ctesiphon

@patrick24 wrote:

As Ivor Cutler said, God rest his soul, “Imperfection is an end]

Cripes, patrick24! I’ve been feeling pretty sad all day since finding out Ivor left us on Friday, but didn’t think I’d see a mention of him here even though he’s one of my favourite ‘spatialists’ of all time (for want of a better term).

The Bend, by Ivor Cutler

He saw the bend in the road and
wondered why it was there as the
field on either side was flat. Not only
was it flat, it undulated. Then a gang
of navvies in fine spirits must have
given vent to their creative needs. It
was a harmless place, and was the
better for a bit of character, God bless
them.

RIP 15th Jan 1923 – 3rd March 2006. Sorely missed.

Hmmm. Separation of church and state indeed.
Thanks for the first-hand accounts, Praxiteles. I look forward to hearing the outcome (which, sadly, isn’t a foregone conclusion).

@DJM wrote:

Could someone please re-direct me, as I can no longer find my way 😮

This one, or this one is better.

If you’re inserting an image (as you did above) rather than linking to an image hosted elsewhere (Photobucket etc.) you must first change the size wherever you have it stored on your computer. Can’t be changed once it’s been inserted, I don’t think.
If it’s linked from a hosting site you can play around with it there and any changes to the image on the hosting site will be reflected in the image here, including moving or removing the file in your account.

><

It’s interesting how much of a difference that set-back picture makes. I still think the glazed section is a mistake, but at least set back the edge of the main house is clearly visible and the facade reads as a symmetrical whole rather than the lob-sided affair that we’ve been left with now.:( The balancing section to the left is pretty urgent now. Perhaps that was the intention all along?

I don’t see how extending the gallery in this manner ‘saved a fine Georgian building.’ It was hardly derelict before, and not having this extension wouldn’t have meant the wrecking ball…

This is a link to the links page of http://www.thevillage.ie which is the sustainable village project being developed beside Cloughjordan in Co Tipperary. Could be a good place to start, especially as it’s Midlands based, as are some of the links.

http://www.thevillage.ie/index.php?option=com_weblinks&Itemid=4

I know Harry Crosbie lives in the neighbourhood, but don’t know precisely where. Maybe TP was referring to him.

Is 2 also in the docklands vicinity? Something about the juxtaposition would suggest it.

@GregF wrote:

Just to add, regarding such statues, one foot of the horse raised indicated that the rider was injured in battle, two feet raised indicated that the rider was killed in battle and four feet firmly on the ground indicated the rider died in his bed or natural causes.

So what’s this one? Died while playing polo?

My point in mentioning the abortion debate was, as you would have gathered if you’d bothered to read my post closely, to highlight the use of specifically loaded phrases in the rhetoric of the arguments. It’s generally accepted that the so-called pro-choice side are not anti-life, but by titling themselves ‘pro-life’ the pro-lifers seek to imply that the pro-choicers are anti-life. Is it that hard to understand? Perhaps it is.

You say “Cities need to be developed, not left to rot in a stagnant state”.
Two things-
1) The alternative to unregulated development is not stagnation.
2) That cities need to be developed is not an a priori fact.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against development. Not at all. As I said earlier I’m pro-planning, which tacitly presumed that development is taking place, for without development there would be no need for planning.

I agree with you that in some cases there are objections that serve only to undermine the legitimacy of the objection and appeals process (well, you didn’t put it quite so eloquently, but I’m trying to concede thet you might have meant something along those lines), but I don’t think you can jump from such a position to saying that all objections are NIMBY in origin or outlook. However, the statistics from An Bord Pleanala regarding rates of granting don’t back up your assertion that all the newspapers carry is objections. Admittedly objections make for better news if you think like Ireland on Sunday does, but they’re not the whole story. Further, the receipt by a planning authority or the Board of an objection to a scheme does not automatically mean that they will look favourably on that objection. There are such things as ‘vexatious and frivolous’ objections to begin with, before we get to the matter of legitimate objectors. Planning authorities and ABP are under no obligation to side with these legitimate concerns, but they must take the concerns into account when evaluating the pros and cons. That’s how it works, in theory. Obviously there are cases you can cite where due process has failed or whatever, but the principle holds.

I can’t bring myself to address your list of grievances over the projects you mention, as each one was a different case and the circumstances were thus different too. On some I agree with you, on others I don’t. My concern is that you see them as all ‘of a piece’, and fail to see the key differences between each. But as I said before in relation to your first post, “who cares about accuracy and detail when there are sweeping generalisations to be made?”
(To address just one- my concerns over Thornton Hall are: a> its distance from the city, given that many of its occupants come from either Dublin families where public transport is their only option, or from outside Dublin, adding complications to the visiting process for people already travelling from beyond the pale; and b> the manner in which the land deal was executed. It’s got nothing to do with local fears. The fact that I’m on the same side as the people who are playing the ‘But what about our children!’ card does not negate the validity of my own concerns.)

Lastly, I’ve never objected to anything in my back yard in my life. I’ve objected to certain things alright, but not because I preceived that they diminished my living area.

PS For what it’s worth, it has been shown by research that covering your head with tin foil actually marginally increases your chances of attracting electromagnetic and other signals. You might like to try it while reading my posts.

Spot on, jdivision. I think it was 170 submissions, many of which were form-letter type things in support of the development. But who cares about accuracy and detail when there are sweeping generalisations to be made?:rolleyes:

@The Denouncer wrote:

If I had my way I’d knock the stadium down and rebuild it in the Docks near the proposed Luas line with a 70,000 capacity

What is your suggestion, Denouncer, if not an objection to development on this site?
Coming from you it’s a brainwave, coming from a local resident it’s NIMBY whingeing? Gotta love the logic.

I did a college project a couple of years ago in which I had to object to the granting of permission for this building, so I became fairly familiar with the site.

aj- DCC did have a conservation proposal for the whole street coming on stream in early 2004, but I don’t know if they followed through with it. I certainly haven’t seen any results.

Most of the opinions expressed here would reflect my own- overscaled, lazy workmanship, cheap materials. (I loved your description of the balconies, Graham, as being “like some ignoramus speaking to you with sunglasses on”:) ).
I agree that the building properly belongs to the streetscape of Bolton Street rather than to Henrietta Street, and should have been scaled accordingly. As Devin said, it should have respected the scale hierarchy of the two streets (see my quote below).
The reason for its similarity to the building on Castle Street was that the planner in question, in refusing permission for the first scheme on this site (if you think what we now have is bad, you should have seen the first one:eek: ), recommended that the architects look at that building for an idea of how to deal with a corner. So it appears that they took him a bit too literally.
(See this thread for a previous mention of this matter, where you’ll notice that I’m also not a huge fan of the Castle Street building.)

Anyway, rather than rehash the arguments from my college project I’ll just quote the relevant bit regarding my main objection to this building:

As previously outlined, Henrietta Street is one of the most important urban set pieces in Dublin. Not only are its houses some of the grandest town houses anywhere in the country, it also possesses a feature which makes it unique among its peers. The Georgian era followed a classical model in both architecture and urban design. The rules of proportion and harmony in building design had a wider application in the formal layout of streets and spaces, as evidenced in Dublin by such compositions as Fitzwilliam, Merrion and Mountjoy Squares, and the works of the Wide Streets Commissioners. This rational process was also manifest in the hierarchical design of the streets, where the sequence of main street, subsidiary street and mews lane was reflected in the diminishing scale of the buildings associated with each. Georgian buildings also display a markedly frontal character, the classical symmetry not extending to the rere or sides, and this results in subsidiary streets seeming to split the continuity of terrace facades. This was the case with Bolton Street and Henrietta Street in their original form: standard plots on Bolton Street of a street-fronted house with a rere yard and mews building, divided by the entrance to Henrietta Street.
However, what makes this example unique is that instead of a lesser scale, as would be expected, Henrietta Street is considerably grander than Bolton Street. This is not apparent from vantage points further along Bolton Street, and part of the character of the street is the surprise experienced as this semi-formal set piece is revealed in such an unlikely situation, an effect heightened by its narrow ‘entrance’ at the eastern end.
The proposed development would diminish this sense of discovery by announcing the location of the junction from afar, and would soften the abrupt juxtaposition of scales on which the surprise is based due to its imposing height and volume. While the Planner’s Report argues that ‘The proposal… provides a presence of scale onto both Henrietta Street and Bolton Street, which is essential at this prominent corner location.’ (Evaluation), we would submit that this opinion derives from an understanding of urban form consistent with contemporary trends, but inconsistent with the Georgian tradition of planarity, linearity and sequential hierarchy.
Any development that would serve to undermine the character of this area should be resisted. We realise that the site underwent many subsequent changes throughout the nineteenth century, with the original relationships of scale blurred by infill buildings facing Henrietta Street, and we would generally be in favour of acknowledging all phases of urban evolution. But owing to the uniqueness of this setting, there is a strong argument to be made for re-establishing the original form.

‘A [conservation area] scheme…may include objectives for:
…
(c) the renewal, preservation, conservation, restoration, development or redevelopment of the streetscape, layout and building pattern…’ (Emphasis added.)
(Part IV, Section 84, subsection 2, Planning and Development Act 2000)

Although the completion of the Conservation Plan may be some time away (currently intended for September 2004), the fact that the process has begun is a positive development for the area. There is a danger that any scheme undertaken in the meantime would not be consistent with the findings and recommendations of such a plan and could compromise the future proper planning and development of the area. According to the Planning & Development Act 2000 (4th Schedule, Section 3), refusal without compensation is appropriate where:

‘Development of the kind proposed would be premature by reference to the order of priority, if any, for development indicated in the development plan or pending the adoption of a local area plan in accordance with the development plan.’ (Emphasis added.)

I had other grounds for objection too, such as refuse storage, inadequate parking, overloking and overshadowing, but they aren’t apparent from an external examination of the building.

Shame it was only a college project, as it got a bloody good mark from a former Board Inspector who was our tutor for the module.

I have pictures of the site pre-development if anyone’s interested. A funny two-storey carpet showroom of no merit, but as has been said there’s only one chance to get something like this right, and if in doubt it should have been left alone.

EDIT: It appears I have already attached one! Sorry it’s in Word, but it’s all I’ve got.

*sigh* Here WE go again.

No.1: ‘We’ refers to the citizens of Dublin, not the members of Archiseek. It is not a ‘royal “we”‘ in that it is a simple statememt of fact that any newly arrived citizen has to be accommodated (I don’t mean in the sense of housed, I mean in the sense of creating space) by the existing citizens.

No.2: ‘We’ here is used as a constituent of what I see as your belief, viz. ‘your belief that we’re constantly attacking the little man’. So again, not a royal one.

No.3: See No.2.

No.4: A figure of speech. Admittedly, this one is closest to the possibility of ‘the royal “we”‘, but ‘closest’ and ‘bang on the money’ are, well, not the same thing.

@PDLL wrote:

Now I’m no expert

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Finally, something we can agree on.

I find it interesting that you have not passed any comment, either positive or negative, on the five points with which I concluded my last post, lending further credence to my belief that you come here to pick fights rather than to debate. But I fear I’m treading on TP’s patch here. He’s the troll hater.

Lastly, having had close second-hand experience of real schizophrenia and thus being aware of what it actually entails, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t use a medical condition as a convenient short-hand slur.