jimg

It is frustrating that not even one of the iconic towers of Ballymun is being preserved – what not?

I agree absolutely – it’s quite sad. In ten years time or so people will be looking at old photos of the Ballymum towers with something akin to nostalgia or at least curiousity. Having said that, can you imagine the headlines: “An Taisce calls for the retention of Ballymun towers” – it’d be great fodder for the shrilly indignant media commentators.

I saw a program recently on the BBC where during one segment they interviewed some people who lived in high rise pretty brutalist social towers somewhere in England (excuse the vagueness) but they were extremely proud of their “flats” and even admired them aesthetically. One of them had built up a library on the history of the buildings, the architects involved, construction photographs, etc. I love it when popular simplistic dogmatism (i.e. high rise social housing is a disaster) is punctured – the world is a more complex and interesting place.

Eventually people see some kind of causal relationship between the architecture and the poverty. At some point the building is knocked down by the city, and the residents rehoused in another style of building, in the hope this will cure their poverty.

This is a very interesting point. However I’d go further. I feel that this is actually quite an insidious process because it gives the appearance that the authorities are doing something to combat the cycle of poverty and social exclusion. It seems obvious that spending lots of money, effort and resources on such projects should help but in fact, because it does nothing at all to allieviate social exclusion, I feel that it’s worse than doing nothing. When you think about it, some of the cycles are obvious:

1. From early 20th century Georgian tennements to custom built “modern” flats.
2. From flats to semi-d suburbia.
3. From semi-d suburbia to La Corbusier style modernist.
4. And back to custom built “modern” flats (now called apartments).

I’m thinking about Ballymun here. And this is one reason I have misgivings about the current “regeneration” of Ballymun.

So you shift these people around spending vast amounts of money without every really doing anything. Even well meaning people who anguish about social exclusion are generally too short sighted to see this greater pattern, I think. Instead all you hear about is the mistakes of the previous iteration; there was a series on RTE last year I think were sociologists, planners and politicians were happy to critique the relocation of people in the seventies to bleak out-of-town suburban semi-detached housing estates without any realisation that the style of residences and even the general environment is, if not completely irrelevent, a very minor factor; the middle classes seem to be capable of living in semi-ds, apartments, terraced victorians, etc. without their social order collapsing. This idea won’t appeal obviously to archictects and/or planners who have convinced themselves that they can solve this difficult problem using THEIR tools.

Walking by the GPO over the weekend i was struck by how horrible it looks while under refurbishment. I guess the messageboard can pat itself on the back for banishing that PHILISTINE (I can’t remember his name) who suggested using high quality visually pleasing shrouding around buildings under refurbishment using the advertising revenue to pay for the conservation work. I mean, nasty plywood and flapping cheap plastic is obviously far better than anything allowing anything COMMERCIAL to taint our fair city, even if it did look good. Those idiot Europeans who went for the guys business model must be such gready capitalist tasteless pigs. 😉

i am well aware that the tunnel doesn’t go all the way from heuston to connolly.

Well you suggested that the tunnel should be used to run a service from Heuston to Connolly, no? I pointed out why this would not work. Could you explain how you think it should be used for passenger services given the problems I outlined?

The reason I went to such lengths to respond to you was because the existence of this tunnel (which cannot currently be put into useful service because of the situation at Connolly) is disengeniously being used as an argument against the interconnector by some politicians. The minute most people hear of its existance, they assume that it could be used to “connect” Heuston to Connolly. This is simply not the case.

aha ctesiphon, there was me thinking you were an “Uncle Tom” cyclist but it seems you’re a rebel at heart 😀
one of us, one of us, gooboo gaaboo, one of us…

Black spots; lots but ones that immediately spring to mind: coming onto Stephen’s Green from Hume Street, the Matt Talbot bridge to Moss Street (already mentioned), cycling through College Green can be dodgy – particularly going from Pearse St to Dame Street, the junction at Christ Church is awful for cyclists, basically anywhere optimised for motorised traffic flow – e.g. Beresford Place, pretty much any right turn but especially on multi-lane one-way streets (one-ways are generally bad because drivers seem to go faster).

However, the most dangerous situations for cyclists are not specific to location, in my opinion. The worst situations are left turning cars when the cyclist is going straight ahead, cars pulling out of minor roads and doors opening on parked/stopped cars. My intuition, from experience both as a cyclist and a driver is that you’ll probably never be hit from behind by a car – it’s the cars on front of you that are the danger from a cyclist’s point of view. Even for a good driver it is easy to miss the fact that a cyclist is behind you or alongside you but you’ll always notice one on front of you. As a result, even though it may seem contradictory, you are generally safer IN FRONT of the traffic. Therefore, for example, at a red light I will always squeeze between lines of cars to get to the front of the junction (especially a multi-lane dodgy junction like the one at Christ Church) before the lights change – in this way I’m guaranteed to be seen by the cars waiting to go and will be given due consideration. I also will assume that no driver in front of me has seen me and cycle defensively on that basis. This is also the reason why rear view mirrors are useless on bikes.

The more talk there is about this development the more it concerns me,

You are not the only one. Most aspects of this development sound like bad news.

It will probably involve the destruction of a large number of historic buildings. This probably wont be a problem for the “out with the old, in with the new” brigade but if you compare O’Connell St/Patrick St now to what it was like even 50 years ago, it would be easy to make the case that every development which involved demolishing period buildings in the last 50 years in Limerick has been disastrous for the quality of the built environment in the city. At one time O’Connell Street was described as the most hansom main street in Ireland (Finerty – Ireland in Pictures), now it’s a mess. If anything the more recent “developments” have been even worse. Building Cruises Street involved demolishing one of the oldest hotels in Ireland and replacing it with a nasty shopping “street” which alread feels cheap and grotty. Arthur’s Quay is a disaster on a number of levels as is the entire Roaches/Penny’s/Burger King block. This development will effectively destroy the last remaining Georgian terrace at that end of the city. That section of town is quite attractive with the Hunt Museum across the road.

I also feel this sort of “monocultural” development is exactly the sort of thing that Limerick DOEST NOT need. In every case in Limerick, when a single company has taken over an entire city block the results have been less than impressive: Arthur’s Quay, The Dunnes centre on Sarsfield Street, Roaches, etc. The more attractive areas in city are not monocultural in this sense. The city centre needs to develop retail but this type of development will not help, in my opinion. What would help would be if a number of larger retail premises were developed at infill sites around the city center. Or why encourage something to be done about the Sarsfield St Dunnes first? This development might bring punters to the centre but the scale of this thing will probably mean that the people it draws in will probably never leave the centre itself – they’ll park in a multistory car park, shop in the centre and maybe have a bite to eat in the food hall before driving home. This does little for the vibrancy of the centre. Of course the council won’t care – all they can see is the rates.

What a great picture of college green. I touched on the subject before in relation to O’Connell Street but there’s something very appealling about the relationship between the street and the building when the street emphasises the horizontal while the buildings stand over it, emphasising the vertical. Obviously the lack of clutter helps a great deal. In O’Connell Street the opportunity to recapture this relationship has been lost with the redevelopment with the number of vertical “things” on the street itself – in particular the number of tall lampposts.

By the way, is anyone else OUTRAGED at the lack of RESPECT those pedestrians are showing to their fellow road users (the tram and car drivers) by crossing the streets where they please? It’s disgraceful! 😀

Fair enough ctesiphon, if you generally wait at pedestrian crossings for the green man even when the road is clear, I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye on this. I think it might reflect a general attitude to rules and regulations. For example, you say you often have thoughts like “If I see one more gormless stare from a flat-footed gombeen stuck like a bunny in the headlights…” when you see pedestrians blocking your path while cycling. Funnily enough that sort of thing never bothers me all that much (even when I’m driving); it’s just pedestrians doing what they do; they’re not doing it to piss me off – and what’s the big deal if I have to slow down a little bit? – the extra few seconds added to my journey time is hardly going to affect my life. Even motorists would have to do a lot to get me annoyed. For the most part, simple mistakes can be understandable. For example, the other day: I’m flying along a short section of bicycle lane which uniquely for that part of town didn’t have any cars parked on it, driver trying to turn left from a minor road, main road chock a block, driver doesn’t glance right before advancing into a gap in the stationary traffic, spectacular braking/skid on my part ending with a “reverse wheelie” inches from the bonnet, driver gestures profuse apologies and looks as shaken as I am and I just cycle on. What’s to be achieved by getting worked into a frenzy of indignation in a situation like this?

As Devin says, it’s not a cause or anything like that. My motivations are simple – get from A to B as safely, quickly and comfortably (in that order) as possible.

irjudge, you make the common mistake to assume that it is safer if cyclists follow the rules designed for motorised vehicles. Most non-cyclists think this but it is patently not the case. I’ve actually thought about this because in most other areas of my life I am happy to obay laws, regulations, etc..

Take a simple example – breaking red lights. Given two options when approaching a junction to make a right turn:

1. Follow the rules designed for cars. Try to navigate across a lane of moving traffic to cycle into the right turning lane and stop behind the car ahead of you in the lane. Wait for the lights to change and then move forward with the traffic in your lane. Eventually as cars in front of you go straight through or turn right, you end up in middle of the junction. You are now in the situation every cyclist hates – stopped (or moving slowly) in the middle of a junction with cars, vans and trucks whizzing by a couple of feet to your left and oncoming traffic doing the same on your right. It’s not melodramatic to say that stumbling could mean your death. Eventually when a gap appears in oncoming traffic you make a dash for it; sometimes this will involve crossing two or more lanes of oncoming traffic.
2. The lights are red and pedestrians are crossing. You think, great all the cars are stationary (so they cannot kill me), here’s my chance. You cycle between the two lanes to get to the front of the queue and enter the junction and execute the right turn slowing or stopping to allow any pedestrians to cross before completing your right turn. NO WHIZZING traffic and no danger to anyone.

Cycling is actually impossible for many people in Dublin because, understandably, they find being in situation 1. above to be so terrifying that navigating the city following the rules of the road for cars is impossible without having to dismount at junctions. The idea of cyclists being forced to dismount and mount at every junction probably appeals to people who view cycling as a menace. On my usual journey to work every day I break two particular red lights in order to avoid this situation.

Take another example – using footpaths. I don’t cycle on the footpath in order to scare grannies. I use them if the road is too narrow. If the traffic is stationary, you are either stuck behind a vehicle or you’re navigating the variated gap between wing mirrors and the kerb – constantly worried that a car will squeze in or open a door. Alternatively if the traffic is moving a queue of cars builds up behind you because the road is too narrow for the driver to do a safe overtake; so either you’re holding up a queue of traffic and tempting a driver to do a rash overtaking manouver. In both these scenarios, I have no problem mounting the footpath assuming it isn’t busy with pedestrians.

I am a rational person with a strong sense of self-preservation. I cycle in a manner to ensure my safety. I refuse to follow a set of rules designed for a DIFFERENT MODE OF TRANSPORT if the rules put my life in danger and I make no apologies for breaking such rules when they make no sense or would endanger me. Dublin simply does not accomodate cyclists in any meaningful way either by providing the facilities for cycling or even recognising (through reasonable rules of the road) that cycling is different to driving a car.

hi ctesiphon.

If you are not a law-abiding and careful cyclist, why bother being a law-abiding and careful motorist?

Being careful and law-abiding are independent. I am a very careful cyclist. I certainly don’t have a death wish. If I am breaking a red light, using a footpath or cycling against the flow on a one-way street, I do so with extra care and will often stop (but not dismount) if I feel any anything could go wrong.

I’m not sure what you expect in answer to “why bother being a law-abiding and careful motorist?” I haven’t thought about it much but I guess, like most people, I’m generally law abiding because laws (not just traffic laws) are generally reasonably fair and are beneficial for society. It’s patently obvious that you need laws to govern motorised traffic and the laws we have are largely reasonable.

I do not believe that everyone should break every law but I am arguing that it’s reasonable to ignore stupid, arbitrary, unfair laws if doing so does nothing to endanger my fellow citizens. Also, I think the legal situation isn’t as clear cut as you’d imagine; a solicitor friend told me that he doesn’t think that it’s against the law for a cyclist to go the wrong way up a one-way street.

i.e. you are one of the cyclists that gets law-abiding cyclists like me a bad name. Your actions are thus ultimately detrimental to the cause of safe cycling in the city.

This is backward thinking in my opinion. Are you implying that I am to blame if a passing motorist sees me using a footpath and develops psychopathic tendencies towards cyclists as a result?

My “actions” allow me to navigate the city on a bicycle and are necessary. Your regular routes through the city may not require you to take such actions; if so lucky you. I refuse to sit in stationary traffic for 10 minutes to travel 100 meters instead of using the footpath (when it’s clear). I refuse to cycle an extra mile to get to a point 100 meters away from me because of a one-way system designed and implemented to improve access to the city streets for cars.