New Advertising in Dublin

urban design for the incontinent. I now firmly believe, after only a few years in planning, that I have heard it all….

what’s next? An urban quarter for the lactose intolerant?

@publicrealm wrote:

Thanks for posting that SR – I checked both refs and it appears that 6784/06 is in a Z1 (rather than Z9) area?

Does anyone have other examples of permitted advertising in Z9 areas?

P.

Shed loads adjacent to RPS and in arch zones that weren’t referred to prescribed bodies – Constitution Hill Synott Place and Camden St come to mind.

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

2541/01 – Z9 (Newcomen Bridge – those massive scrollers)

Application for retention is 2129/09
LOCATION 1, Newcomen Avenue, Dublin 3
Retention of 2no. scrolling advertising structures

Last date for observations is 26th Feb (hint ;))

http://137.191.231.240/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2129/09

I think 2129/09 is a toss up between Z1 and Z9 – with the Z1 being most prominent.

I have been digging and found 4 to 5 DCC ‘metropole’ grants in Z9 locations. Of course they might maintain that footpaths are unzoned (techniclly arguable) – but I think it is reasonable to argue, when the footpath ajoins a public park/playing pitches etc, that Z9 zoning should apply.

I’m trying to get my hands on a copy of the “Zones of Advertising Control” map presented by DCC at the Oral Hearing into the metropole saga (referred to in the Board Inspector’s report. Anyone know where to get it 9no luck with the DCC website, amazingly)

@publicrealm wrote:

I’m trying to get my hands on a copy of the “Zones of Advertising Control” map presented by DCC at the Oral Hearing into the metropole saga (referred to in the Board Inspector’s report. Anyone know where to get it 9no luck with the DCC website, amazingly)

This one?
http://ireland.archiseek.com/news/2008/000134.html

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

2541/01 – Z9 (Newcomen Bridge – those massive scrollers)

Application for retention is 2129/09
LOCATION 1, Newcomen Avenue, Dublin 3
Retention of 2no. scrolling advertising structures

Last date for observations is 26th Feb (hint ;))

I’ve put in an observation on this and a later one (2224/09) they have applied for at the same site.

Ah…beat me to it!!

This one has more ironing* than than a laundry….I spotted this outside the Dept of Transport on Nassau St.

*irony..(ahem)

I also spotted more variations;

GIVE US PLANNING PERMISSION OR THE KITTENS DIE and (my favourite)
ENJOY YOUR INVISIBLE SHIT-A$$ BIKES

My apologies if this is not the place for this message but I am quite new to this issue and trying to get a handle on where exactly it stands at the moment.

If people could just let me know whether the points listed below represent a reasonable representation of where this stands at the moment, I would be extemely grateful.

-JCD may be starting to build the bike stands this month

-a few of the metropanels have been removed or moved due to safety concerns (but nowhere near the number that had been flagged as dangerous)

-none of the existing 48 panel billboards that were supposed to have been removed as part of the deal have been removed

-safety concerns about the placement of backlit, moving advertising in the sightlines of drivers have not been effectively addressed.

-wayfinding systems and toilets that were to be part of the deal have been dropped

-original proposed numbers of bicycles has been reduced, as have the number of metropoles/metropanels

-safety issues of metropanels being unsafe for blind pedestrians have not been addressed

-the contract that DCC have with JCD is still under wraps, so we still don’t really know what DCC stands to get from it.

-the localised cityscape that features at the bottom of the metropanels seems to be the same for all of them (dome + some other blocky buildings)

-concerns that some people have about the over-saturation of advertising in public spaces have not been addressed

By the way, I am not a journalist!

Hello Mr(s) non-journalist. I can answer some of your questions:

@Figlen wrote:

-JCD may be starting to build the bike stands this month

Locations are decided; I understand that the bikes are due by June/July, so presumably the stands are coming pretty soon.

-a few of the metropanels have been removed or moved due to safety concerns (but nowhere near the number that had been flagged as dangerous)

True. Dorset Street and Rathmines Road were both definitely removed, possibly more. hutton should be able to throw more light on this?

-none of the existing 48 panel billboards that were supposed to have been removed as part of the deal have been removed

I believe that thay claim to have removed some. I know that some of those nominated for removal were hard to identify due to mistakes (mistakes?) with the locations. In addition, it would be worth finding out if the ones slated for removal were already illegal. An Taisce produced a dossier at the Oral Hearing regarding JCD’s history of compliance (or not) with Enforcement proceedings.

-safety concerns about the placement of backlit, moving advertising in the sightlines of drivers have not been effectively addressed.

True. Road safety was the backbone of the DTO’s argument at the Oral Hearing. All of the large roadside panels that were appealed were refused PP by the Board. You could possibly infer from this that, had all of the roadside panels been appealed, they all would have been refused.

-wayfinding systems and toilets that were to be part of the deal have been dropped

True. There are details in the earlier pages of this thread, but if I remember correctly, the ‘contract’ was re-negotiated after the ABP Oral Hearing- bike numbers reduced, wayfinding dropped, etc.

-original proposed numbers of bicycles has been reduced, as have the number of metropoles/metropanels

Some of the panels were dropped at the Planning Application stage (due either to Invalidation of the Application or on the advice of DCC [usually conservation/heritage grounds]), others fell at ABP Oral Hearing stage. The number of bikes was reduced only after the Hearing, with JCD arguing that fewer signs permitted resulted in fewer bikes, despite the supposed existence of a ‘contract’, and the repeated assertions from DCC et al that the signs and the bikes weren’t directly related.

-safety issues of metropanels being unsafe for blind pedestrians have not been addressed

True, I think. NCBI certainly aired concerns when the panels were unveiled, and the grounds for those concerns haven’t gone away.

-the contract that DCC have with JCD is still under wraps, so we still don’t really know what DCC stands to get from it.

Definitely still under wraps. I think a committee (Councillors and members of the DCC executive?) was established to examine the contract, bit I don’t think they’ve reported back yet.

-the localised cityscape that features at the bottom of the metropanels seems to be the same for all of them (dome + some other blocky buildings)

It is the same for all, and lacks the ‘Dublin specific’ design that we were told we’d get.

-concerns that some people have about the over-saturation of advertising in public spaces have not been addressed

Metropanels or not, many people have had these concerns for a long time. This scheme might (might!) result in the replacement of big ugly signs with these flashy new yokes, but to what end? There’s still no reduction in number, and the new signs are generally far more visible than the ones they’ll (supposedly) replace.

By the way, I am not a journalist!

Neither am I!

Thanks for the comments ctesiphon. Gunter, I’m not a banker either!