publicrealm
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@gunter wrote:
Frank’s position on this is that Lansdowne Road is a tight urban site and these are the conditions that generate unique design solutions like Aviva, or words to that effect.
Ironically perhaps the dwellings marked with a red X in this aerial view and also seen in more detail in the original shadow analysis, were pulled down some years later and replaced by a Spar.Sigh.
You could have that in Newlands Cross (subject to planning).
Did’nt see the Frank McDonald article – usually don’t agree with him but I’m prepared to make an exception this timel
@Morlan wrote:
What´s with the roof? Looks like it´s about to collapse. :confused:
I don’t think it will collapse.:rolleyes:
I was lucky enough to be at the launch party on Friday night and the place looked stunning. (Sadly, I don’t have the 15k needed to ensure future admission to the premium level but it is fairly awesome.)
I’m biased, but I don’t really understand the constant carping about the stadium. Is this a uniquely Irish thing – its a good stadium but not a great stadium – (Eamon Dunphy was at the party). It came in on time and under budget, it’s the most exciting new building in the country (IMO) and it is unquestionably in the right place.
The issue of expanding to the north is dead, not sleeping, not stunned – dead. You cannot buy up (and demolish?) part of O’Connell Gardens – and even if you could it would represent lousey planning – and you cannot move the stadium any closer to O’ Connell Gardens – it is at its absolute max at present in terms of proximity and height.
I’m celebrating one of the few Irish planning and development wins of the past year/s and I’m happy to live with the constraints inherent in staying at Lansdowne Road.:D
@lostexpectation wrote:
so if they bypass an bord pleannala which professional reviews the planning implications of the metropoles etc? the councils own planners? the cllrs
The use of the Part 8 procedure requires that details of the proposal be published – and I expect the Council planners would give it the once over well prior to publication.
Again, I expect it would be planners who prepare the report on submissions received and the (Manager’s) recommendation to the Members.
The Members ultimately make the decision – so they could overrule any reservations expressed by officials if they felt it was merited.
gunter wrote:I think we’re getting mixed up here, it is works under the €126,000 project cost threshold that are deemed Exempted Development under Part 8, where they are carried out by [or on behalf of] the local authority. Development that is carried out by a local authority and which exceeds that project cost is not exempt under Part 8.QUOTE]
The article that kicked off this particular topic stated that DCC intended to use Part 8 to erect the monopoles. Part 8 of the Regs is intended to apply some (minimal) scrutiny to Local Auth Development in excess of certain thresholds (such as the capital cost threshold cited).
Miscellaneous Local Authority works below this threshold could be considered exempt in accordance with Section 4 of the P&D Act.
Either approach by DCC would be challengable in my view.
It would seem that the least worst option for DCC, if they were to pursue this course, would be Part 8 – in which case the elected members make the decision. So the best way to scupper this might be to talk to your local councillor?
@notjim wrote:
The proposed new advertising locations are subject to Part VIII planning applications. The provision of the new bike stations will be constructed by means of exempted development, similar to the scheme’s existing 40 stations.
Using Part 8 (“Local Authority Own Development”) procedures for the erection of controversial commercial advertising – in order to avoid scrutiny by ABP – is tantamount to an abuse of process in my view, and is open to legal challenge. This is really stretching the concept of Local Authority Own Development.
The Part 8 provisions are intended to facilitate public works. Although there is sufficient wiggle room to allow abuse, any project, other than the limited ones set out in the Regulations, must exceed €126,000 (2001 figure – not sure if its index linked) to qualify.
Dodgy.
@notjim wrote:
“The council intends to exempt JC Decaux from applying for planning permission for the new advertising structures, a process which had resulted in a refusal by An Bord Pleanála of one-fifth of the company’s applications when the scheme was established.”
.
I can’t see how they could get away with this – it’s not within their power to ‘exempt’ development.
Maybe they intend to describe it as ‘Local Authority Development’ to avail of the exempted dev regs that apply to such – but I very much doubt that that would survive a legal challenge.
Maybe Minister Gormley will be persuaded amend the Regulations for this particular type of advertising?
Will await with interest.
gunter wrote:on this subject on another forum recently where it was pointed out that the ability of the trained eye to search out and reveal delight in the detail of a pretty mundane and tacky building, poses a challenge to the architectural critic: Then you add nostalgia into the mix and you start to wonder if your growing affection for some building or feature isn’t just a knee-jerk reaction to finding out that it’s about to be demolished, rather than any dispassionate evaluation of it’s worth. Liberty Hall would be another case in point – personally I’m fighting off feeling of affection for this eyesore that I had no feelings for at all until there was talk of knocking it down.Great observation Gunter.
I was having this debate with myself the other day. I think I appreciate certain buildings and facets of buildings (I’m not an architect) and I have found this forum very helpful in the smaller things – stuff I would not previously have noticed – such as street paving and unusual windows (and particularly I remember a very illuminating thread on council estate windows and design – brilliant – I have been pontificating about council estates ever since).
Probably like lots of people on the forum I get pleasure from these little observations, but sometimes I just don’t get it – and this shopfront is one example. It’s not the best example – because I can see why someone might treasure it – but some of the issues which exercise people leave me cold and then I wonder if we are all (to varying degrees) a little obscure and irrelevant.
Again, I found the shopfront thread very illuminating and interesting when it dealt with desecration of old county town shopfronts – photos by Devin if I recall, but I’m far less convinced of the value of the Centra debate in Westmoreland Street. Not a criticism – just a personal observation.
And like you I suddenly love Liberty Hall.:rolleyes:
@Peter Fitz wrote:
Anyone looking at an aerial view of the site however will inevitably question why the stadium wasn’t turned to utilise the entire site – I take your point about the adverse impact on O’Connell Gardens / Havelock Square, but were designs covering the entire site even drafted or considered? Surely some creative solution was possible, site excavation, increased capacity behind goals etc.
Even on its current layout, there was significant scope to incorporate addtional capacity to the east and west ‘stands’. With 10,000 corporate seats leaving only 40k available to the average punter, its not going to be easy to get a seat in this place.
Peter,
All options were set out in the EIS.
Reorienting the pitch east west would result in the sides of the stadium beside the pitch to being north and south (rather than the goal ends). The sides have the greatest accommodation capacity. The north side would still have to dip to take account of Havelock Square/O’Connell Gardens – with much greater impact in terms of seat losses.
Goin to t’pub now.;)
@Tuborg wrote:
Well the ABP inspector recommended that planning be refused as if I recall correctly the site was deemed to be unsuitable for a modern International stadium. It only got off the ground after the board over-ruled the planning report!
Below is an extract from the report.
That is the case. It changes nothing of the above.
I happen to believe that the Ardagh (Irish Glass bottle ) site, considered more suitable by the inspector, was quite inappropriate. Subsequent events appear to have confirmed this -(but the inspector was entitled to his view which I believe was honestly expressed). As it happens, if the IRFU had purchased the glass bottle site they would now be hundreds of millions down and, in my view, could never have obtained planning there. .
But this is not relevant – the IRFU relied on the expert report – so we are going around in circles here.
@Tuborg wrote:
Now the only options available were to try and buy up the properties that were impeding the full completion or the stadium or sell up and move to a new site! Clearly the IRFU were never likely to leave Lansdowne Road behind and I also can’t really see a situation in the near future where the ground will be fully completed either! So effectively we’ve had to settle for a compromised solution!
Buying up (and demolishing) protected properties and properties in a residential conservation area is a non-runner. And rightly so.
The IRFU was willing to move to a new site (it bought a site specifically to provide for this eventuality) but the site options report conclusively pointed to Lansdowne Road.
The ground will be fully completed this Summer. A compromise certainly but, as I said earlier, the best available outcome (in the real world).
Tuborg wrote:It’s the quality of what’s inside that counts and you can’t really dress up that single tiered end as anything other than a failure!It’s difficult to be exact but from what I can see anyway, there only appears to be in the region of 10 rows of seating at that end! That is going to look piss poor and will surely have an impact on the atmosphere inside the ground aswell!
QUOTE]
Tuborg,
An original study for 65,000 seats at Lansdowne Road concluded that there would be unacceptable impacts on adjacent residential amenity – primarily arising from the required height and scale of the Stadium.
To address this, while staying on the same site (judged the most appropriate site in most other aspects), a decision was taken to reduce capacity from 65,000 to 51,000.
Even at 51,000 the north end has to be so close to O’Connell Gardens/Havelock Square that anything higher than the current dropped tiers would have been very undesirable in terms of residential amenity (due to very negative sunlight/daylight impacts) and absolutely impossible to deliver (in planning terms). Alternative designs on site could not address this.
The 65,000 seater might have been built elsewhere – but this really would have been a pity IMHO.
I’m not sure if a more enclosed stadium would look/feel better. Maybe it would – but I find the current shape is very interesting and distinctive – (a good thing in terms of international recognition) – and the view of the city during nightime events should be rather special.
I was on a tour a couple of weeks ago and the internal layout and finish is exceptional with a great sense of closeness to the pitch. I think its going to be a great stadium – better with 65,000 of course – but the very best obtainable in the circumstances.
It works at both ends.
Believe it or not the em.. ‘evacuation passages’ in the stadium are technically known as vomitaria.
In an emergency, the stadium is designed for 50,000 people to be evacuated through these vomitaria in about 8 minutes I think. Visions from The Exorcist come to mind.
The Board has just confirmed DCC’s decision to grant pp for the Aviva Stadium name signage – one on the east and one on the west of the Stadium – dismissing arguments that it represented a contravention of the development plan, would negatively impact heritage, distract Dart drivers (?), cause D4 to explode, finish off the polar bears etc etc.
234798. Everything looking good for the unveiling in (May?) Can’t wait to see it.:D
@pippin101 wrote:
Am very interested in the pedestrian ingress/egress arrangements. I’ve seen the model but I’d love to see precisely how people will interface with the DART station. I hope we’ll have completely eliminated having fans walking across the tracks.
The railway gates will close before and after events – blocking Lansdowne Road to allow freeflow to Dart.
A new Station Forecourt will allow loading/unloading of Dart and all patrons passing along Lansdowne Road will use a new underpass.
@Michae1 wrote:
In immediate proximity of Smithfield is the Bolton Street area which also suffers from dereliction. The students of third year in Bolton Street spent the year addressing the problem by shifting the proposed site for DIT Grangegorman towards the city to create an urban campus serving the student population and the community.
They have a book launch and exhibition at the end of October but you can see some of the work online.Very impressive Michael.
Is it simply an exercise or do you consider it a viable alternative to the MRY Plan for DIT/HSE at Grangegorman?
@Smithfield Resi wrote:
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.
SR and Paul –
Many thanks – I couldn’t find it anywhere – not even on the Board’s paper file.
The way the whole affair was set up really brings planning into disrepute (in my opinion) and is very demoralising.
I look forward to reviewing the map.
P.
@Smithfield Resi wrote:
2541/01 – Z9 (Newcomen Bridge – those massive scrollers)
Application for retention is 2129/09
LOCATION 1, Newcomen Avenue, Dublin 3
Retention of 2no. scrolling advertising structuresLast date for observations is 26th Feb (hint ;))
http://137.191.231.240/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2129/09
I think 2129/09 is a toss up between Z1 and Z9 – with the Z1 being most prominent.
I have been digging and found 4 to 5 DCC ‘metropole’ grants in Z9 locations. Of course they might maintain that footpaths are unzoned (techniclly arguable) – but I think it is reasonable to argue, when the footpath ajoins a public park/playing pitches etc, that Z9 zoning should apply.
I’m trying to get my hands on a copy of the “Zones of Advertising Control” map presented by DCC at the Oral Hearing into the metropole saga (referred to in the Board Inspector’s report. Anyone know where to get it 9no luck with the DCC website, amazingly)
Devin wrote:Ok before we start going on expeditions for photos in support of points, this thread needs to stay OT.[The Thread Ariadne, the Thread!
[quote=”Smithfield Resi
6784/06 – Ballybough Road zoned Z9: To Protect provide and improve residential amenities, shown in photograph No 46813/06 – Richmond Road zoned Z9: To preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space, shown in photograph No 5
.[/QUOTE”]Thanks for posting that SR – I checked both refs and it appears that 6784/06 is in a Z1 (rather than Z9) area?
Does anyone have other examples of permitted advertising in Z9 areas?
P.
