a boyle
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Dublin’s comparisons with Paris are very much so valid. From a skyline perspective they are very similar places: developed, western European cities with a fundamentally low-rise historic character relative to other international conurbations,
Just no . Paris is by a large uniformaly 6 to eight storeys. It is enormous. It was built with and sustains level of wealth that are simply not comparable .
Brussels, Strasbourg, Chester. There is in fact no need to look so far afield Cork is doing by and large a lot better than dublin.
What is the obsession with paris ? (not just you graham , but many on the forum) Is it that none of us have been anywhere else because ryanair don’t fly there ? has anyone gone to the suburbs of paris ? they are horrid. You cannot judge the city purely by it’s core.
San francisco to me might have a lot of things we could learn. Due to various reasons they have mostly uniformly low rise buildings. and a large suburban sprawl issue. But by and large it is a very very nice place to live. How have they got it right ? (at least better than we have.). Since Dublin has sprawled we need to think of improving it . Reversing the sprawl seems to me to be a pipe dream.
Grrr!!!! no more comparisons to cities that don’t have at least a similar population, or similar problems. 😀
you see you have gone nuclear ! If this could be done i would wholeheartdly support you , but what would you do with the people who didn’t want to sell.
You would have to introduce a compulsory purchase scheme of some sort. It is possible that it could work. France did it thanks to some pretty strong laws . We have a pretty strong constitution. go figure.
Building the metro will do just what you want , over a very long period (30 years).
Remember the locals going ape over the north quay building heights . Understanbly from their point of view not from the city.
Ireland is about muddling through, and no amount of whining will change that. It starts at the top and works it’s way down. Our politicians are divided on historical ground not ideological grounds . So each of the big parties has the whole variety of opinion on everything, with the slightest differences in emphassis. Then we ahve proportianal representation which means we have power sharing and thus weaker government.
You cannot expect and will not get planning ideals under this system. It just can’t happen.
This doesn’t mean the system is a joke , it is in fact a very good system. It does mean that in these kind of matter we really on an individual minister coming along to improve things , instead of a party.
The greens could change this. they are untested , they may get a chance to prove themselves. But turning dublin into something like paris jsut won’t happen. Compare dublin to toulouse or brussels of chester. that i a fair comparison.
i really do approve overall of the developments in the south quays. They look far better in reality , than in these photos . Passing by today , they looked splendid.
i am fully behind kerryblog.
I would add two further points Paris is not a city to be compared with dublin. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to big . Large sections of it are uniformly highrise 8/9 storeys.
Inside is not that great either . My friends there all live in shoe boxes.
With regards to this proposal . I think that once a development is big enough then it stands on its own two feet, and doesn;t really have to make the effort to blend in anymore as it is a seperate thing. For instance you could build 100 storey blocks in UCD without any discernable effect on the surrounding area. Likewise for cherrywodd and sandyford industrial estate (which i would support if sufficient open parks were created).
My honest apraisal of the street is that the old goergian buildings are taller than in the rest of the city. The street is relatively narrow and combined with the taller goegian buildings already gives a highrise impression. You certainly get this on some of the laneways off thomas street where the street are very narrow and the buildings relatively high (~5storeys).
This could be really good. If you are going to make it stick up above the skyline then it doesn’t really make much difference how high you go. It might certainly save a few hundred acres in meath,kildare,and wicklow. (concreting louth is a ok with me 🙂 )
I think it is mad enough to work. The whole area there consists of tall structures. and i think it could be a great place for such a daring scheme. From street level it doesn’t feel much different whether a building is 6 storey high or fifty. You can only strecth your neck to see the first few storeys when beside it. I need to see what kind of materials will be used and exactly what kind of bulk the scheme will have, but very inspiring.
@d_d_dallas wrote:
Never mind 51… how about 29, 22, 17, 15, 13, 10 and 7 storeys in height ALL ON THE SAME SITE!!!
once you go over 7/8 storeys it doesn’t really matter how high you go. At least that is the perspective from the ground.
This could be just what the doctor orderered for dublin. We need a new substantial middle class area in the inner city , in order to change people desire to continually move to the suburbs.
If the plan is sound this should go ahead , it is about time that rich people started living beside poor people.
From a planning point of view it is sound with proper transport links around. it also shifts interest to the east of the city which is good. It would be important that the buildings have a family bent to them , i.e. big apparments.
Architecturally ,i haven’t seen the times photos and i can’t find it in dublincity.ie. . It is vital that it actually looks nice .
what is going wrong is very simple , no economics. It is only relatively recently that the idea of running airlines for profit has come about with the starting of ryanair (well in europe at least)
What is now beginning to happen, thanks to the pds prodding, is that airports are run for profit. This is what i was trying to allude to in my previous posts . Dublin airport is petrified of any competition as it would be ruined. They are also petrified of having to build on the nice green space to the east (much cheaper) because the new terminal will make the old one look so bad it will have to close.
All my previous posts were trying to say was that considering the fact that terminal is full to the gills , it is working remarkably well. And all talk of crisis only leads to stop gap measures which only plays into the hands of the DAA. As it is section A and it’s distant addon should be demolished as they are just crap.
The solution is simple two new large terminals designed to keep the planes parralel to the runways. one terminal on the north of the eastertn side , facing the current terminal, and a second terminal on the western side.
But this is why it is not happening : aerlingus employs 3000 , and has to pay pensions for 8000. ryanair employs <3000 and flys many many more people. Aer rianta (it is still aer rianta as the airports are not yet seperated!) employs thousands. And those thousands all live in one constituency. If they get fired that T.D. gets fired , and that T.D. happens to be the taoseach. So in conclusion this whole thread is a waste of time till the next election.
nice. but seriously , i think it is overall a good job. it could be better, but it is a good job. what is needed now is some time for the trees to take. The main decision to move tress from the central median to the footpaths is sound.
In the immediate term , trying to keep the place clean, hoping that the retail finally picks up on the street , and setting about working on the side street is what is needed. The GPO and the plaza really do look good.
Looking ahead i think serious consideration needs to be given to moving the taxis around the corner to cathal brugha street, where there is ample room for a proper sized rank. When the bus stops are moved it should improve the buses all over the place situation.
please don’t misunderstand me i think things are bad . but i think that the terrible problems are being talked up because in serves the DAA interests.
There is no actual need for a fourth runway for instance. If the terminal ran efficiently the runway can be work up to thirty million , as against 20 now. To do this we would need to bulldoze the entire thing.
The idea of building in a modular fashion is so obvious that i cannot understand why it is not being done. A quick look at google earth and you can see acres of pristine space ready for a modularly built terminal in one long line.
Behind all the problems lies one single political fact. Bertie ahern is not going to sack thousands of people. plain and straight. That would be the inevitable outocme to sorting out the airport. Consider how much more effort is going in to keep essentially four tiny terminals in operation.
It won’t happen anytime soon
this is going to sound like heresy , but i don’t think the airport is that busy. hear me out! In almost every airport i have ever been i have always been pretty uncomfortable.
Whenever you check in you are ALWAYS surrounded by far too many people. Whenever you are in the security queue you are ALWAYS surrounded by far too many people, and whenever you are picking up your bags you are surrounded by far too many people. I will admit there have been exceptions but in the main unless the terminal is enormous i have never liked being in an airport.
I fly from dublin at least three times a year and have always had no problem. I do need to point out that i have a very strict approach to the airport. I arrive ON TIME. not early not late , exactly 40 minutes before the flight. I always catch the end of the check in queue (or if at all possible pack a small bag and carry it on board). I then make my way direct to the gate and sit with paper in hand. NO stopping!!.
What i am trying to get at is that i think the airport problems are being hyped up and exacerbated by the dublin airport authority because it is in their interest that the airport look to be bursting at the seams! In this way they can keep adding on little extensions. WHY ? because if you took a look around the terminal any reasonable person would conclude that the best thing to do next is to simply demolish the entire thing and rebuild. They are petrified that somebody anybody will build a new terminal on the east side (where there is only grass). This is because it would be very easy to build a terminal that was so much more efficient that the current one would have to close. it is in bertie’s constituency so don’t expect anything to happen. the PDs would love to sort out all our transport problems but bertie will have none of it.
hutton wrote:You have me sold on it anyway. Remove the outgoing bus stop outside the Provosts House and replace the taxi/loading rank with inbound stops – these would make up for the loss of stops on Suffolk St.Next off – remove at least one traffic lane on both Westmoreland and D’Olier Sts, and put in place purpose built bus bays. Imo the bus areas should be on the left side of each of the streets, with a median seperating them from the rest of the traffic]
You need a top down approach to the city center. let me explain.
Start by cutting the inner city into squares that have only one access in and out (cul de sacs if you will).
These are pretty obvious : the entire space between grafton street and merrion square would only be accessed through a two way nassau street. The space between grafton street and georges street accessed by dame street and exchequer street only (in other words set up a big roundabout: enter exchequer street and exit on dame street.) The north side is pretty much fine although car should be moved east from gardiner street, and north from parnell square.
With that done have a single lane outbound for car from college green upto christchurch, and a single lane inbound on aungier/wexford and georges street.
Next you need three sets of parrallel bus bays , with little traffic islands . These could be nicely covered with canvas type shelters (a bit like the connolly luas stop). So there would be a set on westmoreland street , a set on nassau and a set on the dame street .
Then as suggested earlier pedestrianise suffolk street. Create a two way route in front of trinity , and a two way route in front of the bank of ireland. The other rather large section in front of ulsterbank / habitat would then be pedestrianised (obviously cutting down the retarded trees that get in the way).
The next essential move is to take away all , ALL bus stop within a fifteen minute walk in any direction. So there ought to be no stops on o’connell, (not till you get to parnell square or parnell street).
Of course this means routing the luas around the back of trinners and joining it to the dart. This is a good idea as it would link rail to light rail. Then the luas would head straight for d’olier street , keeping to the left hand side . This would complement the irish times moving and trinity’s effort to redevelop pearse street. It would also reconnect pearse street back into the wide street commision original idea of three boulevards joining in the centre of the city.
There is more … but chew on that for now.
the reality that none of the investments are going to connect is mental. The news that not even the linkup of the two trams is a linkup is just CRAZY ! i give up
douche bags .
@StephenC wrote:
Wide medians just dont work…. as was the case with OC St. I would much prefer to see wide treelined pavements at the sides of street so that outdor uses such as cafes or just sitting and watching the world go by (remember this one) are encouraged.
Yes i would agree with wide pavements over a planted median. Hopefully the most is made of the irishtimes site.
@StephenC wrote:
….. And while Arnotts will hoepfully do wonders for Abbey Street, the Luas was a compeltely missed opportunity for this street in my opinion. it is now so dead and unattractive.
It is dead east of o’connell. And this will not be changing anytime soon , The abbey theatre is what would turn the street around . I have to say that i can uderstand the minister refusing to shell out the money to buy the adjacent properties. I would have proposed the unthinkable in these circumstances : a smaller theatre ! or a taller theatre. There are lots of clever ways to organise seating, without forcing people into the gods.
East of oconnell , i would disagree it is in a state of change which is only beginning , but arnotts will give it huge momentum. I don’t think it is hyperbole to say that the level of retail on henry street will be duplicated on abbey street between liffey street and the abbey theatre in the future.
When i talk of liffey street i meant ONLY the part between abbey street and the haypenny bridge. It is not particularly pretty with the cars but it is really quite a nice place to sit out a have coffee at the weekend.
The other bit of liffey street is trully awfull . it is so non descript. marks and spencer to blame there.
well maybe there are people from the civic offices on the website and they will see this. I would simply never have the time to go to the offices to look up things.
@StephenC wrote:
Yes the bus stops here are definately badly placed as anyone trying to get by the queues on this narrow stretch of pavement would be aware.
It might work, its true that there are two lanes here. It would mean Molly has to move…and the man with the little leprauchans that dance to diddly eye music. 😀
However I dont see how it would improve the situation on College Green…or are you advocating closing off the right turn down Dame Street at Trinity? Even then what about eastbound traffic? Still left with a traffic island.
No this was not trying to improve traffic. The traffic situation would be exactly the same but suffolk street is freed up for pedestrians , and the roads space is used more efficiently- — > one road doing the same as two roads did before.
Were i proposing to improve traffic: i would seriously consider banning all traffic save buses from college green. I have noticed my self where ever you are going , you don’t need to use college green, if you change your route when you are in the vicinity of the canals.
That would be a pretty ballsy thing for the council to do. But what interesting is that in the next ten years it is the buses and only the buses that will be able to improve traffic in the city , nothwithstanding my perpetually row with thomond over rail infrastructure. Freeing up college green would wipe precious minutes of all the bus route in the city.
@StephenC wrote:
Yes, I agree with you. I also think the reason the Man U store failed was because there is not enough happening here. Most people stay on the other side of Westmoreland Street. In fact I remember reading about the possible IBS redevelopment that the developers were requesting a new pedestrian-friendly section of the street to entice punters over from Temple Bar. This is obviously a bigger question as the current College Green thread shows.
I think wider pavements on D’Olier St are a must…ther eis ample sapce and there is far to much traffic allowed here. The street has great potential. I also think a Westin ectension will factor in this. A possible bridge link on Fleet St or even the redesign of Fleet Street required. Again this causes problems for the Dublin Buspark here.
Hmmm its a real planning conundrum. You could spend years trying to figure out what to do with this whoel area.
We could just nuke all the times reporters ? start with john waters .
