ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Thanks for the link, publicrealm.
I’ve always found it odd how doing a good/necessary job seems to be the shortest route to dissolution. You could probably add An Foras Forbartha to that list too.
@publicrealm wrote:
If action is taken my confidence in the system will be much restored.
Having said all of that I’m still not sure what can be achieved at this stage – poor Manning Robertson must be spinning?
Agreed that enforcement sometimes leaves a bit to be desired (and if you think DCC can be a bit lax, look beyond the Pale for some real horror stories), but great to see this being investigated so quickly. Maybe they were reading this thread and waiting for your call?;)
As to what can be achieved, this case might be a lost cause but if the details emerge about a flagrant breach of PP and positive action by DCC, it might discourage such a cavalier attitude from taking root elsewhere. Monkey see monkey do, and all that…
Whatever the outcome, well done for trying, and thanks.
I agree regarding the RTPI wording. I’m not in the least bit anti-British, but I still find it odd that the organisation can’t get something as basic as this right.
As you’re in a position to join either then you must have a planning qualification which, as you know, is sufficient to work as a planner- membership of either organisation is not required in order to work. Presumably your qualification is both RTPI and IPI accredited if you’re eligible for both.
From those I know who are members of one or the other (more are in IPI than RTPI, I think), nobody would say that there are major advantages to joining. There might be advantages for the organisations in having your membership fees, in that they (or the IPI at least) work on a shoestring budget afaik and do some worthwhile work on behalf of the profession. And presumably it would bolster their cause if they can claim to be speaking on behalf of a significant proportion of the profession. But I remain to be convinced of the merits of joining either one.
I’m afraid I can’t help any more than that.
@publicrealm wrote:
I hope it wasn’t the Trim Castle business?
Can’t think what else it could have been- hardly a common set of circumstances. A pretty shameful business all told.
As an aside- wasn’t the Europa Nostra body reviewing its funding for Trim Castle on the basis if this development? Never heard the results of that one.@PDLL wrote:
Better to have an argument with the odd logical inconsistency in it (no doubt the result of not having time to spend 4 hours analysing each sentence) than conceal the lack of an intelligent response through an over-wrought haughty response more appropriate to a theatrical sketch depicting a drama-queen suffering from an odd sense of neurotic self-superiority.
Intelligent questions get intelligent responses.
Trolls get short shrift.Interesting tactic to admit that your arguments are fallacious, then to defend them by attacking a response you characterise as over-wrought. Almost sounds like the ‘It may be ugly, but at least I’m not a ponce’ defence many builders of single rural dwellings use in the face of legitimate architectural/environmental criticism. Oh hang on… That almost sounds like consistency. Was it deliberate?
As for taking time to consider responses- I’ve been working hard all day and haven’t had the time to measure my words carefully, as you seem to think. Do they seem measured? Probably just a sign of me having digested all of the issues at hand over a number of years, both in the hallowed halls of UCD and at the planning coalface.
You, however, had the time to post at 11.01 am, 11.28 am, 12.09 pm, 12.52 pm, 1.34 pm and 1.59 pm. If you posted fewer replies and thought your answers through a bit more, this might be a debate worth having (again, and again, and again…). But it’d probably be a bit less fun.PS What’s self-superiority?
PPS singlefarmer- You make some interesting points there regarding the architectural profession, many of which I agree with, particularly the “excellent talkers but very poor listeners” one.
@PDLL wrote:
what is more objectionable is the systematic stigmatizing of rural people through the use of generic, degrading and loaded pejoratives such as references to the fictional IRDA.
Also, it’s interesting how you highlight the so-called Dublin anti-rural generalisations by making sweeping rural anti-Dublin generalisations.
Also, perhaps the reason for a preponderance of posts relating to Dublin (relative to the national population) is because there are more architecturally-aware / environmentally-conscious / call-it-what-you-want people in Dublin. It would certainly explain much about the quality of so many single rural dwellings.
Also…
Aah what’s the feckin’ point. Your arguments are so riddled with logical inconsistencies that it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Deliberate? Perhaps. I’m not going to lower myself to it, thanks.
@Bago wrote:
A look through a large book of STWs works last week turned out to be a catalogue of all my most unfavourite buildings in Dublin of the last 20 years bar the zoo pavilion!
That’s what happens when you pinch your designs from Richard Meier’s Shreddit bins.
Can I take it that the lovely Japanese-inspired library didn’t survive the reordering?:rolleyes:
It looks like they got what they wanted – a cleared site – as I presumed they would. But can one really complain in advance to a planning authority based on a hunch? they hardly have time to deal with the enforcement cases already on their books, never mind the ones that have yet to happen.
I wonder will they now go back for another application, deciding that they don’t want a family home after all but wish to apply for a 4-storey apartment building.
Sure I have views on the non-compliance with statutory notices, but what does it matter?
PS Thomond Park- in one of your earlier posts in this thread you quoted a section of the DCC Dev Plan regarding protection measures for non-Protected Structures, then you edited your message to remove the salient facts. Any chance you could re-post the info in the interests of the common good? It is particularly relevant now in the light of this wholesale demolition- surely exactly the type of case this Dev Plan policy was designed to avoid?
Thanks in advance.@jdivision wrote:
it was then partly turned into a lap dancing club. Obviously that didnt work so they’re moving onto the next “craze”
What? You mean the lap-dancing craze is over? Oh for shame. And just as I was about to jump on the bandwagon…;)
Still, here’s my chance to get in on the ground floor of the Texas Hold’em craze. You heard it here first, folks!!Thanks for that, publicrealm. I’ll check it out when I’m next in the neighbourhood.
Wasn’t the outcome of the courtcase something along the lines of the new residents of the adjoining development being given swipe cards to use the gate? Maybe I’m getting mixed up. Fully agreed, though, about the mistake of ABP in challenging this one- can’t do their public profile much good, which is hardly what they need right now.
The other debate probably doesn’t belong in this thread, but in essence I don’t necessarily think it’s ‘instinctively wrong’- I respect a right to private open space. But I do think that many Councils around the country – city and county – are in dereliction of their duties re public open space generally. A talk for another day.
Re insurance- I’m a simple man (sorry- a simple 60 year old alcoholic woman). I believe that if my frisbee takes out someone’s eye or my skateboard cracks a shinbone, then it’s (usually) my responsibility but hardly ever the responsibility of the landowner/lord. And if I fall off my skateboard, then there’s no debate at all in my mind (unless street surfaces were appaling). I have a rehearsed rant on Ireland’s increasingly litigious culture, but it puts me in a bad mood and I don’t want to spoil such a nice day.
EDIT: jimg- your post arrived while I was writing. Haven’t time to respond now, just in case you thought I was ignoring it. I’ll try later.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Surely there must be one example of a recently planned street somewhere on the island?!
Curved Street in Temple Bar. Barely qualifies, I suppose, but it hasn’t been mentioned yet.
jimg-
The ‘ugh’ for New Urbanism was because the movement really bothers me. New Urbanists see themselves as nothing less than the saviours of American community and society, when in truth all they really do is design prelapsarian suburbs replete with white picket fences and gingerbread bargeboards. Most of their rhetoric is nonsensical if you scratch the surface. One area in which they’ve had a positive effect is zoning ordinances, which in the US were almost entirely car-based, but their social aspirations aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. In short, New Urbanism isn’t the answer to our problems, and its growing influence in planning/urban design circles (John Prescott is a fan, for example) is cause for concern because the more rational voices on the margins of US suburban-alternative planning, not to mention the other voices this side of the pond, get drowned out by the seductive rhetoric.
I have a 4,000 word essay saved somewhere if you want to know more.publicrealm-
Which route on public roads is the one to which you refer? Last year I worked on an appeal to ABP against a scheme in your vicinity (not the one recently in the courts over the access issue). The application used access to Luas through MSA as grounds for seeking higher density, whereas permission hadn’t even been sought from the management company, never mind given. They got a grant which ABP overturned.:)
In our appeal, we stated that it was something like 17 minutes walk on public roads to the Luas from the site in question, unlike the 10 minutes if MSA were to be used (so the density was too high according to the 1999 RDGs). I got the info from my client, who claimed to have timed it. Was she lying to me?PS I once got moved along in Mount St Anne’s for playing frisbee, and I was with a resident. Maybe not gated, but a long way from being public.
That before-and-after raises an interesting question: was the base originally marbled or black?
(Not to mention the sad disappearance of O’Neill Shoes which was there when I lived on Moyne Road in 2003, though I’m not sure if the steel windows were still in situ at that time. What date was your pic taken?)
@publicrealm wrote:
Eamon Holmes??
Yup. Don’t all ladies of a certain age have a thing for him? That whole ‘poor man’s Terry Wogan’ routine seems to be a winner.
Or were you marvelling at my ability to spell it correctly (with only one N)?:)@stifz wrote:
If this is a forum ‘ irish planning matters’ then each and every user should be allowed to ask a valid question and post a thread without the heavies who have naff all else to do but spend there day posting critisim to unaware new users or is there a ‘click’ for the selected few?
I imagine most of us have many better things to do than to repeat ourselves ad nauseam for the benefit of new users who haven’t familiarised themselves with the site. If I had unlimited time to answer specific queries then I’d probably try. Or I might set myself up as a planning consultant and charge you the going rate. Then at least I’d be gaining something tangible from the exchange instead of just abuse. But I have a full time job towards which my planning energies are directed.
If you read my comments on the other thread that hutton started about one-off posters you’ll see that I said that I took some time to give detailed answers to questions in the hopes of obviating repeated requests for similar/identical information. I bother to do it because I do believe that the planning system can be difficult to navigate for the layman (hell, it can even be difficult for the seasoned pro at times) and if I have the info then I’m happy to pass it on. (I say ‘if’- nobody knows everything.) But the perceived difficulties of the system seem to have become an excuse for people not to bother even trying to find their own answers. A good few times now I have simply posted links to local authority planning websites that have goof FAQ pages where most basic things are covered.
Bear in mind this is a discussion forum, not an advice column. If we can help, well and good, but please don’t see it as your right to be given an answer and please don’t get shirty if nobody knows the answer either.
As for a ‘click’ (clique?)- this is the internet. We don’t do social. For all anyone else knows, I’m a 60 year old housewife with a drink problem and a crush on Eamon Holmes. I share many views with some posters, I’m fully at odds with other ones, but to think that there’s ganging up going on is patently absurd.
Re burge-eye’s comments: What Paul said. I’m a planner (and architectural historian) who comes here to listen, to learn, to share what I know and sometimes to enlighten. Most RIAI medal winners wouldn’t post here- it’d show up just how little they know about the real world.;)
Anyway, stick around if you can. I’m serious. You just arrived at a bad time, I think. All newcomers are welcome, especially if they’re willing to roll up their sleeves and get stuck in. Despite what burge-eye says, we’re mostly commoners. Opinionated commoners, but commoners nevertheless.
There’s the Maura Shaffrey/Walter Pfeiffer one, with an intro by Frank McDonald, called something like ‘The Irish Thatched Cottage’. Maybe slightly sentimental, but largely good if a little insubstantial. Could be a bit tricky to find in the shops.
Sean Rothery’s books on ‘everyday architecture’ and the like are also good, mainly for illustrations. Still in print.
Then there’s the two books by the Shaffreys, one on buildings of Irish towns, the other on buildings in the Irish countryside. Both still in print.Non-book: the OPW carried out a number of surveys in the days before Duchas existed, mapping the locations of thatched houses. None of the info was ever published, but I’m sure it’s still in a box in the attic:) . The work was done largely by one man, Michael Higginbotham, who had semi-retired by the time I moved into his office in 1997. There were various bits scattered around the room but nothing definitive. The OPW has an in-house library- might be worth giving them a ring to see if they have the bound volumes of individual building records on their shelves (I don’t work there any more).
Have you any specific questions? I might be able to answer them from the info I gleaned on the quieter days in the OPW offices.;)
Don’t know about everyone else, but I’ll have to disagree, phil. Sure, there wasn’t uniformity as such, but I think reinstating these three was the right decision.
One observation, though: I’m not sure that the second floor windows should have been 12 pane sashes (6 over 6). Wouldn’t 9 panes (3 over 6) have been better?
Didn’t HH produce a book on good housing practice/principles based partly on their work at Balgaddy? Might have some images. There was certainly one image from it – a drawing, though, not a photo – in the Irish Times around the time they published it.
Some developments since 1999 (date of Residential Density Guidelines) have claimed that their designs are a return to traditional urban forms, in the manner of the New Urbanists (ugh). One example I know of is Applewood Village near Swords, in which it was claimed in the agent’s brochure that the ‘village centre’ was modelled on a Spanish hilltop town. But I’m sure you don’t need to be told that there can be something of a gaping chasm between an agent’s guff and the truth.
Aside from these NU-inspired developments, which really aren’t what you’re asking about, I can think of none off the top of my head. A real shame, as I’m a great believer in good streets as the key element of any successful urban area.
And FTR, I don’t think that a linear strip of land framed by apartment buildings qualifies as a street- see, say, the new proposal for Sandyford recently submitted to DLRCoCo for an example of this. Boulevard my backside. A street is more than just a bit of flat ground that’s longer than it is wide… (As an aside, Georges Perec in ‘Species of Spaces’ writes well on streets- well worth checking out, as is the rest of that book for anyone interested in ‘space’ of the non-astronaut variety.)
A similar thing happened a few months ago, not long after the Planning sub-forum was put up. I took some time to give detailed answers to planning questions – some very basic, though all of which could be charged for if it were a consultant giving the answers – in the hopes that they’d then be useful to others who were new to the site, and to save us from having to give the same advice repeatedly. But it didn’t stop others from asking all over again. Another trend I spotted was relative newcomers starting new threads for minor details relating to queries they had posted before. Not only does it get a little tiresome, it also undermines the value of the site as a resource for info. Far better to have all the info relating to a particular topic in the one place for future reference.
I wondered at the time whether certain planning authorities were directing callers to the site to save themselves having to deal with the queries. I’m still not convinced that it’s not happening.I don’t want to be too hard on the noobs- sure weren’t we all in that boat once too? Perhaps they aren’t aware of the search facility?
Maybe Paul could consider the value of sending a stock email to new sign-ups when they register telling them about searching (and other standard features)? I know there’s an FAQ page, but it doesn’t cover all of it.
I hope it’s all innocent and not too sinister. IP addresses aren’t hard to check, so if the IRDA is involved we’ll know easily enough.
@Hercule wrote:
I warmly welcome and am please that the Council voted for rezoning of this historic industrial (but now derelict) site for this purpose’.
This bit raises an interesting aspect I hadn’t considered- what buildings are currently on the site?
The mention of ‘historic industial’ reminds me of another Wexford case- a 4-storey grain store on Paul Quay. DAHGI (as was) objected to its demolition in 1999/2000, even though it wasn’t a Protected Structure. ABP said its demolition didn’t constitute development. Technically correct, but only because the LA was too inept to know the value of its heritage until it was too late. And so it goes…Why do I get the feeling that this new scheme’s fate was decided long before any plans were submitted?
