a boyle

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 321 through 340 (of 357 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Clonlea House #775685
    a boyle

    @Thomond Park wrote:

    How the RPA can introduce a largely on street line which is over 1 kilometre longer when a fully segregated shorter route exists with only one plot to be acquired defies belief

    Again please examine the routing properly.This dogleg routing is in fact almost completely segregated. It is routed on a grass verge alongside a road. Where it does meet road junctions , stops are being put in, Thus like at beechwood it will have to stop anyway.

    In discussing the possible development along each route you have displayed further ignorance as to what is proposed.

    You are right that this dogleg currently passes by low density housing. Every field between the ballyogan road ( dogleg route) and the sandyford road has already been prepared for high density housing. If you look at google map you clearly see there is much more scope for more high density housing along the dogleg than along the old harcourt route.

    Which leads to the next point , you infer that the high density housing in cherrywood means there will be enough people using the harcourt route. This is plain daft. Every section of the tram’s routing should be used to it’s maximum potential.

    The nail in the coffin is this.Look at the Harcourt Route between sandyford and where the two routes meet up just before cherrywood. It is sandwiched between private property and the racecourse , with no public access, leaving room for only two stops ,one at leapoarsdtown road , the other at the entrance to the driving range. Compare that with the dogleg which will have 5 at ‘central park’ , glencairn , the gallops,ballyogan,leopardstown valley, ballyogan wood.

    I have hit the nail on the head. Do you want the area between ballyogan road and sandyford turned into high density res, or do you an area four/five times this tacked on to clonee, abbeyleix ( it’s near the motorway so hey its gotta be good ! ) , or ballbrigan ?

    Please look again. If you want to see something daft look at the metro, 4/5billion for something irish rail could build for 1, leaving 1/2 billion left over to build maybe 4 new luas lines?

    in reply to: Clonlea House #775682
    a boyle

    @Thomond Park wrote:

    A Georgian House is to be obliterated to make way for a Luas station in addition the gates of the ‘Boss Croker Mansion’ Glencairn are to be moved severing their context with the mature planted entrance driveway.

    All this is set against the backdrop that the original Harcourt St to Bray line is fully undeveloped save for one small domestic extension and one back garden.

    In this context is there any point in having a list of protected structures if a Georgian mansion can be bulldozed when a viable alternative exists?

    It’s a good idea to examine things in their entirety before mouthing off.The Harcourt line is a poor choice because:

    Noone lives along it ( even if you think that ‘enough’ people live along it to justify the routing ). More people live along the proposed dodleg route.

    There is also some undevelopped land along this routing. This will allow for much higher density of housing, so the city as a whole wins. ( Do you want 5 acres tarmaced in meath , or one in Ballyogan? ).

    Granted that government developments have a peculiar fetish of passing by, through and over our history, doesn’t mean that this route has no merit.

    in reply to: New Public Space for Docklands #765258
    a boyle

    @patrick24 wrote:

    a sort of grand red avenue that doesn’t go anywhere.

    It’s a permanent red carpet leading into a theatre , how could you not think that was cool ?

    You are on to the right track. What is build behind and to the side of the theatre will determine whether the entire square works, but we shall have to see.

    in reply to: O’ Connell Street, Dublin #729989
    a boyle

    Being totally honest i have always found the GPO to be for want of a better word clunky. (i’m an engineer not an architect : so english me speak no good)

    It could be that the portico has no carving placed in it, but i am not sure. I thinks its that the building is soo imposing that the inside doesn’t really live up to expectations. The public parts of the gpo don’t go very far into the building. I always get the impression that the facade is too strong for the size of and layout of the inside.

    Don’t misunderstand me it is nice. But it’s a seven out ten rather than an 8/9.

    a boyle

    @marty_mc wrote:

    hi folks
    im doing my dissertation on the regeneration of the Gorbals in Glasgow and Ballymun, and would like your views on whether urban regeneration is achieving its objectives in terms of creating sociably stable comunities. have the people of ballymun a better quality of life now, almost 10 years since the redevelopment process started?

    everything was going well till the decision to make 500 people shop assistants. (ikea) but that is just my opinion.

    in reply to: Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus? #749559
    a boyle

    @jdivision wrote:

    The problem with a boyle’s comment is that he’s talking about catering for existing population. If a metro is built then it is likely there will be high density developments built around it, thus making it feasible in the long term. …others can be done afterwards (and I agree with the Knocklyon/Firhouse suggestions

    consider my idea further. Firstly the link passes over acres of undevelopped land at the edge of the city ->ripe for high density development. It passes over a longer stretch of undevelopped land than any of the presented rpa metro schemes

    The east west link doesnt require any future links to be built in order for it to work economically. Thirdly it frees up space to immediately extend the dart towards dundboyne ( more development space ) And it immediately links up with all that has so far been built with only on change.

    It is far better. ( it’s basically what platform 11 ,the rail group are calling for )

    DO you agree ?

    in reply to: Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus? #749555
    a boyle

    @Seamus O’G wrote:

    So what would be the likely reason for it. As you pointed out in an earlier post, we’re dealing with wide streets (Westmoreland St, College Green, at least). Surely it has to be easier than tunnelling under the historic buildings of TCD.

    There are 2 way to build an underground tunnel:

    1.dig up the route to fourty feet or so. then put in supporting beams to hold up what ever it is you are going to build above the route. So it’s a bit like a very long car park: lots of concrete pillar holding up what is above.

    2. use a tbm. These things act like worms : they chew off at the front, slither forward , and spew it all out the back. These would normally start much much deeper in the ground, maybe 150/200 feet down. They go straight through rock, not clay. Because of this the tunnel doesn’t need foundations as such, the rock supports itself. This has advantages in two ways : one you don’t have to demolish whatever is at ground level. The second is that you can tunnel under whatever you like and it won’t matter.

    I detect concerns about tunneling under trinity . I asure you these are unfounded. Vibrations do come up from the machine. but the most these could do is crack some tiles/grouting/ or some plaster. It is very important to realise that these effects are the same as what the ground does by itself. Clay is always on the move and all houses develop little cracks. These are NOT the same as structural damage.

    If you take a look at what i have written above , you will notice that i consider this whole proposal to be ramblings off an alcoholic chimpanzee on heroin. A metro that requires two changes to get to it (it’s the blue line they want to build) is just daft.

    in reply to: Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus? #749553
    a boyle

    @Seamus O’G wrote:

    It’s interesting that none of the proposed routes go under Westmoreland Street, College Green and Grafton Street but instead go along D’Olier or Tara Street and then under TCD. I wonder is this due to a problem with tunnelling directly under O’Connell Bridge?

    No when you are tunnelling ,you are well below anything that get in the way !

    in reply to: Interpretation of Planning Permission #775582
    a boyle

    you have 3 choices 1.stop and apply for new permission. 2.built it and get retension permission in a while.3.it is possible to get extensions to the expiry date, if you feel that what your building fullfills the permision given.

    since its just a garage i would go for 2

    in reply to: Parnell Square redevelopment #751108
    a boyle

    @crestfield wrote:

    Personnaly I see the extention as a mistake, not say that there should’nt have been an extenstion rather it could have been done in a more sensitive manor. The house and its surrounds are a unit, considering that it is largly an eightheen century terrance of houses with Charlemont at its centre.

    This intervention is arogent in its use of materails and in particular the way it is almost flush with the facade.The house is now lob sided.

    A recent intervention to leinster house to the area flanking it shows much more thought and sympathy for an historic context.

    I don’t agree, leinster house now looks busy to me , as result of the stone’s youth and that it doesn’t exactly match the original stone, it shouts for attention. But i think we shall just have to disagree. All buildings (except the truly dire) are Marmite.

    in reply to: Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus? #749551
    a boyle

    @Frank Taylor wrote:

    You are right. Do you want to put together a one page comment on why the metro tunnel should be continued through the centre to the southside? Once we reach agreement on the wording, get as many as people to put there names to it and I’ll print it out and post it in.

    I would love to try!

    Let me set out my views. Please don’t give a snap reply , i have put so thought into this.

    First off Dublin is 3 times bigger than Brussels or Amsterdam ( which have the same population ).

    Frank McDonald has categorically pointed out that no route anywhere in the country has the number of people using it to justify a metro. ( This means adding up walkers,cyclists,drivers,bussers,Dart users and intercity/suburban rail)

    The only way to generate enough people to pay for a metro is to get people coming from lots of directions together and then flush them through!

    These are CSO figures: 200k live in fingal. 500k live in the city. Allowing for a 50/50 split between north and south (in reality more people live on the south side of the city – the north side contains the second biggest park in the world ! )So anyway that gives max 450k living on the northside. a minimum of 700k live south of the liffey in dublin county.A metro can take anywhere from 50k per hour to 100k per hour. Thus we would need 5 luas lines to meet with the metro ( each luas does around 10k / hour ).

    contrary to what i have just written might suggest , I do believe that a metro can be routed in such a way so that it can serve enough people.

    The airport serves 20 million per year. ( that’s the same as the two luas lines — Oooh its not looking good for the metro! )

    anyway enough with the joking!

    Given that the metro can ONLY work in conjunction with everything else , i think it has to be considered WITH everything else.

    Two points now arise.
    Each addition to public transport should make sense by itself.
    It hugely important to minize the numbers of changes required between modes of transport. Otherwise you don’t get the maximum amount of cross over between different routes.

    I feel that the following have most chance of success:

    Continue the green line round the back of trinity so their is a connection with the dart. (this route is only marginally slower than using college green because of the number of pedestrian crossings the tram would have to go at walking pace)

    reopen broadstone and reroute all trains coming from the direction of sligo into that station.
    Continue the green luas line to broadstone.

    Instead of a north south metro build the interconnector between heuston and the new docklands station via pearse.

    build a spur off the rail line to the airport.

    This is a good plan because it does what almost all the different plans that have ever been suggested in one go!

    1 A metro link to the city and a rail link to the entire rail network!
    2 Moving the sligo line traffic to broadstone removes a lot of the time slot problems ( and immediately clears the way for the navan line to run at whatever frequency it likes. This is important : an iarnrod earrean report states the problems with the navan line being economically feasible is the the rail congestion in the city centre means it cannot run enough trains through. )

    4. The two dart lines can be reorganised as irish rail wants to.( i’m not trying to spell the irish version again ! ) Firstly the southside dart route can along the royal canal on the northside to connect with the sligo line.In fact it could in future be turned around to terminate at broadstone or head on to navan.

    the northern dart route can pass through the interconnector and head out towards kildare.

    7. the green line has a terminus that makes sense. ( a decision would have to be looked at whether to end the luas at broadstone or at the liffey junction ( it does not make a huge difference ). The basic idea is right!

    What really pulls this whole thing together is that it puts in place a huge amount of flexibility.The “metro” link can now connect with ALL (YES ALL) Trains/trams ( and most buses) with a single change. furthermore anyone can change between the dart ( both routes ) and the green and red lines again with one change.

    To try to explain my idea i will take the time to make a map and attempt to put it up .

    in reply to: Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus? #749548
    a boyle

    @Frank Taylor wrote:

    Cut-and-cover is better because you’re closer to the street level but
    -there is more disruption during build
    -and you have to follow street alignments
    -and what happens when you reach the Liffey? How do you cross a river with cut-and-cover? Is there an engineer here who knows this? The circle line in London is partly cut-and-cover but I’m guessing it has to tunnel under the Thames.

    Yes you would have to tunnel under the river. Yes it means you have to follow road alignments , and so there are only a few configurations that would work.

    I think either method will result in mayhem either way , there is no getting around tearing up the roads to install stops, or huge numbers of air vents.

    What is good about cut and cover is this :

    It is a lot , a lot quicker . Instead of building a tunnel and all the complexities that go with that, it’s more like building an underground car park. You just dig with a whole load of caterpillars till you can set foundations. the supports only have to hold the road surface up. This makes it a lot simpler. It finally makes it relatively easy to consider three/four tracking. ( new york did this , the result is incredible ease of movement )

    Further to my previous remark , if a concensus could be found we could all write to the rpa with a joint point of view. It’s much easier for the rpa to dismiss comments if they are all different!

    in reply to: Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus? #749544
    a boyle

    As can be seen from Tara – the only way to have any influence on decisions is to get your comments in early.So make sure to write full and complete emails to the rpa.

    in reply to: Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus? #749540
    a boyle

    I’m gobsmacked !

    in reply to: ILAC centre #731982
    a boyle

    Well put Mr. Hickey ! my thoughts exactly! By finished product i meant that each time i have passed it the shops and the pavements didn’t seem finished ( it’s been a month or so) . I also would not be surprised if some of the current tenants moved. They might use the window space better. I feel that a building needs a least a year before it can be fully trashed or praised.

    Perhaps the we will grow to like the look in future ( not bloody likely ! )

    in reply to: ILAC centre #731980
    a boyle

    @Devin wrote:

    Since it was unveiled I’ve felt that that new Ilac facade does not combine very well with Roches Stores, especially as you are approaching from Mary Street. I think the problem is that the canopy bit was carried along too far towards Roches.

    Yes i do agree. I am reserving my final judgment until this side is totally completed. It might be that the addition of one well placed tree would make all the difference. You are right though. Roches looks great by itself. The ilac/h&m front looks ok by itself , but it just doesn’t fit quite right.

    in reply to: Parnell Square redevelopment #751103
    a boyle

    @Paul Clerkin wrote:

    Just a quick and dirty version of it knocked back a bit
    not perfect but you get the idea

    I think this shows what is built is the very best solution. In this photomontage the extension just add another depth to the building. It appears even more unbalanced to me.

    It is also clear that the extension could not be hidden.

    To those who really hate it It probably won’t really matter. Often when these kinds of additions are built, they become a handy place to put addvertisement posters for the gallery. With a poster each side , daaaadaaa! balance restored.

    in reply to: Smithfield, Dublin #712392
    a boyle

    hang on a second ! of course the place has very little atmosphere , it’s only just finished and almost no shops have move in yet !

    Consider that it took 6 months between starbucks reported as “opening soon” in the times and them actually doing so at the harcourt tram station. Things can take time. I think it is far too early to dismiss the area as a failure.

    On an aesthetic level , the square is large enough to accomodate all the different sides to the square. I feel that the old distellery is very poor and ,aside from the facade, has worn badly. The new buildings have the right bulk in my opinion, and fit in well the viking ship pylons.

    If temple bar was too successfull and the ifsc not sufficiently , this looks to get it just right to my mind.

    in reply to: Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus? #749536
    a boyle

    @Frank Taylor wrote:

    It seems a shame to drive a TBM into the city centre and leave it there

    It’s a shame to us a tbm at all. Why not make maximum use of wide long street and simply cut and cover ? gardiner street and the north circular road eventually lead to the old broadstone line why not use this allignment?

    in reply to: Parnell Square redevelopment #751093
    a boyle

    It’s a great extension.By being in line with the main building it highlights it wonderfully. Honestly Mr. Hickey how can you want glazing on the one hand , and complain that you can see through it ?

    The glazing is a simple as possible. You can see that it is even held up from inside the structure.

    If the extension was set back it would draw your attention to it. Instead as it is it focuses all eyes on the main building. It being so simple and different from the original work I can apreciate the old by itself , the new extension , and the two together.

    It was a very very good idea to extend the gallery. It has saved a fine georgian building.

    I would like to see the gallery extend to the left building in the future.Indeed It could be argued that the Hugh Lane should take over most of that side of the square .

    TOP MARKS !!!

Viewing 20 posts - 321 through 340 (of 357 total)

Latest News