South Campshires Flood Protection Project
July 13, 2011 at 4:59 pm #711400Paul ClerkinKeymaster
Shockingly suburban design solution.
The proposal is to erect a 900mm high concrete retaining quay wall faced with granite or brick 1.8m from the edge of the quay wall. The area between the quay edge and the new protective concrete retaining quay wall will be accessed by an access stairs at a number of locations.
The length of quays involved is some 1300 metres (say 1200 metres when existing buildings or raised walls are allowed for).
July 14, 2011 at 1:58 am #817217AnonymousInactive
This reminds me of the attempts to protect areas around the southside of Dublin Bay in the 1990s and later. In Sandymount, for example, this involved closing many of the access points to the strand and making everybody climb over a stile to get to the strand. As a result, many of the most scenic parts of the Sandymount Strand area – such as the Irishtown Nature Reserve – became very difficult to access for many older people and people with disabilities, who were then forced to trundle in as far as Irishtown to get access to the paths complex around the sea shore, and access became a hindrance to everyone else.
This very crude solution has since been rectified to some extent, with ramps being provided at a number of points, but the original answer was clearly to take a sledgehammer to crack a particular nut, without reference to what is necessary on the vast majority of occasions.
There are many cities and other places which face the threat of sea or river flooding at various times of the year. London, for example. Now, much of this may have changed since I lived there and since the construction of the Thames Barrier in Woolwich, I don’t know, but there are many houses along the stretch between Fulham and Kew where there is a highish wall to protect houses from floods and a gate into which a protective board may be slotted when the river is high. This ensures normal access and egress from the premises for most of the time, and protection when the abnormal occurs.
I can see the logic in Dublin of providing a wall between the Campshires and the road (and surrounding areas) to protect against flooding. But there is surely no need to make it a wall where the only access from one side to the other is a set of stairs. It should be a wall which can be closed off (like in London) – with, for example, insertion of protective boards – when the need arises, not a wall which is in any way a hindrance for the majority of the time when there is no need for it.
July 14, 2011 at 3:12 am #817218Paul ClerkinKeymaster
Grand Forks in North Dakota is under a flood threat every spring. They have built a flood wall along the river but there’s a road and a linear park on the river side. Where streets intersect it, they have piers and openings which can be closed up like gates during the spring thaw.
It’s pretty substantial
July 21, 2011 at 1:24 am #817219AnonymousInactive
It obviously IS pretty substantial, from those pictures!
And from what you wrote, it’s a regular and serious threat, which needs a serious reponse. Sensible.
Dublin’s is not. It is an occasional threat, which needs a serious response when it happens.
Yet, if one walks from Irishtown to Merrion Gates, there are several locations where access to the strand is still now bricked up, seemingly permanantly, to protect against the occasional flood, regardless of the prevailing situation.
Is this still considered the best solution?
July 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm #817220AnonymousInactive
I just came across this scheme yesterday in Civic Offices. Im appalled! It completely changes the wonderful amenity that is the Campshires. Is it really needed? The design displays the usual lack of civic quality that affects so many urban projects these days.
July 23, 2011 at 3:02 pm #817221adminKeymaster
It would make a lot more sense for the adjoining occupiers to bear higher insurance premiums; they should have done a proper title search before buying in. Failing that DCC should buy an insurance policy until funding is available to do a proper job that reflects the ambition the area has long term.
That DCC are reluctantly spending a sub-standard amount of money to rectify an area which they had no real input in creating really does bring the whole DDDA disgrace back into focus; have any of the management been barred from holding directorships, Anglo HQ, South Wharf, you could go on and Ariston.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.