shadow
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Sorry I have to take exception to some of the issues raised by Graham
The centre does not integrate itself to the village. It is an internalised structure and is typical of suburban malls everywhere; it is just larger and taller.
The centrepiece (atrium) is very poor with visibility clouded by large white ramps, escalators and balconies.
In general the design is uncoordinated and lacks an appropriate scale to either the car or the person.
You might try Ashlin Coleman Healin, who were responsible for many churches in Dublin of this type and vintage. They also had a link to Pugin I believe and the interiors show some influence of Pugin.
Here we go again.
If the competition were properly judged to begin with, maybe issues such as feasibility would have been sorted out. The suggestion that by “inflating” this project will improve its performance is incredible since the footprint of the site is the restricting parameter.
“The land is on the coast, so it would be a shame not to build something that took advantage of the views of the atlantic, but I am a bit concerned about local planners attitudes to a non-traditional house.”
The first porblem is zoning, will a one off house be allowed on the land. If zoning is a problem this may be overcome if there is an older house on the land whcih is to be replaced or refrubished. Regardles of the above th elocal authority may have a residency (family/work) link requirement. Even though I think this is constitutionally flawed and in clonflict with a number of EU declarations/regulations it can be the most problematic. It does appear that you have the requiste linkage with the area.
Option 1 where there is no impediment and no restriction on a one off house.
The site is the key issue. A full analysis of the site will indicate the correct approach form an architectural (including enviornmental) poiint of view. (“Views” may compromise this approach).
Option2 where is some impediment but there is an existing building.
The site is also key but re-occupying the existing is a more appropriate approach.
Option 3 where there is a lot of impediment to building anything
Employ a suitablly ualified and experienced architect and argue the case first at local level and then at ABP level.
Option 4
Instigate a mini competition, through Archeire or others to establish best practice.
We might as well tear up all planning guidelines. It seems as if it is a case of build it and planning will come around. How can professionals seriously advise clients of planning standards when they can be rewritten to suit the day, month, year, fashion, bloddymindedness etc…
Originally posted by LGL
The Loop Line bridge is a similar structure to the Hungerford Railway bridge across the Thames in London. A design competition was set by the cross river partnership in 1996 to aestethically update the hungerford bridge & include pedestrian assess across the river.
The winning entry made a huge improvementsomething similar could work for the Loop-Line
Not so long ago there was a competition for the replacement of the Loop Line bridge. I have no idea where it went but there was a winning scheme.
Careful
Applications in Zone H are generally suitable only for those with a direct economic link tot he landscape and even then there are other restrictions. Other authorities are following the move by Clare and others to preclude those without a birthright and/or without Irish as a spoken language. This later issue has yet to be tested constitutionally but on the face of it is discriminatory. It s likely that Zone H will be subject to further restrictions especially when Europe force Ireland to apply the legislation they have already adopted in respect to SACs and other initiatives. Do not believe an estate agent. Ask the planners directly. They are obliged to inform you of the rights, responsibilities and possibilities for planning.
Aland you beat me to the punch. There is a tendancy to believe any development is better than none regardless of the content.
No the proposal was to reengineer Barrow Street to allow for a cutting to a tunnel which would re-emerge under Spencer Dock.
The proposal included a tunnel 1.5 kilometres long arriving at an underground rail station with vertical connectivity to buses and other ground-based transport.
In 1998 there was a proposal to create a central rail terminal on Spencer Dock complete with inter-connector from Barrow Street allowing Pearse and Tara to return to more urbane uses and to cut down on the diesel electric pollution. This was taken up by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and was supported by one of the major political parties, all prior to Spencer Dock becoming the site for the Conference Centre (obvious).
