kefu
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Well I can’t think of anywhere in the city centre where they would be suitable or indeed commercially viable.
The GAA would hardly pay for them.
And it would be a waste to just scrap them.Dublin City Council could easily remove the kiosks without loss of face. They did it with good intentions, but it hasn’t worked out.
Indifference greeted their installation and their departure would be the same.
I was all in favour of them in theory but not only are they visually wrong for the site, commercially they don’t appear to be successful.
Of the many projects the City Council have undertaken in the past five years, this is the only one that has been a complete failure.
The Boardwalk, O’Connell Street, the Millennium Bridge, the Calatrava Bridges, Smithfield, have all been very successful and the fiasco in Eyre Square makes you appreciate the good job that is being done by and large.
The kiosks certainly wouldn’t look out of place in Croke Park – in terms of their design – and the City Council should just hand them over for free.It’s not going to happen. But it was to be sited just north of the old terminal – and right beside it – if I recall correctly.
Here’s a fairly detailed press release from the time:-RYANAIR UNVEIL PLANS FOR A SECOND INDEPENDENT TERMINAL (T2) AT DUBLIN AIRPORT
At a press conference today at Dublin Airport, Ryanair unveiled its plans for an
independent second competing terminal at Dublin Airport. The proposed facility,
to be known as T2 will cost Euro114m to develop and can handle up to 10 million
passengers per annum, almost doubling the capacity of Dublin Airport, without
any cost to the taxpayer. Ryanair’s plans also allow for the development of two
multi-storey short-term carparks which will end the current policy of forcing
airport users to park in remote long-term carparks, and two new international
hotels, bringing much needed choice, competition and lower prices for hotel
accommodation at Dublin Airport.
The new T2 which has been designed by leading architects de Blacam & Meagher,
contains the following features;
* it will provide 36 new terminal served stands (compared with the current
30 in the three piers at Dublin Airport),
* at a cost of Euro114m, the facility is significantly cheaper than the
combined Euro469m* recently spent by Aer Rianta on extending the existing
terminal and constructing the inefficient Pier C,
* two multi-storey carparks will provide short-term carparking capacity for
up to 10,000 cars (compared to the 2,700 car capacity of Aer Rianta’s
existing carpark) and will result in short-term carparking rates being
reduced from the current Euro20 to Euro10 per day, thereby saving consumers over
Euro100m over a five year period,
* two international hotels will be developed and will provide both a three
star (Jurys Inn) type accommodation, as well as a four star facility,
* the terminal itself is designed to substantially reduce passenger walking
distances, which are a major drawback of the existing Aer Rianta facilities,
* T2 restores architectural order to the current chaos at Dublin Airport,
* T2 places the Desmond Fitzgerald designed old central terminal building
(CTB) as the focal point of Dublin Airport,
Commenting today at the press conference, John Meagher, of de Blacam & Meagher
Architects said;
“Just as the original central terminal building was a significant exercise
in the “International Style”, so is Terminal 2, utterly modern, in the
materials of steel and glass, sympathetically sited adjacent to the original
central terminal building, which now finds an appropriate role as the
principle link between Terminal 2 and the Aer Rianta terminal building.
“Terminal 2 is designed to be easy and agreeable to use and open to its
surroundings. Its simple plan and the structural arrangement of roof shells,
give orientation to arriving and departing passengers, and are expressive of
the buildings function as a gateway to the skys.
“Terminal 2 by virtue of its position, serves to frame the old central
terminal building, renewing the original axial landscape unobstructed, that
terminates in its landside concave face.”Dave, gridlock on the M50 is symptomatic of much greater infrastructure failings. Even if you have four lanes worth of traffic on the M50 – it all still has to get on and off somewhere.
The problem (both now and into the future) will always be cars leaving the ring road
The vast majority of the current tailbacks are caused by cars trying to exit the M50 and waiting on traffic lights to allow them through a roundabout. Think the Red Cow, Blanchardstown, Lucan intersections.
While half the traffic might be going away from Dublin into a motorway, the other half is going into residential areas inside the city, where upgrading the roads is not an option.
An eight-lane M50 is about as sustainable a suggestion as paving over the Liffey and the canals.
Comparisons between Dublin and London just don’t make any sense either.
There are more people living inside the M25 than there are on this entire island.
It’s four lanes wide in part and still doesn’t work – what does that tell you? That endlessly widening ring roads doesn’t fix anything. They just get full again.It doesn’t need more than three lanes – three lanes and grade separated junctions would suffice.
After that, the next solution is a second ring road between six and ten miles further out.
Trying to make the M50 into the largest road in the world is not going to miraculously cure capacity issues on the old Naas Road, the Navan Road, Drumcondra, Finglas, Dundrum etc.
Stopping non-Dublin traffic and circling Dublin traffic getting close to the city centre has to be the aim in future.There is no real necessity for three-lane roads anywhere except in the immediate hinterland of Dublin ie the M50.
However, we should continue to develop roads – as we are doing – with the third lane accounted for in the central median (for future growth).
Everybody is complaining about the M50 needing to be upgraded to three lanes already. But imagine if the space hadn’t even been put there – what we would have done then.Scattered tall building syndrome is primarily a London issue where there are a bunch of horrible breeze block style towers around the city. But it stemmed from the very real issue of having to non-voluntarily rebuild huge chunks of the city because of bombing and lack of housing. What’s beginning to happen in Dublin is very different and nowhere near as arbitrary as what happened in the UK.
It’s as good a location as any. It will act as a beacon marking the start of the city centre on the main roads in from Cork and Galway.
Chopping it to twenty stories (which is what would have happened) would leave us with neither one thing or the other, which is the big problem with the Smithfield Market development.
The views from the public viewing platform should be absolutely incredible, four counties at once on a good clear day.It’s also a real step in the right direction as regards stretching the city centre from east to west and rejuvenating the Northside. You can envision a genuinely coherent legal quarter going from the Four Courts to Infirmary Road with either a relatively pleasant walk or a short Luas ride the only division.
Coupled with the redevelopment of the Fish Market complex into a public piazza and the possibility of either (or both) a conference centre and the new Abbey in the North Docklands – the possibilities are almost endless in terms of reorienting the city in the proper direction i.e. along the river.I think we all agree that Smithfield is a better place now. But using a sledgehammer to break down a door is not the only way to go.
Smithfield was already unrecognisable before the Smithfield Market scheme got underway.
Just as a for instance. At the new scheme … “Underground parking spaces are available to purchase for €40,000. Maintenance fees are expected to be in the region of €1,500 for one-bed apartments, €1,700 for two-beds and €2,000 for three-beds.”
Why on earth give tax relief to a developer who knows they can get E40k for a car parking space.
The site was so lucrative by the end of the urban renewal project that the Section 23 benefits were tantamount to a free government giveaway.
I’d say the developers will come out with more cash than Charlie Duffy at the end of this. He was served with a tax bill for nearly E20 million by the Criminal Assets Bureau in part because of this deal.
Part of the reason he was so slow to sell all those years is that he knew it would have given him an obvious asset that the Revenue could target for years of failing to make tax returns.Couldn’t agree more Thomond Park.
I think the issue with Smithfield Market is that when this area was put into the urban renewal pot initially in the late 1980s (I think), it was precisely as you described it – marginal.
However, by the time, this development was approved just a couple of years ago, It was always going to be incredibly lucrative. There was absolutely no risk involved in this.
It wasn’t just Collins Barracks and the other side of Smithfield either that lifted the area.
Almost the entirety of Stoneybatter/Manor Street had already been gentrified. North Brunswick Street had been almost entirely redeveloped and the Luas line was practically laid.
It was a complete no-brainer for the developers.
I agree that Section 23 type incentives shouldn’t be thrown out entirely.
They are a good way to get the ball rolling. But very strict reviewable time limits and conditions should be adopted in future so that developers can’t cash in on the risk that was taken by somebody else years earlier.Here’s the article for what it’s worth
The Irish Times – May 21, 2005
‘Landmark’ courts building to cost EUR 100m by Colm KeenaA capital cost of approximately EUR 100 million is likely for a landmark courts building in Dublin which the Courts Service wants built for it by the private sector.
The public-private partnership proposal also envisages that the building would be operated and maintained by the private sector over the next 25-35 years.
The building, which would accommodate criminal trials currently held in the Four Courts and other courts buildings in Dublin, is to be constructed on the corner of Parkgate Street and Infirmary Road. The site is currently used as a car park by the Garda.
The Courts Service wishes to have the building operational by late 2008. Sources said that the capital cost of the building was likely to be in the region of EUR 100 million.
At a consultation yesterday, Minister for Justice Michael McDowell told invited members of the business and construction sectors that the building should be designed to concentrate all central Dublin criminal business in one serviced location.
It will be the largest capital project undertaken on behalf of the courts since the foundation of the State.
Dublin criminal hearings from the District Court, Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court, Special Criminal Court and Court of Criminal Appeal will take place in the building. The Four Courts, built originally to house civil hearings, will revert to exclusively accommodating such hearings.
Mr John Mahon of the Courts Service said that the service was looking for a building which would reflect the independence of the judiciary and the “dignity and importance of the business transacted”.
The building will accommodate 15 jury courtrooms and seven non-jury courtrooms, configured so they can be used by any of the criminal jurisdictions based on business needs.
There will be secure jury rooms, victim-support rooms, judges’ quarters and sufficient circulation spaces for public waiting, and safe and efficient access and egress from courtrooms.
A large jury assembly area in a secure area to cater for up to 500 people called for jury service will also be included, as will facilities for witnesses, professionals, representatives of the Director of Public Prosecutions and other agencies, as well as a media room and a small broadcast studio.
There will be cells capable of accommodating up to 100 prisoners, two fully equipped technology courts, and computer and video-link rooms. All courtrooms will be cabled to support video conferencing and digital audio recording.
Mr McDowell said that the building would allow for overcoming the security, service delivery and logistical problems of running criminal trials in a number of sites dispersed throughout the Four Courts campus.
“There is little or no scope for improving these facilities within the fabric of the existing campus of buildings where criminal trials are held,” he said.
The successful tender for the building would design, finance, operate and maintain the building. The Courts Service will make annualised payments to the group that wins the competition. The service is hoping to receive a number of bids for the project, including interest from abroad.
Expressions of interest have to be lodged by June 10th, and a number of parties, probably between three and six, will then be invited to make tenders.
It is envisaged that the building will be “a landmark civic building which will make a significant contribution to the architectural form of Dublin”, according to the service.My biggest concern with this type of development is the Section 23 status.
I think the entry level one-bed apartment for Smithfield Market, overlooking the redeveloped city council housing at Blackhall Place, cost in the region of E365,000.
This rules out the vast majority of first-time buyers, and any first-timers with that kind of cash probably wouldn’t buy in Smithfield anyway.
I went in to their sales office one time and the only people there appeared to be middle-aged investors. Even though I’m familiar with how much property tends to be in Dublin, I was still flabbergasted at the prices being asked for in Smithfield.
When you have this constant transitional population, especially beside city council housing (which although brand new already looks badly maintained) – the buildings always get run down very quickly. You see the same thing right along Parnell Street.
The owners don’t care because they get their rent regardless and the tenants don’t care either because it’s just a temporary arrangement.
I think Section 23 was acceptable to drag Parnell Street out of the mire it was in. But by the time Smithfield Market came on stream, the tax relief were completely unnecessary.It is a tower: ie a structure whose height is taller than its diameter. But then again most buildings are.
There’s not much point in speaking of disappointment because it looks exactly like the plans that appeared in all the newspapers and on the developer’s website.
Considering the many developments have managed to look far worse than the architect’s drawings over the years, this is an improvement of sorts.This development is all but complete now.
A particularly interesting feature after they topped out the tower is an almost Byzantine style mosaic around the top floor. Well worth taking a picture if anyone has a camera.Wasn’t this also the site for a “landmark” new headquarters for the then Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and many other minor issues.
http://www.irish-architecture.com/unbuilt_ireland/dublin/ahgi_dublin/reid/index.htmlHopefully, Jurys and the other developer will level both buildings and start from scratch. Both sites are huge.
Can’t see anything but residential and a very small amount of commercial going in at the Towers site.
A one-bed apartment there would probably command E450,000 at a minimum.Definitely amongst the best E300,000 spent recently.
The statues on the O’Connell Monument look like they were cast yesterday – a really incredible job by all involved.This is from the City Council Press Office:
As part of the overall redesign and redevelopment of O’Connell Street, Dublin City Council is delighted to announce the completion of the cleaning and conservation works to the O’Connell Monument on O’Connell Street.
One of the first of the monuments to be completed, the O’Connell monument, is set to be revealed in all its glory over the coming week. Work on removing the extensive scaffolding that was erected to allow the work to be carried out, will begin today on Monday May 23rd
The O’Connell Monument was designed by John Henry Foley and unveiled in 1882 to commemorate Daniel O’ Connell, the Emancipator. The cleaning/conservation programme for O’Connell took an expert team over 1,000 hours to complete. The bronze figures (including O’Connell himself, a frieze with over thirty figures and the four winged victories) were first washed with detergent using soft bristle brushes. An acrylic pigment was painted onto areas where the bronze patina was lost and the final treatment involved the application of three
coats of protective wax which will form a weather proof barrier and enhance the appearance of the bronze.
The granite blocks were cleaned using a micro abrasive system that applied fine glass powder at a very low pressure. This cleans away dirt particles while avoiding any damage to the stone surface. All joints between the blocks were raked out by hand and repointed using a hydraulic lime mortar.
The works have tackled damage caused by environmental erosion, air pollution, bird droppings, graffiti and decay. However other damage such as the bullet holes in the O’Connell Monument from the 1916 Rising will not be repaired or restored. This type of damage tells part of the story of the monument, O’Connell Street itself and of the history and heritage of the state.
Indeed during the course of works ten bullet holes were identified in the figure of O’Connell alone with two bullets through his right temple. In all approximately thirty bullet holes were counted in total on the monument.
The cost for the works to all eight monuments in the O’Connell Street area will be in the region of 300,000 euros with around half that cost for the O’Connell Monument.
“The quality of the results is very impressive, with the O’Connell Monument looking old but well cared for” said Dublin City Council’s Heritage Officer Donncha O’Dulaing.
