ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Well, don’t forget the words from the horse’s mouth, as kindly posted by hutton on the last page:
Originally Posted by JC Decaux website
We posted the campaign over a single weekend and brought the advertising industry, and most of Dublin, to a halt on the Monday morning.We wanted to get the decision makers away from their desks and out to see the units in situ, to drive home the incredible new advertising locations. We knew if we could find a way of doing this we would get buy-in straight away because the displays and locations are so amazing.
18 lanes of traffic = 18 lanes of joy!! Or something.
2479/08
It’s at Additional Information stage, I’m afraid, so if you don’t have an observation/objection in already, then it’s too late to get involved.
@StephenC wrote:
Every bus service in the city is going to go by their front door…a Luas and a Metro/.. and they still depend on those all i mportant car based customers who are the pnly ones spending money these days
This, to me, is the key. They acknowledge (see the quote above) that the site is strategically located, but that’s usually an argument against car parking, not for it. How they can derive the latter conclusion from that scenario defies comprehension.
Why is it an either/or situation? Why not all? Let’s get rid of through traffic, commuters, and lazy shoppers.
There is certainly a demand for some retail car parking (but not 1,111 spaces). However, the ‘the spend at present by car-based shoppers tends to be significantly greater than Luas users’ argument is a bit of a red herring. Of course it is greater. If you’re buying a tv, you’ll probably need a car. And a tv can be worth a few grand. Bigger items that require assisted transport generally cost more. And Luas passengers can only carry so much stuff, so that’ll limit their spend. But to formulate an argument based on this is flawed logic. You’ve been paying too much attention to the retail lobby, I suspect!
It would be instructive to find out how much shopping is done by car vs walking vs bike vs public transport, and by ‘how much’, I don’t mean the cost (one car trip might equal the total annual grocery spend for an individual.) DCCBA might be surprised.
@StephenC wrote:
can’t find the other thread….. (I know I know search engine)
This one? Dublin- kerb cuts and footpath dishing
Might be worth reviving? I have a few howler locations worthy of posting. It would, at least, assist the relevant bodies when drawing up their programme of works.
@johnglas wrote:
ihateawake: did I miss something? I haven’t breathed a word about this monumental piece of *$&6e recently!
I think it was a reference to his use of NetSpeak, which had confused you in a previous thread IIRC (;)).
Alek-
Same thing happened with the concerts in Phoenix Park not so long ago- the No.10 bus stopped almost a mile short of its terminus, apparently.Re the car parking issue- the development proposes 1,111 car parking spaces, the rationale for which includes such gems as (from the A.I. Response, p.28):
The underlying rationale for this quantum of car parking is derived from a number of specific considerations, including the strategic location and uniqueness of the subject development, as well as supporting planning policy. It is therefore submitted that the level of car parking proposed for the site is based on sound transportation needs.
Much of the proposed car parking replaces the quantum lost to facilitate Luas, bus priority, Metro and streetscape improvements.
The key demographic for all retail areas is the car borne consumer who is traditionally the highest spender. Therefore, a large part of the success and viability of the development can be attributed to the car-based consumer.
…the provision of 1,111 No. car parking spaces provides a strategic car park in accordance with the objectives of Variation No. 16 of the Development Plan, the Retail Core Framework Plan, and the Development Brief for the subject site. The level of car parking is justified on the basis that it will ensure the commercial viability of the development; it will facilitate visitor/customer rather than commuter parking; and it offers the possibility of routing traffic away from the main shopping areas given its location on the inner orbital route.’
Quality, eh?
I should propose a competition to spot the hypocrisy and double-speak in there. I see about half a dozen examples- any advance on 6? (I’m ignoring the fallacious logic in paragraph 1- it doesn’t need my help drawing attention to itself.)
@Rory W wrote:
hoping to replicate the success of the recently opened Gaiety Centre on South King Street
‘success’? The paint’s barely dry. Is it deemed successful because it hasn’t fallen down yet? We really are clutching at straws.
@GrahamH wrote:
Some windows such as this one below had their glazing bars chopped out, probably in the 1950s or so. Their reinstatement restores uniformity and classical form to the facade.
Just a shame they’re not a sultry black. Lovely carved detail below.
Were these always 6/6 sashes? I would have thought they were 9-pane (6/3), not 12-pane.
The Authority is confident that these economic uncertainties are short to medium term
Branching out into economic forecasting now as well? Is there anything the DDDA can’t do!?!
RPS: Item No. 5112 – Marlborough Street, Dublin 1 – St Thomas’s Church (It’s the brick one on Cathal Brugha Street / Findlater Place – not on Marlborough Street or Upper OCS.)
So that’s a Yes- it is a Protected Structure (no longer called ‘listed buildings’).
See here for the RPS reference in the Dublin City Development Plan: http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/HeritageConservation/Conservation/Documents/VOLUME%203.pdf
***
By ‘potential’ I presume you mean ‘likelihood of getting planning permission’ rather than ‘potential to keep the rain off’?
There are specific guidelines for places of worship, produced by the DEHLG. See here: http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1600,en.pdf
I couldn’t give you a professional opinion; my personal opinion is that such an addition would be a big mistake.
@newgrange wrote:
It’s in Marlborough Street. Usually hidden behind lots of buses.
Spot on! Abbey Street end, west side. A wider view:
And from Archiseek’s own vaults (courtesy of alonso): http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/northcity/marlborough_street/dutc.html
The bollards are certainly Grand Canal style. Which one is the Goulding building, Seamus- the IDA building or the tall one that houses William Fry, etc.? IDA would get my vote for this sketch, based on the traffic islands.
No idea on the first one.
While I’m here:
I’m not sure why I keep coming back in here…
Anyway-
@Desmund wrote:
The lack of tall buildings in a city the size of Dublin are a reflection of attitudes and a conscious and in other cases subconcious gut reaction against any symbols of modernety. The lack of tall buildings in a place like the dockalnds which can take them and in my opinion needs them (and I’ll get back to that) is a point in case.
The equation of a considered response to the height issue with conservatism is both unfair and a straw man. If anything, I think it is more retardataire to state that a modern city automatically requires height to be ‘at the races’.
Though not directly relevant, I can’t help thinking of this quote from Chesterton (again? I must have posted this before…):
@GK Chesterton wrote:
“When men have come to the edge of a precipice, it is the lover of life who has the spirit to leap backwards, and only the pessimist who continues to believe in progress.”
(Illustrated London News, Nov 8, 1924)The problems of height in the Docklands will never be solved by a couple of tall buildings.
If I were to propose a solution to the banal uniformity, it would be to allow each building a few extra ghost floors as a tradeable commodity- say, 4 each? Then, owners could sell their air rights to each other, with some buildings adding one floor, some two, some seven or eight, and some none. Many of the buildings already look like truncated skyscrapers (just scan them into CAD and extrude to the desired/agreed height) and have, in fact, been designed to facilitate upward extension (foundations too deep for their current height, for example). If it’s a more diverse character you’re after, break up the uniformity across the board, not just in two or three locations.
@mac123 wrote:
The Point Village tower is quite a good design actually as most people on this thread seem to think so.
Don’t take the silence of those of us who gave up on these tall building discussions as tacit approval. The tower is bland.
@publicrealm wrote:
Anyone got info on the long awaited city advertising strategy – promised in the 2005 Development Plan ? (bootleg copies gratefully accepted) 😀
Still awaited, but a map was produced by DCC at the Oral Hearing, showing how they determined which locations were suitable for large, eye-catching, distracting, unsightly, offensive advertising hoardings designed to replace illegal, low-revenue, poorly located (from a commercial point of view) billboards which in many cases had enforcement proceedings underway. (Not their description, by the way.) This might now be considered the de facto Policy, especially in the absence of, y’know, a policy.
I’m sure if you ring Kieran Rose, he’ll point you in the right direction.*
*By which I mean, he’ll transfer your call to Mary Conway.
markpb- the space was there long before the taxi rank. The depressing thing is that it was thought by someone – presumably in DCC, maybe the Guards too – that this space could best be used as a taxi rank. That just demonstrates a complete lack of vision, as far as I’m concerned, and illustrates the… – is contempt too strong a word? – for pedestrians in this city.
I see no reason not to remove the rank. The matter of taxis parking illegally elsewhere is an enforcement issue. The current state of affairs on O’Connell Bridge is hardly the appropriate solution to that problem.
Photo taken 01.x.08, 1:10 pm:
My suspicion is that pedestrians crossing from OCBridge to OCStreet align themselves with the OCS footpath (I was standing on the kerb edge).
If this doesn’t demonstrate a case for widening the footpaths on the bridge, I don’t know what else might.
(Maybe if I could produce evidence of the Aircoach drivers who drive up the hatched area [taxi ‘rank’] and bully their way into the adjacent lane? Leave it with me.)
