ctesiphon

@walzer wrote:

From AA Roadwatch:

Motorists and pedestrians will have to take an alternative route.

Cyclists, however, will be unaffected.*

*Because they’re already not supposed to use the East Link.:rolleyes:

Curiouser and curiouser…

On seing that 1876 image, my heart sank a bit initially, as the footprint of the end house seems to break the building line as in the Rocque, but the white house in the image above is flush- and presumably it pre-dates 1876. But looking more closely, it seems that the hatched area – indicating the building footprint – is flush with the building line, whilst the ‘breakfront’ seems to be a shadow of the previous building.

Drifting towards consensus can be dangerous, but I’m starting to believe we might be onto something.

@StephenC wrote:

Nerd alert! 🙂

You’re just jealous, admit it! 🙂

In the words of the great Matador record label, ‘All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.’

No idea on the location- el swanko seems pretty certain, though.

Time to get your Roques out for the lads, gunter? 😉

@PTB wrote:

Anyone spotted what I think are the JC Decaux bike racks going in around the city?

You’re right- they’re being installed as we speak.

All stations bar one are east of an axis running through the Four Courts.

@PTB wrote:

Industrious.

That’s Mick Wallace for you!

Given the current trend towards corporate sponsorship of new constructions (O2, Aviva), do you think Viagra would be interested in this one? Those cables could be a little tauter…

@gunter wrote:

Could they not just get out the google-earth view, splodge on a few tree until it looks right, print it off as a map and send someone round to B&Q.

Fine in principle, but it didn’t exactly work for Plaza del Robocop on Dame Street.

You’d think it’d be hard to get the random placing of planters wrong, but DCC found a way!

Thanks markpb and missarchi.

When I’m cleaning windows…

Hello Mr(s) non-journalist. I can answer some of your questions:

@Figlen wrote:

-JCD may be starting to build the bike stands this month

Locations are decided; I understand that the bikes are due by June/July, so presumably the stands are coming pretty soon.

-a few of the metropanels have been removed or moved due to safety concerns (but nowhere near the number that had been flagged as dangerous)

True. Dorset Street and Rathmines Road were both definitely removed, possibly more. hutton should be able to throw more light on this?

-none of the existing 48 panel billboards that were supposed to have been removed as part of the deal have been removed

I believe that thay claim to have removed some. I know that some of those nominated for removal were hard to identify due to mistakes (mistakes?) with the locations. In addition, it would be worth finding out if the ones slated for removal were already illegal. An Taisce produced a dossier at the Oral Hearing regarding JCD’s history of compliance (or not) with Enforcement proceedings.

-safety concerns about the placement of backlit, moving advertising in the sightlines of drivers have not been effectively addressed.

True. Road safety was the backbone of the DTO’s argument at the Oral Hearing. All of the large roadside panels that were appealed were refused PP by the Board. You could possibly infer from this that, had all of the roadside panels been appealed, they all would have been refused.

-wayfinding systems and toilets that were to be part of the deal have been dropped

True. There are details in the earlier pages of this thread, but if I remember correctly, the ‘contract’ was re-negotiated after the ABP Oral Hearing- bike numbers reduced, wayfinding dropped, etc.

-original proposed numbers of bicycles has been reduced, as have the number of metropoles/metropanels

Some of the panels were dropped at the Planning Application stage (due either to Invalidation of the Application or on the advice of DCC [usually conservation/heritage grounds]), others fell at ABP Oral Hearing stage. The number of bikes was reduced only after the Hearing, with JCD arguing that fewer signs permitted resulted in fewer bikes, despite the supposed existence of a ‘contract’, and the repeated assertions from DCC et al that the signs and the bikes weren’t directly related.

-safety issues of metropanels being unsafe for blind pedestrians have not been addressed

True, I think. NCBI certainly aired concerns when the panels were unveiled, and the grounds for those concerns haven’t gone away.

-the contract that DCC have with JCD is still under wraps, so we still don’t really know what DCC stands to get from it.

Definitely still under wraps. I think a committee (Councillors and members of the DCC executive?) was established to examine the contract, bit I don’t think they’ve reported back yet.

-the localised cityscape that features at the bottom of the metropanels seems to be the same for all of them (dome + some other blocky buildings)

It is the same for all, and lacks the ‘Dublin specific’ design that we were told we’d get.

-concerns that some people have about the over-saturation of advertising in public spaces have not been addressed

Metropanels or not, many people have had these concerns for a long time. This scheme might (might!) result in the replacement of big ugly signs with these flashy new yokes, but to what end? There’s still no reduction in number, and the new signs are generally far more visible than the ones they’ll (supposedly) replace.

By the way, I am not a journalist!

Neither am I!

@alonso wrote:

what’s next? An urban quarter for the lactose intolerant?

Mort aux vaches!

Not to mention that the sheep are gone from the Green already… (Bono notwithstanding.)