Gardens for Cars?
- This topic has 25 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 3 months ago by Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
January 14, 2004 at 12:03 pm #706733AnonymousInactive
In recent years gardens (particularly suburban gardens) have become havens for cars. When it comes to older houses, is there any rules which govern the conversion of gardens into car parks. I am not simply talking about widening an already existing driveway or entrance, I am talking about the total destruction of gardens by asphalt and the total removal of the perimeters of gardens. Houses designated as “protected structures†are the ones of most interest in this regard. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Phil
-
January 14, 2004 at 12:09 pm #739385AnonymousParticipant
There was a guidance document published by DCC upto about 2001. Called carparking in front gardens.
It made a lot of sense.
-
January 14, 2004 at 12:59 pm #739386AnonymousInactive
Is there any direct control with regards to the surroundings of protected structures? Or is it just advice or guidance that is given?
-
January 14, 2004 at 1:05 pm #739387AnonymousParticipant
Yes,
On what would have been referred to as List One structures pre 2000, everything within the curtilage is protected.
If you have access to Bolton St library there is a very good paper by Yvonne Scannell that deals with the topic.
Car parking extends to a change of use in residential areas at the very least, so it does require consent.
-
January 14, 2004 at 1:08 pm #739388AnonymousInactive
Thanks for that. I sometimes think that guidance documents are simply ignored.
-
January 14, 2004 at 1:43 pm #739389AnonymousInactive
Originally posted by Diaspora
Car parking extends to a change of use in residential areas at the very least, so it does require consent.Could the refusal of permission be seen as a cynical attempt at revenue generation by DCC in the form of resiendent’s parking permits?
-
January 14, 2004 at 1:52 pm #739390AnonymousParticipant
Not really I don’t think that the executive planners at DCC look at residential parking permit revenues at a strategic level.
But I will concede that the disk-parking section have their own agenda. One sees things such as disc parking creeping onto dedicated cylce lanes etc.
But what I think Phil was refering to is situations where people take down their front perimeters, then place asphalt or gravel on to the majority of their often small front gardens.
To the detriment of the amenity value of their property and the surrounding properties, hence people aren’t happy.
Many properties can accomodate off street parking because there is sufficient curtilage to provide enough landscaping to allow the garden retain the sense that it is a garden.
I am highly suspicious of people who consult neither architect nor planning department.
-
January 14, 2004 at 3:31 pm #739391AnonymousInactive
I suppose I am interested in it as I feel it points to the cultural significance of the car in our society. Obviously I think people are entitled to do pretty much as they please in their own front garden, but it is still disappointing to see , say, one garden in a terrace being gutted. There is also the situation where a terrace of houses has a common area on front of their houses instead of individual gardens and on of the houses decides to replace the section on front of their property with tarmac. It ruins the unity of the terrace.
-
January 14, 2004 at 11:17 pm #739392GrahamHParticipant
I agree, it’s everywhere.
There were property owners on the radio recently ranting over this (I didn’t hear it), about the fact the CC weren’t letting them remove railings and tarmac their gardens for second cars because their houses were listed.
Good to see the guildlines being implemented. -
January 15, 2004 at 9:11 am #739393HarryParticipant
Would the CC also have a problem with people who remove the lawn and pave the garden, but not for a car?
Some people simply prefer not to have the “traditional” (sometimes tiny!) lawn for a number of reasons apart from carparking.
-
January 15, 2004 at 10:34 am #739394AnonymousInactive
As I said Harry, I think people really have a right to do as they please with their garden. However I think it is taking it a little far when two houses which are owned by the same group have their gardens completely covered in tarmac and the walls removed only to be replaced by ‘renta fence’ like you would see around a concert or enclosing christmas trees. This happened recently near me and they do not seem to be a temporary solution.
-
January 15, 2004 at 12:44 pm #739395AnonymousParticipant
First piece of advice in the DCC guide was to seek the advice of an architect.
Second was to consult with the planning department.
A little fundamental to any development I would think.
Many people bring in the landscape gardners to rearrange gardens, lawns are a bit of an endangered species these days. But the right paving surrounded by the right shrubs can actually serve to increase the amenity value.
Car parking relates to a change of use, therefore professional designers and planners should assess the benefits.
-
January 15, 2004 at 4:29 pm #739396AnonymousParticipant
Has anyone any ideas as to how large a garden needs to be to accomodate cars and retain the sense that it is a garden?
Also what materials are generally best as a paving surface for a typical period suburban house.
-
January 16, 2004 at 5:17 pm #739397garethaceParticipant
Not a bad idea for a thread actually, just thought I would include this link about Dutch Suburban architecture.
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=11868
You have to register at NYT.
-
January 16, 2004 at 6:34 pm #739398
-
January 16, 2004 at 7:03 pm #739399AnonymousParticipant
For the registered
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/garden/15HOLL.html
I like subdivision 10 it appears to be a very pleasant residential environment. No surprise that it is in Holland.
Definitely a case of out of sight out of mind, you’d never know the residents might even walk 100 metres to buy a litre of milk.
-
January 16, 2004 at 7:26 pm #739400AnonymousParticipant
And registration is free not like the Irish Times and Indo.
I like the FT they allow about 90% of their articles to be accessed without subscription for about three days. After that you need subscription for access.
Banner ads thats where the cash is at me thinks. 😀
-
January 16, 2004 at 8:20 pm #739401garethaceParticipant
A couple of the American newspapers allow you to visit the article once, and then you come up against a notice saying you have to subscribe. Which is a great idea I think, since you can still access any new articles once, and copy/paste or something, if you don’t want to pay.
It would work economically from the newspapers point of view, since it dramatically cuts down the broadband bandwidth bills they would have to pay from people continually accessing articles, but at the same time allow customers to read/browse an article at least once.
-
January 16, 2004 at 8:25 pm #739402AnonymousParticipant
With the size of hard drives these days you can also save hundreds of them before they become a problem.
Had a good read this evening gm+ad Challenging contextualism are you familiar with that one?
-
January 16, 2004 at 8:51 pm #739403garethaceParticipant
Post a link I will have a look.
BTW, on my line of thought in relation to wide open spaces, public space and generally things like convention centres, I think this thread here at CGA, goes some distance to showing up my point again – that notion of how people exist within a much wider exterior open spatial environment with nature and building coming together somewhat.
Examples of architects who have dealt with it, Alto in Finland, or even Jefferson in USA.
http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=4;t=000123;go=newer
Another nice image here, I thought you may like.
http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000460
dunno. 🙂
-
January 16, 2004 at 9:04 pm #739404garethaceParticipant
Sort of a clash of very modern and old going on here. Any opinions?
http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000456
Can be a hard thing to do with a visual – to suggest something new and old together. I think the artist made a good stab at it.
-
January 16, 2004 at 9:30 pm #739405AnonymousParticipant
I’d have to post the book unfortunately. A little coffee table in format but some good stuff in it all the same.
-
January 16, 2004 at 9:37 pm #739406garethaceParticipant
I like this image too for some reason. Dunno, this Total War stuff is beginning to do something for me. 🙂
-
January 16, 2004 at 9:43 pm #739407garethaceParticipant
Who called these lot for their dinner? 🙂
-
January 16, 2004 at 9:50 pm #739408garethaceParticipant
what i am just trying to get to, is what did places like Terenure and Glasnevin look like, when some of the Georgian terraces were originally conceived, but man’s major means of transport was a personally or borrowed old nag?
Something similar to the urban cowboys today? 🙂
http://www.totalwar.com/community/bat8.htm
There is a project in Fluid Spaces publication for a horse centre in Tallaght actually.
can’t resist linking this, for the shere attempt at creating an old city.
http://www.totalwar.com/community/rp12.htm
Possibly covered in rubbish modern development now.
-
January 22, 2004 at 6:33 pm #739409AnonymousParticipant
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.