ctesiphon

Great work again, Graham.

One quick correction: It’s South Great George’s Street rather than North GGS.

There was a competition around 1999 or so for a new headquarters for the Dept of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & the Islands (AHGI, not AGHI as it is on the HP website) on the site. More here.

@Emma Dalton wrote:

True innovation in the design of urban space did not begin to happen until the latter past of the twentieth century,

Was Mr McGuinne responsible for this comment, or was it another quote from a ‘well respected’ member of West 8?

@Emma Dalton wrote:

About the pedestrianisation, I think about the disadvantages of providing a fully pedestrainised route from Parnell Square to Stephen’s Green. That would mean that you would have to redirect traffic off Naussau Street, off Dame Street/College Green, off the Quays, and off O’ Connell Street. That would in my opinion redirect traffic congestaion to other parts of the city that would result in chaos and more prople sitting in traffic than ever.

Only if they insist on using their cars. And if they do, then they deserve all the congestion the world can throw at them.

In city centres, pedestrians should be at the top of the food chain with private cars at the very bottom.

The fear you describe above will, in all likelihood, be a reality sooner rather than later. And it will be glorious.

@adhoc wrote:

I presume you’re referring to Barangaroo

Nope.

Two things:

1)
“An Taisce fears it will blight the Georgian cityscape on the southern side of the Liffey.”

does not mean the same thing as

“Our biggest concern is that the U2 Tower will stick out of the skyline from parts of Georgian Dublin like Merrion Square.”

There is a small matter of journalistic interpretation at play here.

2)

What does this mean?

@Cute Panda wrote:

The purpose of mass transit is to move people from points A to wherever they want to go in a fast and reliable manner. They do not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who give a toss.

@damcw wrote:

Surely one of the ultimate aims of building the metro is to persuade people to use public transport rather than the private car.

Exactly, damcw. I know a significant number of people who will willingly get the Luas but who’d never consider the bus, the given reason usually having something to do with the perceived higher standard. And these are people for whom the 46A would be a better option on a journey time basis but who still choose the Luas Green Line instead.

There’s no better antidote to anti-social behaviour than large crowds, so if spending a little bit more money achieves that, do it.

Having said that, I still maintain that bare concrete can look good in stations. And whatever material is chosen, maintnenace will be key. You could gild the whole thing in gold leaf, but if it’s not swept or cleaned it will go downhill rapidly.

EDIT: sham-rockmetro- might be worth doing a bit of research on the actual purpose of the two Calatrava bridges- a few hundred private cars indeed.

Come now, alonso. You know, surely, that it’s not so straight ahead.

To name just one complicating factor, UCD spent a small fortune on the acquisition of lands around Belfield, starting in 1934 and continuing to the present day, so it’s not as if the money wasn’t there or couldn’t have been found. I’ve no doubt that it wouldn’t have spent the same amount as Charlo on the refurb of the Webb buildings, but I can’t see that as a bad thing.

Although if Herr Brady had been in charge at the time…

Anyway, we’re getting off topic.

@Rory W wrote:

let’s leave it at that.

Seconded. This is turning into a major derail, and it’s a debate that has occurred often enough here before.

There are important things still to say about this development- for example, the similarity of its profile to the ‘Seats are not for feet’ sign on the Luas still hasn’t been remarked on.

(An Taisce debates: the Godwin’s Law of architectural discussions?)

@darkman wrote:

Some noticable ones:

The M7 motorway
The M4 motorway
The M50 motorway
The M11 motorway
The M3 motorway
The M1 motorway particularly at Lissenhall – they thought the Swans would die this time.
Every single motorway ever built here was objected to by An Taisce
Dublin Port Tunnel
Spencer Dock development
Intel expansion at Liexlip – now that was unbelieveable! – only 5000 people work there!
I could go on and on and on – and there only some of the ones I remember off the top of my head.

Should I go on?

I’ll repeat my question, as you appear to have misunderstood me. Whether by design or through simple ignorance, I wouldn’t presume to guess.

How many ‘idiotic complaints’ are you aware of An Taisce having taken to the courts with the associated expense to the taxpayer?

Some of the cases you listed above certainly went to the courts, but I don’t think they all did. And of those that did, are you certain that An Taisce was the instigator of the legal proceedings? Furthermore, I don’t see you mentioning any examples where the case was successful. But I suppose that doesn’t bolster your argument. Also, it’s very telling that you seem to be focussing primarily on motorway and other road schemes.

Of course, I might be wrong. Perhaps An Taisce did take all of those cases to the courts and lose. Any chance you could provide links to the judgements from the relevant courts? That’d be a great help, thanks.

Also, thanks for answering. While we seem to disagree fundamentally on this issue (or at least seem to have a different understanding of the facts – or even what constitutes a ‘fact’ in the first instance), at least you responded, which is more than can be said for cubix up there whose tactic seemed to be to blithely ignore my simple (what’s more simple than a single-word question?) request for a bit of substance to back up his sweeping generalisation.

Lastly, please don’t presume to speak for all taxpayers. You do not.

(As an aside: is there anyone left who knows the difference between their, there and they’re any more?

@cubix wrote:

As for an taisce its sad enough that this organisation is even taken seriously in this country.

Why?

Yes, exactly.

But it’s the fact that it’s been done already that concerns me. Makes a nonsense of the whole concept of a Planning Scheme, really, doesn’t it?

@&quot wrote:

As long as they can make up the rules, and keep changing them accordingly, they will.

@ctesiphon wrote:

effectively re-writing the rules as it goes along to suit… to suit what? Or who?

Great minds… 😉