jimg

There’s a very interesting experiment taking place across a range of cities across Europe as detailed here in Der Spiegel. I like the idea very much and it appeals to my intuition that more rules of the road, regulations, signs, segregation and stricter enforcement (especially for cyclists and pedestrians) are poor substitutes for having basic consideration for your fellow woman/man and prioritising safety (particularly your own) over of rather arbitrary rules. I’m not sure you could apply it to the major arterial routes through a city of Dublin’s size but maybe they could experiment with some of the city centre areas; Temple Bar is an obvious candidate as even currently cars, bikes and pedestrians mingle anarchically without causing the end of the world. A similar situation exists de facto in the area bounded by Dawson St, the Green, Cuffe St, George’s/Aungier St and Dame St. Even if the safety improvements were marginal, just imagine the aesthetic benefits! The forests of poles and signs could be removed from these areas.

An Bord Pleanala / The Opera Shopping Centre

Looks like the decision has been extended.

I really hope that this doesn’t go ahead as planned. The destruction of historic building stock is one thing but can sometimes be defended for the sake of developing the city. This design will harm the city; it’s classic 1980s approach when the first suburban style shopping centres started being transplanted into city centres. In contrast, modern city centre “shopping centres” generally attempt to integrate with and complement the life of the surrounding streets. This is simply Arthur’s Quay and the Sarsfield Street Dunnes on steroids. It will accellerate the decline of the O’Connell Street/Patrick Streets axis.

It is really ugly.

I don’t agree. Its high (no pun intended) profile has made it the building people love to say they hate without actually criticising the characteristics of the building. It’s quite slender and “light” – unlike what is undoubtadly being planned for it’s replacement – probably a squat bulky po-mo 7 story (with one of the stories “set back” or disguised as a mansard like roof) with four times the floor area. The wavy roof is iconic and echos Busaras. Its height actually complements the Custom House (see Morlan’s third picture) – its slender height contrasts with and emphasises the horizontal dominance of the custom house of that section of the Liffey. It helpfully detracts from the loop line bridge and its height helps reinforce the line of the river which is broken by the curved bridge. Besides the roof it has a simple design which is “modern” without being brutalist unlike most of the rest of the 60s office stock around that part of town.

The building is an icon of Dublin – particularly when it was younger. It is far superior to Georges Plaza which has supplanted it in that role. It deserves a proper makeover not demolition.

I’m easily risen to a state of indignation by unsympathetic new buildings around Dublin but this building is simply ALL WRONG. Its design willfully ignores all the context provided by what I consider one of the most important stretches of streetscape in Dublin – that between Christchurch and the front of Trinity College. It makes no acknowledgment of the gently curving line of Dame Street; in this regard, it reminds me of one of the council’s past misguided policies; perhaps they never really gave up on the plan and are secretly still planning to widen Dame Street to accommodate a dual carriageway? I’m joking obviously but placement of the building would have been more appropriate for Cork Street in the 80s. Even above the footpath there is no sympathy for the grain of buildings across the road or across Palace Street. It’s relationship with the latter is a huge wasted opportunity. That section of Palace Street had the potential to be an oasis like Foster Place but would have been even better as there is a reason for people to use it. Instead the side of the building acts like an unwelcoming towering wall destroying the balance of the laneway and hulking over the Sick and Indigent’s.

However it the galvanised gantry and worse still the nasty galvanised stairs on the western side (is it a fire-escape?) which really make the effort look cheap and nasty. I don’t think any of the photos so far do it justice. You have to see this thing in the flesh to appreciate what a huge mistake the council has made.

The only redeeming and interesting feature for me might have been the dome had the placement, bulk, relationship to Palace Street and Dame Street and quality of materials had been up to scratch.

The most damning aspect of a building like this is that it constitutes a powerful argument for the case for sticking with boring unimaginative semi-pastiche or postmodern designs for urban infill in historic streetscapes. Even the nasty early 90’s apartment block behind this thing is better conceived. I am the opposite of a conservative when it comes to architecture but this is awful.

publicrealm, excuse my ignorance regarding the planning process. But what exactly is going on here? They originally applied for permission to demolish the house and build something else but were refused. They then applied for and were granted permission to do some work which would involve a “small amount of demolition”. They went ahead and demolished practically the whole house – doing what they originally wanted to do. They did this in a sneaky way – by errecting 10 foot high hoarding around the site hoping nobody would notice. A few people (including yourself) noticed and complained to the council who must have inspected the site and judged that the demolishion did not have permission. So now they’re applying for the original permission again? If this is the case, then their actions make a complete mockery of the planning process.

As for the extra height & bulk for U2, as long as the design can absorb it then fair enough – but also as long as this will be deemed one of those ubiquitous ‘landmark’ buildings and will not set the level for the area.

Why? I really dislike the aesthetics and even the idea of ‘landmark’ standalone towers which dominate entire areas of the city. Someone in the other thread posted a series of photos of European cities which have tall buildings. The ones which adopted a “clustered” approach to tall buildings – Frankfurt, Paris, etc. – are far more appealling than having individual towers dispersed around a generally low rise city. I’d rather have this, the Point “tower”, Heuston Gate, the Barrow St./Thomas St./Tara St./etc. proposals all bunched together somewhere down the docks instead of ending up with having the low rise historic bits of the city compromised by “landmark” towers.

In that case think it should be against the law to cycle without a helmet, i have had way too many near misses …

Why stop there? It should be against the law to cycle without a helmet, kneepads, elbow pads, torso armour and ankle supports. :rolleyes: If that saves a few injuries then extend the law to cover pedestrians too. I’m sure there are a few injuries to pedestrians which could have been prevented by helmets.

Ah TP, ’tis not the case – the WRC campaign has been on the go for 20+ years; I am quite sure that the intelligent authors *cough, cough* of that release would acknowledge that. 3 years ago An Taisce rightfully presented Fr Micheál MacGréil with award acknowledging his work. That said, it was a shame that the schedule presentedd in that release did not become a topic of debate in the media; James Nix, co-author of Chaos at Xrds, did some good work in calculating those figures.

The WRC would be a collosal waste of money and would do absolutely nothing for the west. I doubt even many students or free-travel pensioners would use it given that, as planned, it will be slower, more expensive and far less frequent than the current bus service. The estimated passenger numbers is 750 passengers a day – which to be honest I think is on the high side. This is a white elephant of the highest order – the bones of half a billion in capital costs alone with probably high ongoing annual losses to carry less passengers in a day than a single DART. I have family from the west and spend quite a bit of time there and the last thing the region needs is to squander infrastructure spending on such a stupid project. I’m a big fan of rail but TP is right – the future for useful sustainable modern rail is high demand intercity and commuter services, not slow, infrequent, massively loss makng regional lines.

This type of regional rail made some sort of sense up to the 1940s when there was no competition for transport but at this stage it is simply a dead technology. It would make about as much sense to link Galway to Sligo by canal and expect it act as an economic stimulus to the region. Nothing wrong with facing this fact – at one time canals did provide big economic benefits but times change. I’d prefer infrastructure spending in the west be directed to something that might actually make a difference. Even ignoring the state of the roads, basic pieces of infrastructure like, for example, the electricity grid is v. poor in much of the west which means even factories couldn’t locate there even if they wanted to. Spending on roads, energy supply and telecoms might actually help the west.

While I’m on the subject and to get back to the subject of the thread, it would also help if the one economic success story of the West – tourism – wasn’t being destroyed by shortsighted planning decisions which benefit a small few – auctioneers, some farmers and builders. You’d want to be very shortsighted to not realise that the hollowing out of western towns and villages and the spreading people all over the countryside in isolated once-offs is adversely affecting tourism. Tourists are voting with their feet – numbers have been falling steadily for the last couple of years.

New Urbanists see themselves as nothing less than the saviours of American community and society, when in truth all they really do is design prelapsarian suburbs replete with white picket fences and gingerbread bargeboards.

Bear in mind that I have no background in architecture or planning – nor have I any real understanding of New Urbanism besides what I’ve picked up in the popular media. But I’ve noticed that even in those sources, it is considered “naff” or unfashionable. However I’ve struggled to discover why this is the case.

When the the social and environmental failures of the other forms of 20th century development patterns are so obvious and easy to enumerate, I find it hard to understand why new urbanism is so despised and yet none of the criticisms I’ve read of it list its failings in terms of economics, sociology or the environment. It seems that it’s objectionable on some sort of intellectual level or that it’s considered completely naive. Also I’m wondering whether the fact that the likes of Prince Charles are fans would automatically make people hostile. And admittedly, the unbearable tweeness of Poundbury (which I presume is considered New Urbanist?) is offensive. But if it (Poundbury) was built in Holland, say, and featured a more modern style of buildings and with a less “repressed middle English” social approach, I could easily imagine it being held up as a model.

As for it being prelapsarian, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with recognising the revolutionary affect of the motor car on development patterns since Henry started churning them out about 100 years ago. For example, there would be little or no once-offs in Ireland without the explosion in car ownership. Even the less dispersed patterns – suburban housing estates with the odd shopping centre – largely depend on car ownership to function. Even if it’s considered sentimental or falsely nostalgic, there is a basic appeal for me in a planning ideology which demotes the car and promotes being able to go about your daily business by walking or cycling.

Still like I said, I haven’t read anything on the movement outside of the sunday supplements and the like so I would be interested in reading your essay or if you had any pointers to analysis/criticism of New Urbanism. Ok, this is completely off topic, but it strikes me that (extreme) modernism in architecture and Marxism in politics are similar in the way that despite the fact that their basic premises have been discredited and that nearly all implementations of them have been almost unmitigated failures, they are still viewed as being more intellectually “pure” than their rivals and still consume far more academic effort.

These apartments would command a spectacular view of the river Shannon with the Kings island in the background. This location is second to none in Limerick and if the developer gets the design right it will probably kick start more developments towards the treaty stone.

Ah no. If your assumption is right, I presume this development would involve knocking the Curragower pub (not sure of the spelling) which I’ve been in during my last couple visits to the city. Currently this spectacular view is available to the public from the first story roof “beer garden” while sipping a beer; definitely to be recommended during a visit to Limerick. Also, surely 5 stories would be way too much in this location. Even though separated by the river, it would adversely affect the setting of John’s castle (it would probably be much higher than the castle) and Thomond bridge. While trying to find a parking spot behind the pub, I ended up driving through a really interesting warren of medieval patterned little back streets; this is actually a very interesting part of town which would benefit from a less brutal approach to its development than knocking a great pub which draws people to the area and replacing it with a 5 story appartment block. It seems half of Limerick is full of appartments at this stage anyway so I don’t see that this as a positive development for the city.