vinnyfitz
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Anyone been out to Citywest recently?
Inside the frame of his illegal, but extant, development George is now erecting – phoenix like – an enormous brick sided, “temporary” structure. A mother of all function rooms in the midst of a pre condemned structure!
In the course of his remarks Frank said “it will be published next month (October) – I don’t know when next month though”.
Good title huh?
Aha! another thread from the depths of history!
Anyway, while waiting for the Luas to materialise would anyone like to speculate on the rationale for the wiremesh placed behind the Nassau St railings? Is it purely for litter control?
Whoever put it up might have done the decent thing and topped it off in line with the uppermost horizontal bar. The way it sticks up now above the tips of the rails is just cheap and nasty!
@Thomond Park wrote:
If it were that simple it would have been done a long time ago, it is a soundbite from Roche and little else in my opinion.
I am wondering why incinerators have been included but the as yet undesigned Ringsend Incinerator will be too late for the new legislation as the Ringsend incinerator will have already entered the planning system.
Courts management has always been hostile to dedicated divisions and judicial specialisation so previous suggestions of this sort have been resisted. It’s not the first time the idea has been floated – that is for sure. However, the successof the commercial court and the new courts service modernisation means there is a much better chance of somethign happen.
What is the mystery about Ringsend’s incinerator? McDowell would loose his seat if he cut his own constituents out of the planning process for that project. The excuse that the incinerator will already have gone into the planning process is pretty obvious. Though it may lead to tricky sequencing over the next 18 months. Will Roche’s Bill not be enacted until after the Ringsend application is submitted? What if it is delayed – will the Bill be delayed too?
Will other projects in the pipeline be either fast-tracked or slow-tracked so that they can go the old or new route? Pity the Board if all infrastructure projects now in pre-planning are held up and suddenly hit their desk the day after the Act is signed.
@Thomond Park wrote:
Re: Legal Challenges that would require a number of Constitutional amendments to be fully effective.
Not neccessarily, the model of a the recently established commercial divison of the High Court could be followed speeding things up without any legal, not to mention constitutional reforms.
@dc3 wrote:
And on the subject of bollards
One bollard on St Stephens Green, immediately across from the Shelbourne Hotel door, has been “taken out” , and it lies shattered on the ground, – no doubt hit by a motor vehicle – though doubtless it got its revenge.
One of the trees is also gone in the same area.
Gardai were at the scene at midday Sunday – a red car was rammed into the bollard and tree almost head on – I could not work out how it had acheived the neccessary angle. No other vehicle was evident as having been involved….
This questions seems to come up quite often – naturally almost always from New Posters who don’t know where to find previous similar threads.
Perhaps a sticky at the top of the page providing opinion and points of contact would be in order?
Apparently building these stadium yolks is quite tricky!
RTE report this morning that:The Cork County Board has admitted that there is a problem with the new seating facilities at Páirc ui Chaoimh.
The open stand there was recently converted to an all-seater area. However, many fans are now finding they can’t fit into them, with leg-space at a premium.
One supporter, quoted in this morning’s Irish Examiner, claimed; “It’s really uncomfortbale watching the game, and it doesn’t help when the fella’s knees behind you are in you back”
The Cork County Board say they’re looking into the matter, however it is uncertain what, if any, changes can be made at this stage.
County board chairman Jim Forbes told the Irish Examiner: “We have had some complaints, yes, and we are working towards rectifying the problem as soon as possible.”
“The problem was that we were confined in that stand to the space we had, which was tight to begin with; we looked at a variety of options, and this was chosen as the most suitable.”
“We’re as conscious as everyone else of the problems that have cropped up, we’re getting expert advice on the matter, and there will be remedial work carried out there in the short term.”
Long fellahs no longer welcome even in Cork evidently! :rolleyes:
What is the source Paul? Which journalist?
I’d love to take this at face value but I’ll be astonished if it happens.
My predcition is that a row will now conveniently (i.e. before works start) emerge between the Members of the Oireachtas and the unions for the staff of the Houses as to the split of the lesser number of spaces, leading to deadlock and deferral. They’ll just play “pass the parcel” with the blame for inaction.Mind you, former Senators and TDs who enjoy the free parking when they come into the city centre to do their shopping and lobbying ought get nervous about the loss of their privilege at this stage! 😉
Manstein, I’m not sure if you are trolling or not, but your post sounds rather odd to me. Bear in mind that many immigrants are not “less educated” for a start.
On the broader topic I think McDowell is ill advised to suggest the main outcome of this measure will be less drunkenness. It is clear from ths speedy hostility of the publicans (and their sanctimonious anxiety about alcohol abuse) that their real concern is the impact on prices and profits. Their opposition would normally be enough to cause me to embrace the proposals. Cheaper drink and cheaper soft drinks – yes please.
However, given what Thomond Park said above, and from my limited knowledge of the regs relating to health and safety alnd licensing of kitchens in this country I’m sceptical of how profitable small cafes will be if they have to jump through the existing set of requirements. Most of the Italian cafes McDowell hankers after would surely go bust if they had to conform to the regs applying to Irish hot food venues. I’m sure others have more expertise on this aspect though?
I presume “d of d” is Frank McDonald’s book “Destruction of Dublin”
I imagine the building was so named because it was built on the site of the old Findlaters Wine and Spirits Merchants and Grocers?
If you are interested in the older history Alex Findlater of that dynasty has written a book about the family firm.
” Findlaters: The Story of a Dublin Merchant Family 1774-2001″ (A&A Farmar)Wow ! I’m impressed by your tenacity.
Have you really been researching this issue for 2 full years Diaspora? 😉The Cubical House Alma Rd is featured in this month’s Architecture Ireland.
Judging by the narrative the client, who built this house in the garden of his or her existing home, knew perfectly well what they wanted. (Maybe they don’t plan to cook in much….)
Thanks JMK
Lots of coverage on this today arising from Cullen’s feasability study announcement. Smacks of by-electioneering really.The essential thing for an improved Parnell Square would be the full engagement of the Rotunda. Hopefully they will co-ordinate the planned major redevelopment of the hospital with the Council’s ideas for the square.
Otherwise the place will remain just as disconnected from the City Centre as it is now.
The Abbey will not be going to Colaiste Mhuire so there is a big opportunity to do something exciting in place of the school – something that will fit in the available space, that is.
@Lotts wrote:
Is this not just the outer orbital? (Which is already partially built)
You are correct.
Yes it’s great. Bucholz & McEvoy again I presume?
I just wonder how long it will be before the “receptionist/porters” agitate and spolit it with more clunky furniture because they feel too exposed?I also like the building. It’s just a shame the Bank of Scotland branding is so crass and out of scale. Completely unneccessary.
Lots more detail in the rest of the article. Hawkins House – as we knew – and Infirmary Rd! which would be an appaling prospect were the other two short listed options.
O’Donoghue seems to have made no reference at all to O’Connell St.
He says he does not have the power to CPO no 1 Granby Row so he wants to see if the OPW could develop the site without the corner. Seems like the IT is facilitating negotiation by megaphone between the Minister and the vendors.
I wonder will the new theatre be fully designed by the OPW or will it be the subject of a competition once a site is eventually acquired?
