who are the National Conservation and Heritage Group

sorry i couldnt resist

[ATTACH]6696[/ATTACH]

The sole Google hit that comes up for them from a SBP article:

“The secretary of the National Conservation and Heritage Group, Damien Cassidy, wrote that he supported the conservation area initiative for Grafton Street and ‘‘would further urge that the council might consider other areas of the city for similar conservation and in particularly that a policy be initiated for the preservation of heritage, churches, schools, convents, open spaces and architectural properties throughout the city’’.

What? Old stuff should be preserved like?

http://www.facebook.com/srch.php?nm=Damien%20Cassidy

One of these lads?

It really does sound like a one man band

Damien Cassidy is referred to as the founder, the spokesman and the secretary of the Irish Heritage and Conservation Group in various articles (below). I guess that’s the guy to contact…

Indo

Irish Echo

Eircom

Business Post

He also shows up as

Ringsend Environmental Group
and
Secretary of the Irish Conservation Group
[dublinpeople 3/23/2007]

Spokesperson for the Ringsend Environmental Group
[dublinpeople 8/2/2006]

You could try contacting the papers?

The National Conservation and Heritage Man.

@paul h wrote:

sorry i couldnt resist

[ATTACH]6696[/ATTACH]

LOL 😀

Damien is an old hand at conservation in Dublin. He is one, if not the only surviving member, of the group that saved Kilmainham Gaol in the 50s – 60s. More recently he has had involvement with the 16 Moore St Committee. At present he has involvement with Ringsend/ Sandymount groups. I have forwarded on his contact nos by pm to Paul, so I hope thats of help.

Regarding the issues raised by him, I am glad to see that somebody has taken the initiative to provide another side to what is a necessary debate – although I think the examples cited by him as “high-rise”, ie O’ Connell Bridge House and Hawkins House, are unfortunate in that while they maybe eyesores, they are not high-rise when compared to what Manor Homes tried to get away with at Thomas St, and obviously will try again now on foot of the proposed guidelines.

I am deeply dissapointed to see the continued Irish inability to differentiate between high-rise and high-density, this time at an official level. I would refer people to the fact that the 19th century city-centre of Paris, though capped at 7 and 8 floors high, has the second highest density of population in the world at 40,000+ per square mile, and only narrowly misses out on having the highest density by a fraction.

It may be worth bearing in mind that it equates to a rezoning where an LA permits high-rise. Given that the areas already zoned for this at Heuston and the docks have to yet come to fruition, imo this doc is most premature. Rather than allowing certain aggressive developers build high rise, and blaming the lack there of for low-density and sprawl, why doesn’t DCC look at using (in a transparent manner) the already existing statutes such as the Derelict Sites Act and the 212 CPO powers so as to get proper development going. For those that disagree as to space being available, I can bring anybody up to Dorset and other streets and point out acres of derelict sites where ant-social speculation is being tolerated by the LA, and already existing powers are simply not used.

Ultimately imo the prospect of introducing such arbitary high-rise zonings into the historic city-centre is a dangerous one. I would have great fears that where such zonings are permitted, it may encourage urban blight in the form of site-banking by dereliction, in that if your neighbour is allowed to go up 40 floors, why on earth would you be bothered to collect the rent from a four-floor building – whereas if you wait 10 years with it boarded up, you too are more thhan likely to get the nod! (I refer again to the non-enforcement by DCC of derelict sites).

Finally I refer to map D, page 8 of the DCC doc; any document that shedules up the South Georgian Quarter as being earmarked for “considerable change in the medium to long term” can only but act as a massive red flag in terms of its credibility.

All in all, it is deeply disappointing that the only planning initiatives to have happened during the first year of the new City Managers term, Mr John Tierney, is the emergence of this deeply dubious document and also the progressing ahead of the 120+ billboards for Dublins pavements. (On this last point, I say watch that space – its far from over yet!). All in all, some accomplishment for only 12 months at the desk. 🙁

@hutton wrote:

they are not high-rise when compared to what Manor Homes tried to get away with at Thomas St, and obviously will try again now on foot of the proposed guidelines.

At the developers conference, Dick Gleeson seemed surprised that the schemes there were turned down given it was earmarked as a high rise area and therefore, I would suggest, the new document therefore appears to have been tailored to tell ABP that the council wants to facilitate such development. With the interconnector likely to stop in the area it is expected that high rise will be developed there.

@Morlan wrote:

The National Conservation and Heritage Man.

What ever happened to the Judean Popular Front?

they were assimilated into the Poular Front of Judea.

What have developers ever done for us!

@jdivision wrote:

At the developers conference, Dick Gleeson seemed surprised that the schemes there were turned down given it was earmarked as a high rise area and therefore, I would suggest, the new document therefore appears to have been tailored to tell ABP that the council wants to facilitate such development. With the interconnector likely to stop in the area it is expected that high rise will be developed there.

I am inclined to agree with regarding Dick Gleeson’s happiness that high-rise would go in there, although I am at a loss to understand that it has already been zoned for high-rise, as it is my understanding that the 2000 study only indicated Heuston Gateway and the docks as the appropriate areas. Perhaps this might be a case of the Chief City Planner having ideas other than those already scheduled in the 05-11 Dev Plan (and also other than what the elected reps have agreed to), and if that be so, than your point re the doc being tailor-made for An BP makes sense.

Regarding the Interconnector, the conservative comes out in me in that surely if we were to be following best international practise, the services would go in first – and would then be followed by the development… Ah, but no sorry, I forgot – this is Ireland where we build first and plan later, and sure maybe in 30 years time the necessary servicing may be put in (think Clondalkin, Neilstown, etc).

All in all, I remain to be convinced as to Dick Gleeson’s input to the city; I refer to the previous thread “Dick Gleesons Vision” – https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5804

Since that thread, DCC were only to happy to approve the up-turned L Block at the bottom of Bridgefoot St – subsequently shot down by ABP, as among other reasoning it would have seriously intruded on the Quays conservation area; I also have reservations based on the way his dept has been central to the billboards scandal; then there is the way-finding system that thus far has not happened – and at this stage is now bizarrely dependent on the billboards scheme; it has also been under Dick’s watch that DCC planning dept agreed that the extra height on the Robocop building on Dame St is not a material contravention – mor ya, mor ya! It is regrettable that Dick’s considerations, such as those referenced in the SBP interview are at best aspirational – while all the time Dublin desparately needs some proper realistic planning. 🙁

@StephenC wrote:

What have developers ever done for us!

Tsk, tsk – actually plenty when it has been “development” in the true sense; think Luke Gardiner – or more contempory Mini-Italy by Mick Wallace 🙂

The real shame is that the amount of chancers that pour concrete onto sprawling greenfields, which may develop a property – but imo all too often un-develops society 🙁

@Rory W wrote:

What ever happened to the Judean Popular Front?

How did I miss an opportunity to scream F— OFF! on Archiseek without fear of it being removed by Paul? I’m losing my touch.

(Also, hutton- StephenC’s line was a gag/quote.)

conservation, conservation, bla bla, who are we conserving it for, the 20 & 30 something generation who have been banished down to Dublins new suburbs in Arklow. I am sure they are all delighted at conserving the city centre for the lucky few who live near to its centre. The city needs to develop otherwise we might as well move and designate it a theme park just for the visitors.

@CC105 wrote:

conservation, conservation, bla bla, who are we conserving it for, the 20 & 30 something generation who have been banished down to Dublins new suburbs in Arklow. I am sure they are all delighted at conserving the city centre for the lucky few who live near to its centre. The city needs to develop otherwise we might as well move and designate it a theme park just for the visitors.

This is not simply about “conservation, conservation, bla bla,” as you so misconstue it. Maybe you do remember, or maybe youre not old enough to remember how this town used to be in the ’80s – where everywhere was derelict and run-down; why – because spec developers were allowed sit on prime city centre sites so that they could wait for pp for much larger schemes.

This is not about being against increasing the density – I refer to my point regarding Paris earlier… Perhaps also you believe Sean Dunnes guff about the Jurys Towers that they would help curtail sprawl – I am sure that your 20-30s age group would easily be able to afford his apartments at 2M + :rolleyes:

When DCC starts using the Derelict Sites and other Acts so as to build sustainable well-planned 7/8+ floor developments, then I will take this seriously.

Until then, mark my words, if adopted this document will be a recipe for urban dereliction.

Urban dereliction? surely the idea behind this is to spur economic development, to ensure Dublin remains a viable option for business to locate?
Leaving aside your disdain (to put it mildly) for buildings of a vertical nature, do you not think by opening up areas of the city close to mass transit (heuston) for large scale ie tall projects would have a knock on effect of attracting business or international companies to locate there.
Or the residential density, you say paris achieves high density with largely no high rise in the city core, Paris is a beautiful musuem, Dublin is not and never will be – ever. As a largely suburban mini sprawl we need instant density – voila , high rise. Also they certainly create another very interesting dimension to a very one dimensional city

High rise leaving aside any personal grudges just make economical sense
And those that embrace change will always disagree with those who do not like change

I also know Damien and can say that everything he does is with the best intentions and further agree that the loss of Kilmainham Gaol would probably have occured without his intervention.

I disagree with his stance on fire safety as the standards imposed generally by the fire regs in respect of tall buildings makes their evacuation a lot more efficient and if you can’t get down there is a lot further to go up and given the number of compartments that a tall building has it would take a large quantity of combustable material to prevent rescue plans being put into play fully.

The high rise debate had I hoped moved on from one where conservationists threw the kitchen sink at it and where proponents bleated on about sprawl. There are places in Dublin that are right for tall buildings and other places that aren’t the debate lies in site specific discussions predicated on site specific view points.

One final note on Damien he is a practicing solicitor who was instrumental on having Bewleys reopened.

Or one could go even further, the mass emigration and rampant unemployment of the 80s could also blamed on greedy developers wanting high rise………hmmmm, i think not,
it seems this country turned around in the 90s when we opened up financially and socially(condoms in virgin anyone!!!)

This draft plan just seems like a natural evolution of our opening up, albeit 15 yrs too late

---

More on topic how is it that this ‘one man army’ can get headlines in the irish times?
If he was supporting the plan would he have got any coverage? I think not
Unfair and irresponsible, is the sunday business post the only paper worth flicking through:D

If there is a new body prepared to lead an informed debate on the role and value of conservation and heritage and the’re prepared to live up the lofty title of ‘National Conservation and Heritage Group’, then I would certainly welcome that. Obviously if it’s just three guys on bar stools, well that would be a bit less impressive.

Like PVC King, I know Damien Cassidy reasonably well and I would also rate him as one of the good guys, albeit perhap more on the nostalgia wing of the movement.

We need the conservation and heritage debate to move up a couple of notches and it would be no harm to re-visit some of the big issues of the last few decades to see if we have learned anything in the meantime, or would we do it all the same again?

How do you get people to distinguish between heritage and nostalgia?

How do you get the archaeology community to participate in the urban debate?

What do DCC actually intend the phrases: ‘Conservation Area’, ‘Character Area’, etc. to mean?