ctesiphon

She got a mention in the Irish Times Magazine on Saturday too, in a one-pager at the back written by a woman who moved into a traditional working class neighbourhood. The woman thought the presence of the figurine was an indication of length of tenure, i.e. old resident, not gentrifier.

Had I not seen this thread before, I’d have had no clue what the writer was on about. Luckily I was well clued in.;)

@magicbastarder wrote:

anyone got martin naughton’s phone number?

Yes. But he’s not shopping at the moment.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

a house of debauchery… upmarket whorehouse for international jetsetting whitetrash

Well it has 26 bedrooms- one for every ****** in the Republic?

sfamato-
I think you misunderstood me. I’m arguing pretty much the same things you are in many respects- you’ll notice that I said “This isn’t to say that many locals wouldn’t want this scheme”. My original difference of opinion with The Denouncer was with his (?) belief that this scheme will attract tourists- I can’t see how this will happen at all.
As I said above, what appealed to me about Wexford town was its mix of local shops – a mix probably better than most towns in this country of a similar size – not the shops selling tourist tat, i.e. it is a living town rather than some tourist theme park town. If anything, this development will facilitate the growth of the tourist tat merchants as the local traditional traders are forced out of business due to competition from the behemoth. So I’d disagree with your assertion that your historic aspects “arent been touched by this development”. Well, maybe not yet, but give it time.
Equally, I never said it would turn tourists away. All I said was it wouldn’t be an attraction to them- a very different thing altogether. Though it might, in due course, have the effect of turning tourists away if the town centre suffers as so often happens in these cases, i.e. if the existing attractions are compromised.
Hope this clarifies.

Agreed, phil. I don’t know what you’re complaining about, magicbastarder.:)
And I particularly like those cast iron cornucopia features on the bases of the bannisters, affixed to the stair ends- most unusual.

For more info, there was a survey done of Co Galway by the NIAH in 1999 or so, but I just checked the website (http://www.buildingsofireland.ie) and it seems not to have been published yet, at least online. There might be a paper version of it lying around in the NIAH offices, but they might be reluctant to admit this to the public owing to the time elapsed since the survey was done.

😮
Looks like I got more than a few of the details wrong, not least my dimmer view of some councillors than was fair. Still, the main point about it being a PS with a complicated history is true.:o

Spot on, KB.

There’s also the more general debate around removing PSs from the RPS. DCC added quite a few structures to the RPS on foot of the 2000 Act and have recently been attempting to have them removed, though afaik it’s been stalled a while. The reason, I believe, was that they felt that the buildings would be better covered by ACA designation (though the history of ACAs in this country wouldn’t give you much cause for optimism), mainly as the original reasons for their inclusion in the RPS were things like original windows and railings, i.e. were considered to dilute the real meaning of a PS in law. An article I’ve cited elsewhere on this site is one from the Irish Planning and Environmental Law Journal by John Gore-Grimes on the problems of PS designation- deals particularly with the wholesale transfer of former Lists of buildings onto the RPS, and the associated problems of a lack of a Scale of Protection (List 1, List 2, List 2*, etc.) in the new form.

I can think of plenty of buildings that shouldn’t have had PVC inserted, but few where they had been PSs previously. Just look at the Mespil Flats along the banks of the Grand Canal to see how insensitive windows in individual flats can destroy the external harmony of a multiple-occupancy building. Not sure whether it is/was a PS (separate PSs?), though. Anyone else know? I know Devin wrote about part of it here before.

One example from beyond Dublin was a pier in Co Clare which was recommended for inclusion but turned down by the Councillors after a heated debate, stating that the pier only fulfilled five (?) of the eight criteria for PS designation, i.e. implying that all eight should be fulfilled before a structure can become a PS. But how many buildings in this island can seriously claim to fulfil Cultural, Scientific, Technical, Historic etc.? None, I’d wager. Turns out the pier was due to be redeveloped to serve a particular industry that intended to relocate in Co Clare, and PS designation would have scuppered this. (I’m hazy on the details- perhaps another member could clarify/confirm?)

Maybe search this site for “Mespil / PVC” posts by Devin, and for “Gore-Grimes / Protected Structure” by me? Sorry I don’t have time to do this just now.

Keep us posted on the results, thanks.

There’s a similar building on the north docks in Waterford City that was built around 1920, or slightly before- concrete frame, infill panels. A few years ago the city Conservation Officer was trying to get it included on the city RPS as it was/is one of the oldest structures in the whole country to use concrete in its construction, but I believe he had an uphill battle (Sisyphian?) with the Councillors. If you thought it was a battle to get Councillors to appreciate 19th century architecture, imagine how difficult it is to convince them of the heritage merit (Scientific and Technical, to name just two categories of interest) of a concrete silo. Don’t know what the outcome was…

And then there’s the R&H Hall building in the docks in Cork City. Not sure if that one’s a PS either, though. Something tells me it might be, but I haven’t time to check just now.

Anyone know the height of this Dublin one? Even a ballpark figure?

Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps.

I was stopped for long enough to remove my camera from my pannier, frame the shot, take two pictures, put the camera away and cycle off. At least 2 minutes. Long enough, I think, to be able to ascertain whether there was a Garda executing his emergency duties in a nearby location that would have required him to park in that spot. And guess what…?

“Motorists are often obliged to perform far more dangerous and fast paced courtesy manouvers”
Then they are driving too fast. It is incumbent on a motorist to drive with sufficient care and attention to be able to stop or alter their behaviour without endangering themselves or others. Not to do so is considered dangerous driving, but unfortunately the danger inherent in such behaviour is often only apparent when an unforeseen incident occurs, by which time it is often too late.

Anyway, I’m done on this one. You know by now PDLL that we fundamentally disagree.
Though I might add: when you’re in a hole you stop digging.

To go back to a previous element of this thread (and another one on which I’ve disagreed with many members here), this article might be of some interest. It”s about rule-breaking cyclists in England and community opposition to their antics. You know how I feel already, I think- there’s no need for me to rehash my points of view. In essence, I could have written 90% of this article.

Braking Point, by Will Storr, Observer Magazine, 4th June 2006

Aah PDLL, good to have your input as always. Thanks for that.
Given that you’re usually such a stickler for chapter and verse (facts on rural housing spring to mind), could I request a reference ot the specific bit of legislation/rules of the road, please? Thanks in advance.

I didn’t post a picture of the scene this morning, where there was a fire engine and an ambulance parked in the bike lane at almost the same spot because they were attending to a person lying on a stretcher on the footpath. Don’t know if he was a cyclist, a motorcyclist, a pedestrian or something else, but there was certainly a very good reason for those emergency vehicles to be there. But there was no good reason for the Garda bike to be there yesterday as far as I could see. Even if he (?) was on duty, there were plenty of places mere yards away that would have served his needs most adequately.

Not the first time I’ve seen a Garda motorbike parked in the bike lane, but the first time I’ve had my camera with me- Morehampton Road, 1st June 2006. So if the Gardai can’t abide by the rules of the road, what hope for them enforcing the rules for others?

I’ve been back on the N11 daily for the last couple of months and not a day goes past without some obstacle blocking the way. And I’m not talking about the usual broken glass, bus passengers – sorry, customers – and their luggage, or wheelie bins. No, I mean workmen’s SUVs parked right beside the house they’re gutting (because 100 yards is too far to walk from a legal parking spot), Aircoach drivers pulling across me into bus stops without indicating, broken down cars put up on the bike path so they don’t inconvenience motorised road users, even though there are three lanes for motorised traffic and only one for bikes (don’t get me started on the ‘mandatory use’ rule- one of the few cyclist-related rules that the Gardai seem to [think they] know about…).

But the Gardai? I’d almost be laughing if I wasn’t too busy taking aim at his dashboard instruments.