FIN
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
jealousy is a terrible thing bth. it’s very easy to insult when not using your name. the reason we get these commisions is that contrary to you opunion we do good design, we are able to take it from concept to built reality within a reasonable proximity to the budget and we are such darn nice people. how is your practice doing???why don’t you talk about the projects you do and post some pictures ….
new part b states that you can have top hung but it has to be able to remain open in the event of a fire
devin honey,
your still the same after all these years…obviously time hasn’t been kind to your mood. or maybe saving the world brings it’s own special pressures and as a superhero, your people skills are as sharp as an taisce’s.very interesting discussion apart from the ramblings of the grumpy old man. i think that the topic has gradually come upon the true aspect of the problem. the design value of the one off house. i am still and will always be in favour of letting people build on their own land. in fact i have designed a house for a friend on his parents land. it is however not a bungalow or indeed anything remotely similiar to those grotesque houses but if i may say so, a masterpiece 😀 i do suspect however their will be some the incoherent nonsense from the usual suspects as soon as i go for planning.that aside…… we do need a increase in the design awareness of not only the public ( clients and therefore eventually end users who paint their houses pink) but as the profession isn’t protected in the technicians and dare i say builders as i have recently had a case where when pricing for a client a builder has suggested changing the design…
i agree with pd that there is the historical context for one off houses but not quite the ribbon development. someone mentioned ( apologies as i read the whole thread today and there was a lot to take in that i forgot who ) the development of new villages. this however will cause more problems cos then you have to build a public sewerage system and treatment plant along with providing a post office ( even though most rural p.o. are closing down and therefore the postie has to come further from a centralised p.o.) and then if it got larger a primary school…which the state will have to pay the teachers..then a garda station also paid by the state, fire station, public street lights, mroe roads to maintain…this is a good idea but if cost to the tax payer is an issue with one-offs then instead of constantly bashing it come up with an alternative that costs less ( not likely) or the same.
there is also another precedent that hasn’t been touched on yet, it was mentioned about the sea and that populations grew up around the sea ports. these, in bygone times, were the trade routes and superhighways of the day. with the advent of the motorcar this switched to the roads.people like to live along these routes for ease of access to other areas and goods..etc. it was only natural that people will develop this to suit their requirements. this is a natural extension of the pre-established order.
the position of site by the landowners are a reflection of this as is the P.A. insistance that a 30m road frontage be established. they then require( for valid safety reasons) sight lines therefore the natural hedgerow has to be taken out. i do agree that the concrete path is an eyesore all the way around a house. and that it is nice to see the land going right up to a house..this causes it’s own particular problems but can be over come. so along a road you have a row of houses with farmland in behind it.i am not going to get into the whole urban/culchie discussion, but what i find strange is the argument of the me feiners want their house so it should be….well is it not the me feiner on the other side saying “it doesn’t fit in with me view of ireland or what i think the quaint country folk should be doing” that are objecting to the one off’s. just a little observation. no offence meant to anyone.
bth..the image for the bus station you have is wrong. i don’t know where you got that but kindly stop using it. in fact i don’t know where you got any of your images. please tell
that is the best argument i have heard yet for bungalows. well done pdll. but they still look like shit. it’s the reality really. along with finicial necessity they are the form most co.co. and espically down this side seem to fancy. it will take an extremely long time to convince planners that a different form of house will suit their particular part of the world. they also don’t like setting precedents for some reason. i wish both of you luck if you ever try.
lol. like bobbing our heads?
that’s very interesting lexington. although not quite sure if it is a good idea or not. there are some immense benefits to this but could it make a planner think that they are architects too and redesign a complete project to fit in with their own design philosophy.overall i think it is probable good but the proof has to be seen.wow!. very interesting brian. it will take me a while to take it all in so i will read it again but just on the threads matter….i have recently had to deal with a few planners who didn’t like a design i was trying to show them based on personel experience of a similiar one in the states. this was a hotel and the planner in question staying a night in one similiar and didn’t like it and therefore asked us to re-design. this to me is strange. i don’t know if this happens everywhere but surely this can’t be right.
also are planners thought depth perception in college? because two different planners ( 1 a senior planner ) i have recently met had no idea. in the meeting it reminded me of a fr. ted sketch where ted was explaining to dougle about small and far away. it was truely that incredible.
on the other hand i have met a planner that was very interested in design and had a few discussions with her on the subject and it was very much when putting in an application you hoped it was in her particular area. sadly she has left that local authority.terrible loss for that area.i believe that if planners had more design knowledge then we wouldn’t be poles apart and we could start to work on the urban framework of which brian eluded too. it could help the built environment a significant amount.
hi devin, did you miss me sweety!
while obviously it is a good thing that people from a place in ireland with land can build their house on their land without the unnecessary heartache the previous system employed i do have reservations as to the design quality of any proposals. are the planners forced to grant permission even if the design is crap? i haven’t being keeping tabs on it and didn’t read all this thread.
must say it’s nice to get something to stop the tree hugger getting their way all the time.this is necessary for the countryside wether people from urban areas ie dubh linn can accept it or not!i agree weehamster but there is no inclination by anyone with power to change this. park and ride is a very good answer to a part of the problem. espically with the suburbs moving out all the time but nobody seems interested in developing this.
this argument is getting very tiring…it gets to the stage when people just don’t give a shit anymore. build it/ don’t build it!!!! if it’s needed then build it. simple really.
i liked that little article but no mention of a road to the west…did he forget about us over here or just not care? but makes sense about grouping the services together. i think we talked about this a long time ago disapora??? can’t remember whch thread. makes much more sense.
everyone seems to have an opunion about our roads. they should have been built 20-30 years ago and there would be none of these enviornmental arguments… we are a car dependent country..all this talk about these roads will turn us into car dependents!!! wake up…we already are. and all this with crap roads!!!i’m not defending it, i am just stating a fact. if the law changes then fine but until then quit whinging about it and do something. an taisce are toothless in this regard, as they are viewed as interfereing busy bodies from jackland, who know nothing about ireland. we ” in the country” are a nation of small farms when at the time it was cheaper ( and still is) to build on ur family’s farm then buy either another site or a house in town,surburb or city. why would we want some gobshite telling us, no it’s better for us here in dublin ( and from the article, in england) to think of oirland as quaint and everyone surviving on patato’s and for our children when we go out on a sunday for a drive to see some farms from the car. f**k that. if u really want to stop this encroachment then increase the plot ratio within cities and build high rise.now rant over,
yes it is down to planning issues, but until these change then we are stuck with them.
@Mob79 wrote:
You make it very hard to reply to that without sounding like a snob but i don’t think what joe punter wants is whats best in the long run and he most likely doesn’t know the alternative. There are alternatives so why should we accept those without any vision or imagination be let create our environment. (i’m not expecting a detailed answer on why.)
.why would a developer pay for something better when the same shit they have been doing and building cheaply will sell anyway. the profit margin decreases…doesn’t make economic sense. while i agree that they should be better it’s a simple matter of sums…
ahhhhhhh! crap. i haven’t seen it. i thought we were beyond this nonsense. they could at least make the design pleasent to look at..
what is the acceptable loss for the advancment of our country? the reality is not the oh” this is bad, and that is bad so we shouldn’t do it, what does the country need.i would however never support anything that destroys tara, but as i believe it doesn’t go through the hill but 3 miles away or something. i could be wrong however. the article is a good one and points out some interesting things but we are not a little isolated island anymore who’s reliance on toursim is overwhelming everyother aspect. we need these roads and it’s as simple as that, and to be honest, no-one can tell us what to do with our own country.
