ctesiphon

This has now descended into a simple points scoring thread, with little relevance to the western quays of Dublin.

PDLL- I think you’re being too literate in your interpretation- I can’t imagine anyone living in a ringfort these days. And most definitions of ‘building’ (as opposed to ‘structure’) refer to its habitability, often requiring the presence of a roof and walls. You mention that “they were comprised of a variety of built structures in their original functional state”, but that would make the original structures the buildings, not the forts themselves. (Oh and by the way, “to be strictly correct” [your phrase], nothing is ever “comprised of…” anything.)

Nobody here is prioritising Georgian above other eras. It happened to be the most prosperous phase in this country’s history (at least until recently- and our current built legacy can’t compare at all to that of the Georgians). The ‘Georgianness’ of the building is only one of the reasons for believing that this building should be kept. But this point has been made before and seems to be falling on deaf ears.

So what about those western quays?

Not an update- sorry. Just a link to another thread with info on the building (good to have them in the one place).
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3847&highlight=castlefreke

@Gianlorenzo wrote:

Hopefully it is a sensitive restoration

@phatman wrote:

A friend of mine working on the project informs me that work has been stopped due to planning violations, knocking of existing structures etc, a disgrace really.

😮

It’s an imperfect system for sure, but I think your reaction is a bit over the top, not to say ill-informed.

Nobody is getting a house for free that wouldn’t otherwise qualify for one in the absence of this system. And the ‘affordable’ ones aren’t free at all, not to mention that million euro houses generally don’t get offered under such a system.
If the council was to provide the housing, it would be paid for by the taxpayer. Where else do you think the money would come from?
The list has grown because developers have been by and large unwilling to play ball, and councils are bending over backwards to facilitate them (not planners, but Councillors- clientilism how are ya!).
The law states that the landowner/developer is entitled to market price for the land, not agricultural price as you think.

I agree that the system has its flaws, but the ones you highlight aren’t the ones I see.

For my money, a better system would be that local authorities have first option on land purchase at existing value. They could then sell it on to a developer at a higher price after rezoning (the price the developer would have paid anyway if the land had been rezoned prior to initial sale). Only difference is that the profit goes to the Council, who could then use the funds for infrastructure etc. Perhaps a % more than ag value could be paid to the original owner so they don’t feel cheated, and ultimately the windfall is shared more equitably.

Lex-
Thanks for the detail on those projects. Certainly balances the picture for those of us outside Cork.
However, as far as I know, Part V was designed to avoid large scale social housing developments, with 20% set as the upper limit. So I’d have concerns about the 57% (and to a lesser extent the 32%) provision- the whole ‘ghettoes of the future’ argument (this isn’t meant as reflection on the residents, lest anyone misunderstand it).
Also, you mention S.96 agreements that developers are entitled to enter into, but isn’t the default option (where agreement hasn’t been reached) the transfer of land rather than of money? And the best way of avoiding undue social segregation is the transfer of completed units, I believe.

Sorry if this has been covered in the Cork thread, but I tend only to browse it as it seems to deal predominantly with new developments, and stories like this can sometimes get buried. I think they can benefit from separate threads where they are of interest to the general population (not that we don’t care about Cork!).

That’s fascinating, and maybe a bit sickening.

Are you saying that the money the developers saved/made by not having to include the 20% in their schemes was targeted by the City Manager?
Or is it more sinister than that, i.e. are you saying that the City Manager deliberately and knowingly facilitated the developers’ avoidance of the 20% on condition that they fund the 2005 celebrations?

Either way, the 20% mechanism has now been thoroughly undermined country-wide, from this behaviour in Cork to the rezonings in Co. Laois, and I think it’s a great shame.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Cobbles.

Thanks. In fact, looking more closely at the pic Morlan posted, it’s fairly obvious they are cobbles if you look at the lower edge. I suppose I could blame my screen resolution…
I’ve often wondered when cobbles were introduced and became widespread in the city, figuring the 1870s was about right. Dublin was presumably far ahead of other towns, where Lawrence Collection and other photos often show towns with muddy roads into the 20th century.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

what a shame O’Brien was moved.

“I see a little silhouetto of a man…” 😮

@garethace wrote:

You still haven’t offered a suggestion as to who will pay the piper?

The developer pays, but doesn’t get to choose. And doesn’t get to manipulate the results. Or the state pays- this would be a way of increasing the chances of objectivity, and would be justifiable as large scale projects will always have an impact on the public at large.

I see the difference between the American interpretation of ‘planner’ and the Irish one. But you seem to be using the American one on an Irish discussion board.

@garethace wrote:

I am just as sick and tired of Irish Architects, wearing their training in visual and pictogrpahic representation, as if it were a pair of designer sneakers. That we all have to bend down and pay homage to. We still don’t have a proper institution or school in this country that merges the two respective traditions of architecture and planning. The answers are to be found here – not in this wishful thinking for a third-party visualist.

The answers are to be found where now?

I remember reading one of your essays elsewhere on this board (maybe it was the thread you linked above) about the disconnection between planners and architects. My (tongue in cheek) response was about planning being a white slug in a dark room or something, if I remember. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I think you have a view of planners (Irish version) that you’ve created in order to justify your anti-planner stance, but which is not the truth at all.

Sorry garethace- I still don’t see what your 30th Oct post has to do with the quote of mine you highlighted. Seems like you were just using it as a springboard for a tenuously related soliloquy (not unrelated to this thread, but unrelated to my post).

I had a look at those two Cyburbia threads, and their conclusion seemed to be that they are happy with the available technology as long as it allows them to get their message across. They see no need for separate cg artists as the artists are too expensive and ultimately unnecessary. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making about removing the task from the developer’s advocates (architects or planning consultants), in the interest of objectivity. I still think the task should be done by a person/company not paid for by the developer. All about ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune” (or whatever the phrase is).

Also, the threads seem to use the word ‘planner’ to refer to urban designers. Not the case in this country.

EDIT: You seemed to comprehensively re-write your post while I was responding to it. Now I’m not sure if my reply makes sense. It did make sense originally, I promise. 🙂

@PDLL wrote:

I partly empathise with your position, aj. The building in Devin’s images is, however, leagues ahead of the building previously discussed. I would argue that instead of a blanket policy of retaining anything of a certain period (no matter what the period) simply because it is from that period is not sufficient reason to retain it. it should also be about the quality of the structure, whether it has any intrinsic historic or architectural significance, whether its absence would be a loss to our national or local architectural heritage and so on. Blanket policies of retention simply privilege the past for the sake of the past without paying any respect for what can be done in the present or what could be done in the future

Hands up those who are arguing for a blanket policy of retention. Come on, you know you’re out there. PDLL says so.

@PDLL wrote:

I have not heard any argument put forward for the retention of the building on the quays other than it is Georgian and should, therefore, be retained.

Then you haven’t read the thread.

Also, we do still have the building, naz78- it hasn’t disappeared. It just needs some tlc and a bit of vision. Y’know, vision? I agree with murphaph on this one- see beyond the surface.

Devin- do you know who was the architect of the hotel?

><
The following is off-topic, sort of. Feel free to ignore it.

@naz78 wrote:

There are far more important things in life to worry about that bricks and mortar.

This is a built environment discussion board. Nobody believes it is the be-all-and-end-all of the world. But our interest in the built environment is why we’re here. Maybe these topics are trivial in the greater scheme (as paul lite says), but can’t we have a little perspective? Do you go to football matches and berate the players and fans for not clearing land mines in Angola?

And paul lite, I think you’ll find that Graham (the target of your ‘certain person’ remark, I presume), rather than derailing the thread was actually endeavouring to bring it back to the topic under discussion.

Finally, can we pleeeeease steer clear of the objectionable sentiment that ‘Everybody is entitled to their own opinion’. It is axiomatic, but is rarely employed to mean what it says. More often than not it turns all differences of opinion into a personal attack, thus stifling a potentially intelligent debate. If you believe that you are entitled to your opinion, then you must also believe that somebody is entitled to disagree with your opinion. Because they are precisely that- opinions. Not facts. If you’re going to have an opinion, you should be prepared to argue it or defend it rather than hide behind it.

Anyway, I know the thread has moved on, thankfully, back to the subject of the quays. As you were.

naz78-
The logical conculsion of your argument is that if anyone wants to get rid of any building all they have to do is buy it and let it go to ruin. That’s certainly how business was done in the past in this city (see the South Great George’s St thread for a perfect example), but no more. Haven’t you ever heard of a ‘duty of care’? It’s an eyesore because it wasn’t cared for, not because it’s a poor building.

PDLL-
1) I don’t know any conservationist who would espouse any of your five points, but there is a perfectly good argument for the protection of this building. It is a relatively intact example of a building of its period that, though not of the first rank, is more significant due to its rarity, i.e. if they were ten-a-penny the case for protection would be weaker but, as one of the few Georgians on this stretch of the quays (otherwise blighted by mucky urban renewal apartments), there is a stronger argument for its retention.
2) The building ‘is an eyesore’ because it has been allowed to deteriorate, not because it was inherently ugly to begin with.
3) Why does it need to be ‘re-developed into a spanking example of a Georgian building’- retaining good examples of more modest buildings is as important as retaining the Fitzwilliam and Merrion Square examples. Then as now, not everyone lived in palatial splendour.
4) ‘If people want to see great Georgian architecture, they will go to Bath or Edinburgh’: Dublin is acknowledged as one of the great Georgain capitals of Europe, regardless of the vandalism and neglect that took place in the 20th century. Further, Bath Georgian and Edinburgh Georgian are as different from each other as they are from London Georgian, Dublin Georgian and Cork Georgian. A quick look around any of those cities would tell you as much.
5) Further again, the argument that one city can satisfy the scholar’s, the layman’s or the tourist’s (or the philistine’s) desire for a particular style of architecture probably applies more to contemporary design with its global aesthetic (Calatrava in Dublin, Gehry in Bilbao, Heneghan Peng in Cairo, etc. etc.) than to Georgain architecture with its regional variants, and there is good reason to believe that this trend might only become more pronounced due to the desires of many architects to stay one step ahead of the pack and to the instantaneous transmission of ideas around the world. The stage is now the world, not a town or country.