jimg
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Darkman, sorry if the comment seemed personal – it wasn’t my intention. While I find cut n’ paste press releases unaccompanied by comment or opinion in threads here slightly irritating, I woudl normally have passed on commenting to that effect. What pushed me over the edge was the suggestion in the piece that the Strategic Infrastructure Act might be appropriate for something like this. A section of motorway or railway, a power station or sewage treatment pipeline or a port development – maybe – but an airport hotel?
Could you explain why is this news or news worthy?
I don’t see any reason to use this forum to distribute gushing PR releases.
A generic soulless business park style airport hotel and a multi-story car park?
The Strategic Infrastructure Act. Give me a break.
I don’t get the Calatrava hero worship. At this stage, Calatrava bridges are as ubiquitous as McDonalds and about as interesting; for some reason I’m reminded of the golden arches everytime I see a Calatrava bridge :p
Yet they still seem to feature on every urban-renewal shopping list in the world. You can see “a Calatrava” anywhere in the world. So why bother with a second one in Dublin? (I don’t even like the first one – it’s been poorly maintained and provides neither contrast nor sympathy for its setting). Does anyone think anyone anywhere outside of Dublin will notice or be interested in another Calatrava bridge?
Not a big fan of the Caffe Noto (by the way, isn’t that the wrong accent they’re using over the “e” in Caffe?) extension having looked at in the flesh recently but agreed it could be alot worse. Graham saying
The oversailing element, whilst crisp in itself, is particularly overbearing for its context, and the chimney solution inelegant.
highlights the biggest flaw. They should have gone for one thing or the other; for example, something as simple as removing the overhanging roof would have meant that the old parapet would have retained it’s dominance of the roofline and the extension, I think, would have been very subtle and interesting as an example of retaining almost completely the original form of the building while incorporating a modern extension. The alternative would be a much more honest and radical intervention which would be indefensible given it’s protected status but more interesting architecturally.
I thought you’d decided to ignore me? :confused:
No
Among other things, you claimed that An Taisce’s court cases were funded by the taxpayer. That’s a lie.
You also claimed that An Taisce had initiated court actions against the M1, the M4, the M7, the M11, the M50, the port tunnel and the Intel expansion. More lies. Yes I know they were involved in court action against the M3 but it certainly wasn’t at the taxpayers expense.
😀 What’s hillarious is your injured and hurt tone. It’s fair game for you to falsely malign thousands of mostly volunteer members of An Taisce, but when challenged you go into a huff because you don’t like the “tone” of the challenge. 😀 It’s fairly obvious that it’s not the “tone” you find don’t like – it’s admitting you’re wrong.
let’s leave it at that
Generally I’d be inclined to agree with this approach. However I… I just can’t help trying to have the last word here. 😀
A bunch of lies have been spouted about An Taisce in this thread – in particular that they use taxpayers money to sustain court cases against vital infrastructure development. This is complete and absolute bullsh*t; not a single one of the claimed court cases occurred.
What’s annoying about these accusations is their hit-and-run nature. If you ask for evidence for any of the An Taisce bashing claims, you either get “meh I’d rather put you on ignore” or else you get personal abuse. 😡
That’s my last word on the subject…. unless someone else stirs it up again. By the way, I prefer the Hadid :p
Secondly – I dont like the tone of your post and I certainly will not justify it by answering it. If you want to put it to me in an adult manner – I will consider it.
That person asked:
How many ‘idiotic complaints’ are you aware of An Taisce having taken to the courts with the associated expense to the taxpayer?
You answered:
The M7 motorway
The M4 motorway
The M50 motorway
The M11 motorway
The M3 motorway
The M1 motorway particularly at Lissenhall – they thought the Swans would die this time.
Every single motorway ever built here was objected to by An Taisce
Dublin Port Tunnel
Spencer Dock development
Intel expansion at Liexlip – now that was unbelieveable! – only 5000 people work there!
I could go on and on and on – and there only some of the ones I remember off the top of my head.I don’t remeber hearing of a single instance where An Taisce have been “to the courts at the taxpayers expense” and particularly I didn’t hear of it happening for any of the above developments. That’s not to say they didn’t happen but I’d be surprised as I generally follow the papers and haven’t heard of a single court case taken by An Taisce for anything in your list. So if you could provide links to newspaper stories for these court cases taken at the tax payers expense or any other evidence that these court cases happened, it would certainly clear things up for everyone.
Cubix’s “response” to a very straightforward request for any evidence to back up their claims is to avoid the question and suggest that I’m an old fart. Well, this is a public messageboard; you may be used to spouting ignorant rubbish to your mates in the pub without being questioned on it but here, if you post something ignorant, be prepared to read responses questioning what you’ve posted or asking for evidence to back it up. That’s the way these things work. If you don’t like it or can’t handle being challenged in this way, then you’re using the wrong media.
Paul h,
But as i was reading that it occured to me you could replace ‘an taisce’ with ‘high rise’ and it could also be a fairly accurate statement
We have plenty of discussion and threads pro/anti highrise. My very first post to this messageboard was one in support of high-rise for Dublin. So don’t confuse a simple request for evidence against An Taisce with an anti-high-rise agenda. I support high-rise for Dublin and also generally support An Taisce. The organisation have made plenty of mistakes without people making stuff up about them.
The only real evidence presented against them so far is that they’ve criticised plans to build a seven story building in Temple Bar. That’s all. They’ve had the NERVE to suggest to the media that it might not be a good idea for the character of Temple Bar to have a single building completely out of scale with everything around it. In my opinion, they are dead right. If you wanted to set back the cause of taller buildings in Dublin you couldn’t do it more effectively; build complete out of scale tall buildings in historically sensitive areas. This is what happened back in 60s the last time we had a round of taller buildings and it’s taken 30 years for the public and the planners to even consider taller buildings again.
As for an taisce its sad enough that this organisation is even taken seriously in this country.
Most other countries have national heritage organisations who have input into the development process and most are taken seriously indeed.
Ireland is the only country I know of where it’s seen as fashionable, witty or clever to blindly follow the ignorant outbursts of gombeen local councillers and grubby vested interests and vilify the only statutary organisation in the country which has any regard for our built heritage. I know I’m going to insult you but casual An Taisce bashing is a sure indicator of ignorance in this country. I’ve never heard anyone present an informed case against An Taisce with real examples of it’s unreasonable interferance with development. Yet I’ve heard countless people, sometimes usually intelligent, casually denigrate An Taisce. If ever challenged, they express mild surprise and assume it’s taken for granted but never manage anything more convincing than vague muttering about tree huggers or D4 types before tailing off into silence.
In this case, An Taisce have explicitly said they do not have a problem with the height of the building but are raising questions about the process the DDDA have used. They are not a lonely voice in this – all the recent newspaper articles have raised this as an issue so I don’t know what is so unreasonable about their input.
Please put up or shut up when it comes to An Taisce bashing.
@Morlan wrote:
They should paint a mural on it of the Custom House and the Liffey.
@lunasa wrote:
I never presume a person’s age so Morlan your idea was first mooted by President Erskine Childers back in the early seventies.
Funny enough I independently had almost the same fanciful notion a few years ago. My idea was less expensive and less permenant than a paint job; I was thinking more along the lines of using that (pastic/canvas?) material they use to drape over scafolding to cover the side of the bridge. The idea was to create a large temporary trompe d’oeil to hide most of the bridge (I don’t think the supports could be hidden effectively this way). The perspective trick would only work from near one particular vantage point so the obvious candidate would be the center of O’Connell Bridge. I started some calculations to work out the limits of where the trick would be effective in terms of distance from the central vantage point.
I didn’t have time to dedicate to the project and to be honest was a bit embarassed by the whimsical nature of the idea to research it properly. If I get a couple of hours I might try to dig out what I had done at the time. Maybe someone would give me €80k to properly spec. the idea 😀
ParisJack, you really have some neck to be criticising or questioning CologneMike. If it wasn’t for his contributions in particular (along with those of some others like Tuborg, justnotbothered and more recently GMiley), this thread would be dead long ago. If your contributions had even 10% of the value of his, they’d be welcome. For me, your contributions, while prolific, are of negative value as the thread would actually improve if all your posts were to disappear.
The lack of self-awareness is simply shocking if you think your postings are “out-spoken, no-bullshit” additions to the thread and that your saying something “that needs to be said for the sake of Limerick”. They are just randomly directed unconstructive incoherent general rants and ramblings. This combined with your inexplicable need to regularly restate pompously that you are successful at whatever it is you do makes for an unattractive package overall. I generally try to ignore everything you write and I’ve successfully resisted the temptation to respond to the more inane of your ramblings since our last exchange of views but I’m worried your contributions might actually kill off this thread particularly when you start attacking the most valuable contributor to this thread.
It is Sandford College.
Keep us posted on the site if you find out anything interesting.
I would confidently predict that you will find no such tunnel. Tunnel myths are very common. I remember four distinct but widely believed such myths when I was young. While the sample size is small, two of them were associated with school buildings (not in Ranelagh) which would suggest that many schools have such stories. I guess that there’s a fundamental appeal in the idea of “secret” passages and tunnels. Myself and a group of school mates made a serious attempt to explore our “school tunnel”. Despite risking serious punishment by skipping a class and effectively breaking in to part of the school that was locked and out of bounds, the only thing we uncovered in the area the tunnel was reputed to start was a slightly inaccessible air vent which when entered from a precarious stack of old desks and chairs turned out to be less than 5 feet deep – considerably less than the two miles we were expecting.
You need to ask yourself not only whether there was a credible use for the tunnel (the earlier example of getting to Monto discretely seems initially plausible) but more importantly whether the effort of building the thing would have been justified (not a chance). Even with the latest technology, building 100m of tunnel would be a big undertaking involving serious engineering. A two mile tunnel into town from Ranelagh?? Come on! 🙂
Of course, I’ll be standing at the opposite side of the bridge with a big fucking sign in my hands: NO FUCKING WANKERS ALLOWED!!! And how funny will that be, eh? Now you know who we’re talkin’ about here, right dude?
Har har.
Just to clear things up, the reason I found your earlier message hilarious is not because I have something against high rise or ambition in the country (the opposite in fact) but because I thought it was deliberately written to sound like a script for Little Britain or something like that – a Vickey Pollard monologue, maybe? I didn’t realise you were serious! 😮 Seriously my friend, you come across like a hyperactive 15 year old on speed the way you express yourself.
@Paris Jack wrote:
That’s the great irony isn’t it, it is you and many others there in Limerick who are dreaming of such a development. We’re talkin’ about psychology here in my opinion. There is a certain little mind set there in Limerick that is without any doubt holding this city back from reaching it’s true potential. They probably don’t even see it…???? They like living in a matchbox town! Or should I say fucking red brick city? This is a major problem for sure. What the hell is it with the red bricks anyway? Why shouldn’t a development like this come to Limerick? Why have you, and others got a problem with this? Why are you all afraid of real tall buildings anyway? This is a problem all over Ireland, not just Limerick! Just crazy!:confused: Do you think they will fall over on your head or something? It would be no harm if they did come to think of it. It might knock some fucking sense into some people there in Limerick!!! Maybe my uncle has spent a little too long there in the “desert” but at least he has the ambition and the courage to look to the FUTURE!!! This is the future!!! It’s not like they were going to put it in the middle of O’ Connell St. That would be stupid!!! It would (as I’ve already said) need a lot of open ground!! Not in the city, but close enough to be apart of it!! Certain people in Limerick badly need to open their small little minds before Limerick turns into a complete mess!!! I suppose the cheapass gargage they’re currently putting up is just fine, huh? Well that’s just fucking typical!!! You can’t even get a train to the fucking airport from Limerick City for christ sakes, nevermind getting around to putting up glass towers, that are too good for them anyway!!! People with small narrow minds don’t deserve such developments in my opinion!!! I actually feel sorry for Limerick City to be honest….:(
I actually thought you were joking with your first message and thought it was hillarious.
I hate the idea of “landmark towers” – giving a monopoly on the right to build high to one particular building within an area. It reminds me of the restrictive laws which effectively prohibit someone opening a pharmacy within a certain distance of another.
Either an area is suitable for tall buildings or it isn’t. As a proponent of tall buildings for Dublin in this forum, I would rather there be none rather than the odd outlandishly tall building dotted around the city scape. Buildings should have sympathy for their context; it seems obvious to me (but not to the city planners apparently) that scale and grain apply to height as well as width and bulk.
Remember, today’s “landmark” will be tomorrow’s Evening Herald’s “most hated building in Dublin”. Look at Liberty Hall to see how fickle the public are in regard to conspicuously tall buildings. Liberty Hall is relatively graceful and “light” yet it seems to provoke venomous bile and demands for it’s instant destruction from it’s many detractors; many of whom seem to be the same characters on the forum who bemoan the lack of tall “new” buildings in Dublin. I wouldn’t advocate it for a minute at that particular location but if Liberty Hall were part of a cluster of similarly scaled buildings, then I believe it would be far more popular than it is.
The current planning spat provoked by the appalling idea of, gasp, having two tall buildings near each other in here seems ludicrous to me. I’d much rather see a cluster of various tall buildings on the area bounded by John Rogerson’s Quay and the Grand Canal dock and allow the future generations judge the success or failure of the individual buildings. Picking disparate sites around a low rise city and deeming them suitable for a “landmark” is not the way to go for Dublin and smacks of unbelievable egotism and hubris on the part of the planners responsible.
That looks like the old design which they dropped because building it would interfere with train operations. I thought they’d come up with a completely new design?
This wording is too loose as multiple permissions may be interpreted as having all complied once 100 48 sheet hoardings are removed. This needs to be tightened up considerably by alteration to ‘100 48 sheet hoardings and associated fittings shall be removed within one year of the grant of this metropole for the avoidance of doubt this shall mean that 100 specific 48 sheet hoardings shall be linked to the grant of this permission.’
It seems obvious to me that this is deliberate. If the trade was 100 per installation, you’d be talking about removing 7000 such billboards from around the city; I doubt there are a tenth of that number. They are trading 100 billboards for the entire swathe of 70 on street advertising installations.
The other thing I love is the “committment to civic information”
Full Development Description
The development will include the provision of a concrete extension to the public footpath in place of the existing car parking space. The precise location of the site is marked by an x in a circle directly onto the ground in red paint. The overall area of the site is 10.4m2. The development will consist of a metropole double sided, internally illuminated advertisement structure comprising a display case mounted on an offset leg. The structure shall display civic information or an advertisement. The display panels shall be scrolling or static The structure has an overall height of 4.85 metres and a width of 3.48 metres. The area of each of the display panels is 6.82m2.
I love the “The structure shall display civic information or an advertisement” bit. :rolleyes: Yes I can just see JCDecaux foregoing the use of the structure for advertising. While they were at it they should have inserted a a committment to the effect that the structure would display advertising or solve world poverty.
I’ve been a strong supporter of the link up on grounds of utility but if this is the final decision, then I would actually oppose it. This combines all the WORST aspects of EVERY single option offered to the public:
- A new bridge. 😡 😡
- Wires not only on College Green/Westmoreland Street/O’Connell St but also on five other streets. Basically double the amount of poles and wires without any corresponding increase in coverage.
- Disruption during construction not only on College Green/Westmoreland Street/O’Connell St but also on five other streets.
- A circuitous route somewhat away from the central axis without ANY increase in rail integration (for example by linking with Pearse or Tara St.)
- A configuration which will make it extremely difficult to continue the line to Phibsboro and Finglas as originally planned.
- Even more interruption to other forms of public transport, cyclists and pedestrians travelling the length O’Connell St. as it has to cross from the West side of O’Connell St. to Cathal Brugha St. “Cutting off” the top of the street.
- A confusing route for users – particular tourists with it’s separated “one way” coverage of different streets.
How the hell can they justify this route? What is the rationale? Because it has a bit of everything?
@ctesiphon wrote:
I think you’re being a bit harsh on the inspector, though. I can see how such a conclusion could be legitimately reached based on the evidence before him- in essence, if the analysis of alternative sites was part of the submission, then he was entitled to consider it.
Ok fair enough. I didn’t consider that an evaluation of the alternatives might have been part of the submission. The newspaper article almost gave the impression that the inpsector went off on a solo run and that the Ringsend site was a personal preference.
Still seems a very odd ‘though that a submission like this has to include alternatives; as you say, you’d have to be suspicious. Couldn’t the LRSDC have simply included three “alternatives”, like for example: bulldozing Trinity and locating it there, building it in the middle of the Burren or building it in a huge glass dome under the Irish sea? :confused: What’s the point?
