lexington

That’s how it starts, first you want 50, then its a hundred…then 500, sure why not, that’s never hurt anyone…but its not enough, its never enough…next thing it’s 1000 and before you know it you’re sitting alone in a dark room and your wife has picked up and left you…

…but enough about me. Well done. But yeah…yeah remember its quality, not quanitity.

😀 :p

@phil wrote:

Lexington,
you are starting to put George Lucas to shame with your ability to completely alter your posts after people have replied to them. I would not have noticed the extra information you posted if Radioactive man had not quoted you in his response! Editing is a useful tool that I use myself now and again for spelling mistakes etc, but I find it difficult to follow your discussion when you go back and alter your posts so much. I hope I don’t seem narky about this, but I felt I had to mention it.

With regards to your addition to your post in and of itself, I think you yourself make assumptions about the situation without even being there. For example you state:

“But if persons such as the gentleman you describe ruin it for others, what about the right of those other ‘orderlies’ to enjoy such amenities? Should he be allowed swear, spit and cause aggro on those unsuspecting individuals just out for a pleasant stroll or making their way to work?”

There is no mention of the person mentioned by Radioactiveman doing any of the activities you mention here. You also assume that this individual will do the activities you mention. As Radioactiveman said, it is fair for a business to protect their property, but they do not have the right to control public space.

phil – I often add extra bits onto previous posts, not so much to confuse people, but so that I don’t blanket a page with my own posts for every minor detail. Sometimes its a little neater and less overwhelming to do so – but I understand how it can be difficult to follow and for that I apologise. I sometimes start to correct a spelling or grammar mistake and then end up remembering some other bit of info I forgot to mention so the post goes on and on. In this case, I had just posted the first half of the post and then saw RM ‘s reply, so rather than post a completely new one, I just added on the extra bit to the existing reply.

Regarding my making assumptions, I was in a rush typing that up (think I mentioned it whilst typing it) and thus didn’t get the opportunity to phrase my arguments in the way I perhaps intended to. What I think I was getting at is a larger argument regarding what defines public space entitlement – should it be the right of all persons irrespective – or, should it be the entitlement of those who respect it – as in, those who don’t urinate on the paving (for example, as with the examples I mentioned in the previous post like ‘swear, spit and cause aggro’.) And what defines acceptable behaviour? In a space such as City Quarter, you have a number of elements in operation – you have businesses such as the Clarion and the soon to open kiosks and offices, you have an open public element, visiting car-park patrons etc etc – each has a right to its own integrity and own well-being. But rather than City Quarter, take Fitzgerald’s Park – the security guards there quite often restrict the activities of its visitors in this supposed public amenity space. Not so long ago, a bunch of young lads were asked to leave for using a motorised model helicopter by one security staff member (they were on the green area/rose garden area of the park by the river’s edge) – they weren’t causing any hassle, they seemed like a respectable bunch of fellas just having a nice time in the rare lovely weather, and they were asked to leave this public space because the helicopter (according to security) represented a danger to children in the park. I think I was more of a danger as I had been swinging off playground equipment like an oversized child. There was the usual grunting and arguing, but eventually the boys left and head across Daly’s Bridge. I don’t think you can put such governance squarely at the feet of a private business/developer just because it was near their turf. Fitzgerald’s Park is a true-blue public space and yet it is governed. Why are the City Council telling people what to do because they don’t like it??? I think the question should be more empirical – what decides what is acceptable in public space or in an public environment whatsoever and who governs it?

*UPDATES*

😎 Tower cranes at UCC’s 20m euro School of Pharmacy site along College Road and Corbett Bros.’ Copley Street development were dismantled over the weekend (Saturday and Sunday respectively) signalling the completing stages of the 2 developments.

The new School of Pharmacy was designed by STW and constructed by Pierse Construction. The 60,000sq ft, 3-storey building will commence operations in time for the next UCC Academic Term in October of this year (2005).

School of Pharmacy

Meanwhile, Corbett Bros. intend to have their development on Copley Street (designed by PRC Architects and built by Coffey Construction) up and running by September 2005 (latest). The development includes 2 linked 5-storey buildings with 60,000sq ft of office space, an under-ground car-park, and 38-residential units. A new student complex of 8 apartments will be constructed by the same developers, designed by James Leahy & Associates, along Stable Lane soon. The new elevational treatments seems a little more modern, but I wonder if it was as pleasant as the original plans?! I’ll wait until the whole thing is complete before judging.

Here’s a question for any legal eagles amongst us:
The space outside the new clarion hotel- is this public or private space? Considering this used to be a roadway, is it still public even though kiosks and fancy paving has been laid? Also, the new boardwalk: public or private?
I’ll let you know why I want to know this in my next post.

It was and is public space. The nature of the site foundations, plus the construction of underground car-parking required a complete deconstruction of the quayside (I’ll let some engineer handle the technical side here) but as part of planning talks, Howard Holdings signed a M.O.U. with CCC which entails a complexity of ownership rights, money was exhanged. Howard have rights over the kiosks, lift, pontoon and boardwalk etc but with the understanding that it is made available as a public amenity facility.

This next bit of news I’ve taken with a pinch of salt since first hearing it, but i’ve heard it so many times that I thought I’d see has anyone else heard the rumour.
My sources suggest that a leading tenant at Mahon Point is extremely unhappy with performance and is planning to leave the centre. Obviously I won’t name names, but we’re talking high profile tenant here. Any truth at all to this rumour?

The word is conflicting. However, generally, most sources claim the Cork store is perfroming on par with Dublin’s Jervis Street store. Overall, it would seem many new Irish suburban malls, MP and Dundrum included, have been underperforming. However, recent word (within the passed 2 weeks) suggests MP is slowly starting to level out to a more comfortable position. Typing this in a rush so I’ll clarify and update at a later stage. I don’t see Debenhams leaving anytime soon.

As we’re on the subject, I dont think I’ve seen as many empty shops on St. Patrick Street in a good many years:
CIE office, O2 shop, Pound City, adjacent travel shop, adjacent camera shop, etc. all empty and looking particularly shabby. This does not look good and I’ve heard nothing of new tenants being found.

Deals are being finalised on 2 of the stores, the under 2 are still under negotiations with numerous parties. The problem with Patrick Street is rent and space. The Joe Donnellys of this city have helped push rent soaring (2nd in country after Grafton Street) – however, it order to maintain success, it is falling to mostly multinational businesses to pick up the vacanies. The other problematic issues include the availability of sale/floor space given rent. Retaillers can only provide so much given the insufficient retail space on the street. But indeed, trade on Patrick Street has generally been on the up.

I must try to get a recent pic of the new red brick development opposite the Opera House. Some genius has decided to erect an unsightly CCTV camera system on the corner of the building on the large column there. All we need now is a few satallite dishes, a few bicycles and some washing lines on the balconies and we’ll be all set 😡

I agree, it looks unpleasant. I’m not sure if the Hornibrooks put it up or CCC were involved. If the latter, they are completely contradicting their own efforts to improve city centre aesthetics by throwing up eye-sores like these on new structures such as Camden Wharf.

@RM wrote:

Perhaps we should take note before we go ahead and hand over more of our quaysides to private developers. Can they be trusted to maintain free and open access for ALL of the public?

I don’t think you can make assumptions about a particular incident without knowing the ins and outs. Are you sure the person in question had not been causing trouble prior to his removal? Personally, I believe that public space should be the entitlement of all members of a community – that means children, the elderly, and every other average Joe in the city – are they not entitled to enjoy that space? But if persons such as the gentleman you describe ruin it for others, what about the right of those other ‘orderlies’ to enjoy such amenities? Should he be allowed swear, spit and cause aggro on those unsuspecting individuals just out for a pleasant stroll or making their way to work?

If you notice outside Kudos restaurant, part of the Lapps Quay Clarion, there is a cracked window – the result of a stone throwing from an individual who decided to spit at passers-by from his position on the boardwalk. He was intoxicated, but not overly so, just rowdy. Following complaints and no Garda presence, Clarion staff took it on themselves to remove the gentleman from this area where not only customers, but everyday members of the public had been enjoying the weather and location. After the usual ranting and raving, the man in question managed to attain a missile among rubble/debris across the road at No.6 Lapps Quay (under construction), stormed back and fired the stone at the window before running off toward Custom House Quay.

@rodger wrote:

I know I will probabaly sound like a bit of a loser here but its the bulb off of the Bork ship on startrek,and who says tellys bad for ya. :rolleyes:

Cough cough (nerd!) cough cough! 😀

(Archigeek) – sorry rodger, I had to – I spent the last 10mins thinking of that. Aww I’m so proud, I’ll sleep well tonight. :p 😉

There are some lovely American colonial-style houses along the Western Road. Red brick, copper roofing with the old-style white porch fronts along their own private cul-de-sac called Annaville – built in the 1930s. There are 6 of them, each with the same basic design but with varying characteristics like larger balconies or a rounded porch etc. The small little estate is across the road from the Castlewhite Student Village.

@theblimp wrote:

As for Paul Kenny’s RC development ’tis a pity that it’s off-centre due to having to protect some of the existing buildings. Just imagine what it could look like without them!! This is a strange one – I like the new design, and I like the aesthetic of the old buildings. However I don’t think they work well together in this execution. Mind you, the proposed Eastern elevation doesn’t appear to be too ground-breaking – could just as easily be one of the sides from the new City Quarter.

I wonder what we’re all going to think in a decade or so when ‘glass & steel’ becomes old hat

I agree that the design is off-centre, but given the nature of the site and the need to retain the protected structures, I think Wilson did a good job at putting a little imagination into a development that could have otherwise been another God-awful ‘mock’ incarnation with heavy red-brick and boring lines and verticals.

However, as I have said way back when, I feel the same about ‘glass and steel’ structures, sure they may be the trend nowadays, but good architecture lasts the ages. Few buildings nowadays seem to mix the necessary blend. But that said, some older buildings that – if replicated nowadays would be slammed – retain recognition for their efforts as a representation of that period’s style. Perhaps some of the newer incarnations will, in years to come, be recognised as good examples of the architectural style of today.