ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Ha! I was wondering if/when that’d show up here. Fortunately, PP isn’t required for pretty ladies. 😉
I should add to your post- that video is probably NSFW.
@fergalr wrote:
funny they’ve built the plaza before the theatre.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Isn’t completing the plaza before the performing arts building a bit like hoovering the shed before commencing the woodwork?
]https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3124&page=3[/url])
@newgrange wrote:
Here we go:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appendices%201-5%20reduced_tcm35-48977.pdfI note that the document you linked is only two appendices to the main one- do you have the main one to hand? I’ve tried the DCC website, but as any regular user of the site knows, there’s a needle-in-a-haystack quality to using it. I’ll keep looking, but if you had it to hand that’d be great. Thanks for the above too, btw.
I haven’t got a copy to hand, nor is it online as far as I can tell. I’ll see what I can do in the next couple of days.
I’d be happy to see it go to An Taisce. Or you could put it towards the running costs of the Archiseek masked ball? 😀
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
God that’s intrusive and has to be a drivers distraction.
…which was the essence of the DTO’s submission, as I’ve subsequently discovered (Any sign of that €100, PVC King? :D).
And that’s before we get to the question of what they’ll look like at night, internally illuminated.Understood, Graham. It was more to hutton’s jokey ‘wheeze’ comment that my post was addressed. I just thought it was worth giving a brief, objective comment.
And also, to clarify- I wasn’t commenting on any single company, more the concept of such a service which, as you say, in many cases is invaluable.
Anyway… back to the issue at hand. As you were, folks. 🙂
Thanks phil.
@The Denouncer wrote:
Aha. Looks like this is on the way down, lads out there in hardhats ripping bits off it at the mo.
Pics please!
@hutton wrote:
410 quid per notice????
*heads off to print out cards advertising such service + sets up shop*
Thats some wheeze! 😀
I meant to say something about this the other day, but it slipped my mind. It’s a bit off topic, but relevant to planning in general (and probably not worth a thread of its own).
Rather than being a ‘wheeze’, the service provided by such companies is of benefit to many involved in the planning process, whether architect, planner or developer (and the basic cost seems to be €135 for simple erection and removal, not €410). Site notice sabotage is a very real feature of planning, usually – but not always – in the more controversial or larger scale schemes. Most planners and a good number of architects that I know have had to re-submit applications because some local thought he could thwart the application by removing / vandalising a site notice (a bit like thinking the metropoles can be thwarted by arguing over land ownership, perhaps?;) ).
In addition, a simple calculation of the full costs of erecting a site notice might give a bigger answer than you’d expect- printing, laminating, other materials, mounting, visiting the site to erect the notice etc. Calculated at the hourly rate for an architect or planning consultant, it quickly adds up, and is hardly the best use of resources in an office. And that’s before you factor in the possibility of re-visiting the site to re-erect a notice, possibly more than once.
I don’t think the service is aimed at Mr and Mrs Byrne from Rialto who are building a 42 sq.m. kitchen extension. Any time I’ve used a service such as this, it’s been for larger scale projects. When we’re talking about multi-million euro projects for which the application fee alone is €38,000, a few hundred quid extra to safeguard the passage of the project must seem like a sound investment to a developer. Compare it to the additional interest that would be charged on a bank loan for development should a notice be sabotaged, and/or to the additional office costs incurred in preparing a re-submission, and it seems like a no brainer to me.
Anyway, I don’t want to be seen to be flag-waving for these providers. I’m just pointing out that it’s not the ‘wheeze’ it might first appear to be. Good luck to them, I say. Or to anyone else who might fancy their chances, for that matter- I look forward to seeing the ‘Bespoke site notices by Hutton, Esq.’ ad on a banner above any day now!:D
@GrahamH wrote:
I’m surprised people are a bit evasive about the orientation of Parnell Square – it’s surely one of the most ‘iconic’ elements on a Dublin map, along with the Trinity campus and St. Stephen’s Green? It’s even more skewed than O’Connell Street (due to the lie of the Gardiner lands), making the square more diagonal than vertical and hence close to a N/W-S/E orientation.
😮
Perhaps some of us didn’t know where Cavendish Row was? (It’s not marked by name on any map I have.)But I’d have to disagree about the ‘iconic’ status of Parnell Square on maps- I think that depends completely on the map you’re using. My daily reference map is the OSI Dublin City and District Street Guide (6th Ed.), on which Parnell Sq is fairly unobtrusive, certainly much less noticeable than Grangegorman, St Stephen’s Green, Merrion Square, Mountjoy Square, Trinity, IFSC and St James’s Hospital, to name just a few on the same two-page sheet.
I don’t think DEHLG has any say in the running of the DTO- it falls under DoT, afaik. You might be mixing it up with the artist formerly known as Duchas when you say it has been muzzled on submissions (though in 2000 I was a pastry chef with only a passing interest in planning, so I’m open to correction on this).
@PVC King wrote:
I will have €100 with you that they submit nothing on this if you wish.
Why not! I’ll give mine to charity if I’m right (or to anyone who wants to object to five of the next batch!:) )
Anyone know if An Taisce or others objected? I’m thinking of the statutory bodies, as they’re the only organisations that don’t have to pay to submit, so the split nature of the applications shouldn’t affect them.
Re all of the posts since my last one (edit- kite and pr posted while I was typing)-
Almost everything about the application procedure for this proposal stinks, from the sneaky way DCC/JCD submitted 70 single applications, to the clustering of applications to maximise the chances of success (5 No at the west end of Bolton Street alone, as I said above), to the arguably socially-motivated location policy, to the insufficient info submitted in many cases (see invalidations), even to the arm’s-length way DCC got JCD and a consultant to take on the job rather than doing it in-house.
But I still maintain you’re getting sidetracked by procedural issues here, rather than focussing on the substantive issue, which is the absolute undesirability of this proposal. Or, put another way, would you be happy to see these signs all over the city as long as the proper procedures had been followed (single application, correct tendering, accurate photomontages, etc. etc.)? My answer to that is a resounding NO, thereby fundamentally refuting the statement that “There is no way that this discussion would be taking place if they had made a single application.”
And even if the intervention of the councillors has the desired effect (no guarantees, btw, however much it might be wished for emotionally), who’s to say a similar proposal won’t emerge, revised in light of all that’s been discussed here in the last few weeks (you allude to this in your ‘back to the drawing board’ comment, hutton)? In which case, I return again to the fundamental question of the desirability of the proposal. This is the key as I’ve said and will, if necessary, say again.;)
Also, ftr hutton, by ‘the back door’ I didn’t mean the councillors getting involved. I meant specifically the tactic that’s emerging here of attacking the flawed aplication procedure instead of attacking the plain stupidity of this propopsal (it’s not ad hominem, but similar- I just can’t think right now of the correct term for the logical fallacy being employed here).
Lastly, PVC King- other statutory bodies have an interest in this too, aside from the conservation bods. The DTO, for one, would surely have traffic concerns (probably similar to those I mentioned above), and the tourism groups might also have an opinion. I haven’t checked the observations / objections to see- does anyone know who objected?
Yours etc.,
The People’s Front of Judea.
I think this argument about ownership is a bit of a red herring (ftr, I think I’d agree with publicrealm- as long as there’s a letter of consent, then there’s no problem). Assuming it gets sorted out (if it even needs to be), we’re still left with the proposal to erect 70 signs. This is the substantive issue. Trying to scupper the proposal by the back door seems to me to be the wrong approach.
Attention should instead be concentrated on the planning aspects of the case, viz. intrusion into the public realm, visual clutter and, most importantly IMO, the very real traffic hazard that these will constitute. All of the signs should be refused on one or all of these grounds.
Land ownership, relationship to the free bikes scheme, even the tendering process- all of this is really irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that these signs will be a blight on the city. Period.
@phil wrote:
Incidently, Ctesiphon, what does OTM mean? You have obviously brushed up on all the fancy new terms!
On The Money.
It originally said OTFM, but I changed it for reasons of propriety (I’m sure you can guess the missing word). I could have said QFT, or IAWTC, but, y’know…;)
ctesiphon- FTW!
@alonso wrote:
I hope you guys forgive me but I referred this thread to the forum on http://www.politics.ie.
Any chance you could post a link to the politics.ie thread on here, alonso? Cheers.
@phil wrote:
It is funny (as in the ridiculous sort) to see such a thing going up in the weeks following the official announcement of the plans to make Grafton Street and its surroundings an area of Special Planning Control
OTM, phil. Sure why would the right hand need to know what the left hand is doing? Sure aren’t they different hands?!?!
One clarification might be in order here- I don’t think that we can attach any blame to the consultants on this one. It’s the nature of private sector planning work. Client comes to the boss with a job, boss passes it on to employee to do to the best of his/her ability- the opinions of the planner don’t really enter into it at all. It’s simply that the planner makes the case based on available policies and objectives of the relevant Development Plan and other documents.
We may as well blame whoever put up the site notices.;) (Quality notices too, by the looks of things.)
For the record, I don’t know the RPS planner involved, but I do have some experience of being held partly responsible for a scheme that I wouldn’t have chosen to work on in a million years. As I say, it’s the nature of the work.
@Lotts wrote:
The delay is being blamed on the lack of granite in the city.
Is that a lack of original granite, or a lack of the white stuff?:rolleyes:
Exactly. On the footpath and perpendicular to the direction of the traffic. They are designed to catch the eyes of motorists.
Of the original total, fewer than 10 were single-sided, and these only at points where the back would be invisible anyway.
Heard it alright. Seemed to get the basics right, but focussed almost exclusively on the visual clutter / intrusion aspect of the metropoles, ignoring the traffic safety aspect. At the outset, there was a comment to the effect that the sites were chosen so as not to distract drivers (criteria, people?) and then the discussion moved on. I think more attention should have been paid to the fact that-
a) these are located at junctions (5 No. at the Bolton / Capel junction alone),
b) their express purpose, as advertising boards, is to catch the eye, and
c) they will be internally illuminated.Can you imagine the effect that an internally-illuminated, 7 sq.m., double-sided advertising board showing a scantily clad model will have on a worker driving home after 10 hours on a wet November evening?
Cyclist? What cyclist? G-d I didn’t even see him! I’m so sorry. I was just looking at…Not that I’m downplaying the visual clutter aspect, but the traffic hazard is surely key to this. Or has DCC no objection to having blood on its hands? Sure, it’s only a few drops…
