admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
From today’s IT
Should union be at liberty to pull down Hall?
To be, or not to be: that is the stark question hanging over Dublin’s iconic Liberty Hall, writes Frank McDonald , Environment Editor.
LIBERTY Hall occupies a special place in the consciousness of Dublin. Love it or loathe it, the city’s first “skyscraper” was – and still is – the icon of an earlier era, when Dublin was emerging from the pervasive gloom of the 1950s into a period of relative prosperity and hope for the future.
More than four decades after it was officially opened as the proud new headquarters of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, and despite all the talk and plans to build higher elsewhere, it retains its status as the tallest building in Dublin with 17 storeys that rise to a height of 60 metres (198 feet).
While it was being built in the early 1960s, Dubliners watched with a mixture of awe and excitement as the reinforced concrete structure rose up from Eden Quay. And when it was finally finished in 1965, Liberty Hall was hailed as a “crystal tower” and an “inspiring monument” for Irish trade unionism.
Some commentators were bowled over. “Under the changing skies of our climate – at night lighted up, or in the daytime – it always looks handsome,” said a gushing review in the Irish Builder. “When seen against a blue sky with white clouds sailing over, it has a gossamer quality as charming as a Japanese print scene.”
It lost that quality after a bomb exploded outside the building in 1972. Windows were given a reflective shatterproof coating that took away the transparency it once had while security considerations led to the closure of its observation deck. Mosaic cladding on the edge of each floor also fell into decay and has since disappeared.
Last October, after SIPTU announced that the demolition and replacement of Liberty Hall was being seriously considered, nearly 2,000 people from many parts of Ireland availed of the Architecture Foundation’s Open House weekend to see its interior for themselves and enjoy views of Dublin from the penthouse level.
Antoinette O’Neill, co-ordinator of Open House, said many visitors were shocked by the idea that the city’s tallest building could be lost. “What the huge turnout showed, I think, is that people see Liberty Hall not just as SIPTU’s headquarters, but also as something that belongs to them. So there is this sense of public ownership.”
Desmond Rea O’Kelly, the structural engineer-architect who designed it, was quite overwhelmed by the response: “They were so enthusiastic that I got the impression they were going to get banners and have a protest march there and then.” And naturally, he is upset by the proposal to demolish his magnum opus.
“We all have our vanities, which are hard to suppress,” he said. “One of the other things I also regret very much is that OisÃn Kelly’s great sculpture of the young man and the older man admiring their work was never put up outside Liberty Hall.” Ironically, they ended up outside the few-feet-higher Cork County Hall.
Now aged 83, O’Kelly revealed that his inspiration for Liberty Hall was Frank Lloyd Wright’s headquarters for Johnson Wax in Wisconsin.
But he denied that the wavy roof of his tower, with its striped undercroft, was a conscious deference to Busáras. As for its fate, he simply said: “Would they kindly leave it alone till I’m gone.”
For SIPTU, however, it is little more than jaded, dysfunctional office space. The real problem is that its service core – lifts, stairs, toilets, etc – occupies 40 per cent of the 289sq m (3,111sq ft) floorplate at each level, leaving room for relatively pokey offices around the outer edges laid out along quadrangular corridors.
Thus, re-cladding the tower would not solve the “gross-to-net” floor ratio problem. And since the union has resolved to remain on its historic site, all sorts of alternative options – such as converting the building to residential use, with perhaps two L-shaped apartments per floor – have been ruled out of consideration.
SIPTU may be sentimental about the site, but it clearly has no affection for what stands there. After all, it demolished the original Liberty Hall, which had been restored after being shelled during the 1916 Rising, to make way for the present building; it was from there that the rebels formed up to march to the GPO.
Now, the union is planning to demolish its successor. Joe O’Flynn, its Cork-born general secretary, conceded that the 17-storey tower has an iconic status. “Huge consideration was given to this and, as a national organisation, we have a huge responsibility to ensure that the heritage of the site is respected.”
He stressed that SIPTU had no intention of building an eight-storey “square box” simply to maximise the value of this prime city centre site. The development of offices and other facilities which the union had in mind would include a new tower that “should be as elegant as Liberty Hall and become as iconic in time”.
SIPTU needs about 5,000sq m (53,820sq ft) of offices, according to Joe O’Flynn. However, to make the project viable, it would include a further 4,000sq m (43,050sq ft) for commercial letting, as well as space for the union’s college and a hall to replace the existing one, which was renovated only a few years ago.
But any new tower on the site would obviously be more substantial than the existing building. If it is to have a floorplate of, say, 600sq m (6,458sq ft), it would inevitably need to be taller to achieve an appropriate “slenderness ratio”. At a minimum, therefore, it would rise to 87.5 metres – nearly 50 per cent higher.
A design brief for an architectural competition to find such a replacement is now being finalised, and the intention is to advertise it in the EU’s Official Journal. From the expressions of interest, a SIPTU-dominated jury would select a shortlist of entrants for interview and, finally, an architect would be chosen.
Veteran Dublin architect Brian Hogan, who is advising the union, described Liberty Hall as a more high-profile case of older office blocks becoming obsolete: “They have a shorter and shorter lifespan these days. I’ve seen buildings I’ve worked on myself being demolished, but I don’t have strong sentimental views.”
When Liberty Hall was designed in 1958, the ITGWU was organised in small branches for which cellular office space was quite adequate; it was not the corporate body that SIPTU has become. “The original building was replaced in the 1960s, but time has moved on and we need to meet the requirements of the age.”
It will be a matter for Dublin City Council’s planners to decide, or perhaps even the councillors themselves. With the much less prominent Bank of Ireland in Baggot Street in the process of being made a protected structure, the fate of Liberty Hall needs careful consideration and much more public debate.
© 2007 The Irish Times
Interim dilaps cases going to the High Court are extremely rare but the CCC notice no doubt provided prima facia evidence of the lease breach. In this regard service of a S59 notice by CCC would make forfeiture proceedings a lot easier once the real prospect of financial exposure on the part of the lessor could be proven.
It is pretty standard stuff but places the emphasis on expiration of the term. You would want to look for the ability of the landlord to enter the premises to effect repairs or serve an interim schedule of dilapidations. You are also reliant on the owner spending money on legals for something that will have no material impact in the short term. Service of a S59 notice may galvanise the superior interest owner who may in 2017 be able to un-encumber the reversionary interest and to keep options open that entity may be well advised to seek enforcement of the (fairly loose) repairing covenent to maximise the building value as with all ground leases the real value is the actual building which must be renewed at Open Market Rental Value unlike residential interests. I wouldn’t fancy the dilaps liability on that building in 10 years it could be a seven or even eight figure sum.
Why then is it that these custodians of our heritage have not, in almost 90 years, exercised their right under the sub-lease & implemented a schedule of dilapidations on their tenants to safeguard & maintain the asset
Have you seen the agreement? It is possible that it makes provision for a schedule of terminal dilapidations at the end of the term but the ability to serve an interim schedule of dilapidations at any time on a 99 year lease would be rare. This would also require the landlord to take action on an interest that will probably deliver little more than a peppercorn. If you feel that this situation requires resolution your best route is probably through Section 58 of the Planning and Development Act (2000) as outlined below:
58.—(1) Each owner and each occupier shall, to the extent consistent with the rights and obligations arising out of their respective interests in a protected structure or a proposed protected structure, ensure that the structure, or any element of it which contributes to its special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest, is not endangered.
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to a proposed protected structure arises at the time the owner or occupier is notified, under section 55 or under Part II, of the proposal to add the structure to the record of protected structures.
(3) Neither of the following shall be considered to be a breach of the duty imposed on each owner and each occupier under this section—
(a) development in respect of which permission under section 34 has been granted;
(b) development consisting only of works of a type which, in a declaration issued under section 57(3) to that owner or occupier, a planning authority has declared would not materially affect the character of the protected structure or any element, referred to in subsection (1) of this section, of that structure.
(4) Any person who, without lawful authority, causes damage to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure shall be guilty of an offence.(5) Without prejudice to any other defence that may be available, it shall be a good defence in any proceedings for an offence under subsection (4) to prove that the damage to the structure resulted from works which were—
(a) urgently required in order to secure the preservation of the structure or any part of it,
(b) undertaken in good faith solely for the purpose of temporarily safeguarding the structure, and
(c) unlikely to permanently alter the structure or any element of it referred to in subsection (1).http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html
59.—(1) Where, in the opinion of the planning authority, it is necessary to do so in order to prevent a protected structure situated within its functional area from becoming or continuing to be endangered, the authority shall serve on each person who is the owner or occupier of the protected structure a notice—
(a) specifying the works which the planning authority considers necessary in order to prevent the protected structure from becoming or continuing to be endangered, and
(b) requiring the person on whom the notice is being served to carry out those works within a specified period of not less than 8 weeks from the date the notice comes into effect under section 62.
(2) After serving notice under subsection (1) on a person, a planning authority may—(a) at its discretion, assist the person in carrying out the works required under the notice, and
(b) provide such assistance in any form it considers appropriate, including advice, financial aid, materials, equipment and the services of the authority’s staff.
(3) Any person on whom a notice under subsection (1) has been served may, within 4 weeks from the date of service of the notice, make written representations to the planning authority concerning—(a) the terms of the notice,
(b) the provision of assistance under subsection (2), and
(c) any other material considerations.
(4) After considering any representations made under subsection (3), the planning authority may confirm, amend or revoke the notice, and shall notify the person who made the representations of its decision.(5) Particulars of a notice served under this section shall be entered in the register.
You would need to talk to an agent or two involved in office development land to gain their opinions; for what its worth my opinion is that depending on the building there may be a risk with a very small number of buildings that are considered iconic by either the population or academics; whilst in many other cases the replacement of the existing cladding or demolition of the existing building may constitute a planning gain by the local authority and be rewarded by the addition of some additional floors by way of new penthouse floors or higher quantum on an adjoining plot if part of a larger scheme and if demolished a larger building either in height, bulk or both.
Paul
There are now 3 Liberty Hall threads all spelled exactly the same does the software not have some way of preventing this?
The Mailbox is an interesting example although it never fully recovered from the severence of the elevated inner ring route leaving it unresolved commercially.
Dublin examples; Goldsmith House on Pearse Street or The Department of Justice on the Green could be worth a look but this is really only in its infancy here as a common practice unlike the UK where asset management paid for by tenant via the service charge is the norm.
It would give out of town malls and office campuses an advantage over the City Centre which is why it shouldn’t happen anytime soon. Regulating traffic flows away from the very core would give public transport an advantage but would not constitute yet another stealth tax or a major disincentive to using the City Centre.
Devin’s point re the Luas works is also very relevant as unless some major access cuts are made the next round of Luas works could have catastrophic impacts on the operation of the City bus network; any opinions on the revised arrangements on Stephens Green?
Interesting article and for the first time a daylight image of the scheme in relation to the quays. A little full on from Michael Smith but I guess as a private individual he can say what he likes once it isn’t slanderous. It was also Bono he went for and not a private individual which would have made it a million times worse; you would never hear An Taisce, IGS or myself write or say such things but Michael Smith as a magazine owner knows which buttons to press to gain attention. I furter don’t think that the An Taisce line of it being fine in the docklands would have got a half page spread in the sindo. I still further don’t believe that any planners will consider an individual submission when considering that from a proscribed body or DC for that matter.
Roches Stores shift almost complete
Friday, 16 March 2007 07:42
British store chain Debenhams has said total sales in the six months to March 3 increased by 5.8% compared with the same period last year.But, in a trading statement, the company said underlying sales, which strip out the effect of new stores, were down 4.5% in its UK retail business.
Margins were also reduced because of the impact of integrating the Roches Stores it bought last year and lower clothes sales before Christmas.
The company said seven of the nine Roches Stores had been converted to the Debenhams format and the other two would be completed in the next few months. It said trading at the stores was in line with expectations.
Any news on the existing Debenhams store in the Jervis Centre?
I agree that the arrangement of the cosmetics hall could do with some serious further consideration; what is proposed if the image is anything to go by appears to be a bog standard Boots style fit out with all the usual suspects such as Lancome etc given standard format tables to be festooned with product and cardboard cut outs.
It would be entirely appropriate for the Edwardian display stand to be resurected and replica cabinets built to give the shop a sense that it is different to its architecturally more generic rivals.
In relation to the escalators there has been a growing trend in old shops to reconfigure escalators from an entrance to back wall alignment to a horizontal alignment from the doors. The effect of which is to take the focus away from the fitting to the people using it which can be further accentuated by using glass panels between the handrail and stairs.
A further recent development has been the development of perspex holding cells for shoplifters; personally I would favour a link to any plasma screens in the front windows to give celebrity status to such offenders.
Holding CellsThat Hendrons water tower must have a record for the most phone antenae per square metre in the city; it would make a very interesting loft apartment scheme.
The Bus Eirreann facility Broadstone Station really would be better served by a relocation to a purpose built facility on the M50 like Dublin Bus did with the relocation of Ringsend Garage to Horizon Logisitics park. What to do with the building is the million dollar question.
For sure 1920’s is very much the hot style at the moment in major retail and and high end offices. Personally I am not particularly attracted to such a quantity of architectural glazing in what is such an opulent building. No doubt Douglas Wallace have done a fine job over the years supervising the restoration of the interior into one of the finest retail spaces in the city. But I feel that this entrance is more ILAC than Selfridges for Clery’s something opulent in Bronze whilst a little brash would have aged better.
The End of Tall Buildings.
We are convinced that the age of skyscrapers is at an end. It must now be considered an experimental building typology that has failed. We predict that no new megatowers will be built, and existing ones are destined to be dismantled. By James Howard Kunstler and Nikos A. Salingaros.(This article first appeared on PLANetizen at on September 17, 2001)
Our world has changed dramatically.
Watching video of the burning twin towers of the World Trade Center in the few minutes before they both collapsed, we were struck by what appeared to be the whole history of the skyscraper captured in vignette. In the blocks east and south of the World Trade Center stood the earlier skyscrapers of the 20th century, including some of the most notable prototypes of that epoch. Virtually all of these pre-1930 ultra-tall buildings thrust skyward with towers, turrets, and needles, each singular in its design, as though reaching up to some great spiritual goal as yet unattained. And there, in contrast stood the two flaming towers of the World Trade Center, with their flat roofs signifying the exhaustion of that century-long aspiration to reach into the heavens, their failure made even more emphatic in the redundancy of their banal twin-ness. Then they and everything inside them imploded into vapor and dust, including several thousand New Yorkers whose bodies will likely never be found.The United States was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001. With the recent tragedies comes a sobering reassessment of America’s (and the World’s) infatuation with skyscrapers. We feel very strongly that the disaster should not only be blamed on the terrorist action, but that this horrible event exposes an underlying malaise with the built environment.
We are convinced that the age of skyscrapers is at an end. It must now be considered an experimental building typology that has failed. Who will ever again feel safe and comfortable working 110 storeys above the ground? Or sixty storeys? Or even twenty-seven? We predict that no new megatowers will be built, and existing ones are destined to be dismantled. This will lead to a radical transformation of city centers — which, however, would be an immensely positive step towards improving the quality of urban life. The only megatowers left standing a century hence may be in those third-world countries who so avidly imported the bric-a-brac of the industrialized world without realizing the damage they were inflicting on their cities. This essay looks at criticisms of tall buildings, while offering some practical solutions.
Tall buildings generate urban pathologies.
In a paper entitled “Theory of the Urban Web ” published in the Journal of Urban Design (Volume 3, 1998, pages 53-71), Salingaros outlined structural principles for urban form. The processes that generate the urban web involve nodes, connections, and the principles of hierarchy. Among the theoretical results derived were multiple connectivity — in which a city needs to have alternative connections in order to stay healthy — and the avoidance of over concentration of nodes. When the second pathology occurs, such as in segregated use zoning, and in monofunctional megatowers, it kills the city by creating a mathematical singularity (where one or more quantities become extremely large or infinite). Many pathologies of contemporary cities are traced to ideas of early modernist planning that appeared in a totally unrealistic context in the 1920s. We quote from that paper (page 62):
“Without a sufficient density and variety of nodes, functional paths (as opposed to unused ones that are purely decorative) can never form. Here we come up against the segregation and concentration of functions that has destroyed the urban web in our times. There are simply not enough different types of nodes in any homogeneous urban region to form a web. Even where possibilities exist, the connections are usually blocked off by misguided zoning laws. Distinct types of elements, such as residential, commercial and natural, must intertwine to catalyze the connective process. Dysfunctional cities concentrate nodes of the same type, whereas functional cities concentrate coupled pairs of contrasting nodes”.
In all cases and to some degree, high-rise buildings deform the quality, the function, and the long-term health of urbanism in general by overloading the infrastructure and the public realm of the streets that contain them. Leon Krier has referred to this as “urban hypertrophy”, making the additional point that overloading any given urban center tends to prevent the organic development of new healthy, mixed urban fabric anywhere beyond the center. (Leon Krier, Houses, Palaces, Cities, St. Martin’s Press, 1984). Bear in mind, too, that some of the sturdiest and even aesthetically pleasing tall buildings of the early 20th century are only now approaching the end of their so-called “design life”. What is their destiny?The worst offender in this urban destruction is the monofunctional megatower. Paradoxically, it has become an icon of modernity and progress — how can images from the 1920s be considered modern? Indoctrination at its most subversive has successfully identified the glass and steel boxes of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe with a phony “efficiency”. Voices raised against the skyscraper include that of the architect and urbanist Constantine Doxiades (documented by Peter Blake in Form Follow Fiasco, 1974, page 82):
“My greatest crime was the construction of high-rise buildings. The most successful cities of the past were those where people and buildings were in a certain balance with nature. But high-rise buildings work against nature, or, in modern terms, against the environment. High-rise buildings work against man himself, because they isolate him from others, and this isolation is an important factor in the rising crime rate. Children suffer even more because they lose their direct contacts with nature, and with other children. High-rise buildings work against society because they prevent the units of social importance — the family … the neighborhood, etc. — from functioning as naturally and as normally as before. High-rise buildings work against networks of transportation, communication, and of utilities, since they lead to higher densities, to overloaded roads, to more extensive water supply systems — and, more importantly, because they form vertical networks which create many additional problems — crime being just one of them.”
Peter Blake condemned megatowers in Form Follows Fiasco on several points. One was the disastrous wind shear that their surfaces created; the other was fires that had burned out of control in two skyscrapers in Latin America. He warned the world that (page 150):
“The first alternative to Modern Dogma should obviously be a moratorium on high-rise construction. It is outrageous that towers more than a hundred stories high are being built at a time when no honest engineer and no honest architect, anywhere on earth, can say for certain what these structures will do to the environment — in terms of monumental congestion of services (including roads and mass-transit lines), in terms of wind currents at sidewalk level, in terms of surrounding water tables, in terms of fire hazards, in terms of various sorts of interior traumata, in terms of despoiling the neighborhoods, in terms of visually polluting the skylines of our cities, and in terms of endangering the lives of those within or without, through conceivable structural and related failures”.
We just saw two of the tallest buildings in the world burn and implode so that all their construction material (and contents — furniture plus people) was particulated and the residue compressed into the space of the underground parking garage. All of this happened on the order of minutes. Did no-one read Blake’s warnings? Certainly many people did, but the persuasive force of the modernist architectural image of slick, shiny towers going all the way back to Le Corbusier’s first drawings in the 1920s was more seductive than practical realities and risks.As of September 11, 2001 we cannot afford to be so complacent — or so easily entranced by the totems of “modernity”. Every would-be terrorist who is now a child will grow up and be instructed by those surreal, riveting images of the two airplanes crashing into the World Trade Towers.
A new urban life, and alternatives to megatowers.
The New Urbanism has some (though by no means all) solutions that could reintroduce life into formerly dead urban environments. These ideas go back to several authors, including Christopher Alexander. In his book A Pattern Language (1977) Alexander proposed with his co-authors 253 ‘patterns’ that describe how to satisfy human needs in the built environment, from the scale of a city, down to the scale of detailed construction in a room. Two of those patterns are relevant to our discussion:
Pattern 21: FOUR-STORY LIMIT. “There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy. Therefore, in any urban area, no matter how dense, keep the majority of buildings four stories high or less. It is possible that certain buildings should exceed this limit, but they should never be buildings for human habitation”.Pattern 62: HIGH PLACES. “The instinct to climb up to some high place, from which you can look down and survey your world, seems to be a fundamental human instinct. Therefore, build occasional high places as landmarks throughout the city. They can be a natural part of the topography, or towers, or part of the roofs of the highest local building — but, in any case, they should include a physical climb.”
We agree that the first of these ‘patterns’ might appear utopian and irrelevant to the industrialized world. However, our purpose is to reexamine the most basic aspects of urbanism, and in particular to look at those factors that have been destroyed by the megalomania of architects and the speculative greed of builders.
A city requires high buildings, but not all of them should be high, and they should certainly be of mixed use.
It is not possible to state with any certainty exactly what the optimum height of buildings ought to be, since buildings greater than ten storeys are an experimental product of industrial technology — itself an experiment for which the results are not yet in. We do know that the center cities of Paris, London and Rome achieved excellent density and variety at under ten storeys, and have continued to thrive without succumbing to the extreme hypertrophy characteristic in American urbanism.
Within the upper limits of proven traditional type, it might be prudent to confine future constructions to, perhaps, ten-story office buildings, whose four bottom storeys are strictly residential. Coexisting with the first type might be five-storey residential buildings with a commercial ground floor devoted to retail and restaurants. Both of these are a good compromise between traditional typologies, the ideal solutions proposed by Alexander, and the unfortunate, inhuman, alienating extant urbanisms that have been produced by modernist planning.
One of the most pressing commercial questions after the terrorist devastation of lower Manhattan is: where is the financial world going to find several million square feet of office space? The answer is right in front of our noses. Move into and renovate the numerous depressed areas just a few subway stops away. With the proper mixed zoning legislation that needs to protect residents and guarantee a thriving street life, this could mark the rejuvenation of parts of the city that for years have had the same bombed-out appearance as ‘ground zero’ of the Twin Towers has now (except that the slums are not shown on the evening news).
President Bill Clinton has set a shining example by moving his offices into Harlem.
Should the Twin Towers be rebuilt as a symbol of the defiance of the American people, as some sentimentalists have proposed in the aftermath of their collapse? We think not. If nothing else, it would be a disservice to humanity to rebuild proven deathtraps. Obsessively returning to the models of yesterday’s tomorrow would refute mankind’s past architectural achievements — and, curiously, would be a frightening parallel to the dogmatism that led the terrorists to do their mission.
It’s the fault of the architects.
Why are the above solutions, all available for decades now, not implemented to regenerate our cities? Several factors, including zoning, commercial speculation, and the tax structure created a favorable situation for erecting megatowers. That era is now over. We conclude with a broad indictment of the architectural and building professions as responsible for destroying our cities, and for putting people at risk in firetraps from which they can never be evacuated in time. From Bernard Rudofsky in Streets for People (1969), page 339:
“Unlike physicians, today’s architects are not concerned with the general welfare; they are untroubled by scruples about strangling the cities and the misery that this entails. Architects never felt the urge to establish ethical precepts for the performance of their profession, as did the medical fraternity. No equivalent of the Hippocratic oath exists for them. Hippocrates’ promise that ‘the regiment I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients according to my ability and judgement, and not for their hurt or for any wrong’ has no counterpart in their book. Criticism within the profession — the only conceivable way to spread a sense of responsibility among its members — is tabooed by their own codified standards of practice. To bolster their ego, architects hold their own beauty contests, award each other prizes, decorate each other with gold medals, and make light of the damning fact that they do not amount to any moral force in this country”.
Charles, the Prince of Wales spoke out courageously against megatowers, and was consequently accused by architects and the media as being ‘against progress’. The reaction was so severe that for a while his succession to the throne was in question. It is worth recalling his remarks, which, through his choice of words, now seem eerily prophetic. In criticizing the then-unbuilt Canary Wharf tower in London, Charles said (A Vision of Britain, 1989, page 55):
“What hope for London now? Cesar Pelli’s tower may become the tomb of modernistic dogma. The tragedy is that it will cast its shadow over generations of Londoners who have suffered enough from towers of architectural arrogance”.
Charles’s remarks were only one decade too early.James Howard Kunstler is the author of the two books The Geography of Nowhere, and Home from Nowhere. His next book, The City in Mind: Notes on the Urban Condition will be published by Free Press (Simon and Schuster) in January. He lives in Saratoga Springs, New York State. Kunstler@aol.com
Dr. Nikos A. Salingaros is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas at San Antonio, and is the author of numerous scientific articles. A collaborator of Christopher Alexander, he is recognized as one of the leading theorists of architecture and urbanism today. salingar@sphere.math.utsa.edu
This paper has had quite an impact, and has been mentioned several times in the press. See commentary .
salingaros’s papers on architecture
You have to wonder what the County manager is doing with this; he can refuse to ratify these rezonings if he considers them to be contrary to the proper planning of the county. I hope that Roche refuses to ratify the plan as is his right if he sees fit as these types of development plan are becoming an all to common occurance lately and only serve to undermine already fragile public confidence in the planning system.
It is a great credit to them that they put the building ahead of the budget on this one; I’m sure there would have been a great temptation to cut corners to open in time for the Ryder Cup but to their credit they stuck with it.
I am sure that corporate Dublin will react favourably to this restoration and that they will enjoy the rewards of completing a once in a century upgrade.
yeah saw this too, looking forward to seeing it open again … apparently when questioned on budget & timeframe the project manager retorted with ‘it costs what it costs’ & ‘it takes as long as it takes’.
Pedestrianising a huge chunk of our city centre doesnt make sense when a car is the only decent way (dont tell me buses) to get around People are always gonna drive, for shopping etc. its the people who are driving to work you have to win over onto public transport
I disagree that the car is a decent way to get around Dublin given the congestion that blocks smooth passage to the centre; if you are lucky enough to live beside a transport corridotr such as DART, LUAS or a QBC public transport is far superior.
Furthermore whilst Dublin could be considered a low density sprawl in the mid 1980’s a lot of progress has been made with infill apartment & office development in the intervening 20 years in all directions for 2 to 3 miles out. This intensification of land use continues at an encouraging pace but a lot more needs to be done and making the centre an attractive destination is an important step in this process.
For food shopping people are always going to drive but such journeys rarely involve the city centre and the key to a better city is to have people doing comparison shopping for items such as clothes, books etc using public transport to access the city centre. Part of this process is to make the bus/luas systems as efficient as possible and restricting three central streets to public transport use only is a good step in that direction.
