ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nope- I just had my posting threshold set to High (Bordering On Explosive) Dudgeon.
Trust DCC/JCD to tip me over the edge…
(And Hi! Nice to be missed. )
@publicrealm wrote:
Using Part 8 (“Local Authority Own Development”) procedures for the erection of controversial commercial advertising – in order to avoid scrutiny by ABP – is tantamount to an abuse of process in my view, and is open to legal challenge. This is really stretching the concept of Local Authority Own Development.
The Part 8 provisions are intended to facilitate public works. Although there is sufficient wiggle room to allow abuse, any project, other than the limited ones set out in the Regulations, must exceed €126,000 (2001 figure – not sure if its index linked) to qualify.
Dodgy.
Agreed.
Are we looking at multiple Part VIIIs?
If not, will EIA be required?
Will the cumulative nature of the 70something existing signs be taken into account?This whole thing stinks, and not for the first time.
To those unfamiliar, the Part VIII process allows for involvement by the public, but there’s no onus on the LA to address your comments/concerns and you have no right of appeal to ABP.
Am I being too charitable in thinking that the mis-‘translation’ from Irish to English in the Shinners’s sign might be deliberate?
@alonso wrote:
As for ctesiphon, you’ve always struck me as a Hattie Jacques type
You’re not too far off, at least physically.
Stick a pipe in her gob (Ooh Matron!) and we could be twins!
lostexpectation- alonso and gunter, grammar nazis? Pull the other one! (Here endeth my involvement in this particular flame war. I seem to be opening a whole nother can of worms elsewhere…)
@Smithfield Resi wrote:
Well if you had hung about you would have seen the alternative proposal that was presented at the Oral Hearing, a comprehensive renovation of the terrace and a marker in bronze of the proclaimation outside No. 16.
How is that different from what the applicant is proposing? The plaque? That could have been discussed in 10 minutes flat.
@Smithfield Resi wrote:
Patronising people who actually have a personal connection with Moore St and the Rising and who presented an viable alternative treatment of a National Monument that you couldn’t be bothered to stay and see says more about you than them. Personally I thought the developers side was the one droning on, they took up far,far more time than the appellants, but then the developers crew were paid to be there, the appellants actually care. I’m sure the Senior Counsel with dodgy interpretations of ‘curtilage’ was paid handsomely.
Personal connections should count for nought in this equation. This is a planning Oral Hearing.
I fully agree that the applicant’s team was as guilty of droning on as the 1916 brigade. I still have nightmares about attending the wedding of a daughter of the Heritage Consultant, because if this is how he talks when he’s supposed to be staying on topic…
@lostexpectation wrote:
so your still trying to tell me what i meant, you seem to have trouble catching the subtly of tone across the internet, once again- grammar nazis sticking their nose in can go elsewhere THANKS
back to architecture please
I am not trying to tell you what you meant. I am asking you to tell us what you mean. This has nothing to do with grammar (or spelling, or syntax…) and everything to do with content.
If I am guilty of anything, it is of being too attuned to subtlety of tone. Such is my burden.
You’re welcome.
Now, back to architecture.
EDIT: poukai beat me to it. And in a more even tone.
@lostexpectation wrote:
I said it, i meant it, f off out of it.
Your tone needs work. ‘thanks but’ does not mean the same thing as ‘thanks’ or even the same thing as ‘thanks, but…’ You may as well have said ‘Thanks for nothing.’
If you wanted colour photos, why didn’t you ask for them?
Perhaps if you took more than 10 seconds to compose your posts…
@lostexpectation wrote:
thanks but those pics are in b+w
In that case you should have asked Morlan to switch on his mind-reading function. :rolleyes:
Seriously, a bit of gratitude wouldn’t go amiss.
On the other hand, I was fortunate enough to witness the inspector say, after a detailed explanation of the delivery route one objector wanted kept open during construction, “Yes. I have inspected your passage.”
The Oral Hearing was only a month ago. That’s hardly a delay.
What sort of discussion did you want on the hearing? I left because got fed up hanging around listening to the 1916 brigade prattle on for two days about the significance and sensitivity of the National Monument houses on Moore Street. (One bloke started reading an entire academic journal article into the record, and when he was asked how long he would take and if he intended to read the whole thing, his reply was “But… we have five days.” :rolleyes: )
I fully accept that the site is important, but what’s their position? The various parties told us exactly the same story in a variety of ways, each excruciating in its detail, about the need for kid-gloved handling of the remaining fabric. O-o-o-o-o-kay… So, if they have reservations about the current proposal (and it wasn’t clear that they did- I think they just wanted a day out), what’s their alternative?
No suggestions? I thought not.
I’ve no idea what happened after day two. My sanity required my non-attendance.
Carlton thread- https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=85
@magwea wrote:
B
C
Is B the side wall of Molloy’s pub on Talbot Street?
And C the back of Lincoln Place in Trinity? (I guessed it on the last page, but I think you missed it.)
That leaves only A from your second post…
The two almost parallel ranges are throwing me slightly on the other Trinity one- is it beside Aras An Phiarsaigh on Pearse Street / behind Botany Bay? Then again, the white bit at the end looks like the Engineering building at the Westland Row end… (notjim- help!)
I think the cow is in that square beside the Jervis Centre- drawing a blank on the name just now (brain gone to mush from too much Eurovision- poor Portugal *sob*).
D is the Dental Hospital in TCD.
A looks like Mountjoy Women’s Prison, but that’s a guess.
Is C also in Trinity? Looks very familiar.
B- don’t know. Docklands? Nice bit of yellow brick. Or is it red? And what type of pointing is it? Hmmm… 😉
A colleague who is too modest to reply himself has suggested that E is the chapel in Grangegorman. Seems like a strong candidate to me.
Is the first (unlettered) one Fitzwilliam Tennis Club? In which case it’s Sam Stephenson, if I remember correctly.
D is on Meeting House Square, I think- ODT’s School of Photography?
The path in E looks like Lutyens’s War Memorial at Islandbridge, though I can’t place the bellcote.
No idea on F. (I knew A and C, though!)
@Rusty Cogs wrote:
There just parking her up down there at the moment
Presumably every lockhard in the city is giving advice? “G’wan missus, yid get a bleedin’ bus in there!’ “I’ll look after it for ya.”
@Peter Fitz wrote:
think it was supposed to be four lanes, two traffic lanes, two bus, no ?
@Peter Fitz wrote:
expected to arrive May 9th, 4 traffic lanes, two pedestrian.
🙁
I was really just commenting on the attitude of AA Roadwatch. They ask drivers to be nice to cyclists when it’s windy, and Nicola Hudson and Conor Faughnan even cycle themselves, but sometimes the institutional ignorance still bubbles to the surface…
This used to be my playground
This used to be our pride and joy
This used to be the place we ran to
That no one in the world could dare destroy🙂
