alonso

jesus christ, there’s a million posts on this site bemoaning the lack of decent public spaces in the city and now someone proposes one slap bang in the centre of Dublin off our main thorughfare and it’s as if they’d killed the feckin rebels themselves. What do you’s want – another railed off garden? another windswept yard at the back of a converted church where no one goes? Who said O C St Upr needed a sense of enclosure? Why? Why not give it a sense of airiness and connectivity to the west and the new and old main shopping thoroughfares at this new location? As for Dublin Bus et al, jaysus! That block is a fucking mess now, and the only structures worth retaining are being retained

Listen, we all know the 12 storey park and funicular rail nonsense will be conditioned out so put that aside. This looks bloody good in my opinion and we can finally get on with developing the damn street.

gunter’s edinburgh pic. You left out the . in .jpg:)

The lecture below should be of general interest to all involved in the planning and design fields. Spread the word. I believe there’s still plenty of bike parking available in Trinity 😉
http://www.dublincycling.ie

Listen joan, the “something new” fits snugly into the “conservative fudge to keep the locals and developers equally unhappy” file right there with the North Lotts. No landmarks, no variety, just monoaltitudinal (hey a new word – you saw it here first – hands off Frank McD) architectural vomit. The environmental elements of this development are most most welcome. In fact it’s a massive step forward by all (gushing, seemingly bought) accounts but the aesthetics are truly muck.

And we were talking mainly about Ballsbridge not Sandymount, which is also a beautiful route out of the City with THAT view across it’s own and Merrion strands.

Back to Ballsbridge, I forgot to mention Herbert Park. “messy scatter” me hole.

I guess we should be grateful that Mansfield never bothered with such eco-concerns. Mr Spring would have really enjoyed the South West Inner City, the Long Mile Road, Naas Road, and the Red Cow roundabout. To paraphrase someone here a long time ago; His eyes would’ve jumped out and puked down their own sockets!!!

This is an interesting one alright. Their protection may compromise the ability to develop the area in the future (in theory anyway) but their demolition would remove the key point of orientation for the city. I’m not old enough to remember a Dublin pre-chimneys and find it impossible to imagine the view without them (a job for Missarchi?)

I think they are spectacular in their brutality which is compounded by their location. However in the long term I think their replacement by a new urban neighbourhood should be considered.

Hate to drag out the hackneyed Barca comparison but what would you prefer?

However one must always bear in mind how they can look:

Having lived on the Dublin coastline all my life I appreciate the Bay more than many and often enjoy being stuck atop a bus in traffic just to take in the view, while the drive along Strand Road is always a treat. The best I can offer is that I wouldn’t like to be the planner who has to decide on their future if and when that decision arises. In the meantime they should carry out the proposal to light them up.

@cgcsb wrote:

do the PD’s realise that Dublin is in fact not Helsinki or Copenhagen?

In what way is examining other European capitals and their redevelopment incompatible with Dublin City? Where do we learn from? Here? the great redevelopment of our own coastal areas?

If this proposal goes ahead, what would’ve been the point of the expensive port tunnel? would it take on a new role? maybe become another clogged up artirial route into the city for private cars?

Oh I dunno use your imagination. The best damn bus priority in Ireland? Perhaps a LUAS powered from beneath, cycle tracks – who knows? The whole East Wall area could be radically reimagined if the Port fecked off. Although you are correct to bring it up. Phase 1 of the Eastern bypass springs to mind

Beside such a developement opportunity presented itself to DCC before. The redevolpement of Georges and Spencer docks were waisted. Now we have low rise low density areas that do little to combat urban spawl.

I’m fairly certain that the planners and architects who will be guiding the redevelopment of the Port will be different people to those that have been senior officials overseeing this for the past 2 decades. Councils change, and this proposal is decades away possibly

Grand canal dock has proved a success however in that it is satisfactory in it’s density. I can’t imagine that developing the rest of the docks would be a worthwhile excersise. The DDDA would probably start building semi-d’s just to irritate the public and then proceed to claim more land from the sea and use it for “an exciting new high density developement”. We’ve heard this song before.

Yeh maybe we should develop the rest of Leinster instead. That’s way better and more worthwhile.

Time to change the record!

Yes. Yes it is. Let’s take the “jaysus we can’t be doin that” record off and put on the “let’s build modern Ireland’s first truly great urban place”. I like the second one. If you let the last song play there’s a hidden track which tells you how we’ll do it…

Anyway before any of this proceeds the complex legalities of ownership of the port must be addressed. Apparently oil companies and Dublin Port and a few private companies all own bits and pieces or have 999 year leases n stuff. It will be at least 50 years before the entire process of decommissioning, decontamination, movement, and redevelopment is finished. Better start soon so…

Can I post date this post to the 15th May when I can say it’s been put back to the 28th July?

dammit this is a development that I’m really interested in

decision on Arnott’s due today?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/mhojcweyqloj/

Yeh I’d a feeling it was dodgy journalism as well. Seems it most definitely was. Now where’s ctesiphon with a trademark biting barb about the Metro and crayons when you need him?

The proposal was always for two sizes- large ones to distract drivers and smaller ones to block pedestrians.

Were they the stated aims?:)