O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Thomond, the building I am speaking of is the building photographed earlier in this thread….I belive that it was called the Joe Walsh Tours shop.
Yes it is a sad reality that so few owners do not see it fit that their buildings be restored, or even properly maintain them, and less again that they should be the ones to pay for this fundamental element of property management!
In the case of the Joe Walsh building, it is a shame that from what you have said the owner sees it fit that this strategically important building, in the very heart of the city, framing the GPO and the Spire, and linking two of the busiest streets in the country, be restored as long as someone else pays for it. That’s at least the impression one gets, not least considering the building hasn’t even seen a paintbrush since about 1985.
I accept your point though that tax-incentives are not everything they can be made out to be – just a pity they’re not more appealing to owners. It seems they act as a mere added benefit for those who are intending to carry out works anyway, rather than encouraging the very worst cases to get their act together.
Graham, I am surprised that you find this information somewhat surprising ? I have been at the cold face of tracking down and speaking with some of the owners of some of the worst blights of buildings currently on dublin’s streetscape. In the beginning I was surprised by many people’s attitude, now I am more hardened to the reality of cold economic facts. Nothing will be done to these buildings because the owners refuse to pay the kind of money that is needed to do the job right, they know that
there is no proper enforcement coming from the city council forcing them to carry out the necessary upkeep, so they choose to do nothing. However, in almost every case of landlord I approached, where I outlined our scheme and how it would work (if we were given permission from the council for our scheme that is), each and every landlord said that they would be interested in participating.It’s a terrible truth, but these unscrupulous landlords won’t budge unless a scheme like ours can provide them with the kind of substantial funding to cover the costs of carrying our proper conservation work on their buildings.
As well as the building on O’Connell street, we have proposed another 5 buildings (outside of the architectural-conservation area – all of which would have ben ideal for our concept
….unfortunately, it looks like I will have to look at these poor forgotten structures before my eyes for some time to come yet.Would the ACA status ever even allow these shrouds?
Not so much surprised as just disappointed about property owners. Suppose you can have Celtic Tiger glitzy office blocks and flagship urban projects coming out your ears, but the good aul Dublin landlord is still living in 1973.
Sure why not do the whole of upper O’Connell St at once?! Transform it into Times Square for six months, and then the whole place will be sparkling upon removal of the shrouds 😀
DUBLIN CORPORATION V UNDERWOOD
183/1993 Supreme 12/12/96
Land Law
[1997] 1 IR 69
The final case is Dublin Corporation v Underwood,70 a case where the Supreme Court had to consider the level of compensation payable to an investor whose investment property was the subject of a compulsory purchase order. In the High Court Budd J held that the defendant was entitled to compensation by reference to the principle of equivalence and that he should receive neither more nor less than his total loss. The Supreme Court held that Budd J was correct, with Keane J adding: It would be patently unjust for the dispossessed owner to receive less than the total loss which he has sustained as a result of the compulsory acquisition: such a construction of the legislation would be almost impossible to reconcile with the constitutional prohibition of unjust attacks on the property rights of the citizens….It is accepted that the claimant held these properties as an investment and would have continued to hold them as such if they had not been compulsorily acquired. He wishes to replace them with a corresponding investment. The payment to him of the market value of the properties will enable him, so far as money can do it, to replace the acquired properties, but he will sustain additional expenses in the form of stamp duty, legal and agent’s fees. If he is not paid these latter sums, he will not have been compensated in full for the loss of his existing investments.Taken from: The Ninth Progress report on Private Property [2004]
The All Part Oireachtas committee on the Constitution
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/special/2004/propertyreport/index.pdf
In compulsory acquisitions is it not conventional for the state to offer market value plus 15% or so, or is that just with roads?
Business decisions are made and yes over market value is usually offered to prevent litigation but the Underwoods are as the article suggests the litigious type.
it interest to me to know how the hell do cars get back onto O’Connells street when its for buses and Taxi ?
surly you can tell the differnce when there are signs FOR BUSES TAXI ONLY,Dave,
The intention was to eliminate the highest volume entry points onto O’Connell St but still provide access: The left turn from Parnell St to O’Connell St which fed the high volume Summerhill Dual Carriageway was banned as was the left turn from Dorset St onto North Frederick St (The continuation of Parnell Sq East) and direct access from Blessington St to Nth Frederick St. It is still possible to enter Parnell Sq East from Great Denmark St and Parnell Sq North and enter to O’Connell St directly from Cathal Brugha St. I think that southbound traffic on O’Connell St has been calmed reasonably enough for todays traffic volumes but the Northbound situation has a much higher traffic load and action should be examined. The reason for this is that there is no restriction on entry to Dame St from Christchurch and a large proportion of this volume of traffic continues on to College Green and O’Connell St.
It has to be said though that these changes thus far have proved remarkably successful in reducing the volumes on the street overall – particularly as said the southbound eastern carriageway, which is often so empty (esp Upper O’Cll St), it is a doddle for pedestrians to cross the road pretty much anywhere – dangerously so at times if you you’re lazy enough to assume the roadway is always devoid of traffic.
Also the traffic light sequencing rather pleasantly makes large stretches of road empty of traffic by holding most of it up for decent periods 🙂
I read a statistic recently about pedestrians on O’Connell St, presumably from just prior to the works, that 40-45% of all pedestrians on O’Connell St are just there to get a bus!
Hopefully things have changed a bit since then, and will continue to do so.That should be an amazing statistic but it wouldn’t surprise me at all and I’d say that proportion of those using Westmoreland St is even higher.
How would you rate the effect of the bus-stops on O’Connell St as against Westmoreland Street?
In the case of Westmoreland St, unfortunately there is an even a higher level of ‘use and abuse’; it is used even more so as a pedestrian and vehicular corridor.
If a ballot were to be held for the zapping into oblivion of Westmoreland St from the city of Dublin, probably 95% would vote in favour, in the knowledge that it serves no function at all other than to lengthen the journey from Henry St to College Green, or to act as an inconvienient place to get (off) the bus.
Unfortunately as said before, the closure of Bewley’s has merely added to this.It is extraordinary that the three most important streets in Dublin in spatial terms, are those that are most neglected in terms of use. Were it not for the historic importance of O’Connell St, D’Olier St is the one that really should have been the first to be tackled of The Big Three.
I agree Westmoreland is not a very nice place and I can’t remember ever buying anything more than a cup of coffee here because with bus lines during the day and the number of drunks at night it is not a very inviting place. I use Pearse Station to get from the Dart if I am going to the Dame St area or Temple Bar it is more comfortable.
Just to return to the comparison of O’Connell Street with the Champs-Elysées. I previously posted images of this Avenue covered with wheat which was then harvested, with the dramatic backdrop of the Arc. This kind of exercise is great for the imagination, allowing us to see the space on the street in another context freed from the choking effect of motorised transport.
Anyhow, the French have been at it again, this time dressing up the Avenue to draw attention to their olympic bid. It would be great if we could close off O’Connell Street once in a while on a Sunday and hvae big street parties like this.
Creativity like that is what has made their bid a 1 to 6 on shot to land the olympics.
I was in Closkeys on Dominick St (nice old pub) at the weekend. There is a black and white picture of o’connell bridge with a big white building on the bridge. What is it. I hadn’t seen it before.
Is it this for the Eucharistic Congress in 1932?
There was another, more elaborate one in the centre of the bridge too for something else – possibly An Tostal before being replaced with ‘that’ flowerbed etc 🙂
That is a very interesting image Graham, I had presumed that it was put in the median, but thinking about it putting the platform at one edge of the bridge would have allowed both quays be utilised by large crowds to view the proceedings which is most interesting. Although the same effect in terms of numbers could have been used by placing it in the median and allowing both D’Olier St and Westmoreland St by used. :rolleyes:
There was definitely a huge structure plonked in the middle of the bridge for something as there’s a picture of it in another pub 🙂 on Talbot St.
Really quite extraordinary – you’d never get that kind of thing today. Suppose these days if you want spectacle you just use fireworks, electronics of inflatable floats. In those days if you wanted big, you had to physically build it.Saying that, as Frank’s pictures show the French still have their own way of doing things…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
