admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@vkid wrote:
One company has also reportedly put forward plants for a cable-car service in Dublin city.
I hope its not this yoke again …
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4650&highlight=dublin+cable+car
Looking at this shot by d_d_dallas it could probably have gone higher, but overall i think its a nice addition to the area.
If the proximity of the proposed development is to be so close to the church as to interfere with the overall character of its setting then consequently damage will be caused to the church. The setting of the church would have one or more perspectives each of which contribute towards assembling the integrity of the whole existing setting. The quality and standard of setting and its relationship to the church must not be compromised if the heritage fabric of the church is to be respected and maintained to a high standard.
The plans/elevations proposed should reveal the full extent of damage to the setting of the protected structure.
http://www.explore-london.co.uk/oxfc.html
The Ballustrades at Oxford Circus London divert pedestrian flows in a very safe fashion. Every Saturday Henry St sees as much pressure as any of the Croke Park approach routes with flows of 15,000 an hour.
Now if Oxford Street was pleasant a shopping experience as Henry Street that would be something! It is why Henry St will always be a better retail location than O’Connell St.
Why don’t they just build the station entrances on the public street?
One in front of Quinns and two others on each corner of Clonliffe Rd
Zurich may have needle park but Spike St would be far superior!
€16m hmmmm
Would take a lot of thought alone on a carabean island that……
Good one.
Given that 8m was lashed out on the Schwartz design for Grand Canal Square, I’d spend the 16m on implementing a comprehensive IAP for College Green which should also include Grafton St. imo …
I reckon such a plan would effect maximum roi in terms of enhancing the city centre (got me business hat on;) … now there’s a whole kettle of crap in there, luas and all, but sure you all know my opinion on that !
Note.
I might be looking for a jackpot of 20 mill before i’d be giving the city 16 😉 with a further 20 to give to charity & ease my social conscience.they remind me of a key ring for some reason … I’d agree Graham that the Cork St. version is better, the problem is one size doesn’t fit all, why they saw fit to remove the IAP O’Connell St. bins is beyond me.
I’ve noticed a fairly nasty third bin type that appears to be part of this scheme popping up in the DCC suburbs, you could slit your rist on the crude slot thats provided to insert the litter.
What are your main bones of contention?
What alternative approaches would you suggest to acheive the objectives and ensure the building’s integrity?
Carrigaphooca Castle (Caisleán Carraig a’ Phúca in Irish, meaning Castle on the Rock of the Fairy ; the word Púca may mean a Ghost, Fairy, or some other type of Spirit) is a ruined five storey rectangular tower house, situated on a steep-sided rock, and located 6km west of Macroom, County Cork, Ireland. Carrigaphooca was built in 1436, reputedly by Donal McCarthy of Drishane.[1] In 1602, the castle was attacked and taken by O’Sullivan Beare.[2]
During the 1970s, the Office of Public Works undertook restoration of the site, and added a fight of steps leading over the rock base, joining with the main entrance.[3] The ground floor chamber is lit by small off-center windows, and is flanked by a straight mural stairs which rises as a spiral to the 4th floor level.
A stone circle lies two fields to the east of the castle.
Sources: Denis Power (1997). Archaeological inventory of County Cork, Volume 3: Mid Cork, 9467 ColorBooks. ISBN 0-7076-4933-1Carrigaphooca Castle from http://www.irelandseye.com
Perched on a high rock overlooking the Sullane River this tall tower house commands truly panoramic views of the surrounding landscape. Built by Dermot Mor MacCarthy sometime between 1436 and 1451, it is a very simple building with a single room on each of its five levels. The windows are very plain in form, small and narrow, and like other early tower houses, there are no fireplaces or chimneys.
The MacCarthys of Carrigaphooca were constantly engaged in internecine warfare. They sided with the Crown in 1602 and their stronghold was consequently attacked by Donal Cam O’Sullivan Beare. After a difficult siege the huge wooden door of the castle burned down. The garrison was set free and O’Sullivan Beare retrieved a chest of Spanish gold he had presented to the MacCarthys some months earlier in return for their support against the English. The castle was subsequently owned by the MacCarthys of Drishane until forfeited in 1690.
5km (3 miles) W of Macroom.Photo posted by J. Smith on http://medievalist2.blogspot.com/2007/07/carrigaphooca-castle-county-cork.html
Devin
This is obscene you should shout your lewd elsewhere
‘Presents’ is tight enough as it covers ‘offer for sale’ as provocative display may lead to expressions of interest which may or not become limp
@henno wrote:
His argument of linear building lines along country roads is dead on the money… this ‘engineered’ development plan policy is the singular most damning reason for the aesthetic pollution of rural housing….
i still cannot fathom that people are arguing that rural development (or redevelopment) is akin to rural social regression…… thats simply a misinformed kop out of an argument….
at least us rural culchies have mastered the use of contraception…according to that specimen of statesmanship, Ian Lumley….
How dare you bring Ian Lumley into this argument; as anyone who has watched this issue will say Lumley has sat on the sidelines of this process and only appealed the most outrageous cases directly affecting desinated areas.
One off housing is simply a timebomb that will make economically viable local service provision impossible going forward.
David McWilliams summed it up perfectly with his mommy I want my Kit Kit analogy.
Momma Dick’s child was spoiled and so were some of the best landscapes in the country as a result.
They would probably be below the proscribed dimensions so would constitute exempt development
There does however appear to be a wider commercialisation strategy at City level and there doesn’t appear to have been a lot of discussion on this which is a pity because a balanced regulatory regime on commercialisation would be a real win win scenario!!
@alonso wrote:
the poor oul theatre royal mattered not a jot though did it
It’s not so much the building itself (which really is pretty bad, no matter how many beers you have) its what it replaced.
I’d suggest thats the real reason why hawkins house is viewed with such contempt. It occupies an area that once hived with activity whereas now its awkward footprint & shocking integration with street level leaves us with an entire city block that is well & truly dead.
Bring back to Royal 😀
@shanekeane wrote:
it’s infinitely better than liberty hall for example
Hawkins House ? my ass it is.
Liberty Hall is pretty poor on close inspection but still looks reasonable from several vantage points.
Take the image below & picture it with its original transparent glazing.
@ctesiphon wrote:
As I’ve said before, I’ve no problem with appropriate height in appropriate locations in the docklands, but this is categorically not an appropriate location.
I would have no problem with some well designed taller buildings here, but not in this manner. I assume this high rise change of heart must be to do with a change of personnel within the DDDA & the realisation that their new river front along north wall quay is really pretty poor.
If Spencer Dock as currently under construction could be erased & replaced by something similar to what is proposed here, without breaking the line of the river or quay wall, i’d be quite happy. Thats what should have happened on this site, this attempt to try & fix it is odd & belated.
Having said that, I’m not dismissing it entirely, very little detail at this stage.
