jimg
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Finally (before this turns into a thesis), I wish cyclists would be more law-abiding. If you want to go against the flow of a one-way street, get off and walk. Red lights apply to all road-users, not just the motorised variety. Footpaths are for feet.
As a motorist and a cyclist, I disagree with this sentiment. I would consider myself an extremely law-abiding and careful motorist but when I cycle, I routinely break red lights, use footpaths, cycle the “wrong” way up one way streets, stay out of cycle lanes and cycle through pedestrian streets. Why is it reasonable to expect cyclists to abide with the rules of a system (the motorised traffic system) which isn’t at all appropriate for bicycles? This system is specifically engineered to control and aid motorised flows through the city without consideration for cyclists. For example, when Stephen’s Green was “re-engineered” a couple of years ago, I doubt that even 5 minutes was spent thinking about how the change would affect cyclists while I imagine every possible impact on motorised traffic flows was minutely examined and evaluated while the impact on pedestrians was probably also carefully examined. The “system” ignores the existence of cyclists so, when cycling, I’ve no problem ignoring it back. If I stuck to all the rules (which are designed for cars), many of my cycle journeys would take longer than walking would have.
And before anyone mentions cycle lanes, the majority are much worse than useless and many are downright dangerous and were obviously designed by someone who has never cycled through the city.
I don’t like the idea of punctuating an area with a high building for the sake of it. Why risk defining a city quarter by a single building? Even if the particular building is good (and most of the proposed “landmark” buildings are not, in my opinion), it is likely to be hated by a significant number of people.
I’d prefer a more organic approach by encouraging mixed height 12-20 story modern buildings for a distinct city quarter – the docklands would have been perfect but unfortunalely the potential has been destroyed by the DDDA with their communist-style planning model where entire blocks are devoted to boring monolithic developments. Why not allow a variety of buildings in each block, built by a variety of developers/architects? Provide basic stipulations regarding preserving the street scape and the provision of public access via retail facilities/restaurants/amenities/etc. at ground floors and encourage a mix of commercial/residential. You’ve a far better chance that some good stuff will be built than if your entire effort is invested in building a “landmark” trophy building which will probably be uneconomic in itself and will require a developer’s subsidy in the form of allowing cheap 6-story shit to be built around it. In this way no one building dominates so the flaws of a single building will not blight an entire area.
I think it’s pretty obvious now that Cannocks was a huge loss. However, that’s just one building in that area. You can see also the beatifully curved Tyler’s jewelers (I think that’s what it was called) which was at the end of a terrace of Georgian buildings most of which were demolished to develop Arthurs Quay. I can remember those buildings existing. More recently the historic Cruises hotel was demolished. In thirty years time, I guarantee that people will be looking at old photos of Cruises the same way we’re looking at Cannocks now. It is easy to criticise the mistakes of the past (knocking Cannocks); it is more difficult to be honestly self-critical when it comes to the destruction of interesting buildings which has happened recently and even more difficult still to properly value the historical building which are left and feel protective towards them.
I can’t give a link to it because http://www.ddda.ie is down at the moment but there’s a PDF document on the site somewhere which outlines the plans for Spencer Dock.
The document is a witness to the DDDA’s inexplicable fixation with limiting building height. Most of the Spencer Dock development will comprise of five or six story buildings according to their plans. For no good reason that I can see, a residential block is allowed to be one story higher than an commercial block in the development. These 5/6 story blocks will be allowed an extra story if it is set back from the parapet (i.e. hidden). I presume this is to protect the public; someone could easily have a heart attack if confronted by the sight of a building overtly over five stories tall. There is a suggestion that in cases of “outstanding architectural design” they may allow one or two extra stories; if the current state of the north docklands reflects their taste in architecture, then this doesn’t promise much for me. I’m sure a fortune will be spent on high quality fitting of the public areas in this new development only to extend the lifeless, soulless IFSC eastwards. It’s odd if you go past George’s Dock; the buildings are both too big (squat, bulky and blocky) so they lack any feeling of human scale while simultaneously are boringly low rise and monotonous so they create no visual interest.
I would have hoped that the DDDA might have learned some lessons from the obvious failures of the western section and changed tack for the rest of it but instead they offer minor tweeks and refinements to their retarded model for urban development and regeneration. A great opportunity to create a vibrant modern city quarter has been squandered. A great setting for an area of modern taller buildings in Dublin has wasted; it now looks like Dublin will end up with oddball tall buildings dotted at random around the city. The initial mistake with the IFSC was almost understandable; the boom hadn’t really sunk in at that stage and getting anything at all built down there must have seemed like a “win”; compounding the mistake is unforgivable.
The description of the development frightens me; it sounds like the development would involve a massive amount of demolition of historic building stock. The Georgian terrace on Rutland Street is one of my favourites in the city and is perfect across from the Hunt Museum. Even Ellen Street and Patrick Street have some interesting buildings which would be demolished, from the sounds of it. Will we be looking wistfully at old photos like this,
, in 20 years time wondering how people could have been so stupid to demolish historic buildings?
The city centre needs retail development but replacing two or three entire city blocks with a massive shopping centre doesn’t seem like a great idea to me. The experience of Arthurs Quay and the Dunnes shopping centre on Liddy Street proves that it’s a very bad idea to trust a single private company with the upkeep and development of entire city blocks in Limerick. The only difference is that it looks like this development would be two or three times the size of Arthurs Quay and Dunnes combined. If, after 10 or 20 years, it ends up anything like Arthurs Quay or Dunnes, it will destroy that end of the city which is currently developing well in my opinion if slowly. I don’t see any way of preventing neglect like this from happening; this model of development is more suited to warehouse retail parks or out-of-town centres in my opinion.
Of course this development will be championed as the project which will save the city centre just as Arthurs Quay was so any objections in terms of conservation of historic buildings or questioning the sense in a planning policy which would allow a single company to control two or three city centre blocks will be seen as anti-development. The problem is that it is far easier for the council to rubber stamp the development and claim credit for doing something for the city centre than it would be to develop sustainable development plan for the city and spending money on improving the city centre environment for shoppers and residents. Even outside of retail, as was discussed earlier in this thread, it is already becoming apparant that just allowing developers to build as many apartments as possible in or around the centre doesn’t represent good planning or development policy. It looks good for a couple of years and the cranes make it look like the city is developing but the flaws become apparent within years.
Can you imagine the row in Clones in 978. Local tablet headline “Monks to lord it over the people”
Locals object to planned high-rise building.
A row is brewing in Clones as plans to build a round tower in the area has been discovered by locals. Local man, Cennétig Mael Sechlainn mac Lorcáin, expresses some of the concerns of the local residents: “This monstrosity is totally unsuitable for the area and will ruin the traditional low-rise character of the locality”. Speaking from a large puddle outside the door of her mud wall hovel, local woman, Bé Binn Maire NiAurchada claims that “this sort of thing might be all right somewher like Tara but it will overshadow the smoke hole in my roof which is my only source of natural light”. Others express the opinion that high-rise will attract undesirables into the area: “Look what happened to Clonmacnoise after they went high-rise. Ten years later the area was swarming with Vikings”. The abbot of Clones has offered to meet some of the local concerns by reducing the treasure and grain storage capacity of the tower. “We had originally planned for a 102 foot tower but in light of local opposition we have agreed to reduce the height of the building to 98 feet.”, he explained to the Oriel Examiner. “This will be a landmark building for the area and will be an excellent addition to our cluster of beehive huts. I think that once they see it completed the objectors will be won over”. The locals plan to appeal to the local petty king to intervene. “We are not against development in Clones. We just ask that new buildings are sympathetic to the area, for example by sticking to mud and wattle construction and have ceilings at most 5 foot high”.
35m tall? It’s a good thing that the monks didn’t leave one around the docklands in Dublin. It would have been a permanent blot on the skyline, would have towered over neighbouring buildings and would have deprived the streets of light. A 1000 years ago they were building these structures while the showpiece of modern Ireland, the IFSC – developed under the guidance of the DDDA, consists mostly of buildings about half this height.
Dublin has a lot in common with London and it might make more sense to look at London for comparison than the likes of Copenhagen (I haven’t been to Helsinki) or other “mainland” European cities when trying to figure out what is wrong (or even right) with planning and development in Dublin. Modern Dublin is a conurbation containing a city, a couple of towns and numerous villages. Most European cities I’ve been do not feel like they are conurbations; maybe as they grew they absorbed surrounding towns and villages but if they did, they didn’t leave much trace of absorbed towns or maybe it happened so long ago that the traces of these previous settlement patterns have been obliterated by time. London still feels like a collection of cities and towns. Actually it’s more than just a “feeling”; it’s a very noticable aspect of life in London. Like, sjpclarke, I’ve spent time in Brixton (I loved it too) and after a while it becomes the centre of your world; going into the West End felt like taking a day trip to a different city. You did nearly all of your shopping and socializing locally. Living in the Ranelagh/Rathmines area of Dublin now, there are similar forces at play but obvioulsy not to the same extent – it is more obvious when you visit places like Dun Laoghaire.
This is a fundamental difference I think between Dublin and other European cities which have similar populations. I suspect that this means that the planning models which are suitable for the compact European cities we all love may not be particularly suitable for Dublin. I don’t know enough about planning but it is often suggested that we should aspire to developing Dublin along the lines of some or other European city which has histroically grown in a completely different way. I’m not sure that this is a realistic proposition.
I’d like to see award categories for:
- The most incomprehensible message posted (because of grammar, punctuation and spelling).
- The most gratuitously insulting posting.
- Philistinism.
- Pseudo-intellectualism.
Mature trees are more beautiful than any building.
Even if you hold to this subjective opinion (I don’t), how many mature trees are there in Ireland? How many street scapes of architectural and/or historical note are there in the country? The former must out-number the latter by a factor of 1,000 or 10,000 at least. What few interesting streetscapes and buildings we have deserve to be treated with respect or at least be made VISIBLE. It’s absolutely ludecrous that there is no decent view of the remarkable Bank of Ireland building on College Green or of the iconic front gate of Trinity because of a few clumps of non-descript unremarkable trees. I challenge you, to look towards College Green from a few hundred yards up Dame St. and still claim that the trees are beneficial in that setting.
On another note, fair play to Sue Denham for crediting this site for the piece. Many journalists seem to have no scruples when it comes to using the web for article ideas or even as a source for plagarism. I know of at least one case of out-and-out plagarism and have heard reports of a few others.
“starbucks makes fine coffee”?? I guess it’s a matter of personal taste. I remember the first time I had Starbucks coffee (before the chain had crossed the Atlantic) six or seven years ago and being disgusted with the taste after hearing so much about the new gourmet coffee chain. A couple of years later I tried it again because I’d heard some people express a liking for it; this time, to properly evaluate it, I had a plain espresso and, again, I thought it was foul. I just don’t get it.
That’s a great example, Devin. I actually really like trees. But one London plane looks pretty much like any other while the front gates of Trinity College are unique in the world and it’s odd to think that anyone would think that they’d look better obscured by trees. Looking towards the front gates of Trinity from Dame St., it struck me that it would be strange to be a tourist, unable to take a photo of the front gates of Trinity home with me but instead had to settle with one of a clump of trees. The odd thing about the pattern of trees in the centre is that they’ve mostly been planted near or around buildings which are reasonably attractive obscuring them while brutally ugly buildings are left unadorned. A small forest of trees around Hawkin’s House would have done wonders for the Poolbeg St area.
Ive just gone by the top of O’Connell St And all but one of the trees are chopped down.
That’s a disgrace alright. What kind of eejits are they for forgetting to finish off a job like that?
Seriously ‘though; I think it’s an improvement. You either have some sort of regular pattern of trees for a symmetric street like O’Connell St. or else you get rid of them altogether. Look at the state of Westmoreland St. and College Green where you have arbitrary clumps of trees.
Hi Graham. Sorry for cutting you off on the O’Connell St. statues; we must have started typing simulataneously. I haven’t seen the Dublinspirations publication; it looks very interesting – I must get a copy. From reading a description of it after a quick google, it seems likely that it’s the source of the image.
Now, back to admiring the monuments.
Yeah, I like the way the river is treated in Frankfurt too but it feels like the river is on the periphery of the city which contrasts with the relationship between the Liffey and Dublin – it’s the central artuary of the city.
The river park idea ‘though reminds me of a photomontage in one of the Sunday newspapers recently (in the last few months) where they showed what it would look like if Burgh Quay were covered in grass. It was startlingly attractive and oddly enough didn’t look at all unnatural. It’s an unfortunate fact that the quays in Dublin are vital for traffic which severely limits what can be done with them. The boardwalk plan annoyed me when it was announced – it affirmed that the quays are reserved for traffic and suggested that the planners were too timid to remove some of the roadspace for pedestrians.
I know what you mean about Foster’s Place – it always struck me as not belonging in Dublin. I used to fancy it reminded me of some part of London but I can’t remember where – certainly not the City or the West End, maybe further west – the area near Chelsea or Kensington.
Sure TP. There are a number of active “fronts” in the discussion, only one of which (the choice of routing) is germane to O’Connell St. The one I seem to be most active in is the question of the utility of integrating the system. Whether the green line is extended via O’Connell St or any other route does not have a huge bearing on my argument in that regard. Obviously if you don’t see any value in joining the two lines, the question of route is almost moot. Also if you see no utility in joining the lines, then any aesthetic cost (or financial cost for that matter) associated with doing so will seem excessive.
First of all, could I suggest that maybe the debate about the Luas link be somehow moved out of the O’Connell Street thread?
Kefu & Graham, it is nonsense to suggest that I am being “incredibly disengenious” to include short journeys in my calculation. I did it for simplicity and in actual fact it understates the advantages of having a linked up system. If you restrict the analysis to longer journeys, the relative advantages of integrating the system actually increases. For example, if you only consider journeys of five stops or greater in length, then there are almost THREE TIMES as many journeys possible on the linked up system.
I can’t believe that people are refusing to accept this? It’s almost an axiom of transport systems that when you increase integration, the utility of the entire system increases. Imagine what trains/the DART would be like in Dublin without the loop-line bridge (ah sure, it’s only a twenty minute walk from Connolly to Pearse!). Imagine the London Underground if they hadn’t developed every opportunity to provide interchanges between lines where they come close to each other.
does nothing other than to make an existing service a teeny bit better
I simply disagree with this and it seems, like I said earlier, the central issue of dissagreement seems to be whether integrating the lines offers much utility. I contend that it offers a great deal of utility. I’m happy to concede that there will be an aesthetic price to pay but I think it is disingenious to try to present a picture of the link up as offering nothing more that a way to get from Stephens Green to O’Connell St. That gives a false picture of what the link-up will achieve.
Integration means that you more than double the utility of the existing infrastructure because the number of reachable destinations from any point in the system is approximately doubled. Given that the existing unintegrated system cost 800 mil to build, doubling its usefulness is cheap at 70 million (which is what I’ve heard is the estimated cost of the project). In case anyone is interested, I did the sums and there are 662 different start-end point combinations possible on the existing system (506 on the red line, 156 on the green). If the lines were joined and assuming 3 new stops were added then the number of possible journeys on the system would be 1482.
Suddenly it becomes practical to get to Connolly from Ranelagh even with luggage. Or someone arriving on an intercity train to Heuston can use the tram to get to Sandyford. A tourist can get the tram from outside their hotel in Charlemont to the national museum in Collins Barracks. At the moment, the Luas does not offer a compelling alternative to taxis or private cars for these sorts of journeys even if the weather is good and you’re happy to do a fifteen minute walk in the middle. As the system is extended (down through the IFSC) the value of the integration will be amplified.
Crestfield, we’ve heard all the scaremongering before when the current lines were being planned: the Luas would choke the city, interfere with buses, cause the mass slaughter of cyclists and pedestrians, damage businesses near the lines, the path near Heuston would cause 6 mile tailbacks along the N4, etc., etc. Despite all these dire predictions the Luas has been a huge sucesss and has complimented other public transport modes (buses and trains).
Ok looks like I’m on my own here, but that’s never stopped me before. I’ll leave aside feelings about Cullen or the suggestion that there is something nonsensical about the proposal just because he’s involved. Nor do I agree that “None of this, however, will dent support for this project because it’s one of those things politically, which sounds like it makes perfect sense when it makes no sense at all.” is a reasonable summary of the arguments for and against the idea.
Also I don’t think it’s worth wasting effort arguing about the precise technical details of the extension – i.e. whether it goes further north terminating in Parnell Sq. or what routes are implemented on the joined up system – given that the nature of the extension is still largely unknown.
TP makes a reasonable point that there may be alternative routes which would be worthy of consideration.
Besides that, the only argument I can discern from the voices in opposition is that joining the lines has limited utility. I disagree strongly with this. I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to dismiss the utility of the extension because a healthy young(ish) person can walk between the Stephens Green stop and the red line in 15 minutes (a distance of over a kilometer by my reckoning). This seems to form the real basis of Kefu and Grahams opposition to the idea. You must have a very narrow view of what sort of people the city centre should accomodate! Imagine trying to do that distance with children in tow or with three bags of groceries or shopping. Add a bit of Irish weather to the mental picture – a damp rainy day in November or a freezing gale in March. Would you just suggest that an elderly frail person who isn’t the fittest, walk that distance? What about if you’re a tourist and have a load of luggage? I believe there is plenty utility in linking the lines and in fact linking them in fact creates synergy; it will be practical to get from anywhere to anywhere on the two lines even if burdened with children, luggage, heavy shopping, a disability, fraility or just laziness no matter what the weather is like.
The only issue for me is the aesthetic one and for me, in terms of improvement to the environment along the route, the utility delivered, it’s a price worth paying and in fact I believe any negative aesthetic impact can be minimised with a bit of imagination.
