New Advertising in Dublin
- This topic has 669 replies, 66 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
The proposal was always for two sizes- large ones to distract drivers and smaller ones to block pedestrians.
Were they the stated aims?:)
He never said “stated aims” but I think common sense would tell you that that was the intention. Larger metropoles at strategic locations on main roads and smaller predestrian sized units in pedestrian areas.
Dublin’s bike scheme will leave little to go on
DON’T expect to spend a penny when Dublin’s “free bike scheme” is rolled out next year. JC Decaux, the company behind the proposal, has withdrawn its commitment to build four public toilets in the city centre as part of the deal with Dublin city council.
In a further dilution of the deal, the advertising agency will now remove only 50 existing billboards from the city’s streets, instead of the initially agreed 100. This part of the deal had been negotiated to prevent the city being over-run by advertising hoardings.
Jim Keogan of the city council’s planning department said the revised deal was necessary because JC Decaux was only granted planning permission to erect 72 advertising panels, instead of the 120 that had been originally proposed. “We’re very happy with the final agreement,” he said.
Although 500 bicycles were initially promised, the final deal will now see 450 bikes on the streets, located at 50 docking stations around the city. And while the plan was first billed as a “free bike scheme” last year, use of the bicycles is likely to be free for only 30 minutes. “We have yet to iron out how much they will cost but a charge is only likely to kick in after half-an-hour,” Keogan said.
An Bord Pleanala blocked 18 of JC Decaux’s proposed “Metropole” advertising panels last week, ruling that the signs were “overbearing” and could distract traffic. Although the scheme is still set to go ahead, its critics argue the deal has been “watered down”.
Ian Lumley of An Taisce said: “We argued that the original deal was bad business for Dublin city but it’s now even worse. 100 prominent billboards were supposed to be removed but it was never specified which ones would be taken away. Now they’re only going to remove the50 least visible and erect 72 new adverts, increasing the overall visual clutter in the city.”
The city council will receive no revenue from the advertising or rental of the advertising spaces but 32 advertising “faces”, one side of an advertising panel, will be given over to civic information. In Paris, where a similar deal is in operation, the city is paid an annual rent of €2,085 per advertising panel.
The advertising panels are to be erected in September, with the
bicycles following next Spring.
Each “Metropole” advertising structure could generate up to €8,000 a month if it was leased by the council, advertisers have claimed. Critics of the scheme say the larger, more obtrusive advertising hoardings are to be erected in working class areas and complain that while Dubliners will receive only 6.25 bicycles per advertising billboard, Parisians got 12.6.
JC Decaux has also been criticised for maintaining unauthorized advertising hoardings in the city. At an oral hearing into the scheme last year, An Taisce claimed the company was responsible for 119 unauthorised advertising adverts across the state. The planning watchdog argues that the scheme should also have been subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Andrew Montague, a Labour councillor and chairman of the Dublin city cycling forum, said the cost of the bicycles wouldn’t be prohibitive for users.
“In Lyon, it’s free for the first 30 minutes, €1 for the next 30 minutes, rising steadily the longer you take out the bike. A daily fee is likely to be about €70,” he said.
In other cities where JC Decaux have set up bicycle schemes, users have to pre-register with a credit card to avail of the scheme, typically paying about €30-a-year on top of the charge for using a bicycle. If someone loses a bicycle or fails to return it to one of the docking stations within a set period of time, the replacement cost of a bicycle, typically about €150, is deducted from their credit card. The security measures have all but eliminated bicycle theft in other cities where the scheme has been implemented and in Lyons, city traffic fell by 10% within a year of the scheme’s introduction.
But some traders are unconvinced by the scheme’s merits. Tom Coffey of the Dublin City Business Association said many of the planned advertising hoardings wouldn’t pass basic safety tests and that some were being erected on privately owned property.
In Paris, JC Decaux’s Velib scheme, taking its name from a mixture of vélo (bike) and liberté, has encountered problems since being launched on July 15. The company has been accused of failing to repair damaged bikes and not redistributing the currently available 10,000 bikes around the city’s 700 docking stations at the end of each day. The central stations are often clogged with bikes, while those in outlying areas and at the top of hills, such as Montmartre, are often empty.
JC Decaux has so far set up cycling schemes in Seville, Cordoba, Brussels, Vienna, and Lyon. Last week, Ken Livingstone announced a similar scheme for London but unlike the Dublin proposal, the €100m cost will be borne by taxpaers instead of business partners.
Sunday Times 17.02.08Oh the arrogance! So why doesn’t the government start by legislating for the removal of all the existing billboards and then JC Decaux would stop offering us something they shouldn’t have had in the first place in return for something we don’t want.
Its a disgrace isnt it. The Council are way out of order on this one. But hey no one in this country values accountability it seems and only NIMBYists appeal to ABP, right! So whatever. Go ahead with the scheme. It will be a great thing to moan about in the coming years.
@StephenC wrote:
The Council are way out of order on this one.
But at least they’ve learned that when you’re in a hole you stop digging, right? Wrong.
What gives, DCC? Removing the need to provide public conveniences? As this was part of the contract, I suppose it’s allowable, even if it’s sneaky and underhand. But reducing the number of billboards required to be removed? Doesn’t that go against a Condition attached to all the grants, requiring the removal of 100 billboards? Does this then render all the grants null and void? (Not to mention a point I made before, that a strictly legal interpretation of the Condition would require the removal of 100 billboards for each Metropole. And another point, namely that that Condition effectively linked all 120 applications as a single application, despite all protestations to the contrary by the applicant and DCC.)
I really didn’t think Conditions attached to the Grant of Planning Permission were negotiable in this way. Are they? I thought they could only be challenged by an appeal to the Board. So why not appeal? Because the Board refused all of the Metropoles and a good number of the Advertising Display Units – 75% of the total appeals, to be precise – as, I suspect, the applicant knew would happen; hence the cowboy approach since adopted.
This makes me sick. You should be ashamed of yourselves, DCC. Guardians of the city my ass.
@ctesiphon wrote:
What gives, DCC? Removing the need to provide public conveniences? .
Someones taking the piss, alright.
And guess what? Theyre already putting the billboards up! 😮
This is despite what Jim Keogan said in that piece, and despite that the matter is supposed to come back for DCC councillors to take a vote on it. Anyhow hutton has just noticed that the pedistal element of one of the units has already been put in place on the corner of Dean Street, near St Patricks Cathedral.
Whats that again DCC officials, transparency, democracy – yeah whatever. The senior planners that have been involved in this, and have become apologists for JC Decaux should be ashamed of themselves -and how dare they do this while being paid a salary by the exchequer. You know who you are, and guess what, so do we!
@Sloan wrote:
Dublin’s bike scheme will leave little to go on
DON’T expect to spend a penny when Dublin’s “free bike scheme” is rolled out next year. JC Decaux, the company behind the proposal, has withdrawn its commitment to build four public toilets in the city centre as part of the deal with Dublin city council.
In a further dilution of the deal, the advertising agency will now remove only 50 existing billboards from the city’s streets, instead of the initially agreed 100. This part of the deal had been negotiated to prevent the city being over-run by advertising hoardings.
Jim Keogan of the city council’s planning department said the revised deal was necessary because JC Decaux was only granted planning permission to erect 72 advertising panels, instead of the 120 that had been originally proposed. “We’re very happy with the final agreement,” he said.
Although 500 bicycles were initially promised, the final deal will now see 450 bikes on the streets, located at 50 docking stations around the city. And while the plan was first billed as a “free bike scheme” last year, use of the bicycles is likely to be free for only 30 minutes. “We have yet to iron out how much they will cost but a charge is only likely to kick in after half-an-hour,” Keogan said.
An Bord Pleanala blocked 18 of JC Decaux’s proposed “Metropole” advertising panels last week, ruling that the signs were “overbearing” and could distract traffic. Although the scheme is still set to go ahead, its critics argue the deal has been “watered down”.
Ian Lumley of An Taisce said: “We argued that the original deal was bad business for Dublin city but it’s now even worse. 100 prominent billboards were supposed to be removed but it was never specified which ones would be taken away. Now they’re only going to remove the50 least visible and erect 72 new adverts, increasing the overall visual clutter in the city.”
The city council will receive no revenue from the advertising or rental of the advertising spaces but 32 advertising “faces”, one side of an advertising panel, will be given over to civic information. In Paris, where a similar deal is in operation, the city is paid an annual rent of €2,085 per advertising panel.
The advertising panels are to be erected in September, with the
bicycles following next Spring.
Each “Metropole” advertising structure could generate up to €8,000 a month if it was leased by the council, advertisers have claimed. Critics of the scheme say the larger, more obtrusive advertising hoardings are to be erected in working class areas and complain that while Dubliners will receive only 6.25 bicycles per advertising billboard, Parisians got 12.6.
JC Decaux has also been criticised for maintaining unauthorized advertising hoardings in the city. At an oral hearing into the scheme last year, An Taisce claimed the company was responsible for 119 unauthorised advertising adverts across the state. The planning watchdog argues that the scheme should also have been subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Andrew Montague, a Labour councillor and chairman of the Dublin city cycling forum, said the cost of the bicycles wouldn’t be prohibitive for users.
“In Lyon, it’s free for the first 30 minutes, €1 for the next 30 minutes, rising steadily the longer you take out the bike. A daily fee is likely to be about €70,” he said.
In other cities where JC Decaux have set up bicycle schemes, users have to pre-register with a credit card to avail of the scheme, typically paying about €30-a-year on top of the charge for using a bicycle. If someone loses a bicycle or fails to return it to one of the docking stations within a set period of time, the replacement cost of a bicycle, typically about €150, is deducted from their credit card. The security measures have all but eliminated bicycle theft in other cities where the scheme has been implemented and in Lyons, city traffic fell by 10% within a year of the scheme’s introduction.
But some traders are unconvinced by the scheme’s merits. Tom Coffey of the Dublin City Business Association said many of the planned advertising hoardings wouldn’t pass basic safety tests and that some were being erected on privately owned property.
In Paris, JC Decaux’s Velib scheme, taking its name from a mixture of vélo (bike) and liberté, has encountered problems since being launched on July 15. The company has been accused of failing to repair damaged bikes and not redistributing the currently available 10,000 bikes around the city’s 700 docking stations at the end of each day. The central stations are often clogged with bikes, while those in outlying areas and at the top of hills, such as Montmartre, are often empty.
JC Decaux has so far set up cycling schemes in Seville, Cordoba, Brussels, Vienna, and Lyon. Last week, Ken Livingstone announced a similar scheme for London but unlike the Dublin proposal, the €100m cost will be borne by taxpaers instead of business partners.
Sunday Times 17.02.081. The condition on the PP is perfectly legally clear – it cannot now be amended to only 50 billboards going, except by means of new application. Mr Jim Keogan would do well to talk to Mr Terence O Keefe regarding this methinks.
2 @DCC Misleading Spin wrote:
The advertising panels are to be erected in September, with the bicycles following next Spring.
I refer to my point yesterday, and yes these are definately already going in – see application no. below.
6825/06 On the public footpath on the northern side of Dean Street, near the Junction with Patrick Street, outside ‘Ovenden House’, Dublin 8
However the units appear totally different to that which was proposed, with a flimsy brown metal mesh treatment rather than the chrome solid appearance of that shown in the plans. So far its the pedistal element thats in and they actually look cheaper and nastier than that which was shown in the plans. Will JC Decaux face enforcement from the same officials that took charge in steering this ahead? *Not holding breath*
I hope to have a snap of this tomorrow for this thread –
What will be interesting though, is to see how well Dubliners – who were largely kept in the dark – react to these units now that theyre going up…Hmmm….
Ah C`mon (as Vauxhall/Opels little furry peeps might say) folks,does anybody really expect the “Kept in the Dark” Dubliners to have ANY reaction to what is in reality simply another example of a City Administration reverting to type when “bested” by some other administrative or legislative body.
Mr Keogan,or indeed any other DCC luminary will see no need to “talk-to” anybody else in this matter as the deal was already signed sealed and delivered long before this ABP business was even considered.
DCC have,for long time past,operated a completely seperate “We know best” policy in relation to crazy stunts such as this and more importantly have got away with it. 😮
Why should they change a winning strategy..?
When a Civic Administrative body such as DCC get into bed with a manipulative and savvy company such as JCD there can only be ONE outcome…….an outcome which greatly benefits JCD and doubtless,some elements within DCC whilst being of absolutely Z E R O benefit to the greater Dublin public.
I remain VERY impressed with the resilience shown so far by DCC throughout this little arrangement and I have little doubt but that should,in the future,JCD seek to recruit planning advisers or consultants they will have a VERY short list to choose from 😉
To paraphrase the Leigon of the Rearguard……”A Lot done-Lots more (Of yiz) TO do” 🙂
@Irish Times 20-02-08 wrote:
74-year-old cyclist dies in collision
A 74-year-old cyclist has died following a collision in north Dublin yesterday afternoon. The man received fatal injuries when he collided with a lorry at the junction between Cherrymount Road and Malahide Road in Clontarf. The man, who had not been named last night, was removed to Beaumont Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 3.45pm. Gardaà from Clontarf, who are investigating the crash, said no one else was injured in the incident.
This fatality occured in the middle of the day. RIP.
I note that the Malahide Road is scheduled to have 7 of the larger “Metropole” billboards erected on it.
Given the Boards rejection of all Metropole units that were put before them on grounds of roads safety, who will be held responsible if and when an accident occurs in the proximity of such a roadside distraction?
I wonder who among the elected councillors and DCC planning officials is familiar with the term “Corporate Manslaughter”…
I’m glad to say the pole I appealed was refused. Nice to think I made a difference, albeit a small one.
We were told repeatedly that the Bord Pleanála appeal process was a ‘quasi-judicial process’. As such, given that my appeal has been upheld, I presume they’ll be scrambling to return my extortionate €300 fee?
Compare and Contrast
A sample of what was proposed, note what would appear to be a solid chrome detailed pedistal:
And whats going in, 6825/06 On the public footpath on the northern side of Dean Street, near the Junction with Patrick Street, outside ‘Ovenden House’, Dublin 8 –
Establishing shot:
Close ups:
Do these look the same as that which was indicated in the applications? Not IMO anyway. At this rate I wont be suprised if the panels themselves also deviate from that originally indicated; maybe like the pedistals JC Decaux doesn’t have any of the Europanels in stock, and will have to opt for a “temporary” solution of much larger display panels – wouldn’t that be such a shame :rolleyes:
well if they get away with this shite you should just build whatever you want and say it’s temporary (“yes the extra two stories at the top are temporary structures” judge, “as per the JCDecaux case”)
So I was walking down the street today in Chicago, looking up at the tall buildings, and before I knew what had happened I bumped into something. When I stopped to check, guess what? It was a JC Decaux Advertising Display Unit! 🙂
Bloody Decaux. Bloody tall buildings. 😀
In view of the proposed Dublin Public Showers-with-Billboards plan, which the Irish Times may flag-wave on, and in view of some developments regarding this, a quick update seems worthwhile.
Readers/ posters will note that I have made specific criticisms of The Irish Times dereliction of reportage in relation to this scheme, and also I previously criticised to Cllr Andrew Montague (Lab), who has been one of the projects chief advocates in City Hall.
I wish to apologise. My criticisms were no where near as harsh as they should have been.
The Irish Times has traditionally styled itself as “the Paper of Record”; a bizarre, Orwellian, and farcical notion when one considers the following:
1) At present the Irish Times, as reported by Olivia Kelly, states and restates that the revenue “is estimated to be worth €1 million annually” (to JC Decaux). Yet this is the same paper, and indeed the same reporter, that previously stated the “contract that could be worth €90 million to the council.
Now I know Im no grade-A student at maths, but it would seem very basic to me that there is a shortfall of some €75 Million, when one deducts the €15 M (€1M x 15 year terms) from the €90 M that was first reported.
So either JC Decaux is a charity, giving 75 M to the city – or else the Irish Times has got (and continues to get) a most basic but essential figure wrong. Again and again. Has there been a correction or clarification in “The Paper of Record”? There has like fuck.
2) Cllr Andrew Montague (Lab) has been one of the prime instigators of the scheme, defending it on numerous occasions on RTE, liveline, and also in the Irish Times last year where he welcomed the granting of permission stating “I’m delighted that the council granted planning permission, it’s the first step to getting this up and running”.
In an almost Orwellian scenario, guess who the Irish Time’s Olivia Kelly got quotes off, when the IT recycled the story from a Sunday paper that theres no sign of the bikes – despite the billboards almost finished? What critic would make for a good quote – aha; Its Andrew Montague again!
It is a remarkable affair where the self-styled “Paper of Record” gets criticising quotes from somebody who is largely responsible for the scheme – without asking what his role had been in this regard, and without reminding readers of this fact. But then maybe one shouldn’t be suprised given the most basic mis-reporting of the facts and cash regarding this. Finally I note that although the Times recycled the story from elsewhere, Ms Kelly is still incapable of getting a most basic fact right that the WCs have been dropped from the scheme.
Rather than offering courses to others, maybe the Irish Times should send their own reporters back to media school. with a suggested first class in “Check your Facts”.
Paper of Record – My Arse.
@The Irish Times, March 19, 2008 wrote:
‘Bikes for rent’ group gets its ad panels but we will have to wait for cycles
OLIVIA KELLYCITY BICYCLES, due to be provided by JC Decaux in exchange for outdoor advertising space in Dublin estimated to be worth €] will not be available until next year, even though the advertising
panels will be erected by this summer.JC Decaux has agreed to provide 450 bicycles for rent at 50 locations around the city, as well as four public toilets and a number of tourist signposts and freestanding maps, in exchange for 15-year permission for about 80 advertising panels.
The freestanding double-sided panels range in size from 2sq m – approximately the size of a bus shelter advertisement – to 7sq m and will be placed on prominent sites, including Henry Street, Liffey Street and Smithfield Plaza.
Dublin City Council originally intended that the bicycles would be provided free. However, it could not find anyone to run a free scheme.
In April 2006, the council announced that JC Decaux had been selected to run a bicycle rental scheme. The company was already running similar schemes in several European cities including Vienna and Lyon.
In April 2007 the council granted JC Decaux permission to erect in the region of 100 advertising panels across the city. In 24 cases appeals were made against the panels to An Bord Pleanála.
Last February the planning board upheld 18 of these appeals on the basis that these panels would cause a traffic hazard.
However, JC Decaux said the number of bicycles it would provide would not be reduced as it had based its agreement with the council on the number of panels which it was granted and were not appealed. This agreement was finalised in mid-2007.
A spokeswoman for the council said that JC Decaux had informed council officials that it intended to erect its panels by “this summer”. However, the bicycles will not be on the streets until next year.
“We don’t have an exact date from JC Decaux for the panels, but they have their planning permission and it’s up to them now when they use it,” she said.
Labour councillor Andrew Montague said he understood the scheme involved a significant amount of infrastructure, particularly the bicycle stations. However, he said JC Decaux should not have prime advertising space for free in the city in the meantime.
“If they are getting the advertising without the bicycles being available, they should pay for it, either by providing more bikes or making a cash payment to cover the intervening period.”
(c) 2008 The Irish Times
@The Irish Times, Saturday, April 15, 2006 wrote:
Plan to halve number of large ad hoardings
Olivia KellyDublin City Council proposes to halve the number of large advertising hoardings in the city under new plans to regulate outdoor advertising.
The council is in the process of negotiating the contract for control of all future public space advertising with one of the world’s largest outdoor advertising companies, JC Decaux.
In return the company will provide a number of facilities, which the council calls “public realm enhancements”, including the long-awaited citywide public bike rental scheme, in a contract that could be worth €]
Under the contract, JC Decaux will have a licence to advertise in various locations around the city, principally using a free-standing “six-sheet” format, similar in size to bus shelter advertising.
Large 48-sheet billboards will not be used in future advertising under the contract, and the council is negotiating to reduce the number of JC Decaux’s current 18sq m hoardings by 50 per cent before the new advertising is erected.
The council hopes to eventually eliminate the 48-sheet format. While other advertising companies have large billboards on private properties which do not come under the council’s jurisdiction, the council hopes that the newer advertising formats will make billboard advertising obsolete and that An Bord Pleanála will look less favourably on granting planning permission for these hoardings.
“The redevelopment of different parts of the city means that, over a period of time, the 48-sheets will disappear. They’re not a suitable type of advertising for the city and they’re not even very effective,” council executive manager Ciaran McNamara said.
One of the principal benefits to the city of the new contract will be the provision of a bicycle rental scheme
While the terms of the contract are still under discussion, and it is unclear whether the rental deposit will be refundable, JC Decaux is to provide an initial minimum of 500 bikes and 25 city-wide bike stations under the scheme.
The company will supply install and operate the scheme on behalf of the council. Users will be able to collect a bicycle from one of the stations, cycle it around the city for a limited period before depositing it at any of the number of designated sites. The bicycles will have solid puncture-proof tyres and be “virtually vandal-proof”, the contractor said.
Automatic public toilets, for both able-bodied and disabled users, heritage trail plaques, public signposts and free-standing maps will also be provided by the contractor.
The council hopes the new advertising scheme, including all public facilities, will be in place within the next 12-18 months.
© 2006 The Irish Times
@the Irish Times wrote:
However, JC Decaux said the number of bicycles it would provide would not be reduced as it had based its agreement with the council on the number of panels which it was granted and were not appealed. This agreement was finalised in mid-2007.
A clarification, if you please: from the above quote, I would understand that the number of bikes to be provided has been reduced from the original number proposed (which, as has been noted before, is a figure yet to be released to the public). I know the detail isn’t in the public realm, so we can’t ever say for sure, but hear me out.
Hypothetical illustration (actual figures vary- numbers rounded for ease of comprehension [I’m looking at you, Joan]):
100 billboards = 1000 bikes (1:10 relationship)
95 granted (5 invalid/withdrawn; none were refused, remember)
25 cases appealed = (potential) further reduction of 25% in ads
Total reduction of 30% in bikes (70% of original application granted without appeal)
700 bikes will be provided (revised total)
15 appeals successful (=10 grants), but no commensurate increase in the number of bikes, i.e. why not back to 800?Unless of course there’s no direct relationship between the number of ads and the number of bikes. But, as stated by JCDecaux, “it had based its agreement with the council on the number of panels which it was granted and were not appealed”. Sounds like a pretty b&w basis right there.
Why did DCC not either fix the number of bikes to be provided from the start, or at the very least make the proportional relationship explicit?
What’s that, DCC? Oh, right. It’s ‘commercially sensitive’ information. Aah, well, in that case…
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0417/ecocabs.html
more plans to get advertising into public spaces, once a group of antiwar protesters were walking across the the park to get to the dept of foreign affairs, holding a banner they were going to use the park wardons told them to get out for advertising in the park?
this so called ecocabs are just moving advertisments.
Part of the advertising strategy seems to be to cycle these yokes as badly as possible, thereby ensuring that you can’t miss them, or that you do so at your peril.
If Eamon Ryan is to continue supporting the concept, he should at the very least advocate training for the drivers (I can’t think of them as cyclists).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
