Lansdowne Road Stadium

@alonso wrote:

the thing about the height is a bit misleading. The reason it’s so high is because the north stand is so low, as low as it is now, to accomodate residents.

It’s not just high relative to the existing stadium, it’s high relative to other similar stadiums. It’s about 13m higher than Croke Park, and just a little shorter than Liberty Hall. The reason for the height is that the new stadium will have lots of extra floor space devoted to corporate boxes, restaurants and meeting facilities which aren’t in the current stadium.

Parking was a major talking point today (I was there, but I ain’t sayin why) as was flooding, even though the hearing began with a letter from the OPW stating that flooding would not occur. The development of conferencing and restaurant non-event day facilities was a major issue as is the lack of a limit on the number of events… fair enough i reckon. The demolition of no. 70 Shelbourne road is a vaild objection, as I’m sure many archiseekers will agree. There are a number of spurious objections, my favourite was one bloke who said it should be in Abbotstown, where there’s no traffic problem (yeh, the same abbotstown on the M50)

There was a lot of nonsense talked about parking all right, one appellant asking that loads of car parking spaces be provided. If I were a resident nearby the last thing I would be looking for is parking spaces for the stadium, which would only lead to a massive increase in traffic on match days. Some appellants are taking the view that it should be moved out of the city, but I think most people are saying they don’t object in principle to the stadium being redeveloped on site.

Originally posted by PVC King
Totally disagree there is no requirement for two 87,000 plus seat stadiums in Dublin; Irish rugby is on a high right now and still only two games produce annual capacity crunches namely 2 of the six nations and Croke Park can be used for the French or England games.

The FAI are in a tailspin and beyond a few attractive games a year capacity beyond 56,000 is unecessary and the GAA being business people know how to lever a decent premium.

I think a single stadium that is shared among IRFU and FAI should have at least a 70,000 capacity – we will see how full Croke Park will be when the 6 Nations comes round. We will also see how many attend the soccer games in Croke Park next year. Also a higher capacity stadium would make it an attractive prospect as a venue to stage International tournaments.

“It’s not just high relative to the existing stadium, it’s high relative to other similar stadiums. It’s about 13m higher than Croke Park, and just a little shorter than Liberty Hall. The reason for the height is that the new stadium will have lots of extra floor space devoted to corporate boxes, restaurants and meeting facilities which aren’t in the current stadium.”

the reason it’s so high is also due to the shape which was necessary for the northern end. I’m also sick of hearing the Liberty Hall comparison. As we all know, it’s irrelevant given the proposals around the city. It’s just a hackneyed cliche.

I agree that the other uses should not be part of it. They do take up a lot of space, but if they were removed it wouldn’t make that much difference to the height. restaurants and conference facilities are within the super-structure of the main stands which are defined by their capacity. What it does show is that the current stadium is underutilised. These facilities are in all modern stadiums, but they may not be necessary here. After all the HQ’s of the FAI and IRFU will be at Abbotstown and they should use these facilities rather than Lansdowne Road

“A lot of people in the area still can’t get insurance against flooding because of the major flood events in 2002, so I don’t see how you can say “the river is very controlled”. The plans for the stadium don’t include any specifics on flood defences.”

it is not the duty of the applicant to undertake flood control for the Ringsend/Sandymount area. The proposed development will not cause extra flooding, therefore this issue is a red herring. It’s up to the City Council to sort this issue out, and so far they’ve been utterly negligent, as far as i can tell.

yeh I overheard them getting very excited about producing human rights documentation that would help their case. They’re already talking about judicial review so the Bord has to ensure that due process is done and seen to be done. I’m not aware of any possible contravention of EIA legislation, or the substance of any such claims, if they exist, in regard to the applcation and DCC decision. It’s very flawed technically but legally all seems above board. It’s not like this applcation appeared out of thin air…

You have to wonder if half of these NIMBYs are GAA plants sent in there to wreck the “other codes” stadium. Look what is happening out in Tallaght with the GAA mullahs trying to destroy Shamrock Rovers by placing endless injunctions on their stadium. It’s like something from the Ban years – absolutely sickening. You cannot put anything beyond some elements within the “broken glass speaders” of the GAA. Huge numbers of that organisation are still in a War of Independence mode.

@dodger wrote:

why should taxpayers money go into a stadium that excludes our national games.

Was there any taxpayers’ money involved in Croke Park? Or has the government ever provided financial support to the GAA? And I don’t just mean that question narrowly to be interpreted as handouts for building/infrastructure work.

***

I haven’t been following this case closely, so perhaps this question has been answered already. If so, apologies. Anyway- will there be any public access along the (Lansdowne) bank of the Dodder after the stadium is built? Or will the redevelopment fully close this off?
I ask because I’m opposed to the closing of any non-motorised routes around the city, whether footpaths, off-road cycle routes etc, as they force non-motorised traffic (including walkers etc) to use the motorised transport network. Best practice abroad in urban design (and theoretical best practice in Ireland…:rolleyes: ) advocates providing a choice of routes and maximising permeability in order to give real choice to people regarding their modes, routes, etc. I fear that the closure of this route – if true – would be another nail in the coffin of sustainable transport in this city. A small nail, to be sure, but a nail nevertheless.

@dodger wrote:

There is no precedent for a local authority financing or part financing to the extent SDCC is for the building of a sports stadium for one code.

But there are plenty of precedents for central government doing same. Does the fact that it’s a local authority rather than central government really make that big a difference? The only difference I can think of is that in the case of the local authority much of the money will have derived from commercial rates and development contributions rather than “the taxpayer” as you say above.

@publicrealm wrote:

It is proposed to widen the existing public footpath, carry out additional landscaping (with native trees for better bat foraging habitat) install roosting boxes, provide public lighting of the entire Dodder Walk etc etc.

Shocking.

Was a bit surprised myself as there was no chance that the IRFU were going scupper this project by neglicting to spend a small sum of money on enhancing the dodder walk.

Personally I have always used the other side of the Dodder when passing this way and would like to see the City Council invest some money in building a priority cycle route from the East Link down Thorncastle Street and down the Dodder to Ballsbridge as it is a most convenient route back towards much of the south suburbs.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Was there any taxpayers’ money involved in Croke Park? Or has the government ever provided financial support to the GAA? And I don’t just mean that question narrowly to be interpreted as handouts for building/infrastructure work..

Key distinction between Shamrock Rovers stadium issue in Tallaght and any other GAA stadium (or Lansdowne Road) is that the stadium in Tallaght is 100% owned by the state and Shamrock Rovers will be the tenant. The completion of the development will be 100% funded by the state (incl SDCC) and will specifically exclude Gaelic games. The question is whether the state should build ‘municipal stadiums’ that specifically exclude Gaelic games.

On the other hand Lansdowne Road will be redeveloped and exclude Gaelic games but that is a privately owned stadium. It will also be in receive of state funding.

All GAA stadiums are privately owned and often (as in case of other sports) are offered a capital grant subsidy – e,g. Croke Park redevelopment was subsidised by taxpayer to tune of €107m or 41% of total cost (€260m total cost).

Lansdowne Road redevelopment will receive a subsidy of €191m or 52%. This is a private stadium owned by the stadium company (FAI plus IRFU).

All sporting bodies also receive funding to promote participation in games by employment of sports/games promotion officers usually at a county/regional level.

I would personally query the value for money of expending €365m on a stadium that will only cater for 50k spectators (if granted PP as sought) when compared with €260m on Croke Park which has a capacity of 82k. Even when inflation is taken into account.

It there is a highly restrictive planning permission from An BP, say capacity restriction of 45k, it would really be questionable whether it would be worth that kind of investment by the 3 parties (Govt, FAI, IRFU).

When is the expected close of the oral hearing?