NevilleNeville

@CologneMike wrote:

Dreamstate, seriously I have the impression that you seem to have more nostalgic social attachments 😉 to the red brick boat club than heritage concerns of the bridge itself. You seem to resent in general the changing face of the city by labelling developers (accountant) or councillors as crooks.

I may be wrong or at worst naïve but isn’t this “boat club” proposal the result of a “think-tank” get together by a group of individuals (Shannon Development, UL, local Architects etc, etc.) who did a little bit of brain-storming some two years or so ago?

If I remember correctly the aim was to identify projects (iconic or otherwise) that would benefit the city. Therefore, it is my understanding that Michael Daly’s Fordmount is just a private vehicle to make one of them happen now?

Sure they are no “angels” involved in the construction industry but your innuendos that back-handers were needed to force this proposal through the city hall is over the top! Unless of course you know something that we don’t.

Your critic that the proposal is a just commercial, is one where I don’t have a problem with. Best example is the UL’s Concert Hall or Thomond Park both of them have to pay their own keep. This will apply to the proposed Boat Club building too. All three will play their role in bringing visitors (cultural / sport) to the city.

I would agree with you that an opportunity was lost for not organising an architectural competition for the boat club. These developer led proposals don’t cater for that. This shows again to me that our city, run by three local authorities is lacking one “coherent vision” for one city. Thankfully concerned groups involved in that “think-tank” are not content in passively waiting for the Minister of Environment to solve the “three-council” issue but forcing “vision with action” now to fill this void.

I really hope Michael Daly delivers a high quality contemporary building that will complement the fine cut-stone bridge. If he does not deliver, he will experience a very uncomfortable existence in his home town for years to come . . . . . . . .

The big issue with the Boat Club decision is the fact that the majority vote made by councillors, with no formal training in architectural conservation, to remove a building from the list of protected structures, demeans the process of deeming builidngs worthy of being recorded as protected structures in the first place. Lets not forget that the building was included in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage for Limerick City less than two years ago. If it was deemed significant enough to be listed at that point this decision seems all the more ridiculous. I could accept if there was a forum or committee decision by people with a track record in conservation but councillors making these decisions is a mockery of the legislation that was introduced to protect our heritage in the first place.

The fact as to buildings being commercial or not is not really the issue but that the other builidngs referred to i.e. Thomond Park and the Concert Hall are public buildings whereas the proposal for this site is primarily offices with the exception of the new boat club. A new public building might make the decision easier to swallow but not another office block.

Finally I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for a quality contemporary builidng both due to the submission to the council thus far and also looking at the developer’s previous track record for producing what might be solid commercial architecture but hardly inspiring artworks. The local authority had the option of insisting on an architectural competition for the site to replace the heritage it deemed fit to be removed but rejected it. Seems like Skibereen has more progressive thinking than Limerick these days!