-Donnacha-
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I’ve only seen pictures, but I don’t get it either. And what exactly is facile beauty? Do you mean if something is shiny and new-looking, it has less integrity than something that’s made to look like it’s being weathered away as soon as it’s built?
I’m not sure the old ‘inner suburbs’ like Drumcondra and Rathmines would be considered high density by international standards. I was on a bus from the airport recently and overheard an ‘are we nearly there yet?’ conversation between two French visitors. No, said the other, they were still in ‘the suburbs’. This was past Drumcondra station and well onto Dorset Street. They seemed genuinely amazed to find themselves on the O’Connell Street two minutes later.
Our old terraced buildings have far fewer floors than those on the continent. I’m not sure what the historic reasons are for that, and there’s nothing we can do about it now, but I think it’s time MINIMUM heights and densities were introduced for new buildings.
Outside specifically sensitive areas, I don’t think building as low as four or five storeys in the centre is sustainable for a city that’s supposedly going to have two million people in it soon.
Do our planners ever go abroad? There is absolutely nothing wrong with an eight or nine storey terrace. If we had been building new streets like this for the last 10 years instead of acres of wasteful semi-ds, we wouldn’t have to bother ourselves with the high rise debate now.I say it will happen, if we want it to. If it doesn’t, we systematically kick every Fianna Failer and PD out of government, then out of every county council, town council, and two-bit local quango in Ireland, permanently. Then we do the same to the next crowd until we get someone to do the job properly.
I’m afraid if we retreat into the usual self-defeating cynicism on this one, we’re giving the Govt the opportunity to come back in a couple of years time and say: ‘It was aspirational. Sure ye said so yourselves…’.
Check out this house:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/P1-AD641_WJETHO_20051104185128.gif
West Coast Woman
To Build Crash Pad
Out of an Old 747
Ms. Rehwald Asked Architect
For Curvy, Eco-Friendly;
Meditating in the Cockpit
By ALEX FRANGOS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 5, 2005; Page A1VENTURA COUNTY, Calif. — Francie Rehwald wanted her mountainside house to be environmentally friendly and to be “feminine,” to have curves. “I’m a gal,” says the 60-year-old retiree.
Her architect had an idea: Buy a junked 747 and cut it apart. Turn the wings into a roof, the nose into a meditation temple. Use the remaining scrap to build six more buildings, including a barn for rare animals. He made a sketch.
“When I showed it to her in the office, she just started screaming,” recalls the architect, David Hertz of Santa Monica. Ms. Rehwald, whose passions include yoga, organic gardening, meditation, folk art and the Cuban cocktails called mojitos, loved the adventurousness of the design, the feminine shapes and especially the environmental aspect.
“It’s 100% post-consumer waste,” she says. “Isn’t that the coolest?”
Pretty cool idea, I wouldn’t mind living in a 747
Thanks for that Lex, the timing seems about right. Depends on the design MPH bring to the table, and the degree of public outrage involved …
That first image of the North Docklands you posted seems to suggest that the ‘new’ station will be built to the south of the existing one, ie it will provide new facilities but will use the platforms of the existing station for at least some services.
I had a very peripheral involvement in this a number of years ago, and at that time the thinking was that any new station would have to involve new platforms to the east of the existing station, not least due to the curvature of the platforms (which are still, technically, in breach). This implied that the station would be, in effect, entirely new, and most likely built ‘over’ the track (on a European model with an elevated concourse and stairs/escalators down to the platforms below). This would have left even more room on the river side of the station for a public plaza, bus stops, a taxi rank and ‘kiss and drop’ points, along with what ever private construction was envisaged. Things change, obviously. We’ll just have to wait and see
Lexington, do you know if the Cork Commuter Rail (including the Midleton link) can go ahead before Kent Station is redeveloped? That image you’ve posted above seems to show the existing station building (its a PS, and can’t be touched) only, and no mention of the new station further east or the associated car park.
I don’t have a copy of the Faber Maunsell Report, or any of the IE doc, but I seem to remember that there were through traffic issues with Kent Station, what with Commuter Rail and inter city sharing the same platforms.
(thanks for the ref to Cork CoCo)
Thanks Sue
30m means that (allowing 10m for the interconnector and the supports), the metro will only be 15-20m below the street level – I can almost smell the compo claims for structural damage.
If the interconnector isn’t due to be finished until 2015, doe this mean that the Metro can’t open till then either? They can hardly have heavy engineering works going on below functioning Metro and Luas stations, can they?
Also, won’t the location of the entrance to the Metro station determine where the Luas ‘connector’ can run? If the entire corner of Stephens Green is a 30m pit, they can hardly construct a luas line around the top of the green and down Dawson street, can they?
delighted that victoria mills building received recognition for what it has achieved. some of the tabloid style criticisms (soviet block blaa blaa blaa) were getting a bit tiresome – we need contemporary, imaginative and bold design statements in this city – not more cheap red brick/fake balcony pastiche (everywhere) and no more early 1990s postmodern rubbish (5 lapps quay).
I presume that the entirety of the Green wouldn’t have to be removed? Surely a pit could be dug down to the full depth, lined, and then the platforms dug out and constructed underground, ‘wide’ of the entrance shaft? The Geotechnics for this are going to be a hoot though.
As for spoil, well, if the TBMs for the metro and interconnector are going to be starting their path at (say) the airport and Inchicore, the tunnel spoil will be dragged out the end of the tunnels, leaving only the station material to be removed out of the city centre (altogether, thats a lot of material, anyone for a port extension?)
Does anyone know how deep the stations are likely to be? And which will be the lower level, the Metro or the heavy rail?
Lex, is the last report listed in the bibliography of that tender document publicly available? (“The Competitiveness of Cork: An Economic Analysis”)
In reality, the percentage of people in the state living in the GDA (were it accurately represented) would be closer to a half. Moreover, it has seen a huge increase in population in the last 15 years, far ahead of what public services could keep pace with. The plan is Dublin centric because (a), the state is, and (b) public transport requires economics of scale and critical mass to be justified. The WRC, on the other hand, has neither, is is included in this plan purely for the optics.
The critical issue ignored in the NSS and Transport 21, but not in the Buchanan Report, is that in a country the size of Ireland, there are a very limited number of urban centres that can hope to generate self sustaining critical mass. In reality, there are two outside of Dublin. Targeting critical infrastructure at these would facilitate the development of these ‘growth poles’ and allow a more sustainable rate of growth for Dublin. Due to the vagaries of PR-STV and our parish pump politics, no competent politician is going to say this however. And instead we are left with a situation whereby Dublin gets the lions share of the funding (because it has been allowed to sprawl unchecked), and everywhere else gets some sweeties too, mainly because they’ve been good little boys and girls. The recent announcement merely contributes to that spiral of centralism.
The problem now is that Dublin (and that boondoggle in the west) is going to suck up funding for the next 10 years, while Cork sits and becomes a very real problem as it grows under its own steam. There are steps that can be taken in the short term, (why does Cork not have its own transport authority or even bus company for example, or higher density development in the city itself) in the longer term, Cork is going to need what is politely known as macro economic transfers. And that is not just for some grand strategic vision (as in the next CASP), but for the basic necessities of getting around. At current rates of growth, Cork County will have a population of over half a million shortly, and will maintain (roughly) its percentage of the population of the state. Where is the matching funding to support that growth?
@asdasd wrote:
There is far more to the plan than mentioned. I like the new waterford to Donegal motorway, although the route is a bit uncertain at the moment.
some of what you say is true. Some of this stuff was mentioned before, that didnt make it part of any type of overall plan. The government did not commit to the metro to the airport, nor the interconnector until today, and they have added more luas lines than I was expecting ( Lucan, for instance, and Bray), and the metro goes further than expected in Clondakin-Tallaght as well as sword airport.
Good plan.
Looking at the map when I clicked on the above link, it’s a pity there is no LUAS line running out to UCD. 23.000 students 2,500 staff will be commuting to that campus daily when they relocate all their buildings to the Belfield campus. Sure their campus car parks are currently acting as a Park and RIde system for people working in town. THey are all full by ten in the morning and there are 17 car parks there so there has to be something done public transport wise for UCD. And integrated ticketing… That should be done ASAP. Not in 2 years time, or five years time. For god sake it’s the year 2005, nearly 2006. I think all motorways currently in the planning pipleline should be extended to at least three lanes on either side. The Government may think we don’t need it now or in five years time but give it ten years time we’ll probably need three lanes of motorway on either side. Anyone agree with me?
anyone ever hear of the BKS proposal in 1967 (i think) for cork city centre – it was recommended that a four lane motorway would be built in cork, encircling the city centre with sliproad access to the various radial routes. this was to be a raised roadway and it is said that it would have involved the demolition of literally thousands of buildings – the council (the elected members) accepted this report and its recommendations but the City Manager (Joe McHugh I think) apparently refused and commissioned the LUTS Plan instead.
A lucky escape for Cork methinks. It just goes to show why we need strong civic minded City Managers when strategic decision making is left solely to councillors.
Doesn anyone know what the plans are for Bolands Flour Mills? I presume the tall grey building attached to it is not being kept?
With regard to the decision by councillors not to allow developers to build anything over three storeys is a disgrace. If they are suggesting such a cap because of the fact that anything over three storeys is unsightly-well the only thing that is unsightly that is over three storeys is cooperation buildings…. Not private developer builders. SO I can understand them if they are referring to their own developments-but since they don’t build anything anymore, well I suppose they are hoping private developers will sort out they’re ever growing list of applications for social and affordable housing, they shouldn’t have introduced such a cap.
Reason: Land prices are SO HIGH these days and the only way for developers to recuperate the amount they have paid for land is to build up… Be it 7 stories, 13 stories or 17 stories-literally the only way is up, as the song goes. So if developers are paying a high price for land and there is a cap imposed on what they build then who gets landed with the heavy bill… Oh ya, the consumer… Councillors if your reading this please understand-Cork has the opportunity and ability to become a metropolitan city, a city we can ALL be proud of, but understand, putting unwise rules in the way of progress and development, will hinder Cork’s development, and will make it an unattractive place for companies to invest and redevelop in.
That’s all I’ve got to say…
re: the “last nights note by the councillors of gloom”
just to clarify things in my mind here- is it not true that the current city development plan is still the statutory plan for cork city and suburbs?
last nights vote was a motion and not a vote on an actual amendment to the plan? surely 15 councillors cannot alter a development plan over the course of a monday nights rambling…what’s the situation?
btw – an bord pleanala can overrule a development plan
the three storey ban would potentially conflict with government guidelines on residential density 1999 and government policy precedes local authority statutory plans. it would also conflict with government policy on sustainability.
these so called public representatives are being disingenuous and it is quite sad to see this happen really – this proposal has no public interest and is being encouraged solely by motivations of certain local candidates towrads a general election in 2006/2007. what a pathetic bunch
Since the anti-“anything over three storeys” crowd obviously managed to get their opinions heard through a lobby group, is there anyway that those of us are against this motion can make our voices heard? Sign a petition, form a lobby or similar? Anyone got any ideas? I, for one, would like my opposition made known.
And people want to give more power to local government?
Question, is this actually binding? I mean do CCC have to, by default, turn down planning for all developments within the ‘suburbs’ over 3 stories? I presume the final word would rest with ABP, but in that case, do they then have to take this ‘ban’ into account?
What happens to the Dennehys cross proposals, for example?
I think the highrise debate shows the extent of Dublin’s identity crisis. Nearly 200 years of economic stagnation froze the city in the Georgian era until we kicked the brits out and started knocking down most of that. Then we got a bit of sense and filled in the gaps that were left the best we could. Then, a few years ago, we got rich, but were too scared/ unimaginative to do anything except continue filling in the gaps, this time with a bit more taste.
As far as I can see, that’s it. With the odd exception, we’ve no grand Victorian flourishes, no great deco buildings – modernism and much of the 20th century passed us by…
I think it’s understandable that people are getting impatient with Dublin’s failure to assert its new reality visually, and highrise is the quick, easy way for a generation to put its stamp on the look of a city.
With an almost totally flat skyline, obviously we have to be careful what we put up, but we’ve nearly 10 years of a boom behind us and nothing special to show for it besides an increasingly-filthy spike. I don’t know where the problem is, but we seem incapable of taking risks and making bold statements. I don’t necessarily want skyscrapers everywhere but we need to start building to reflect the fact that we’re a dynamic, European capital…
