SeamusOG

Ormond Square (behind Ormond Quay)…

@garethace wrote:

Anyone should go into Trinity at the moment to experience that square where the tennis courts used to be. At the moment the place is in a bit of a mess, but feels a lot better as a space. I think that Trinity should abandon their tennis courts there and return that court space to being a space and not some dark hidden part of the whole campus. What do you think?

Grovenor Sq, Fitzwilliam Sq, Merrion Sq, Mount Pleasant Sq… all very exclusive tennis court places which could be better I think. Dunno. Are squares for the people or for nobby people? Frank McDonald makes a good point in his book about Paris creating new parks, where dense urban habitation is built. Surely this should be so in Dublin.

Anyone walk from Rathmines Church to Lesson St. Church, going through Mount Pleasant Sq, Dartmouth Sq and Ranelagh Park? Ranelagh Park, well, well, well,…. I never. Worth a stroll some day, a succession of old public spaces right at the heart of Dublin.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Well worth a stroll indeed. But for how much longer will it be there, if the current row at Dartmouth Square is not resolved. I presume it could never be turned into housing, but turning it into a private tennis/bowls club might be possible. In my view this would be to the detriment of a very nice park and to the city generally.

Perhaps the company occupying the building might be able to help. I haven’t passed by that way in a while, but one of the occupants used to be a solicitors firm called Beauchamps (formerly Hickey Beauchamp Kirwan and O’Reilly). I don’t know if they are still there now, but they were in the building for quite a long time and might have some useful information.

Very interesting picture that last one, as it makes it look as if O’Connell Street has disappeared or is at best very narrow. An illusion I’m sure.

@auto wrote:

Hey guys,

Im doing a little project on this and i was wondering if there is any books, magazines, articles sites etc which would have CB info, i cant find much on it.

I’m going to ring sam stephensons archetecture office over the next week and see if they have anything.

Thanks

You might also try ringing the central bank itself. If they’re anything like the Bundesbank – which apparently still employs lots of people who were experts in the stability of the Deutschmark and can’t now be got rid of – they may have several experts in the stability of the punt who’ll have plenty of time to help you with your research.;)

More seriously though, the national library in Kildare Street might be a good place to look for old newspaper articles about the Central Bank building and the controversy surrounding its construction.

@jimg wrote:

If you get your wish and the B route is chosen, you will end up with the worst of both worlds – an angled bridge ruining the “water space” between O’Connell bridge and Butt bridge AND poles and wires on college green a few years later when the Lucan Luas gets built (coming down Dame St.)

I wouldn’t be sure that the bridge itself would need to be at an angle. Hawkins Street and Marlborough Street are not offset by much. I’d think the angle could be removed as the trams cross Burgh Quay, i.e. if the trams were to cross Burgh Quay at an angle, leaving a straight run across the bridge. (Though I might need to borrow Garret’s measuring tape to prove that:) )

@weehamster wrote:

Route A is the original design and was altered by Mary O’Rouke who pathetically caved in to so called experts who represent city centre business, and created the situation we have now.

Yes indeed. It would be interesting to canvass her now, as a mere senator, over which of options A-E she favours. Or if she has any other bright ideas to throw into the mix.

Great picture of Edinburgh. It reminds me of a trip there many years ago. I’m trying to remember was it the Scottish National Gallery or National Museum where the main entrance is on the ninth floor (though I think there is another entrance on another street below the one where the main entrance is).

The pictures of Chicago are also very good. What interests me is how much sun seems to get in through all those tall buildings. In the picture on the left, most areas on the left hand side are bathed in sunshine. I wonder, with our location on the planet (about 10 degrees north of Chicago), would we be able to ensure the same thing if we built up tall buildings in the city centre. It is, for example, possible to sit in sunshine up to about 3 O’Clock on Christmas Eve on the boardwalk, even though there is shade extending at least half way across the Liffey. If taller buildings were built along, say, Burgh Quay, as the picture in the opening post illustrates, this would not be possible. I’m not against building tall, but we would also need to be very careful to make the best use of our fairly limited sunlight.

(maybe if we actually introduced that bend in the river?:) )

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

think somebody suggested on the site before that large screens could be used to cover the loopline looking to sea from o’connell bridge, seamless screens could replicate the view of customs house etc. that would be, if the loopline wasn’t there, and of course whatever else you fancy when required …

I’ve often wondered about that (and I don’t wish to take up too much space given that this is an O’Connell Street thread rather than a loop line bridge thread).

The television pictures used for Formula 1 are able to show different advertising on bridges over the racetrack depending on whether the country receiving the pictures has a ban on, say, tobacco advertising or not. i.e. even though the spectators at the Grand Prix are able to see cars speeding under a bridge with MARLBORO written on it, countries which have a ban would show cars speeding under a bridge with ORANGE on it, countries which do not have a ban would show cars speeding under a bridge with MARLBORO on it.

If you’ve ever watched premier league football in England you may have seen advertising which appears to be on the pitch beside the goal (e.g. flybe.com, which looks like it is actually printed on the pitch, in much the same way that some advertising is actually printed on the pitch, like Permanent TSB for rugby matches). If you look at the reverse angle, flybe.com isn’t there.

The architects who designed the millenium pedestrian bridge – I’m afraid I can’t remember their name – did a clever thing with the lights which are set into the bridge. Apparently, within the bridge, there is a light meter which measures the length of the day. There is a fibre optic system which lights up the lights along the bridge and some kind of a coloured wheel through which the light passes. Depending on the duration of nighttime, as measured by the light metre, the wheel moves at different speeds, so that the light along the bridge changes from white to blue to green and back to white between dusk and dawn. (It struck me as clever when I found out about it a few years ago, though it may have been quite commonplace).

Anyway, the point is this: the technology appears to exist to be able to not show us things which actually are present (e.g. cigarette advertising), and to show us things which are not present (e.g. advertising beside the goal in football). The technology also seems to exist to measure the length of the day and apply it to lighting of a bridge. Could it also be applied to taking a picture of the skyline, in real time (scurrying clouds, etc.), as we would see it if the loop line bridge were not there?

Now clearly the loop line bridge needs to exist as it is a vital transport link, but could a combination of the above technologies be used to show us, as we walk along Burgh Quay or Eden Quay, what our vista would be if the loop line bridge did not exist? I’d imagine this would have to be done with screens of some sort.

Even if it could be done, I’d acknowledge that the most obvious flaw with this arrangement is that it would discommode people who like the look of the loop line bridge.

@Morlan wrote:

Luas down Grafton is NEVER going to happen. It’s the most important retail street/public space in Ireland. The affect on businesses there would be disastrous.

I’m sure anyone living in Dublin would agree.

I agree that it simply couldn’t be allowed to happen if it were an on-street arrangement.

Though I’ve never understood why it could not be built down Grafton Street under the street.
i.e.
Step 1: Dig up 50-100 metres of the street, moving the utilities to the side.
Step 2: Cover over this section so that work on track preparation can continue along this section under the street.
Step 3: repeat step 1 on the next 50-100 metre section of the street;
Step 4: repeat step 2.

Repeat these steps as long as is necessary.

The advantage of this would be that it would give the most direct route – no need for awkward corners at the top and bottom of Dawson Street or conflicts with buses and other traffic in this area. No more than 50-100 metres of Grafton Street need be affected at any one time. However, it would be more expensive.