New Advertising in Dublin

As an exercise I’ve analysed the distribution of the location of these things using newgrange’s list. Here are the numbers per postcode:

• 11 – Dublin 1
• 8 – Dublin 3
• 8 – Dublin 17
• 8 – Dublin 12
• 7 – Dublin 9
• 7 – Dublin 11
• 5 – Dublin 8
• 4 – Dublin 7
• 4 – Dublin 4
• 2 – Dublin 5
• 2 – Dublin 2
• 2 – Dublin 10
• 1 – Dublin 15

70% of them are in the northside, which is striking. It is disappointing as areas like Dorset St, Bolton St. and Parnell St. are very central. All 19 of the Dublin 1 and 3 ones are in built-up city areas but near “high rented and public housing” as newgrange observed. The Dublin 5 and 7 ones are a mixed bag – about half are objectionable in my opinion. At least in the outer postcodes, like Dublin 17, the locations are “semi-industrial or flank major road arteries (as distinct from streets)” as Graham describes it.

On the southside, Dublin 12 predominates but the locations are semi-industrial and so are not objectionable. 3 of the ones in Dublin 8 would also (arguably fall into this category). Of course the Dublin 4 ones are not anywhere near Donnybrook but around Irishtown but they’re mostly near the east link bridge so again might be excused. The two in Dublin 2 are on Pearse St (near Maken Street) which certainly wont improve this section of street. The two in Dublin 10 are on the Kylemore Rd – without knowing the exact locations, I’d say fair enough.

Just over 80% of them are positioned on “public footpaths” and so will impede and take away space from pedestrians. A retrograde step surely which contradicts the councils own planning goals I imagine?

Many of the sites are “clustered” – i.e. two or three very near each other or just across the street or on different corners. I can only assume that this is tactical – even if half of the sites are successfully objected to, they will still get the “coverage” they are seeking. It’s like applying to build a 10 story building knowing that they’ll lop off 2 when you wanted to build an 8 story to begin with.

@jimg wrote:

What exactly would be the point of putting maps and tourist information on the back of 10 foot wide advertising boards which are monted 6 or 8 feet above the ground? You’d have to hand out free periscopes in the airport to arriving tourists. The size, design and locations of these advertising boards make it very clear that they are designed to target people in motorised vehicles and not strolling tourists. In this respect, I wouldn’t have a huge problem if they were confined to the dual carraigeways – like the N2 or the Malahide Rd, for example – which are already effectively dedicated to motorised traffic anyway and where they wouldn’t take up valuable street or footpath space and wouldn’t compete visually with the built heritage of Dublin. However have a look at the list of locations]There are none planned for places like Donnybrook or Ballsbridge, for example, but plenty for all the northside traffic routes into the city.[/I]

I don’t buy the argument that it will reduce billboard advertising. The amount of billboard advertising has, through deliberate council policy, been slowly reduced almost to insignificance over the last 10 or 15 years with notable successes like clearing the loopline bridge. At a stroke, this will effectively reverse this slow and carefully executed policy. The fact that the boards are mounted on two stainless steel poles instead of on the sides of buildings doesn’t strike me as being hugely significant.

Initially I was very sympathetic to this scheme, however I am gravely disappointed by:

1) The disproportionate amount of these being located in the lower income areas; why arent there more in leafy red brick areas if theyre such a good idea – Ailsbury Road strikes me as an excellent place for example, being an access point to RTE, having plenty of public domain space, and also being a perfect cycle distance from the city-centre. Equally none in Ranelagh or Rathmines – very odd again, given the amount of students/ potential users…. As stands this scheme would actually further exaserbate social exclusion – poor areas get one form of provision, while well-off areas are obviously well-enough off that they dont need to cycle; a poor mans transport 😮 🙁 😡

2) As noted earlier, this project is being applied for by means of multiple symultaneos applications – this imo amounts to project splitting, which for a local authority to be party to is a complete disgrace. There is no point objecting to a singular stand, given the critical mass of the scheme and given that they are located in clusters; by my calculation it would take €1380 to object to the project on the basis of 69 x €20.

Finally as already noted, there is nothing to suggest that it will lead to a reduction of advertising – on the contrary this disgraceful scheme can only now be interpreted as a trojan horse for further advertising.

As a result I am now going to actively lobby councillors to over-turn this by whatever means necessary, be that section 140s or whatever… If anybody else pursues this by appeal to BP, I would also be perfectly happy to provide a supporting letter if that can be of help.

This is a scandal; feck off DCC with your tacky shite until youre prepared to also put it in the ABC1 areas 😡

Hutton has been a busy bonehead probing this, and has made some very interesting findings:

1) The nasty advert plan is a stand-alone scheme. It has nothing to do with locations or anything else of the bike stands – it just happens that JC DeCeaux is the same “partner”.

2) Funding for the bike project was set aside specifically just over a year ago, and ergo is not reliant on the thrashy advert scheme.

3) The bike scheme will be provided at 25 stands – and is not related in siting to the 70 tacky adverts. This of course raises the bizarre prospect that the adverts would be dumped on the Inner city – while the potentially beneficial bike facilities may be located in, say, Donnybrook. How nice 😮

4) City Councillors were not aware of –

A – The disproportionate manner by which these are proposed for lower income areas, as opposed to Ranelagh Rathmines, Rathgar, or Donnybrook – I wonder why this shite wasnt proposed for such areas :rolleyes:

B – The manner by which these have been applied for – 70 separate applications – constitutes project splitting, and thus it is likely that DCC would be subject of a European complaint on the basis of lack of EIS, etc.

This Monday the councillors will be having their monthly meeting. I have spoken to a few representatives and so I am hoping that I have been of help to them and that they will now have a more informed perspective. If these yokes do get as far as getting permission, there is always the instrument at the disposal of councillors to pass a section 140, and thus kill this dead. In the meantime, I have asked them to look at suspending the scheme, pending a review by which the locations be re-assessed. I have also tipped off one or two journalist pals of the genral issues raised by this and that councilors are now looking at it.

Afterall, it is only equitable planning that we are looking for, and whats good for the goose is good for the gander – So if these yokes are perfectly acceptable, then they will be equally acceptable in the well-healed southside suberbs. If on the other hand, councillors find that this scheme was planned in an inequitable manner, then it should merit an internal investigation – and that could be very interesting 😉

Fellows – jimg, Newgrange et all, well done – your research and breakdowns has been particularily useful in informing our local representatives, and the process as a whole.

Here’s hoping to not having to resort to angle-grinders afterall! 🙂

@ctesiphon wrote:

Ooh- good work there sir. The more councillors who can be made aware of the nonsense of this scheme the better.
Seconded. Your input here, jimg and newgrange, proved most beneficial. I can assure you the work was used for the greater good of the city (I can say no more for now). So thanks for that.

Many thanks + like Stephen, I too am intrigued 🙂

Folks serious progress is being made on this. Tonight it was raised in the monthly DCC council meeting by the Vincent Jackson, under Lord Mayor’s business, and he is known for rarely allowing anything additional last minute. I understand that other councillors also raised it, stating their opposition. Aside from this it is my understanding that there are now senior officials, who now that theyre aware of this are not at all happy. Anyhow keep on the case and well done out there on the job thats getting done 🙂

BUT…

There are more applications in by JCDeCon:eek: :mad:!!!

A fresh appliication has been made for, wait for it, *builds suspense*; once again in Dublin 1 outside the Ilac Centre, at the top of Henry Street, with the date signed off as Jan 29 😡

The site notice is on a black lampost, giving the proposed site as opposite Golden Discs.I dont know if I am mistyping the details on the DCC online planning search, but I cannot find it on their site. :confused:
If anyone can find iit or better navigate the DCC website, Id be fierce grateful + they would be supercool 😎

However what I have been able to find on DCC site is a number of other new and reapplications as follows –

1084/07 Permission for advertisement structure Grass verge eastern side of Malahide Rd, South Of Blunden Drive/Priorswood Road Roundabout, Adjacent To The Rear Of 5 Ayrefield Drive, Site Located Opposite McDonalds, Dublin 17
1115/07 Permission for extension of footpath and advertisement structure car parking bay beside public footpath, Adjacent To The Failte Ireland Building, Eastern Side Of Amiens Street, Dublin 1
1116/07 ‘Metropole’ double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure On the public footpath, on the western side of Ballymun Road, after junction of Ballymun Road and Balbutcher Lane, Dublin 11
1119/07 ‘Metropole’ single sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure On the lay-by adjacent to the grass verge on the eastern side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 5, adjacent to 43 – 44, Saint Brendan’s Avenue.
1120/07 ‘Metropole’ single sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure The grass verge on the western side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 17 approaching the Blunden Drive / Priorswood Road Roundabout. The site is located to the front of McDonalds and north of the entrance to Coolock Retail Park.
1122/07 metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure The public footpath on the western side of Swords Road, Dublin 9 to the front of Plunket College school grounds opposite the junction with Seven Oaks in close proximity to the Regency Hotel.
1123/07 metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure A car parking bay adjacent to the public footpath on the eastern side of Macken Street, Dublin 2. The site is located adjacent to ‘Trinity College Enterprise Centre’ to the east and opposite Conway court (Nos 1-30) to the west.
1124/07 metropole single sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure On the public footpath, on the eastern side of St Lukes Avenue, at the junction of St Lukes Avenue and The Coombe, Dublin 8

In at least one of these instances – so far I havent had a chaance to go thru comprehensively – it is a reapplication after being declared invalid, that being at Amiiens St – and so results in a fresh pp application. Do we know of any more other than these? Or any new locations? (Im open to correction, but for example it is my understanding that the Ilac application is a new location).

The whole scheme is a total disgrace. I hope once the matter breaks and becomes public knowledge that all political parties make sure they never use JCdeCon

Im pasting a development description underneath, just to remind people of what is to be dropped on the city at dozens of locations:

“Full Development Description
The development will include the provision of a concrete extension to the public footpath in place of the existing car parking space. The precise location of the site is marked by an x in a circle directly onto the ground in red paint. The overall area of the site is 10.4m2. The development will consist of a metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure comprising a display case mounted on an offset leg. The structure shall display civic information or an advertisement. The display panels shall be scrolling or static The structure has an overall height of 4.85 metres and a width of 3.48 metres. The area of each of the display panels is 6.82m2.”

And remind me again what public consultation about this program? Like WTF.

There was a bit about this on Morning Ireland today. Councillor Emer Costello spoke out against the disproportionate numbers of them on the northside. Otherwise, details were sketchy and the thrust of it seemed to be “we’re all getting free bikes but we might have to put up with a few ads to fund it”.

I just noticed the “double-sided” bit. Does this mean they’ll be perpendicular to the traffic?

@ctesiphon wrote:

You’re not wrong, hutton.

50 more are on the way. This picture was taken today on Grafton Street. Note the smaller dimensions of the proposed signage. Is it fair to say that the smaller signs on pedestrian streets wouldn’t be so bad? The scale seems more human, and they might be genuinely useful?

All metropoles on the list you posted above were on the original list, and I know that, in addition to Amiens Street, the one on St Luke’s Avenue (Coombe Relief road) was declared invalid. Perhaps all of the above were invalidated and then resubmitted? In that case, those numbers will be useful.

It’s good to hear that the councillors are becoming involved. I’m not sure of the extent to which people generally are aware of the scale of this proposal. And then to discover that the presumed quid pro quo is not in fact true…?

On this Hutton would have liked to be wrong 🙁
But this monsterous scheme just gets worse and worse – more simultaneous applications 😡

However helpful fellow that I am, some more about the process by which this has come about. It was mentioned not at the planning or environment committeess, but at a road-safety sub-committee 😮

Now so far, in addition to criticisms already above, it is emerging that:

No section 183 motion has been passed at council – this is the part of the local government act relating to sale of council land, and is a reserved function, ie councillors have to have a vote. Strange that :rolleyes:

JCDecaux, their consultants RPS and the city officials involved should all interviewed – afterall they do have a right to their good name.

Now that it has been on Morning Ireland hopefully both the right authorities and the public will be better aware of this program that unchallenged would amount to a visual swindle 😡

The real issue here is the failure of the last three ministers for the environment to issue guidelines to local auhtorities in respect of Margot Walstroms reasoned opinion clarifying the regulation on project splitting.

I also agree on doing work that you don’t particularly like but is technically legal; it comes with the territory and the most you can do is put forward a number of options to your client and hope that they make a balanced decision. There is in this issue a large division between private space and public realm and it is up to the elected reps to look after the public interest.

FROM RTE: “JCDecaux in ‘free bicycles for ads’ offer: Cllr Emer Costello (Lab) is concerned about the 70 proposed billboards; Cllr Naoise Ó Muirí (FG) says the planning decision must be revisited”

Well worth a listen – coucillors state they were not properly informed of the scheme – except of the bikes aspect. FFS 😮 .

Oh good – the fridges at Capel Street bridge were criticised too, described as “monstrosities”!!

“DCC cannot be a council that litters its own constituency” – well done to Emer Costelloe 🙂

The more I hear about this the more apparent that there needs to be an investigation within DCC. Like WTF x 2 😮

Clicky linky to hear Morning Ireland clip:

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/