GrahamH

The design of school buildings is so important, yet is rarely if ever given any consideration.
At a time, as mentioned above, when vast investment is being made in the primary and secondary school infrastructure, greater efforts should be made on the part of the Department of Education to promote a high standard, indeed even reasonable standard of design in school building construction.

For the most part, schools and school extensions being built around the country are little more than vastly bloated one-off house designs: sprawling pebbledashed single-storey buildings with mammoth pitched roofs plonked on top to cover the huge area, clad in acres of tiles.
In one case I know of, the school was virtually doubled in size in the 1990s, at the cost of

Agreed, a shameful decision. The dock is one of the best amenity spaces in the city, and certainly the best of the north Docklands. Even as it is, the temporary structures often erected on the water should not be permitted – at the moment it’s full of garden sheds :rolleyes:

It is so laughable, so ironic, so ridiculous above all, that the only site that can be found in the entire capital is a pool of water set aside as an amenity space in a business district.
Not only is the proposal damaging to the 18th century dock, not only is it commandeering a valued breathing space in the IFSC, but it is also depriving the city centre of the theatre itself, not to mention the rejuvenating effect it could have on a rundown area.

By all accounts the finished theatre will probably look stunning with something of a ‘moat’ effect around it, but architecturally it could have been equally successful elsewhere, and much more so on a host of other levels.
The wrong decision.

Good example Morlan. Only that photographs are not the best for picking out detail, and either way that scene is still ugly to me have to say, ugly and messy.
Agreed, they do not impair one’s enjoyment of the building, but equally they certainly don’t contribute to it either.

And in Australia, as in the US, there is something of a colonial culture of hanging cables about the place, even in urban areas, for transport, telecommunications and electricity.

Were London, for whatever bizarre reason to introduce such a system to their city, I can’t imagine them going for a suspended cable system in the centre, where there just isn’t such a culture. Could be completely wrong on that, and of course Manchester has a cabled system, but I cannot see it being used in the heart of London where such pride is taken in their streetscapes and furnishings.

And yes, most people couldn’t care less about what system is used, and it is highly subjective. Just very simply I don’t like cable systems on city streets. Some people find them charming, and European and cosmopolitan and all the rest of it – I don’t….
Sorry!

It’s terrible isn’t it?! You see it everywhere around the city. Combined with the rusty tones of the stones, it makes pavements look like dodgy 70s domestic cladding. And it’s not just secondary locations: the most famous ‘antique pavement’ in the city has been pasted in the muck – Trinity’s curved footpath on College Green:

and not only that but also the most appallingly insensitive additions and alterations:

Not even similar coloured slabs used at the crossing (as O’Connell St has proved, different coloured slabs are not required for the visually impaired), and just tossed down in any old fashion, Similarly the new pedestrian lights and security camera pole just shoved in with dollops of concrete.

And as for this outside the gates of Trinity:

What a disgrace.

Likewise further west along the Red Line is improving hugely, or is about to, though admittedly how much of this is directly attributable to Luas is questionable alright.

It is difficult to compare the impact of a bridge and that of cables as you’re not comparing like with like, but on a personal level yes I’d view the impact of a new bridge as relatively less damaging than cables and poles on the proposed A route. If the Loop Line bridge wasn’t there, it’d be a very tough call as obviously the poles and cables of the new bridge would fall right in view of the Custom House. But that view is destroyed now, and clearly we’re never going to get it back, even with a redesigned model which seems in itself a non-runner.
That view is lost forever. And as much as I love this section of the Liffey, almost like a pool of water captured between O’Connell and Butt bridges, it’s not as if its virgin territory in terms of inappropriate development, or is one of the city’s scenic jewels. College Green most certainly is, as is the College Street area.

Again I’d say if a telecoms company proposed suspending such cables on poles through the city centre, there would be absolute uproar from all sectors, fuming over the impact on what is one of the finest buildings in Europe of the 18th century. Trinity’s ‘streetscape’-like facade could probably take it a little better, but certainly not the Bank of Ireland, the set-piece that it is.

Also, none of this is being thought of in terms of a refurbished College Green – think, the trees will not be there anymore, much of the signage clutter and appalling lampposts will go also. Instead of being left with Grattan and his lamps in the centre, beautifully framing the newly exposed BoI and Trinity, we’ll also have cables and poles all about the space, and more exposed than they would be as the Green currently stands.

Perhaps I’m thinking of this in an overly photographic/picturesque fashion, but on the other hand none of this has been given the slightest consideration by the looks of things. At the open day it was patently obvious the architectural impact of Route A simply wasn’t on the radar, and the fact it probably has Frank McDonald’s support puts the icing on the cake. One suspects he is the barometer by which a lot of political heads base their actions nowadays (otherwise for the better).
The ‘Harcourt Street Case’ is not remotely comparable to College Green, it cannot be used as a cogent argument for the acceptability of such features.

And how will these strutures be passed in terms of legislation – surely telecoms cables would not be permitted as negatively impacting elements on the setting of major protected structures, but Luas would?
The arguement could me made that other European cities put up with cables and poles passing significant buildings, well I think these look awful too – some of the street scenes in Devin’s Amsterdam images alone look so very ugly as a result of tram cables. It’s not something we should have to ‘put up with’.

In 2005, it’s a disappointingly retrogade step to be erecting cables cables through the historic city centre.
The fact that nobody in planning seems to care, or at least publically discuss the matter to put minds at rest is even more so.

And just to clarify jimg, your post gives the impression I said that about public transport going where authorities want it to go – it’s someone else’s…

What a fantastic building! Can’t say I’ve come across it before – was it built as a private development or Corporation built?
The stairwell block in particular is great; if there’s any consolation to be had it’s the fact that windows in communal areas are those that tend to last the longest as they’re just neglected, so these may well have some life in them yet.
Indeed overall it’s most surprising all of the flat windows have survived for as long as they have.

Doesn’t granite and especially grey limestone work so well with wine brick? The perfect combination.
The brickwork in the pics there would suggest an even earlier date than 40s/50s – looks like late 1930s, which’d be interesting if built as a private development…

Yes, strange alright. Then again, as has happened with other polls, the more something is discussed the more things seem to change, Dublin Bridges a case in point….

The maps are here though, so maybe they could be brought over to the other thread too?
Went along to the ‘Open Day’ today – very informative and pleasant, though what exactly the purpose of it was is anyone’s guess: it’s not as if the RPA reps were being swayed by what anyone was saying as far as I could make out….

But they were very helpful – a number of interesting things arose. If Route B goes ahead as planned, Foleys pub on the corner of Merrion Row and Merrion St will have to be demolished – the trams won’t make the bend otherwise. A great pity, as it’s a lovely stock brick Georgian building, albeit stuffed with PVC, while irritatingly the poor pastiche Georgians next door aren’t affected!

If the George’s St route goes ahead, the very substantial Georgian, perhaps Wide Streets Commission building on the corner of George’s St and Dame St will have to be demolished or partly demolished, as the trams won’t make this corner either. Saying that, I fail to see how they can make the Dawson/Nassau bend and not this broad spacious one! Perhaps it’s to keep the existing traffic lanes free.

Ger Hannon was particularly annoyed over the myth that was started in the Irish Times about the Trinity wall – it, nor the Provost’s carriage block, will have to be touched in any way, shape or form should Route A be chosen. There is also no issue about Luas turning this corner, not the Dawson bend – it fits fine :). Did Garret ever ‘clarify’ this matter?

The OPW paving on St. Stephen’s Green north would not be affected either, or if it is during construction will be reinstated. As most people know the current terminus on the Green is going be enlarged, but after the Christmas rush.

As for the Tara St/Butt Bridge option, another rep came across as rather vague on this – seemingly a mixture of the route being too congested, and it being too far from O’Connell St being the problem. But another rep by contrast said they’d like to get it as close to Connolly as possible to integrate the various rail modes, but proximity to the city centre would seem to be a priority…
On this route, the traffic congestion argument seems void to me as if the Luas is already coming up Pearse St, traffic volumes are already limited. So whatever limited traffic there is on Pearse St is going to be flowing onto Tara St also; Tara St doesn’t get most of its traffic from anywhere else.

In terms of which is the favoured route, it was funny, constantly all the reps were trotting out the same thing – ‘oh there’s no favoured route, that’s why we’re having this consultation’ – over and over again.
Yeah right 🙂

Even on what was the most popular route thus far amongst the public coming in, it was a bit vague – though judging by the clusters constantly around A and B, I think that says it all.
One rep (not mentioning names :)) really disliked the Pearse St/Route B option, almost to the point of him finding it difficult to imagine the traffic implications could ever be dealt with on Pearse St, while another rep liked this route as it affords the regeneration of Marlborough St into the future with a Luas extension north, as well as improving Pearse St itself, and Hawkins St. They were both coy in there avoidance of mentioning favourites.

As for cables etc, kinda went on a bit of rant at them :o, and got two different answers. One was of the ‘huh huh, well with digital photography nowadays we can just airbrush them out’ variety, along with ‘well O’Connell St with ah the Pillar, was a hub in the city in the days of yore, sure a platform in the middle will be just like the olden days’. Indeed when it was put to him about the cluuter behind O’Connell Monument, he even said that it mightn’t even go there – it ‘could go up near the Spire like it used to’ – pointing to the Plaza!! 😮
‘Sure it’ll all have to be dug up anyway’ – while another man there suggested there would be public support for this, which I’d question….

Ger Hannon seemed more conscious of the effect on the city centre, which is why the deviation off down College St was included as a proposal in Route D – it maintains the two roadways of O’Connell St and generally doesn’t interfere with the street, especially if a Luas extension north happens as planned in Transport 21 – Marlborough St would get it instead. The usual old Harcourt Street case was brought out as an example of cables working well in a sensitive area, but at least it was acknowledged that College Green is very different upon it being pointed out. It was noted that cables nowadays are not like the ‘knitting pattern’ or something of old….

On the crucial issue of whether the central corridor will actually link with the Red Line, believe it or not this is by no means set in stone. It’s still up in the air! ‘It’s being looked at.’ The rep speaking said they’ll either put a right angles terminus here, or curve them to join with the Red Line – but both were given equal weight on the few times it was mentioned. Very very surprising.

True, and this would be nice, but unfortunately the place’d be destroyed. That’s the very reason the arcading is railed off and the doors sealed, though the doors may well even be dummies at this stage – surprising really they weren’t punched through for windows in the 20s reconstruction….

And even as it is, the exposed parts of the ground floor suffers from the odd bit of vandalism.

But certainly you’d wonder alright about plastering over the limestone with a Portland-based mortar, similar to what is apparently being done on the National Museum and Library as mentioned before. There they are using a mortar with a certain amount of ground sandstone in it to maintain the colour and texture of the existing Mountcharles sandstone dressings. It’s taking forever to do though, they’ve been at it for years…