Devin

Anyway back to the topic. I agree mob 79 – with ‘The Liffey’ & the 2-storey ones esp. they should be tried for Crimes against Ireland.

Hundreds of applications for those houses come into An Taisce every week from all around the country. It’s very depressing looking through them. Most of them have to go in the bin instantly. The Heritage Officer can only deal with a tiny few – for example if the house is located in or close to an SAC or is on an elevated site or lakeshore.

You can’t object to a house on design grounds or else you’re a ‘visual snob’. In fact, you can’t object/appeal a one-off house at all in Ireland cos then you are “persecuting” the people who applied for it (that’s what Roche said recently) – bizarre, isn’t it?

there was a requirement that a sewerage system had to be put in place before the opening and operation of the terminal – this was never done & a planning permission has only recently been granted.

Huh!

I’m always caught between head & heart on the trees issue. There’s the emotional attachment – not related to 1916 but to first experiences of town – those trees were always there & looked good – while being dragged across from Henry St to Talbot St as a 5 yr old on the heel of a Saturday afternoon before the shops closed……the first cut is the deepest – then there’s the recognition that the new planting arrangements take better advantage of the width & spatials of the street.

Originally posted by Graham Hickey
O’Connell Street’s very identity was defined by a linear planting of trees; the primary feature that made it unique in the city is now gone. It was a boulevard, cloaked under a canopy of trees – now that it has at last been exposed, there is nothing there to highlight and reinforce this urban layout.
It has been stripped of its identity, now a series of ‘plazafied’ spaces rather than the avenue it once was.

(raised eyebrow smilie) Graham, do I not recall, in the early pages of the O’Connell Street thread, you lauding the arrival of the first of the great new “architectural” limes for lower end plaza, and egging the council on to finally take a chainsaw to “those old ladies” at the top end?

Originally posted by burge_eye

All the Pearse / college st ban did was create an infuriating half mile loop for those people needing to go up Dame street. In the process it made the left turn from Tara street to the quays a nightmare, clogged up D’Olier St or added to the general mayhem on Wellington Quay and Parliament Street.

Well it’s a pity poor burgeye can’t drive from Pearse Street straight into College Green anymore!

It goes without saying that when you close one route it increases congestion somewhere else. The idea of the above banning is that the overall volume of traffic going from Pearse Street to Dame Street is reduced, cos its more hassle to do it than it used to be.

The whole aim of these bannings is to make people ask if their car route needs to be going through the centre city or, preferably, if they could be using public transport or cycling instead. 30% of urban car journeys are under 3 kilometers. There’s a lot of laziness in Dublin, a lot of people driving into town from Sandymount, Harolds X and Drumcondra, just because they have a work car space or can park in a multi-storey car park. These are the people the restrictions and bannings are aimed at.

kefu, as a driver-thru-the-city what do you think of the banning of the right turn from Patrick St/Nicholas St into Christchurch Place to private cars? We (A Taisce Dublin City) suggested this in our submission to the draft City Dev Plan, as a traffic-calming measure for Dame St/College Gn, on the basis that it would mirror the recent banning of prvate car passage from Pearse St into College St, restricting traffic from entering the College Gn/Dame St area from the opposite direction.

Or are all these ideas here on this thread for calming College Gn premature before the Macken St bridge? (hope not)

Here’s a better view of the Presbyterian Church – a real gobsmacking loss alright.:eek:

Didn’t know about the fire. Only info I have on it is that the Presbyterians sold it to a developer (a “fire” would be plausible in that case) in 1959 who demolished it with the intention of building an O’Connell Bridge House-type office block but never did.

Looking at the surviving ground floor facade today (incorporated in the 1989 Grafton Architects development over), you can see that the cutting, tooling and jointing of the stonework is of very high quality, which makes its demolition even more incredible.

IMG NEXT POST

I’d like to see the Ormond kept, but I don’t think it should be kept at all cost. But to justify its demolition, a new building would want to be of outstanding contemporary design quality, which the approved one emphatically isn’t.

Yeah but I knew who PVC king was, so its a bit different 😉