Emma Dalton

That very question was asked in the lecture Q+A. From what I understand Mitchell + Associates had proposed a cyclelane, but their involvement in the scheme was design concept only, and DCC brought the scheme through the detail design and onto site, and though I agree with you Peter in that it is the responsibility of the designer to push their agenda in the interest of all users, I heard that DCC Roads Department in all their wisdom did not want to include the cyclelane and there was no persuading them. DCC Roads seem to be able to dictate a lot of agendas that perhaps are best dealt with by the Archietcts Dept or Planning Dept. I know they have to maintain the streets and roads but I think they use this power to the disadvantage of many schemes.

About the pedestrianisation, I think about the disadvantages of providing a fully pedestrainised route from Parnell Square to Stephen’s Green. That would mean that you would have to redirect traffic off Naussau Street, off Dame Street/College Green, off the Quays, and off O’ Connell Street. That would in my opinion redirect traffic congestaion to other parts of the city that would result in chaos and more prople sitting in traffic than ever.

I got some handouts of the lecture about urban open space that Brian McGuinne of Mitchell + Associates gave and I said I would include them here. Sorry if they seem disjointed as I could include all of the notes. Brian McGuinne mentioned that the design of O Connell Street was in some way the opposite to the Ramblas. The Ramblas as you all know has a wide median and very narrow footpaths which do not serve the street buidlings well. The O Connell Street solution was to widen the footpaths and to narrow the median allowing much more live frontage use to the shops and buildings.

Notes of lecture:
True innovation in the design of urban space did not begin to happen until the latter past of the twentieth century, where the escalating cost of urban land, allied to the greater mobility of city dwellers, saw the demise of “rus in urbe” and the introduction of urban space as a container for intense cultural and recreational activity.

“…interventions in public spaces, or rather, in public landscapes, should no longer be focused on generating greenery. The real challenge is to create space and textures for city dwellers to colonize in their town. Nature can play a role in this, but not, a priori, the main role”.

One of the most favoured ways in Europe and the National States, and one of the most expensive ways is to create urban space on the roofscapes of gigantic underground car parks. The Schouwburgplein in Rotterdam, Placa de la Cathedral in Barcelona, Place Terraux and Place Celestine in Lyons are all created in such a manner, where the congested elements and parking problems are solved or partially – solved, but at a high price. In addition the creation of urban space on what are effectively roof terraces have significant limitations for the introduction of greenery.

The urban structure of Dublin does not fit well with the Europe or American models detailed above. Firstly, we inhabit a city with a small, low-density urban core, with a dispersed low-density monoculture of residential areas surrounding it. Secondly, this dispersion does not allow for the creation of intense foci of recreational activities, but rather an array of sub “rus in urbe” spaces totally overscaled in relation to the potential catchment areas.

Recent initiatives, however, such as the Residential Density Guidelines have encouraged a new examination of existing urban pattern. Any increase in density of the built fabric of Dublin will fundamentally alter the role of urban space. In low-density cities open space can be largely undifferentiated with few precisely ascribed uses. The implications for open space in dense urban structures is quite the opposite, where each space assumes a particular function or set of functions, very similar in form to a dense mat-building, such as the Free University of Berlin.