ctesiphon

@PDLL wrote:

No worries – as a pedestrian I have learned to show tolerance to other road users,

This kind of tolerance?
@PDLL wrote:

– as a person who frequently walks with a stroller – I know how painful and dangerous it is using ill-designed and broken pavements that are often blocked by some fat-ass pig’s car half way up on the path.

you’ll find that most of us cyclists are pretty easy going and have no problem sharing “our” space with others without whipping ourselves into a state of indignation.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I do not claim to speak for road users, less still do I claim to speak for motorists. I speak for myself, a cyclist who uses bike paths, a pedestrian who uses footpaths, and a road user who uses roads for cycling and for public transport. (Emphasis added.)

How anyone can presume to speak for others, in particular or in general, I find somewhat baffling. In short, how can you know?
***************************************************
Sin e.

PS Nazis, Godwin, The End?

Are you sure it’s not going to incorporate the houses (or rather their entire sites)? From memory, there’s a funny white three-storey house with a ground floor garage and office/storage upper floors, and a redbrick house with a cafe on the gf, and I think the owner lives/lived in the upper floors. I heard he got a pretty penny from the Clarence, but it’s a shame to see one of the few living-over-the-shop houses biting the dust (though if I were in his position with a big fat cheque dangling in front of my nose…).

Clare- not sure from your post if you’re aware, but the interiors of protected structures are protected too (unless specifically excluded by declaration or in the RPS). A minor detail in the context of your project, but important in the wider game.

Next question- are we allowed to combine Uppers and Lowers if they’re contiguous?;) I was thinking Baggot and Leeson, but they’re both cut by the canal…

I don’t have the info you require, I’m afraid.
A couple of things, though:

Is it just an interior remodelling? I’m pretty fond of the two elevations and would take some convincing on the merits of mucking about with them (I know it’s only hypothetical).

Is it an ordeal to capitalise the initial letters of all of the words in your posts? This isn’t a dig- I’m serious about the question. Many people on message boards use only lower case, which I’ve got used to over time, but your writing style is most arresting (here and in your CAD thread). Perhaps you’re German?;) Or typing on some kind of net-savvy mobile phone with a default setting?

That Portlaoise picture is hilarious. Two things strike me: the bollards look older than the path, so either they pre-date it or they were imported in their damaged state; and the road, bike path and footpath are all on the same level, presumably necessitating the bollards (in the Councils eyes). I get the impression the bollards are to protect pedestrians from cars, though, rather than to protect the cyclists.

Thanks for the info on Amsterdam. I’ll be there for a week so there will be some walkabouts too but I’m keen to get into the saddle. It’s a long overdue trip for someone who’s a fan of 20th century architecture (early and late), and who thinks also that houseboats are a missing element of Dublin’s canalscape. In short, I think Amsterdam and I are going to get along famously. (Did I mention my love of state sanctioned prostitution, btw?)

I missed this first (second? third?) time around- looks like a promising scheme.

Two quick questions-
Does the revised proposal now incorporate the protected structure?
Was it the councillors rather than the planners that scuppered it the last time? (One of my pet annoyances is the involvement of councillors in conservation in Ireland.)

@Thomond Park wrote:

Does he have a valid point?

No.

altotude-
publicrealm is right re the refund.
Also, I’m curious to know why you think they got the date wrong. Not that it matters as the decision suited you, but they rarely make mistakes like this in DCC. (It could matter if the applicant appeals to ABP as you’d be prevented from getting involved in the appeal process, though.)

Thomond Park-
Why the edit? Your post originally had some very useful info on the protection measures afforded to non Protected Structures and buildings not in Conservation Areas. Any chance of a reinstatement?

This thread refers to a competition for a site in the Phoenix Park- Infirmary Road, I think. It was shelved at the time for some political reason, if memory serves because the future of the Dept (where I worked at the time) was uncertain. It was ACG, then AHGI (including Duchas), then divided between CGRA (CRGA?), DEHLG and AST. (There’s a prize for anyone who can guess what all those letters stand for.)

The current ‘decentralisation’ fiasco has probably shelved it indefinitely/permanently.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Two parking bays as shown in the plans released last year are being installed – outside the Gresham Hotel and the Royal Dublin Hotel.
It is a shame that these will impact on the otherwise straight run of pavement and trees along the entire length of Upper O’Cll St west, and for most of Upper east.

Could they be for wheelchair taxi purposes? Or are they long enough for the Aircoach? As has been noted here before the stopping of the coach on OCS is a big problem- perhaps a dedicated bay is justified?