wrong. It would be surface water, a big difference.

I suspect that the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant (not to be confused with sewage) is now also overcapacity considering it also has bad ongoing odour problems.

Rusty! are you hinting that the “Canal” is a good thing? The DDDA haven’t even made a Zone 9 for it. They dont even dare think of it as an amenity, and neither should we.

Back to that “Island”:
Look at it again this way …. No Canal = no Island ….. noIsland = no excuse to extend out over the Campshires and into the Liffey…. or indeed vice versa.

At least Rusty I think we agree on the absurdity of that “Liffey Island” and the failure of no EIS on the Liffey Vistas.

@ctesiphon wrote:

That letter is not factually incorrect- it described the existing conditions under the current DDDA planning scheme for that area.

Maybe I was a bit vague, sorry ctesiphon.
The point I was making is that it is twofaced to object to 6 “Stories” (one higher) when the DDDA are aiming to have 20 “Stories” … That’s the “storie”… lol
B4 n e of u say n e tin … I shuda spelt “their is” as “there is” in my post 229.

Sigh!!! gunter says “no burning torches” just a lightswitch.

I said ‘no burning torches just yet’.

I’m well equiped to join an ugly mob, if that’s what it comes to, but for now, I’d like to see how far a bit of reason goes.

The Fitzwilliam Street event was a bit before my time, but it shouldn’t be a forgotten lesson. As far as I know, it was only the old codgers, Old Dublin Society stalwarts, some long-haired students and the odd aged litterary icon, like John Betjeman etc. who actively campaigned against the proposal, all the forward looking, open mind-set, types were for it.

The ESB’s Fitzwilliam Street project produced a quality building, but it was still a mistake and an irrevsible mistake at that!

To me this case looks even more clear cut that Fitzwilliam Street may ever have appeared. The campshires aren’t some crumbling edifaces that are unsuitable to their present use, they are pristine prominades that have demonstrated, in the short period of time that they have been cleared of transit sheds, that they have the capacity to host public festivals as well as casual day to day recreation. Dublin is not well endowed with hard surface urban spaces! If you want to hold a public event in Dublin you have hold it on grass or close off a street somewhere.

As quay front development progresses and bridge access inproves, there is no way that the existing public engagement with the campshire spaces will not increase and intensify. The riverscape at North wall/Sir John Rogerson’s Quay has grand city scale to it like no where else in Dublin. What’s required here is good planning and decent architecture with a couple of new gems thrown in, if possible, not radical intervention of a potentially very crude type.

We should keep the burning torches well tarred up, just in case.

@gunter wrote:

What’s required here is good planning and decent architecture with a couple of new gems thrown in, if possible, not radical intervention of a potentially very crude type.

As usual, very well said gunter.

OK, all you Archi (and non Archi too) types, let’s have lots of ideas for the Campshires. Please post ideas no matter how daft. This thread will sort them. Besides, I cannot conceive of any Campshire idea more daft than a “Liffey Island”, unless it is to concrete over the Liffey to make a motorway. At least a motorway would leave the Liffey Vista. Only joking, but it shows how bad the “Liffey Island” idea is. I have some positive ideas.

I suggest the best Campshire ideas be posted to Minister John Gormley so we help him to veto this crazy Island.

What’s the prize, a canal trip for two?

In Lyon the riverside quays have been transformed into underground car parks.

It would be a major undertaking the DDDA could spend this money engineering to cut and cover the road down the North quays, bringing major traffic underground for a stretch, allowing new buildings along here to directly relate to the campshires, opening up real potential for riverside eating/ cafes etc and activated public space.

I’m sure it’d cost a fortune and I’ve heard some real reservations before about the impact on the city of bringing traffic underground, but sure its worth throwing out there.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyber_chof/251112435/

@reddy wrote:

…….I’ve heard some real reservations before about the impact on the city of bringing traffic underground, but sure its worth throwing out there.

Pedestrianise the North Quays along the proposed Liffey Island stretch…..No need to go underground … so no great costs …. the traffic can be diverted along that stretch where they have proposed that canal … 60ft wide should be enough. The “surface water facility” can be under the road. I am aware that the wool store stretch might be too narrow and needs to be further east and maybe even as far as New Wapping St.

I have no objections to the DDDA renting or leasing the current roadway to waterfront pubs and cafes and getting their “Pound Of Flesh” but not the Campshires. … Rear car park entrances to the waterfront buildings can be via the Cul De Sac of Castleforbes St.
How about awnings, canopies, colourful umbrellas, windbreaks, tables and even that Marina (or not). …. Have the southside envy the northside for a change … lol.
All the above meets with the DCC zoning, preservation and conservation, as should be the case.

Cagey, interesting idea above; where did the image with the conservation area hashed in red come from?

-is this your own idea or is this an earlier council drawing/ proposal?

Thanks

Apologies to lightswitch et al. I assumed you all know of the DCC development plan 2005 to 2011. Sorry!

I got the map starting from the Dublin City Council site.
http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Pages/CityDevelopmentPlan.aspx
and then using the pdf view controls after expanding the map view to 100%

I patched in the “Specific Objectives” of the plan.
These are not just Zoning Oblectives but more serious.

http://www.dublincity.ie/development_plan/Maps/mapeset.pdf

Dublin docklands agency faces massive compensation claim – FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor

DUBLIN DOCKLANDS Development Authority (DDDA) faces the possibility of a multimillion euro compensation claim from developer Liam Carroll following a High Court judgment yesterday, according to a well-placed source.

Upholding a legal challenge by rival developer Seán Dunne, Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan quashed the DDDA’s fast-track planning permission for a €200 million development project by Mr Carroll on the former Brooks Thomas site at North Wall Quay.

The judge’s ruling renders the authority’s approval for this scheme – intended as a new headquarters for Anglo Irish Bank – null and void. Work carried out on the site by Mr Carroll’s company, North Quay Investments Ltd (NQI), now constitutes “unauthorised development”.

Deals done by NQI with Anglo Irish as well as with AIB Capital Markets and solicitors O’Donnell Sweeney to pre-let other office space on the site were now “dead in the water” as they were also made on foot of the same planning approval granted by the DDDA, the source said.

Since the authority has no power to grant retrospective permission, or retention, it seems unlikely that the development work under way on the former Brooks Thomas site can be legitimised – unless the DDDA was successful in an appeal to the Supreme Court.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan found that there was “a direct relationship” between the decision to grant approval under section 25 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 and the company ceding part of the site to the DDDA for public space.

The effect of a section 25 approval under the 1997 Act is to exempt a development from the normal planning process, under which a planning application would be made to a local authority and then be open to public objections and possibly appeals to An Bord Pleanála.

The judge said the nature of a confidential agreement reached in May 2007 between the DDDA and Mr Carroll’s company before the exemption was issued in July 2007 gave rise to a “reasonable apprehension of bias” by the DDDA in reaching its decision.

The Treasury Holdings-led Spencer Dock consortium also took a High Court action contesting the DDDA’s deal with Mr Carroll’s company. Another casualty of yesterday’s High Court judgment could be the DDDA’s plans to create a high-rise quarter jutting out into the river Liffey along North Wall Quay, east of Spencer Dock. This scheme would have been facilitated by NQI’s ceding of land, free of charge.

© 2008 The Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1010/1223560351724.html

Steamroller for sale- one careless owner. Contact the DDDA for details.

”a reasonable apprehension of bias”

You can’t read the planning files of any local authority without coming away with a reasonable apprehension of bias!

Leaving DDDA out of it for the moment, every decision to grant permission by DCC, which on the face of it contravenes the Development Plan, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, does it not? In the context where the planning authority gets to share in the gain through future rates, development levies etc. etc.

What’s that nice legal phrase from a different jurisdiction about ‘appalling vistas’?

Fair point. I thought about it over the weekend and, in essence, I think the difference is that a development plan is intended to provide good guidance with an element of latitude in interpretation, but a planning scheme is a much more binding document (like an SDZ) with no latitude.

I would favour development plans that provides greater guidance and certainty, to avoid the bias you mention, but that’s a debate for another day.

Ah this is as good a time as any.

I would like to think that any good planning regime would have the flexibility to react to a ‘bright idea’ that hadn’t been anticipated when the relevant ‘Development Plan’ had been laid down. As for horse trading, of one kind or another, this has to be accommodated in the system to overcome stumbling blocks, or push through an imaginative idea.

Luke Gardiner did land himself a nice apartment in the Custom House after all and Baron Hausman undoubtedly applied the steam roller approach to existing property interests in delivering the Champs Elysees etc., but surely the fundamental test is whether the ‘stroke’ being pulled is in the public interest, or not.

Then we’re just into a debate about how to you adjudicate on what may, or may not, be in the public interest. Given that there are probably as many interpretation of the public interest as there are planning consultants. one obvious solution might be just to ask the public!

Game on! 😉

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, in both your previous posts. The door should never be shut, or at least never be locked, where a development plan is concerned. However, re the Docklands planning schemes, if the island is considered a worthy amendment (not in my eyes, but that’s neither here nor there is this debate), it should go through the appropriate channels of consultation. From the evidence reported recently, there’s a suspicion of fait accompli before the yoke was even unveiled. Are they asking, or are they telling?

Where I have an issue with the horse trading is, as you say, when it becomes a way of, say, generating income for a local authority, acquiring housing that should really be provided via more traditional channels, or funding public transport. Then, the bait is too tempting and the compromises can be too extreme. Recent years have encouraged this approach, as has the prevailing economic philosophy in the country during the boom years.

Time and again, these questions seem to come back to the very basic fact that successive governments during the boom have not tackled the issue of the provision of ‘public goods’, and have failed to realise that certain things simply must be provided by a central authority if there is any aspiration towards social equity. Such a failure tells me that the aspiration doesn’t exist, which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

PS I’m not equating ‘public goods’ with ‘public interest’. The former is meant in its narrow welfare economics sense (i.e. can’t be provided profitably by the private sector, so must be provided by the public [= state]); to the latter I would give a very wide berth. Past experience (no details, sorry) hasn’t filled me with confidence that the public knows best what it needs or wants. As I mentioned recently elsewhere, the common good is not just the sum of all individual goods.

@gunter wrote:

Luke Gardiner did land himself a nice apartment in the Custom House after all

Pedantry alert – not Luke Gardner but John Beresford (of whom Beresford Place is named) who got himself the apartment in the Custom House

@Rory W wrote:

Pedantry alert – not Luke Gardner but John Beresford

This is not about the facts, and anyway Luke Gardner and John Beresford were the same person, everybody knows that! 🙂

Sorry I didn’t see this reply earlier

@ctesiphon wrote:

I’m not equating ‘public goods’ with ‘public interest’ . . . to the latter I would give a very wide berth. Past experience (no details, sorry) hasn’t filled me with confidence that the public knows best what it needs or wants.

I’m not sure about that ctesiphon.

I have a feeling that the public may be pretty tuned in to all of this now. All these design programmes on TV and short city breaks are eating into our head start. Now, when you’re trying to come across all knowledgable and authoritive in a client meeting about a house extension, there’s a good chance that ‘Joe six pints’ has a couple of shots on his mobile phone of the apartment he rented in barcelona.

If we take the ‘Liffey Island’ idea, since were on that thread, I think DDDA should have been challenged to stick this proposal up in a public exhibition and see if it stood up to a full blown public reaction, not just a couple of well marshaled ‘residents’ meetings. A scheme like this for the quays affects the whole city, it’s not just a local issue.

If Dunne’s proposal for Ballsbridge is anything to go by, they could have re-floated the post office with the number of letters of support that would have flooded in.

North Quay Investments Ltd and Anglo Irish and a good few more gone but the DDDA survive … I cannot help thinking they all should have read this thread.
And now the DDDA input into the Dart Underground Railway Order is spelling disaster (more about that in another FORUM) as the Docklands Underground Station (DUS) has caused a rail alignment where Pierce Underground is not under Pierce Mainline … 15 minutes walk at least.
What worries me even more is that the DU entry under the Liffey is way too shallow.
The south entrance to the DUS the DURO plan to put through the POOR OULD LMS building.

I hope all you “good guys” are weathering this recession (or is that DEpression? ).

I was told yesterday by a “know-all” that the hole in the ground (canal) is for an underground car park. You know what they say about “casting pearls”? I kept stfumb.

Sorry!! that should be Pearse Station