Smithfield Resi

Any word on Dun L’s deal?

fined £200 and ordered to pay £1,300 costs

A spokesman for Arb’s professional standards department said: “The level of fine and costs awarded in this case send a strong message to anyone who is fraudulently using the title architect. Arb remains committed to bringing such individuals to justice.”

Are they having a laugh? £1500

http://www.arb.org.uk/registration/fees-2009.shtml

Probably works out cheaper for him in the long run…

Hopefully not breaking the rules.. a cryptic of sorts.
For 1 point…. Where is this?
For 5 points…What has been removed?
For 10 ponts…Where is it now?

I think the Royal Dublin was on fire earlier? Smoke billowing everywhere on O’Connell Street

More likely brick dust…or possibly asbestos 😀

barrage of idiotic arguments against high rise: from the (false) claim that they would be out of place in what is essentially a low rise city, to the (equally false) argument that high rise buildings will not increase density in Dublin, as if that were even the point.

Nice starting point for reasonable debate…calling holders of the opposite view idiotic.

I could equally express it as….

barrage of idiotic arguments for high rise: from the (false) claim that they would make Dublin a ‘modern city’, to the (equally false) argument that high rise buildings will increase density in Dublin, as if that were even the point.

“crucial way for a capital city to express its openness to thinking big and remaining dynamic into the future”

How exactly is a low/medium rise city less open-minded?

From a purely architectural perspective, skyscrapers create contrasts and shadows and sculptural effects undreamed of by those who are limited to a view of vast planes of five storey retail park fodder.

Are you saying that architects cannot express contrast and sculptural effects in less than 15 storeys? Really?
http://thomasmayerarchive.de/details.php?image_id=86095&l=english

I mean, was Georgian Dublin constructed at the same height, block after block? No. Variation was key to its success.

Equally, the uniformity of the rooflines of the grand Georgian terraces is part of their beauty, Without the need to ‘punctuate’ the skyline (god, I loathe that word)

The modern equivalent is a more substantial varying of heights – and nothing could be more contextual to Dublin than that.

Define substantial. That seems to be the crux of the debate….

Anybody who surveyed Ireland’s account books for the last twenty years and then went to look at the docklands would be drawn to the inevitable conclusion that some kind of pathology is in effect here – a simple primeval fear preventing Dublin from getting it up like normal cities.

Since you bring up the inevitable phallic allusion, is the frustration at the lack of high-rise expressed by the ‘we want it big and tall and now!’ brigade a primeaval fear of impotence? 😀

crisis averted

Til the next one…

The map of “Zones of Advertising Control” or ‘Zones where we would like to put advertising’ as it should really be known, was published in Plan Magazine recently. It won’t be on the DCC website as councillors have not seen it nor approved it. Drop me a PM and I’ll see if I can help further.

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/44832-public-toilets-reek-of-fiasco.html
Spending a penny in Ã…rhus is not what it used to be, with each flush costing the council over 300 kroner

Ã…rhus Council welcomed the ultimate modern convenience for the busy shopper on the go when they introduced fully automated public toilets in 2004. The toilets are freestanding enclosed cabins that disinfect the entire cabin once the user has left.

However, new figures from seven of the 16 public toilets rented by the council from the Afa JCDecaux firm, show an average of 11 visits per day. In comparison, the public toilets located at the local bus station average about 400 visitors per day.

Ã…rhus Stiftstidende newspaper reports that the collective expense for the seven public conveniences is almost 20 million kroner. Around two million kroner of this is being paid for by users of the toilets, which cost 2 kroner per visit.
The visitor figures are so low that the issue is being brought forward on the agenda of the council’s technical committee. The committee’s chairman, Keld Hvalsø Nedergaard, said that the city needs to invest in toilets that people are willing to use and pointed out the downsides to the facilities.

‘The automatic cleaning doesn’t really help, if people make a mess in the toilet cubicle. They are also frequently out of operation for one reason or another,’ said Nedergaard.

The councillor with responsibility for the technical and environment department, Peter Thyssen, defended the toilets saying their success should not be measured on visitor numbers.

‘It’s more important that they are placed around the town so that people who have incontinence problems, for example, can reach a facility when they need it,’ said Thyssen.

When are city/county councils going to wake up to the fact that these ‘outsourcing/advertising’ deals are a trojan horse.

Or as Cllr Mary Freehill puts it ‘a pig in a poke’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0elLRuvLN6I

It’s an interesting point though, that I hadn’t considered before- a comparison of applications for advertising in various city locations, and the reasons for grant or refusal. Would there be any discernible patterns?

The comparison should perhaps include the companies applying for permission, see this appeal to ABP.

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/231840.htm

The appeal makes interesting reading:
http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00252309.pdf
(caution – stupidly big file 42MB!)

Although both of these applications were granted permission under the provisions of the Dublin City Development plan 1999-2004, they were both in contravention of Section 14.42.0 (a), which states advertising displays “…shall only be permitted within commercial zones…” As can be seen in both of these instances, specific zoning guidelines were not adhered to and yet indefinite grants of permission were issued.

Furthermore, and in both of the JCDecaux cases, there is no reference made in respect of other “…existing signage in the area…” In our view this is evidence of inconsistent standards being applied by Dublin City Council in its decision making process and we believe that as our application falls within an area where the zoning guidelines permit the type of development that we are seeking, that we should be afforded the same unconditional grant of permission as has been afforded to JCDecaux.

On a final point, we are aware that as part of a wider public realm enhancement project, JCDecaux has been granted permission to erect a number of freestanding scrolling advertising displays on properties owned by Dublin City Council. We acknowledge that these developments have been granted permission having been subject to the same planning process as our own application.

However, we would specifically refer to two separate permissions that were granted permission under this programme with the following application numbers:

6784/06 – Ballybough Road zoned Z9: To Protect provide and improve residential amenities, shown in photograph No 4

6813/06 – Richmond Road zoned Z9: To preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space, shown in photograph No 5

In both of these cases, Dublin City Council have granted permission for scrolling advertising displays in areas where the zoning guidelines do not permit such use.

As we have demonstrated in the four examples above, Dublin City Council has previously granted permission for advertising structures in locations where the local area zoning guidelines specifically restrict this type of development. Yet, in our case, we are being refused permission to retain a previously acceptable structure, set in a location carrying a zoning objective that permits this type of development.

Summary
Dublin City Council has based its reason for refusal on “…excessive scale…” which we have outlined is not valid given that the scale has not changed since we were last granted permission. It also refers to “…visually obtrusive element…” a point that we would argue is made irrelevant due to the existence of the adjacent Centra store development insofar as it completely dominates the local streetscape. We have also shown that the existence of an advertising display at the subject site for in excess of fifty years has not had a ‘…detrimental impact on the character of the area.. ” and is in reality an established element of the streetscape.

The shamrock poles all over Dublin got nominated for protected Structure listing today and the request form has been submitted to Dublin City Council.
DCC have there work cut out fingers crossed…

I wonder will that stop them putting (commercial) ‘cultural’ advertising banners on them?