admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@David Murray wrote:
Its not the larger trees on the southern section of the street, but rather the smaller ones seen to the top of your photograph. The photograph accompanying the article on the IT website shows them more clearly. They are elms. These days they would have been planted with root protectors to stop the roots from impacting on the basements.
ah I see 😮 good! Surely those Elm’s weren’t 30 years old though?? Hard to imagine their roots impacting on basements at this point.
Hornbeams make for a nice street tree alright, but their tendancy to bolt in later years doesn’t do them any favours.
@David Murray wrote:
On a wider issue I would have more problems with what I consider to be innapropriate street tree planting in the city as whole which is what leads to this happening at a stage that the trees are nearing maturity and are contributing to the streetscape. I have noted in many instances undersized trees (hornbeam/birch) along large streets, or trees with potential to grow enormous (lime) in narrow streets.
Couldn’t agree more, there is little consistency or foresight. Given the positive impact an appropriate specimens can have on a streetscape it really deserves more planning than just throwing in whatever is available to them. In my own development, all gardens were planted with Lime’s, albeit very nice specimens, just 1.5m from front windows.
Irish Times wrote:As the first of eight elms was felled, Mr McLoughlin contacted the Garda and the council’]I went to school on Synge Street, they weren’t Elms at all, but London Planes in their prime. Fuckin’ eejits. The trees really enhanced middle Synge Street as they do Harrington Street, and were a defining feature of this little pocket of the city. Needless destruction.
It is exactly that ambiguity that has led to recent controversy in the Dublin City Council’s reversal/neutering record in major planning cases. What could be done is to leave the area east of Spencer Dock / Macken Street (South of Pearse Street) as a clearly designated area suitable for consideration of buildings of any height.
Given the supply of Grade 1 of offices available in the City that will give them at least 3-4 years to have the issue addressed by a new height needs study that looks at the entire area between the canals and along existing rail/tram lines; but not as you say with draw a line around a mug approach but instead by drawing up shortlists of specific holdings that appear to be underused relative to their surrounding density and could be developed in a manner that unlocks latent development potential in a manner which is compatible with the existing urban grain of neighbouring streets.
The object of the development plan has to be that developers and their advisors know what it means and that the proposed level of development for any major site has the support of stakeholders such as politicians, conservationists and residents. Concentrating High rise where the numbers of the three aforementioned groups are limited has tended to work in locations that provide International best practice.
A pretty polarised debate on the surface; what frustrates me in all ‘high rise’ discussions is the attempt to agree broad themes in plans and the stance by some people on one side that high rise is the only solution to urban sprawl or the only pull factor for office space. What Paris has acheived is to me the perfect balance; a high density low rise urban core with selected areas for High Rise in areas such as La Defence; London similarly has clustered virtually all of its tall buildings in recent years into two clusters one East of St Pauls and Canary Wharf; the idea of even medium rise in the West End is pretty much a non-runner as it would be in Central Paris.
What has been most damaging to the character of theCity over the past decade have been bulky buildings such as the red sandstone building on Capel St or the brick block on the former cinema on Eden Quay; bland bulky eyesores. The issue here however is that massing has not been controlled as opposed to tall buildings such as Montevetro which is far enough away from the urban core as not to damage important views and prospects.
If the areas East of Spencer Dock and West of the Royal Hospital was declared a free for all in terms of height I doubt that any of the stakeholders would be remotely concerned if a developer managed to complete a building to 200m in height. What is critical is the investment in new office space has the toys and is in areas that are proximate to mass transit.
The last thing anyone wants see are low rise buildings i.e. 8 commercial storeys poking their plant rooms over a Georgian Square; conversely we don’t wish to see the U2 Tower if it resurfaces or Watchtower ruled off site because all tall proposals are off limits.
Clear and considered evaluation of the plan by the elected councillors is an absolute pre-requisite to a plan that moves the City forward; a good first step is to agree where is suitable for taller buildings as opposed to creating the same ambiguity that has bedeviled recent plans i.e. regurgitating national policy docments and a height study that is now 10-11 years old.
OK, I’m aware that this whole announcement does need to be taken with a cargo-load of salt… but I get the impression that on the day Metro North opens, you’ll find PVC King outside the O’Connell Bridge station, with his fingers in his ears, shouting ‘The Metro will never be built’ over and over.
Yes, a healthy dose of cynicism is required whenever this government announce anything, but PVC’s proclamations of doom are increasing in desperation it seems. But, of course, bully for him if he’s proven right.
I will be sitting on the beach in St Martin happily retired by the time either metro north is built or the time metro north is built and the IMF have given the Dept of Finance back to the electorate.
Include Metro North as is with the hugely expensive City Centre underground section, the Tuam motorway and other completely over-spec’d projects and you will have the IMF running the country.
Conversely target investment into projects like Dart underground and built Metro North as Luas from DCU into the Luas Link up and preserve scarce capital investment to invest in REAL JOB CREATION and then the focus will grow the economy by allowing future governments space to cut taxes and attract the highly mobile Foreign Direct Investment that has lifted the country from second World to First World before reality was abandoned in the run up to 2008; just one example of private sector innovation; Blackrock Fund Managers based in the IFSC have developed a financial product called I-Shares (ETF) which allows investors to avoid paying stamp duty in tracking global indexes; margins are small but the potential is vast if they can crack the European market to same extent that ETFs dominate North American investment; give those guys €100k a job and they’ll still be there in 10 years by which time all of the subsidy is paid back.
I’d love to see Metro North being viable; bring back the boom where 95,000 residential units are being built a year and unemployment is sub 4%. Sadly projects like Metro North and the Tuam Motorway are a luxury that have passed their sell by date.
Custers last stand……
Are you sure you didn’t mean 2023-2026?
You have just seen the unfortunate demise of Dart underground; a most regressive step; no way that the exchequer deficit can handle €39bn over that period; this government has an exceptional ability to listen to none of the research they underwrite be it Merrill Lynch or the ESRI.
That said the productive sector is starting to look a much rosier picture however with an exchequer deficit approaching 20% it is time for a reality check.
@onq wrote:
What, as in provide 24-hour security?
Not affordable,, way over the top and not somethign the Council requires.Go on, impress me by pointing somethign out that I’ve missed..
Mobile patrols after hours; a fraction of the cost but target likely hours towards nighttime; dossers will doss elsewhere and teenage drinkers will be deterred. The caretaker option also would have prevented this; I know at least one park ranger in the park who would have jumped at the opportunity to house sit.
@onq wrote:
GEEZ!!! Beat yourself up with a stick, whydon’tyou!
What a terrible slander on teh residents of Whitechurch Estate.Lookit PVC King, that is a supid thing to say, given the ease of access into Marlay Park from the M50 and the lack fo arson attempts centring on Whitechurch Estate.
You have absolutely no foundation for that remark – none whatsoever.
We don’t even know what ccaused the fire yet…I merely pointed out that the house was not in the middle of the country; it had geographic proximity to an area known as having social issues.
@onq wrote:
Well I take your point – I’m not going to put you through a wringer on this, but let’s face it, no-one can afford security on empty buildings these days.
Marlay Park is well frequented by strollers and even “batwatch groups in the evenings up to around 10:30 pm. in the summer months – its not in the sticks.There you go again – the banks don’t protect the public interest, only their own interests.
I mean, really – after all that’s ahppened since 2008 you’d think you’d have copped on to this by now.
An Taisce or the Council might take a vbiew on this, but if the house is privately owned, thay cannot force someone to take out insurance. ..If the guy paid for the house in cleared funds then no-one can force him to cover his risk; I very much doubt that the house wasn’t charged and that a condition of the loan would be that the building be insured. In the US many people just hand back the keys, jump in their car and migrate to another state; the bank is then forced to secure the property.
@onq wrote:
You may have a point there, and this oddly enough relates back to the public interest being served by the Derelict SItes Act.
So in an oblique way, it may indeed be relevant, but it will take a new complelementary law dealing with the built heritage or an expansion of matters covered to make it so.Don’t put these guys tradesmen on a pedestal or treat all older buildings as works of art.
Its a fundamental view I have of buildings that they should earn their living and be updated as required with current technology.
I am by temprement and experience, not a conservationist – I suppose I would be an interventionist.
As long as the interirs were well-recorded, they can be replaced to a good standard.ONQ.
No-one is pedestalising invidual tradesmen; however the crafts they practiced have either disapeared or modern artisans receive such a premium for the ability to produce a scarce standard of work that once interiors like this go they rarely come back. Look at the cost of restoring Farmleigh; no way the private sector would do that type of project now. What is critical is that houses such as this which are extremely rare are at a minimum limped along until such time as the next crop of entrepreneurs / partners feel confident enough to make a statement through a restoration project.
So you accept that a level of examination is required as well as ongoing monitoring of the entire profession.
For what its worth I think €9,250 for an examination and the limiting of the in take to 40 places in 2010 is expensive in financial terms and will not bring many competent practitioners in from a regulatory vaccum; if you concentrated your arguments on getting a justification of the scale of fees for what should be at most 5 papers sat over 2-3 weekends at DIT or UCD and corrected by the examiners of part 3 exams for traditional route entry then I think your arguments would come across very differently.
As was said to me before I qualified in an unrelated profession the entry process is a balance between technical ability and convincing the examiners that you would not bring the institute into disrepute over the course of your career.
I would check contacts in your allumni association to ascertain if enough skills exist among current staff and graduates to put together an alternative equivelent exam that is recognised by the RIAI as stated they have no financial interest in the ARAE; competition is the life blood of all commercial sectors. What would be critical is that any exam operated by an alternative provider would need to have an external examiner provided by the RIAI as you would imagine is the case with the ARAE route.
The stated purpose of the legislation is to protect the consumer from rogue Architects, QS and Building Surveyors. THE SCS regulates Surveyors along the lines above; you consistently run away from explaining who is going to do it for Architects.
One rogue doctor does not give a rationale for a free for all in an entirely unrelated profession; at national level who is going to protect the public in the same manner as all other professions are regulated. If you can’t address that issue then you should leave the stage…..
On the subject of observers in the planning process and onq makes yet another vexatious post in a thread that he otherwise wasn’t involved in as he prefers personal attack to answering a straight question.
BTW
The record speaks for itself; 15 reversals and 8 emasculations…….
This is not about density it is about excessive massing in specific applications being indicated as permissable to applicants without due consideration being given as to whether it would be interpreted by the planning appeals board as compliant with the development plan. The failure of some of these applications has had very serious implications for applicants, banks and by extension the taxpayer in some cases by way of the developments that would have been viable pre 2007 no longer being viable once ABP sought revised schemes.
Agreed it is unfair to people who say graduated at 22 in another discipline or entered the industry straight after school and spent 4 years as an apprentice draughtsman. Potentially excluding people with up to 16 years in the industry who have under their employers been afforded additional recognition for quality work would be unfair.
A fair structure would be to have different levels that recognise attainment at specific levels as each level is acheived; the consumer has a right to know what level they are dealing with.
The question is how logistically you deal with those with incomplete qualifications and provide them with a right to practice that is robust enough to fulfill the intention of the legislation i.e. to protect the public.
The split into 4 grades seems to be the only method of protecting individuals practicing and the public;
1. Student
2. Associate
3. Member/Fellow
4. Arch techIt is further vital that when people acheive these grades that their ongoing participation is regulated through the membership body.
Given the number of unemployed architects the cost base of examining vocational canditates may be lower than in a supply constrained market.
‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’
Stay with the point; they do not profess to be a regulatory organisation.
Graduate Standard
Is exactly that; name one other fee based profession in Ireland where once you graduate you are not required to join the industry membership organisation to use the title.
The Competition Authority’s Report states that, the RIAI will face a clear potential conflict of interest between representing the interest of its members on the one hand and regulating in the public interest on the other.
It is interesting that the competition authority has not moved against solicitors, accountants and surveyors if their view was that the RIAI’s role was incompatable. You will note it is a potential conflict and not an unacceptable conflict.
…I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.
1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checksYou’re making a point for some other thread perhaps.
The stated purpose of the legislation is to protect the consumer from rogue Architects, QS and Building Surveyors. THE SCS regulates Surveyors along the lines above; you consistently run away from explaining who is going to do it for Architects?
a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.
Yep – that’s called a closed shop.
Explain how allowing people without degree’s in architecture to be given membership of the RIAI based on long service is a closed shop?
This is no attempt to have a go at someone down on their luck; I made it perfectly clear above that I was in no way insinuating that the owners wanted this to happen; but it happened because they didn’t have the money to properly protect an important piece of built heritage.
In terms of your take on this you are waffling on and not reading what has actually been posted.
11.—(1) Where—
[GA] ( a ) in the opinion of a local authority it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent land situate in their functional area from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site
A vacant house within 2 miles of Whitechurch Estate with no security or insurance could reasonably be construed as being at risk of becoming a derelict site.
The point I was making was that with liquidity as it is there are many protected structures at risk. I have no doubt the banks will be checking that all such properties are insured; to protect the public interest Local Authorities should visit all vacant protected structures that have internal elements specifically protected or vacant structures that form part of a protected terrace or conservation area.
Cider drinkers will get cold and important heritage will be lost where owners do not possess the means to protect their property in times of adverse liquidity conditions. There are no amnesties for burnt building interiors the craftsmen who created them have long since passed on.
I am not going to reply to most of your post; the answers were not straight other than to clarify the self declared mandate of the AAI
‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’
How can you possibly construe that as an industry body; that would make Paul Clerkin an FAAI without ever joining…..
@onq wrote:
That’s where your sympathies lie.
I didn’t attack them per se – I begrudge them their automatic registration when I already have a qualification that is recognised throughout EUrope as entitlnig me to practise ans an architect – this is a very simple position to understand, isn’t it?
The Dail architectis on record as saying the following
As indicated above the so-called grandfather clause in the Building Control Act 2007 was introduced in order not to exclude individuals who had been working as architects for some considerable time in the State but had not undergone any formal architectural training. It was strongly felt that limiting the architectural profession to graduates of the various third level institutions would be unfair on those individuals who had gravitated into architectural practices from quantity surveying, technical drafting or trade/apprenticeship backgrounds.
The intention of those who seek to protect the weaker party is to help those with vocational backgrounds not those who simply couldn’t have been bothered doing professional exams.
@onq wrote:
And you know what their fig leaf then is?
“We weren’t retained to administer the contract or carry out inspections.”But they’ll still come in when its all coverd up and certify for money based on “visual inspection” only – not bloody good enough by a long shot.
Don’t assume you know anything about the Architectural Profession or how Members of the RIAI behave.
Learn before you post.ONQ.
Having wasted 10 minutes trying to deal with your spinning above I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.
1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checksThe grandfather clause is simply a free for all by another name; a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.
You should read the provisions of Sections 11 and 32 of the Derelict Sites Act 1990
11.—(1) Where—
[GA] ( a ) in the opinion of a local authority it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent land situate in their functional area from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site, or
[GA] ( b ) a local authority have been directed to do so by the Minister under section 12,
[GA] they shall serve a notice in writing on any person who appears to them to be the owner or occupier of the said land.
[GA] (2) A notice under this section shall—
[GA] ( a ) specify the measures which the local authority or the Minister, as the case may be, consider to be necessary in order to prevent the land from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site,
[GA] ( b ) direct the person on whom the notice is being served to take such measures as may be specified in the notice, and
[GA] ( c ) specify a period (being not less than one month) within which such measures are to be taken; provided, however, the notice shall not have effect until—
[GA] (i) the expiration of fourteen days from the date of service of the notice, or
[GA] (ii) if any representations are made under subsection (3), the date on which the local authority notify the person making such representations that they have considered the said representations.
[GA] (3) Any person who is the owner or occupier of land in respect of which a notice has been served under this section may, within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice, make such representations in writing as he thinks fit to the local authority concerningthe terms of the notice and the said authority, having considered such representations, may amend or revoke the notice.
[GA] (4) Any person who is the owner or occupier of land in respect of which a notice has been served under this section shall, within the period specified in the notice, comply with the requirements of the notice, or, as the case may be, the notice as amended.
[GA] (5) Where a person on whom a notice under this section has been served does not, within the period specified in the notice or in the notice as amended, as the case may be, comply with the requirements of the notice, the local authority who served the notice may take such steps (including entry on land by authorised persons in accordance with section 30) as they consider reasonable and necessary to give effect to the terms of the notice or the notice as amended, as the case may be, and may recover any expense thereby incurred from the person on whom the notice or the notice as amended, as the case may be, was served and who is the owner or occupier as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
[GA] (6) The carrying out of any works, within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1983, which are specified in a notice or in the notice as amended, as the case may be, under this section shall be exempted development for the purposes of those Acts.
[GA] (7) Any person served with a notice or with the notice as amended, as the case may be, under this section who is the owner of the land in respect of which a notice has been served, and his servants or agents, may enter the land and undertake the measures required to be done under the notice.
Power of court to authorise measures. 32.—(1) If any person served with a notice under this Act is unable, without the consent of some other person, to carry out specified measures which he is required to carry out in order to comply with the provisions of such notice, and such other person withholds his consent to the carrying out of the measures, the person concerned may apply to the District Court in which the notice was served for an order under this section.
[GA] (2) If, on the hearing of an application under subsection (1), the District Court determines that the consent of the other person has been unreasonably withheld, the District Court may, in its discretion deem the consent to have been given and direct the person making the application to carry out the measures.
[GA] (3) It shall be an offence for a person to fail to carry out the measures directed by the District Court under subsection (2).[GA] (4) If any person served with a notice under this Act is required to carry out, pursuant to this Act, specified measures, and so carries out the measures and such person considers that the cost of such measures should be borne, in whole or in part, by some other person who has an interest in the derelict site, he may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order directing that the whole, or such part as may be specified in the order, of the cost of the measures be borne by the other person interested therein; and the court shall make such order on the hearing of the application as it considers just having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
With ignorance of such a basic piece of legislation how can you expect your comment on the regulation of architects to be taken seriously?
@onq wrote:
Pity you don’t actually research what you pontificate about.
A Grandfather Clause is an amnesty – an amnesty from new laws that are not appropriate to apply to some groups of people.
You’re CPD waffle stops far short of giving any assurance – its a post-facto cover up measure without any objective reality.
Only an independent exam administered every five years to allow Members retain their status will do that – do you see the RIAI rushing to give THAT assurance?
No – and you are highly unlikely to see it in your lifetime – too few of the older Members in the existing Membershio would pass it.
The Part III’s thirty years ago were different than today, and the people who passed them areunlikely to match current standard yet the law suggests they are competent and deserving of being on the register automatically.
In this regard, the automatic registration of persons who got their part threes more than twenty years ago should beseen as what it is – the RIAI version of the Grandfather Clause.
ONQ.
This is where I have a problem with your argument; you as opposed to examining ways of bringing vocational practitioners into the profession structure simply attack the existing structure which is based on International best practice in your attempts to justify creation of an entry point that is not regulated. Are you really suggesting that all motor drivers who have acheived a full driving license should also be retested every 5 years?
Please clarify post Granfather clause how you propose the beneficiaries of the amnesty would be regulated in respect to industry led practice statements and guidance notes, please clarify how the beneficiaries will maintain relevant life long learning and who will provide it and check that they are compliant with industry standards.
Please clarify who will adjudicate professional complaints at industry body level for these beneficiaries should any arise.
As opposed to attacking those who graduated and then completed further study you need to realise that the sympathy that exists is not for people who have the degree and just didn’t bother completing the part 3 examination; it is for those who either did a different qualifiaction or did not possess the resources to go to third level and have through sheer hard work pulled themselves up to the level of competent practitioner and that to date may not have had an entry route into membership of the industry body.
As you well know only one professional body has the structures and resources to credibly regulate the industry along International best practice lines; this is the case with all other professions in Ireland.
Most professions structure themselves along the lines of student member, associate member i.e. recognised degree but not examined by the industry body, member (examined), fellow (made contribution though exemplary service) and vocational member i.e. grandfather clause but must pass a less academic test based on experience.
I could be wrong but JoD’s proposal seems more like an amnesty than a controlled intake to the professional body as you would hope would be the case. You want all professions to have those using the title to be subject to regulation done through manditory practice statements and guidance notes that establish industry standards in tests of ‘reasonableness’ in this case the RIAI are best place to regulate.
I do agree that the sudden regulatory change from no public protection to the ARB may have been a move that didn’t consider many individuals who are competent; however who decided that they were competent in their professional careers (ONQ college is not the real world) However it is vital that the entire profession are required to do cpd and must follow practice statements to preserve the good mane of the profession.
A balance would be to fast track an examination that a competent practitioner could pass but that is not academic in its leading and award ArchTech status.
To grant an amnesty sends exactly the wrong message out to students; why bother getting professionally qualified when a future politician will declare an amnesty. The real pity is that someone didn’t regulate this 20-30 years ago.
Have you visited the Irish Architectural archive on Merrion Sq?
No harm in broadening the search as if the archive has nothing and if there is any link to the Iveagh Estate; it is possible that they may have commisioned something similar in London or further away as well when a particular style was in vogue.
@wearnicehats wrote:
the usual champions of ABP are being remarkably quiet in this thread
It doesn’t look like a particularly noteworthy Church to me; noting the absence of comment from the resident board expert it kind of Praxi-teles its own story… :rolleyes:
An Bord represents a group of built environment professionals of the highest calibre; they are asked by both applicants and observers to determine first instance planning decisions made in cases where the appellant feels it is worth paying a not insubstantial fee for a second elevated opinion. DCC does not have an acceptable record in large planning cases in front of these elevated professionals; equally seriously they refuse to take ministerial investigation seriously. This is not acceptable they are a local authority reliant on taxpayer support not a private enterprise with the independence that such a status provides.
There is no financial gobbledygook as you put it; it is very simple; finance was thrown around like the underlying money wasn’t real; major planning applications at DCC level didn’t pass next stage, developers needed a couple of years to then secure permission; when the music stopped certain developers were sitting on projects that the market had in many cases no demand for. It’s called cause; DCC’s inability to interpret the National Appeals Board’s standards of planning in major cases; and effect schemes that were delayed beyond the crash and have left Nama with severly delayed projects.
This is not the case with all 23 schemes but other than a few very well located retail schemes €m’s in planning and architects fees are to the many insolvent developers and their counterparties a lethal catalyst that has ruined them as opposed to a simple professional service required to secure local government consent.
