Non-Taiscist
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The abandonment of zebra crossings comes from the same school of thought as puts traffic lights on roundabouts. We need to be told what to do, rather than learn what to do. Lurking underneath all of this is the dumbing down of road design standards Europe-wide. Anyone who has tried out a zebra crossing on the continent south of Brussels will know that zebra crossings are there for decorative purposes only.
An Taisce can be criticised for essentially 2 things:
– Disaffecting the pros:
An T appear to view development – any development – anywhere – as a kind of disease to be resisted, but if implemented, cured by alterations so as to satisfy a prejudiced concept of what should be where, everywhere. Negative, negative, negative. Even where their lordships deign to approve what might be put up, it’s never without a side swipe at some deemed inadequacy. Yep I like some 200 year old stuff, but I would knock as much as I like. Just cos it’s old doesn’t make it worth keeping. Taken to the limit it means that once something is up, then nothing can replace it, or be added to it. A doctrinaire approach to adaptation and development of old stuff doesn’t help.
– Disaffecting the proles
When dealing with rural blight, the clever, as opposed to the momentarily pleasing, thing for An T to do was not to lecture and harangue ‘the great wide people of Ireland’ etc, but to pressure the planning authorities to implement their own rules. As Fin says, the cussed thing about recent controversies is that An T’s methods have had the result of imperilling the implemenation of those policies – most folks believe that they are An T’s policies.
It ain’t what you do but the way that you do it.
Action stations!
Now’s the time to be clever, sharp and smart.
If it is stated government policy that something’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen.
The canny response to this is “although we have serious reservations about the policy, we suggest that [x] be incorporated in the policy”.
[x] should be good things like
– clusters
– proper services
– proper design
– respect for amenities valued by not only us city folk but also most people in affected localities.
Taisce did well on PT, for the first time in a long while, (i) by being courteous (ii) speaking in non-doctrinaire tones and (iii) reminding the folks at home that Taisce supports policies actually adopted by govt and local govt.
For the first time I thought that the thin argument arguing for Lego dwellings partout had been exposed.
James: There are probably two threads in this thread which we’ve been discussing.
1 The methodology and language used to sort out the one-off issue. The fact that An T seems to have been singled out as the sole promoter of some sort of ‘alien’ idea, whereas it is or is meant to be that of the planning authorities indicates, indicates a failure to get an effective message across. The fact that An T’s position is correctly and conscientiously held is beside this point. (Good idea, ineffective presentation). In this argument it’s first impressions – the first soundbite that matters. E.g if you say ‘we’re against one off housing but we’re in favour of exceptions in certain cases’, to the (politically-usable) potential ‘victim’ of such position, it reeks of city folks interfering in the parish. Instead say (wait for it) we’re in favour of one-off housing except for holiday homes + outsiders to the areas, it might just influence thinking. Say ‘we agree up to a point’ rather than saying ‘you’re wrong’. Fundamental Dale Carnegie.
2 An apparent predisposition towards the preservation of the old, for old’s sake, rather than of the good. This is allied to a suspicion reflected in this forum that it is a minority view that is adopted by An T.
Maybe the only thing to do is join …..
Agreed, an T does not exist as a popularity club. That’s why we’re debating it. The difficulty is when its lack of popularity operates to imperil many of the things it stands for.
We may be getting distracted from the issue which began this thread – in essence, why isn’t An T thriving, prosperous and generally respected. Here’s two for openers:
(1) One-off housing.
This is a no brainer and An T should have won the argument ages ago. Of course much of this housing is for commuters and city folk wanting to exercise the 4x4s a few weekends a year, but much of it is also to accommodate daughters (sorry Equality Authority, ‘struth) and second sons who would otherwise have to negotiate with the types that own the local village or town land bank.
Ideas to consider include requiring minimum numbers / clusters, properly serviced, to be built as well as requiring actual rather than pastiche architecture. An T could have been ‘political’ about this. They could have been and been seen to be the defender, the promoter, the facilitator of family accommodation on the homestead. Instead, all that is visible is negativity.
Even if you say “we’re for sustainable development” most people don’t know what you’re talking about. If you say “we’re for family farms and the accommodation for the extended family etc” you have won the hearts and cornered the arguments of the O Cuiv/Rae adherents.
(2) We know best.
Where An T really really gets up the noses of many in this forum is the perception that it knows better, always. Old = good, new = bad, us = good, you = bad.
You can do a truly fantastic job, you can agree with the neighbours, you can follow local and sympathetic idioms and use local materials, you may delight a lot of people (you can be a good architect?), but, no, it’s not quite right. Because there’s an An T opinion, it’ll get listened to, not because it may have merit, but simply because it exists.
Heritage is being created all the time, and that fact is lost to An T. If it’s any good, it’ll be visually intrusive. The self-indulgent pursuit of alterations to plans, the relentless pursuit of the ‘correct’, the requirement that it has the last word on any significant development has had the curious result of rendering suspect any intervention of An T. A bit of active indifference would be welcome.
P.S. (1) I am not anybody else who has posted here (2) I observe that Diaspora is almost as much of an arriviste as myself.
Thank you, Diaspora, I now see the error of my ways.
Look: for as long as you’re going to talk down to those with ‘ignorant’ views, you are not engaging with the holders of those views. You merely communicate your prejudices about and disdain for those people.
QED
An T have only themselves to blame for their finances. In England the National Trust is (no pun) trusted. In Ireland, An Taisce is not trusted. It is seen as the private recreation of the affluent and an enemy of the people.
“Too high”, “too near”, “too red”, “we can still see it”, “we know you’ve done a nice job but we woulda done a better one”, “save the castle, I mean the wall”, “no development here, because since the Fir Bolg there’s been a field” etc etc.
We know that An T do some good work, but if they’re going to have any respect, they’ll have to bring us commoners with them, and give some vision as to what they stand for, as opposed to against.
