publicrealm
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@newgrange wrote:
From today’s ‘Irish Independent’:
Signs are bad for gigantic advert billboards
PLANS to allow one of the world’s largest advertisers to erect 130 billboards in Dublin are now in doubt.
The contract planned for free-standing panels ranging from 2sq m – about the size of a bus shelter advertisement – to 7sq m which would be erected on prominent sites in the city centre.
Owners of the Ilac Centre, Irish Life Assurance, claimed the signs amounted to the “virtual appropriation of the public realm by a private interest”,
Thank you for bringing this outrage to my attention. My solicitors have already been in contact with the Irish Independant about their virtual appropriation of my virtual name.
@PVC King wrote:
FF really are running solo on this one
Fine Gael transport spokeswoman Olivia Mitchell has said she was “stunned” to learn that “more than 500 archaeologists, hired at a cost of €30 million, managed to miss a four-acre historical site while excavating for the new M3 motorway”
.
Jaysus – My primary degree is Archaeology and I ‘don’t like’ Fine Gael – but it’s a fair question.And – holy cow! were there 500 archaeologists? (There were just 13 in my class back in early medieval times – and no jobs!)
@PVC King wrote:
I read last week that Wanderers settled this with the IRFU before taking a pasting by Bruff on Saturday
Decision time for DCC do they back the locals a couple of weeks before a general election or secure the viability of the leisure component of the local rates base?
Shame on you PVC King – the Honorable (and Upstanding) Members will not be concerned with such matters as votes or rates (heavens – the greasy till?) and will, I am certain, confine their considerations to matters of proper planning and sustainable development.
@hutton wrote:
WTF?
There’s no excuse for this 😡
City Development Plan – Conservation Area Policy H13
“It is the policy of DCC to protect…the historic fabric of conservation areas in the control of development”
Maybe this isn’t a C.A. – sure its only abutting Dublin Castle afterall :rolleyes:
It’s so bad I actually believe it cannot be as it seems.
I intend to chase DCC on Monday to get to the bottom – I actually can’t believe that the ESB would operate in such an irresponsible manner (or that DCC would let them). Call me old fashioned…:D
BTW – I checked and it’s not in a Conservation Area!
@publicrealm wrote:
O Dear.
This morning the excavation was filled in and the old granite paving slabs had disappeared.
Hopefully, as it is a semi-state body doing the work (ESB) they have been taken away for cleaning prior to replacement? :confused:
Today’s image :confused:
O Dear.
This morning the excavation was filled in and the old granite paving slabs had disappeared.
Hopefully, as it is a semi-state body doing the work (ESB) they have been taken away for cleaning prior to replacement? :confused:
Bugger that – image sideways!
ctesiphon wrote:Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly gets me thinking, which is more than I can say for Graham Knuttel.QUOTE]
How dare you sir! I have a Knuttel to which I am very attached (three little fishes with that mafia look he specialises in). They look as if they would whip your wallet and have their way with your wife if they could only get out of the frame.
Can’s stand yer man Markey though – triangles and shawlies ad nauseum. Must have turned out hundreds.
I would lock up the graffitists who deface good surfaces – it may be ok for hoardings but, if it is generally indulged it will encourage talentless clowns to deface the city. No problem having designated areas though – and can even see merit in this.
Spotted this morning at the corner of Ship St Great and (I think) Stephens St Upper – at the back of Dublin Castle.
Seems like old granite paving taken up and piled in a heap – hopefully it will be replaced.
Will keep an eye on it.
@Rory W wrote:
They just want more tickets & a corporate suite (they have one of the tudor style pavillions adjoining the west stand) – Boo to Wanderers I say for holding things up
How utterly shameless.
The word treason springs to mind.:mad:
@alonso wrote:
I don’t believe leave for a judicial review will be granted in this case either. And that’ll be that then. Another piece of our sporting legacy gone. In a decade the list will be Milltown, Lansdowne, Old Croker, Dalymount, possibly Tolka, and every golf course within 8 miles of O’Connell Street
You’r joking?? Or are you seriously suggesting that the demolition of the existing Lansdowne Road Stadium is regrettable?
It may be part of our sporting legacy but then the Dublin slums were part of our architectural legacy.
The current structure has all the charm of a knacker’s yard and the proposed replacement is aesthetically and architecturally amazing (in my view).
It may or may not be too big for the site but it can hardly be worse (for our sporting heritage) than the existing yoke?
@altotude wrote:
Anyone know what’s going on with Grianblah? Permission was granted ages ago and, despite the owner’s rush to get started the first time, nothing’s happened. Still boarded up, graffitied. Horrible eyesore on a beautiful park.
Altotude
The bizarre DCC decision was appealed by a neighbour – decision due in late April. Quite a good appeal imho.
http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchdetails.asp?id=7541844&caseno=220979
@ctesiphon wrote:
22.iii.07
That’s today’s date, right?
Any news?
Yup. Today’s the day.
The Teddy Bears await the menu.
@archipimp wrote:
im tired of this northside vs southside fight,im not just talking about here but i expected people on this site to be looking for the benefit of the whole city as one rather than slagging each other.!
Absolutely. Time to move on from the old ways, rising tide levels playing pitch etc.
For years now many northsiders have been living happily in Ranelagh, and my neighbours and I fully accept them and consider them a colourful addition to the area.
Their sunny and carefree outlook makes a pleasant contrast with that of the indigenous population and, when treated properly, they prove very loyal.
@PVC King wrote:
These will no doubt all be located on main routes and will have three road facing sides which will no doubt be festooned with images of Wayne Rooney et al which will each generate as much as €20,000 per installation per year depending on location.
This is not de nortside being lumbered with metropoles whilst the southside gets the prize to pay for it.
I understand that Mr Rooney is admired on the Northside – but surely his image will not be used on the Southside? Are we to have Sinn Fein election posters next?
Appalled.
I’m sure it has already been nominated (such a long thread and soo little time..) but all my money is on River House beside the Four Courts. For its intrinsic awfulness and for its contextual awfulness. It’s awful.
ctesiphon wrote:Ha! I was wondering if/when that’d show up here. Fortunately, PP isn’t required for pretty ladies. ]I don’t think it would work here – the poor girl would be slagged to death and I dread to think what the wags would say about the poor policeman’s name.
Devin wrote:Award for thee worst addition to a historic building ever goes to Anthony Reddy Associates for this current proposal (below) for Portobello House on the Grand Canal –]Apart from ignoring its context it appears to step out over the footpath at first floor level?
I imagine that this should require a letter of consent from DCC?
@newgrange wrote:
Here we go:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Appendices%201-5%20reduced_tcm35-48977.pdfLike the photographer who took those lovely pictures of a certain SF Euro candidate, whoever produced this leaflet is one to watch in the ‘make silk purse out of sow’s ear’ category.
Thanks for the link.
We have designed our bicycle to withstand weather extremes and to be virtually vandal-proof.
I hope this isn’t seen as a challenge – I’m willing to bet, for example, that the bikes won’t float. Hope I’m wrong and that they will be a success but ??:(
@Morlan wrote:
I agree. Anything above 4 floors is just idiotic for this area. It’s far too close to the city centre.
A nice 3 story block would be perfect for this site. Although, I think 3 sotries would be a bit overkill for the whole area.
I’m not so sure. 3 storey might be fine for that particular site but what signal would it send out?
Thin end of the wedge stuff really – next thing you know and it is being cited as precedent for all sorts of high falutin high rise.
Surely we have learned from the excessive heights along the quays?
@hutton wrote:
Fair enough]http://www.dublincity.ie/sitetools/faq/faq_planning/planning_-_local_authority_works_laws_.asp[/url] …or google it with this: What are Local Authority Works (LAWS)? #5762
Well, I do understand the anxiety about the issue and I fully agree that the ,em, publicrealm, is already cluttered and uncontrolled. Certainly the pictures posted earlier are pretty awful – but I hope DCC would not permit such things in Dublin. Has anyone an image from the applications (sorry if one has been posted and I missed it 😮 ). I have tried DCC online but the documents have not yet been uploaded.
I honestly don’t know if this is a PPP? If it is then I would expect that this should be explicitly stated in the applications. I expect it is more in the nature of the usual ‘horse trading’ that goes on – planning gain in exchange for favourable decisions. If it is a PPP then there would, in my view, be a case for DCC to answer.
Again I agree that multiple applications make it difficult to contest – but it would probably be impossible to lodge an omnibus application as it could not comply with the requirements of the Regulations (drawings, site location maps etc).
Re. what constitutes ‘Local Authority Works’ – this is set out in Part 8, Article 80 of the Regs; click on
http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/fad163d4e576ac3a80256fa3003d0f77/$FILE/part08.pdf
I will have a look at one of the files next week.:)
