Conservation should not be anti-development

Temple Bar…An Taisce Objects,Smithfield… An Taisce Objects,Croke Park…An Taisce
Objects,O’Connell Street…An Taisce Objects, Millenium Mall…An Taisce Objects,Millenium
Spire…An Taisce Objects, National Gallery.. An Taisce Objects, The NCC…An Taisce Objects, Spencer Dock…An Taisce Objects, Georges Quay…An Taisce Objects, Transport Infrastucture…An Taisce Objects,Millenium Bridge…An Taisce Objects,Liffey Boardwalk.. An Taisce Objects, Quay walls…An Taisce Objects,Objects, Objects,Objects…..

I wonder have they objected to the restoration work done on City Hall Dublin because 1.they removed some of the Victorian features that were added to the building in the subsequent years or 2.they did’nt remove enough of the Victorian features that were added to the building in the subsequent years .

Is conservation inherently anti-development???, Interesting question. Two sides to it really, obviously An Taisce takes and will continue to take, a very visible stance on the development of the city on the basis that the current standard of development is generally poor (certainly that would be the stance in relation to the objections quoted) on the other hand Dublin IS a growing and developing city and should be allowed to develop in a ‘natural’ fashion so as to avoid the fate of becoming a ‘museum’ like say Florence.

I’m a pretty active member of An Taisce myself and in fairness would add that the objections referred to (eg: Spencer Dock et al)were generally on grounds other than the ‘shock of the new’. One of the most common causes of objection has been the lack of a masterplan to ensure sensibly phased development of Dublin as for example in the case of Spencer Dock where the developers were refusing to adhere to the DDDA’s masterplan for Docklands (which incidentally included for high rise buildings in specific locations and which, An Taisce generally supported), the second element, again pertinent to similar schemes was the failure of Dublin Corporation to produce the much vaunted High Rise Study and thirdly the lack of attention to the ‘receiving environment’ has been a major factor in objections and appeals.

Finally, I suppose its worth noting that An Taisce may object and ultimately appeal a grant of planning permission but ultimately the decision making powers lie with An Bord Pleanala which seems to attract the brightest and most considered professional planners in the country. So I guess the objection / appeal process is a relatively healthy one in that it acts as a safety valve in respect of contentious development.

As to the more general issue of conservation versus development this is not necessarily an issue. It is worth noting that both English Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission (which unlike An Taisce are well funded by the state to fulfill exactly the same role as An Taisce) have become real ‘facilitators’ of high quality modern architecture. Personally, i think that while An Taisce should continue to appeal and object where it sees fit, that greater funding should be available to it to operate in the same way, this would enable it to employ paid planners rather than part time volunteers upon whom so much of the burden falls, to produce strategy documents on architecture and urbanism which might assist developers in avoiding the ‘pratfalls’ of many of the developments quoted and promote high quality MODERN architecture of a suitable standard to the city and nation.

On a final, Final note: Bear in mind that An taisce may seem to be a negative force given the stance of ‘opposition’ often taken (that would be difficult to avoid) however without An Taisce there would be no enforcement of standards for waste disposal, clean beaches, your preservation of wildfowl and hedgerow species would be negligible, our bogs althogh currently sadly depleted would by now have completely disappeared – so its very important to realise that the aims of An Taisce in respect of the built environment are similarly considered and thought out and that on occassion this may mean ‘opposing’ development.

Regards

JK

P.S

Over 4500 planning applications per year in Dublin of which An Taisce objects or comments on maybe 300 max with less than 20 appeals per year is actually a pretty low ratio of objection and appeal.

Regards again

JK

I know An Taisce’s intentions are for the good of the city but they were, as seen in the past, and are at times really quite ineffective when issues really and truely matter. While it always seems that they object to every new development (which projects a somewhat negative image), perhaps in future they could focus on the good qualities of modern developments also.

J.K.
in relation to An Bord Pleanala.Are they not the major flaw in the Irish planning system today. The existence of the Bord, negates against a real and democratic planning system contolled by the local authorities. Local Government in Ireland is all but the extended arm of central government, and this runs against E.U. principles of subsidiarity and local democracy. An Bord Pleanala is more than an appeals bord, it is the institution of central control on our planning system. There should be appealling bodies within each local authority, responsive to the needs of particulars, and with the expertise of “local knowledge”, i.e. recognising the specificities of places and their situations.An Bord Pleanala’s very existence is the biggest obstacle to the goal of creating a respectable, effective planning system, within the broader context of better local government, and with regard to creating a ‘sustainable urban society’.
Let me know what ye think.

I agree with what MG says in the case of the atrocious standard of the many new appartment blocks. Badly designed, shoddily finished schemes proliferate and there is not a whimper from An Taisce. For example,look at the Dublin quays and the schemes around the Four Courts. It is the likes of these general developments that constitute the city as well as the showpiece developments, but An Taisce seem to focus on the latter more.

By the way has anyone ever noticed the
appaling condition of the grounds of their HQ ‘Tailors Hall’ which faces onto High Street near Christchurch. What an eyesore! Check out the cheap railings and neglected yard. The hard landscaping could be more appropriate It’s a matter of the kettle calling the pot black arse.

Bloody hell, was’nt it a wonder that Eircom Park was unamuously voted for in favour yesterday despite head honcho Bertie Ahern’s early morning stunt of advertising his national stadium’s field’s of dreams plan. I wonder will An Taisce object.I say build them all.

Right on Mick….but regarding the appartment block schemes, they were ok some might say when times were really bad, when nothing stood but derelict sites, but now higher standards are required. Many of these schemes recently built do not deserve to stand for 50 years or more (that’s if they do!) they deserve to be razed to the ground and something of a more higher quality built. The concept of an ‘idealism’ is really needed by planners, architects etc…It’s what’s made the great cities of the past and present.

….and An Taisce could be more considerate and take a more active role in such general schemes instead of the more showpiece popular developments.

True M.G., But part of the reason why we get such parochialism is because local govt. has little autonomy, and offers limited potential for political development, not attracting talented, intelligent, and enthusiastic candidates. This provides a good illustration of the weakness of the planning system in this country. The planning dept. caught between the narrow focussed elected councillors with little or no vision or awareness of the wider context on the one hand, and the institutional straitjacket of the rigid and insensitive appeals system on the other. By the way, the symbolic nature of An Bord Pleanala as a ‘safety device’ against the errors of the incompetent ‘local’ authorities, doesn’t comfort me. Such a perspective is patronising and those who believe in it have no idea what democratic planning is all about. Urban authorities in Germany, Italy, and Spain for eg., would not accept such centralised interference. Should we?

Nice to see some intelligent comment and discussion on this website. Re: some of the comments:-

I would completely agree with ‘bunch’ regarding the notion of subsidiarity and can see no reason why such an approach, properly implemented could lead to far more sensible and rational appeals decisions.

Personally, I’m a fan of the current Board and think that this body has come a long way since the days when the likes of ‘Rambo’ Burke saw it as a convenient way of finding sideline jobs for his pet builder, estate agent and architect. Still there is room for improvement and a very strong case for appeals boards within local authorities.

As to MG’s comments re: the 4 storey ‘redbricks’ we win quite a few of these on objection and appeal but our budget is sorely stretched and resources where available tende to be directed towards ‘precedence’ related cases on appeal. As to the “Publicity seeking” accusation – I don’t think that’s really fair, firstly the media only report on the ‘sexy’ appeals and objections such as Spencer Dock etc and not on the crappy spec 4 storey plus mansard type developments that are objected to or appealed. so the view through the media is somewhat distorted. Secondly as a voluntary body, the majority of the planning teams are ordinary people with a smattering of architects and one or two planners. I know from my own experience that most people doing this work prefer to avoid the associated publicity as it can have a detrimental effect on career (eg: imagine the effect if your daytime job is with Dublin Corpo) and can even lead to threats of violence (a large number of objections and appeals get targetted against criminal elements trying for example to get permission for rabbit warren Bed and Breakfast accommodation for refugees).

As to poor old Tailors Hall, the maintenance and running budget is around £17,000.00 per annum which doesn’t achieve much wit ha building of that size, but yes I quite agree that the Cornmarket elevation needs improvement.

Anyway, most of this is nitpicking, as I said I thought most of the comment on this page was quite interesting.

Regards

JK

Hi JK, can I ask if An Taisce opposed the appalling apartment schemes that are right under it’s nose, particularly along Ushers Quay; you know the ones beside the equally appalling misplaced petrol station. One block has a rather suburban front garden which is always full of weeds; not very apt for the quays and already taking on the appearance of a slum. Can I add too O’Sheas Merchant public house right across the way at Bridge Street& Merchants Quay ; what a builder’s mess, a real hotch potch; especially when one consider’s it’s location directly opposite the Four Courts.Check out the roofline…..oh dear! Can I ask does anyone remember the ‘Irish House’ bar which stood up the road at the corner of Wood Quay…….now that was a fantasmagorical surrealist Irish wonder. It’s outside was overly decorated with Irish/Celtic motifs…what a great attraction it would have been for the tourists today.

Did anyone see the news item last week where An Bord Pleanala directed a publican of Parnell place in Cork to paint over a large Murphy’s stout mural he had put on the 4 storey building? Fair enough I suppose. But in fairness the Bord.s inspectors must have passed by some of the newer mobile phone outlets with huge advertising boards outside, the unfortunate buildings inhabited by macdonalds and B.K., our bus station, and said absolutely nothing. This was a nitpicking excersise, and must have galled those in the planning dept. in Cork Corporation, only a block away from the building in question. This is what I mean when I said earlier about The Bord representing central control with very little knowledge of place specifity. Can someone tell me ,how does an Bord Pleanala become involved in a situation like this, does it have to receive a complaint to act or does it send inspectors on little nitpicking missions all the time. They must have had a good day out, ‘down the country’, I wonder did they eat in MacD’s

At the RIAI seminar ‘Building Relationships with Specifiers’ seminar during the week, Eoin O’Morain mentioned that An Taisce have objected to the PVC windows in a Portacabin at the back of Hollis St. Hospital.

Highlight of the day (and it wasn’t short on hubris from the podium or idiotic questions from the floor) was Tony Reddy stating that the problems of Ballymun and Ronan Point were social rather then architectural. Fortunately none of the Copeland attired double-glazing and office furniture reps assembled to hear the great man speak had the faintest idea of what Ronan Point was.

It seems that an inconsistancy of viewpoints or stands is rife among such bodies. Why don’t they apply their viewpoints across the board. The mural business is ridiculous as mentioned by bunch….in Dublin there is a phone/fax/cv/desktop sort of place near Berkeley place and it is an 18th century Georgian type building. But just recently as last year a huge Esat Digifone advert/mural was painted over the brickfacade… ludicrous! – maybe whatever about on a gable end but…..and as for An Taisce opposing portacabin PVC windows….absolute crazy, they should concentrate on the building stock!