ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@tommyt wrote:
The cleaning of the Alliance Francais building unfortunately seems to have damaged some of the cutesy detailing at the bottom of some of the pillars like the dog chasing the hare/rabbit.
I’m pretty sure they’ve been damaged for years, unless the damage has got worse in the recent past. I put it down to decades of atmospheric pollution rather than cleaning.
“I think many of the antis in this debate tend to use a strawman argument by suggesting that everyone in favour of high rise is proposing this type of high rise”
Most of the proponents are advocating tall buildings (which automatically require certain provisions such as increased space). I’m not mis-reading them I don’t think. But I think you’ve mis-read my interpretation, so… Straw man alert! 🙂Couple of quick points (it’s late):
Most of the two-storey stuff in the city centre was built in the 1980s, at a time when there was virtually no residential accommodation being built in town at all. It is obviously wrong from our current perspective, but it must have seemed like a very real achievement in those days.
The reason for the Plan Voisin mention was that the post to which I was originally responding was in a different thread (they were subsequently combined) which was advocating tall buildings. Had a rational argument been put for increased height, as Graham has done above, I wouldn’t have been so ‘black and white’. But I do believe that there is little scope for serious height in the city centre which is what was being suggested. And I don’t agree that we need height to signify modernity.There was a lavishly illustrated monograph published not so long ago on the Honan Chapel (maybe by Cork University Press?). It might have some leads.
Maskhadov-
As Devin said, this has been covered extensively elsewhere. But to rehearse briefly the arguments put forward in previous threads:
Tall buildings would not “give a major boost to boosting the dublin population, decreasing property rents and taking up the least amount of space”, for the reason that there is an optimal height above which gains in height must be offset by increases in open space, amenity land, parking etc. In other words, we would be left with a landscape of towers dotted around among the fields, akin to Corbusier’s Plan Voisin.
I read an interesting quote not so long ago that I can’t lay my hands on now along the lines that tall buildings don’t provide more accommodation, only different accommodation.
Further, tall buildings aren’t the only way of creating a modern looking capital. Quality contemorary architecture is the way to go, if such a capital is desired, though whether a sleek modern image is appropriate for Dublin is another point entirely (again addressed on one of the previous threads). Tall buildings only give that image from a distance, such as from, say, an airplane or the Dublin mountains.That’s why everybody can’t accept these points; because they are not facts but opinions. I agree that the low-rise suburban model is not the future, but neither is height for height’s sake. In fact, the low-rise model has been declining in Dublin for a while now, the preference being for densification up to a certain level. That is the debate we should be having about the future of our capital city, in which tall buildings might conceivably play a role as landmarks. But they are categorically not the answer to the problem of urban sprawl.
Though flawed, I’d choose a planning system with the provision for third party appeal over one without any day. It’s not the system’s fault if some people don’t play fair.
I’d say ‘Welcome to the most me feinish population in Europe’ instead.Do you know who the appellant was? Are you sure that was their reason?
Woo-hoo!
Congratulations to O’D+T.
They got my vote in the poll here (he said smugly). Other buildings were close in my mind, but I think this one will age really well- will possibly get better over time.Spot on, tommyt. I really like Dorset St precisely because it hasn’t been comprehensively made over- similar to Thomas St in this respect. One of the more mixed areas in Dublin, both community- and service-wise. It could use a bit of tlc, but not full-on gentrification.
The key point in this, as was pointed out in the Irish Times article yesterday, is tax incentives. And, by extension, under-resourced planning authorities that were unable to assess adequately many of the proposals due to lack of staff.
But who grants the stars? Is it just a case of ticking enough boxes on a sheet to get the required classification? “Does it look like one of Saddam’s/Ceausescu’s palaces? Slap on an extra star!”Whether your accusations are correct in this case or not, multiple identities are actually against the rules of these forums, as detailed in the vBulletin rules page. Possibly Paul doesn’t care or chooses not to enforce it. It should be easy enough to discover, I’d have thought.
I don’t think planners would behave any differently from anyone else, though we might have a better understanding of the system. If you’re asking would a planner apply anyway, the answer is probably no, particularly if you have already been told by the LA that it’s a non-runner. Might be time to look at other options (and curse your family member that they beat you to the punch).
Good luck.https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2214
Have you asked your local authority?
PS 13 minutes is hardly an eternity.
Meant to say:
As DOC and I said on different threads recently, it’s best to get a Section 5 Declaration from the local authority before commencing works. It will tell you if PP is required and it will prevent pesky neighbours from interfering down the line (assuming one keeps within the terms of the development as agreed).
There really is no substitute for it.@GregF wrote:
I think the Carlton site should be kept as an entertainment venue of some sorts
Agreed, Greg. All I was thinking was that an underground entrance could be provided on the site- right in the middle of the street (there was a post a couple of months ago that said how wonderful it would be to get a train in from the airport and arrive slap bang on O’C.S.). And it would minimise the excavation works if one could be provided while the site is being redeveloped (ambitious, I know, but a man can dream! 🙂 ).
I’d agree fully with your interpretation, sw101, but I can see how the Regs might cause confusion to the uninitiated. Though to clarify, even if the extension is partly submerged rather than built on the ground level, it still qualifies as ground level, so anything above it is ‘first floor’.
To be fair to John, I don’t think he’s trying to subvert the Regs. It sounds like he’s just trying to resolve a problematic situation.
However, I also wondered recently where this sudden rash of calls for planning advice came from. I wonder if local authorities aren’t directing tricky cases to the sages at archiseek? 🙂 As you’ve probably seen from my posts to other similar threads, I’m directing people to planning consultants. I don’t think advice given off the tops of our heads is any replacement for a proper case analysis, and I’d stress that again. I don’t intend to dole out free advice forever as I’ve many other things to be getting on with. And to be fair to local authorities, they have improved greatly in this type of thing themselves.
Or the Carlton site.
Though getting one project underway will be troublesome enough, never mind trying to synchronise two.How do you mean ‘more specific’? Do you want me to elaborate on the hypothetical situation outlined above? As I said, it’s only speculation, but I could speculate some more if you like? 🙂
Bear in mind that my speculation is somewhat at odds with ConK’s first-hand experience, where he said “If it has an upstairs it’s a two-storey… end of story.”@hutton wrote:
At a recent talk, Frank Mc D referred to her in terms of (roughly) “ravings of a mad Sth Dublin housewife” – an assessment that I am inclined to share.
Frank McDonald was careful not to mention any names in connection with that characterisation. However, if that’s who you choose to see as being thus described… 😉
@Frank Taylor wrote:
I saw a survey of New Yorkers where they were asked where they would go in New York to meet someone if both parties only knew the date and time of the appointment but not the location. Something like 50% of them chose the information office at Grand Central Station.
I think the date only was specified, and they chose that location at 12 midday.
Could it have been in James Surowiecki’s ‘The Wisdom of Crowds’ book?In Dublin, it would depend for me on who I was meeting (I know that’s not the thrust of the question), but Trinity Gates, Traitor’s Gate (Grafton corner of SSG) or the tree at Nassau St Trinity entrance are all contenders.
If someone wanted to find me, there are a couple of coffee shops that are homes from home, but that’s different altogether.
Though this is just a hunch, I suspect that some clever-clever planner or architect once made an application claiming that the lowest floor of a building was a basement because it was 6 inches below street level (and got away with it), so ever since they have had a very strict definition of what constitutes a basement. Hence the ‘above ground level’ bit. Yours sound to me like a half-basement, so I can see where the local authority is coming from.
Don’t know any cases, I’m afraid. And the above paragraph is just wild speculation on my part (or an educated guess, depending on how you view it 🙂 ).
