ctesiphon

Stil no word on this, fyi, and the decision was due yesterday- the ABP website still lists 30th January as the date, i.e. it hasn’t been changed as it was on January 17th, so I wonder if this means we should expect something shortly.

Has anyone else heard anything? hutton? newgrange?

@alonso wrote:

I don’t know Will, and it;s been well over a year since I last looked at it. If you check DCC’s website the EIS should be there. Even the non-technical summary should give an explanation.

1) Developer doesn’t want to sink it.
2) Developer commissions an EIS as part of the application.
3) EIS says that there will be ‘technical difficulties’ sinking the pitch.
4) ctesiphon professes himself shocked – shocked! – by the fact that an EIS tells a developer what he wants to hear.

The columns are pants, and I give it very little time before… Oh what am I saying- those letters are probably half gone already. And the nooks presumably already smell of piss. Since when were re-entrant corners on city buildings anything other than magnets for dodgy antics?

Otherwise, looks pretty good. (Though they do say that if a chubby person wants to look slim they should just hang around with a bunch of fatties.)

@GrahamH wrote:

Just on this building at the junction of Marlborough Street as mentioned in another thread, it really is a shame what a decrepit state it is in:

Something worth noting- I spotted recently that this building has a corrugated roof.

(Thanks tomk for reviving the thread- I couldn’t find it a while ago to post this fragment of info.)

@StephenC wrote:

Are there apartments on the upper levels.

There are apts on the upper levels facing outwards, certainly, but I’m not sure about the upper level windows facing into the arcade- perhaps they’re related to the outward apts, though the plan seems too deep in each range for that.

Also, on the subject of the west side: I thought the glazed corner building at Stephen Street was supposed to provide public access to the Castle. Am I misremembering? Or did the developers change their minds?

There was an article in last Sunday’s Observer about new houses and extensions that featured a rooftop family apartment. (Article here: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/architecture/story/0,,2239834,00.html) The pictures aren’t attached to the online version, but they’re included with an older NY Times article on the same house: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/garden/08FAMrogers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&adxnnlx=1194735997-HaMmLGBeZ7SRBzX58Zmeaw

I’m not sure I’d agree with Stephen Bayley that the work was done ‘Without compromise to a handsome structure’- judge for yourself.

Oh, he’s the son of Richard Rogers. Then it must be okay.

@notjim wrote:

TCD are being better about Pearse Street now, there is plans for another entrance on the street and the new Science Gallery, open 2 Feb will be a big asset.

Off topic (apologies), but do you know the details of the science festival thingy in Trinity soon, notjim? I presume it’s to coincide with the new gallery? I have a friend in NZ who will be in town then and she was asking if I knew anything.

PM me if you don’t want to further derail here, or just a URL would be great, thanks.

The forthcoming Metro works will ruin the public realm at this location for a considerable time, but they have one advantage- they will likely act as a spur to some businesses to pack up and go elsewhere. The problem then just becomes making sure they don’t come back. 😉

But seriously- Metro, while necessary, is going to turn large stretches of OCS into a building site for some time, and that second busient pavement in Dublin (I thought it was the busiest?) will probably be considerably narrowed- like trying to fit the Nile through a biro.

1)
@noel o’gara wrote:

Blisterman seems to be the only person in this news group with an open mind. The rest of you are all control freaks, I mean controlling other people’s ideas and lands.

If we were controlling your ideas, would we really be putting such nonsensical dross into your gob?

Word of advice: don’t mistake lack of control over your own ideas as proof that others have taken charge of them.

2)
@alonso wrote:

Ah yes that;s it. To be a good planner, you must first be a landowner.

That was my first thought. But thankfully Noel has spoken out of both sides of his mouth (not for the first time- see point 3 [below]), giving us this dilly of a pickle to resolve. Ooh, I do love puzzles!!! And what did he say to contradict himself?

@noel o’gara wrote:

Are architects and planners the owners of the land of Ireland or the land owners?

Sorry lads its the owner who should decide what and where he builds with his own money, not a dreamer or landless expert who knows better. [my emphasis]

3)
Anyway, Noel, I have a question for you. It’s one question, and I shall put it very simply, so please do your best to answer it in as straightforward a manner as possible:

Anyone else see a certain level of hypocrisy in embracing the concept of ground rent and rejecting planning legislation? I wonder what Michael Davitt – Mr O’Gara’s apparent spiritual advisor in matters of the land – would make of it?

I asked it before during a discussion on your patriotic interventions in the matter of Dartmouth Square, but you hadn’t yet graced us with your presence. Now, however, you don’t have the convenience of that excuse at your disposal. So- your thoughts?

Special thanks to U2 for permission to use ‘Beautiful Day’ as the film soundtrack.

I scratch your back…