FIN
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
tara is the true capital. that city planned for mayo was the greatest load of shite.
the idea is a good one. and planned properly would have a great impact on the island as a whole. it could not however be just government administration. it would have to be planned carefully to allow for industry and such. thinking it will diminish dublin is not looking at all the facts. brasillia and canberra didn’t detract from their respective countries main cities.ha,ha,ha,ha…didn’t hear that before…. don’t know why cos if it was me that would be the first place i would do…ha,ha..that’s hilarious…
i would hope their profits would be more than 13 mil. but civic plaza would do the trick and stop all arguments about the development. but they need to announce it.
yeah! probably but would be nice to see them pump some money into a public square or new playground or something like that. then the public will see some resource out of what ultimately is development on public lands
fair enough. private in everything but name… still makes no odds really. he’s argument is really against this company taking control of public lands and building on them when they belong to the state who in turn gave them to the management company.
i do feel however that some of the profit could be used on the other public spaces in the town as it really is profit from the sale of these lands. wouldn’t agree with it going to the coffers of the government as it affects the town citizens and should be all be used in the town and not spread around the country as it most doubtably would be. .
that’s where he has the argument alright. although there is a point even if it was private, the fact that it is a icon building would enhance the space around and therefore benefit the public. but we could debate this all day.
primarily a public space- a museum on ground floor would be termed public…and the ownership question is still out there. harbour company…is this a public body run by the l.a. or is it semi-private???
Originally posted by pragmatist
Richard Boy Bandis that he’s real name?????
Originally posted by pragmatist
Socialist/Trotsky-ist workers partyi will venture a guess that ur not a fan of that particular political viewpoint.
while not in agreement with his viewpoint at all, and not sure what he is actually trying to achieve, if he would agrue that it’s public property and therefore shouldn’t have private dwellings ( another thing i’m not too sure on is wether it’ll be sold to the developer or a construction company build it for the co.co) on it then he may have a valid arguement. not enough of one for him to actually win but still enough for people to take note and listen. voice of a minority and all that.
As an Architect and a believer that we should develop our little nation so it looks as if we are in the 21st century and not stuck back in the 18th, he needs a good kick in the arse and a short curt f**k off and take ur nonsense somewhere else but unfortunately that won’t happen. bloody democracy!:Dthat’s very true. at the moment it’s up to the developer if he/she wants to have public consultations. i agree for big jobs this is wise for the developer as the public feel as if they are involved in the whole process. memebrs of the public rarely get to even speak to the planners even on the phone. but having public meetings on every big development may not get everyones support. ie planners who have better things to do, developers who don’t give a crap etc,
as for how to fix it…well it’s very easy to say it needs fixing and then give out about new proposals but another thing to think of a way so will have to get back to you on that after i think about it for a while 🙂Originally posted by phil
Fin, are you serious? Objections cannot be made for personal reasons. It is specificaly set out as to what people can and cannot object on. Obviously some people do object for personal reasons, but I really don’t think that these are taken in to account during a decision process.anyone can object for any reason and it is very easy to find a technicial reason. that’s why there are planning consultants. i’m not saying to stop all objections as that’s un-democratic but a re-think on policy is definately needed.
Originally posted by phil
I agree that some better way of getting communities involved in planning is needed, but at present the objections method is the only one which is available.exactly. why is it when it can be abused so easily
for some planners it’s a matter of what side of the bed they got up on that particular day… because of the general nature of dev. plans it gives a lot of scope to planners. and as we have all heard about, gives a lot of scope to councillors too.
i feel the objection system needs a review. i’m not advocating getting rid of it but if something is to benefit the community then there should be a process where all objections are rendered invalid. for the greater good and all that. and not allow the objectors carry it further and hold up these benefits because of personal reasons. obviously though this need to be balanced with good design. the greater involvement of the city or county architect in the scheme. just a thought to throw out there for discussion.
