ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
You might be right, but it seems that the overall layout has changed a bit too- there’s another square to the north now that wasn’t there before. Perhaps the site was added to in the interim? All in all, it’s less formal in appearance in the new incarnation, but I thought the previous square had a nice simplicity to it, unlike the 3D version of the London 2012 logo that’s proposed now. Ooh! Funkayyyyy!!!
@gunter wrote:
There is no way that this architecture does any justice to any of the these aspirations. If this was designed by three different architectural practices, why does it all look the same?
My guess is that Gehl Architects were brought in for the ground plan/movement/site analysis stuff, HKR for the ‘local knowledge’ aspect and Make for the ‘high profile name’ bit (is DCC turning into DDDA in allowing itself be seduced by starchitect factor?). Which doesn’t really answer your question.
I rather liked the previous proposal/visuals- was it Donnelly Turpin or someone like that? Floating around since ’03/’04. It had coherence (if a little flawed- the square was closed to the south, for example); this has monotony.
A gestation period like this says ‘This is the best we can get’. Saddening.
So I was walking down the street today in Chicago, looking up at the tall buildings, and before I knew what had happened I bumped into something. When I stopped to check, guess what? It was a JC Decaux Advertising Display Unit! 🙂
Bloody Decaux. Bloody tall buildings. 😀
@hutton wrote:
Anyhow fair dues to whoever it is in DCC that made the call to get rid of these 🙂
Agreed- there was something of the rising balloon (the longer you hold on, the harder it is to let go) about these kiosks. Somebody somewhere had to be a bit brave, so credit where credit is due.
@The Denouncer wrote:
Metro have printed an apology on the letters page this morning, yep it is the tower in Dubai 🙁
Unlike yesterday, when Metro printed a letter from a guy who left his sports bag on the 8:08 am Dart from Malahide.
I suppose the story was accurate, at least. 😉
@StephenC wrote:
The Council are way out of order on this one.
But at least they’ve learned that when you’re in a hole you stop digging, right? Wrong.
What gives, DCC? Removing the need to provide public conveniences? As this was part of the contract, I suppose it’s allowable, even if it’s sneaky and underhand. But reducing the number of billboards required to be removed? Doesn’t that go against a Condition attached to all the grants, requiring the removal of 100 billboards? Does this then render all the grants null and void? (Not to mention a point I made before, that a strictly legal interpretation of the Condition would require the removal of 100 billboards for each Metropole. And another point, namely that that Condition effectively linked all 120 applications as a single application, despite all protestations to the contrary by the applicant and DCC.)
I really didn’t think Conditions attached to the Grant of Planning Permission were negotiable in this way. Are they? I thought they could only be challenged by an appeal to the Board. So why not appeal? Because the Board refused all of the Metropoles and a good number of the Advertising Display Units – 75% of the total appeals, to be precise – as, I suspect, the applicant knew would happen; hence the cowboy approach since adopted.
This makes me sick. You should be ashamed of yourselves, DCC. Guardians of the city my ass.
@alonso wrote:
Now where’s ctesiphon with a trademark biting barb about the Metro and crayons when you need him?
When a man has taken the trouble to coat himself in manure, he doesn’t need me to tell him he smells.
@Praxiteles wrote:
“Oh, would that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew” .
Wishful thinking, my troubled prince.
‘And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?’
Sadly, all too often I suspect there is a belief that ‘glass = invisible’: All that is solid melts into air, right? :rolleyes:
The proposal was always for two sizes- large ones to distract drivers and smaller ones to block pedestrians. All of the ones refused by the Board were for the large ones; all the grants were for the smaller ones.
But don’t forget, over 70 were granted by the City Council and not appealed- this includes boards of both sizes. So we’re getting some of both.
@StephenC wrote:
Snob
You’re not really…?!? 😮 It’s a rag. I mean, if you told me the sole purpose of that paper was to litter Luas stops I could well believe it. It’s news designed for people who aren’t awake yet.
If that makes me a snob, then consider me proud to be branded thus.
Yes- I was a bit premature.
5 have been granted, all in the Henry Street-Liffey Street area, and all contrary to the recommendations of the Inspector.
So that’s 17 refused, 5 passed.
FYI, my brother sent me a cameraphone photo the other day of what appears to be one of these signs being installed at Whitehall Cross.
@newgrange wrote:
even one of these things stopped is a good result.
Well if one refusal is a good result, what would you call a total refusal of all cases?
Because I think that’s what has happened.
I still can’t quite believe it- somebody pinch me! 😀
Another appellant I know rang the Board today after hearing the earlier news- he was told they should all be up by Monday. Apparently the man from ABP was a bit surprised that one had crept out already.
One result is in! I’ve just heard that the pole on North Strand near the blind shop has been refused.
I’m off to check the rest.
EDIT: No new details on the ABP site yet. (I heard about the North Strand one from one of the appellants.)
