Massive floodlights to line Galway skyline over Galway bay

Sconsey

skelliser wrote: »

The title of this thread is "Massive floodlights to line Galway skyline over Galway bay" if that isnt scaremongering then i dont know what is.
Also, I dont remember hearing any objection or any sensationalism to the floodlights in terryland and college road.

Terryland is not surrounded on all sides by mature residential ares, or any houses for that fact so there is no comparison there.
College Road residents may well have objected, and they would have had every right to....some people probably consider them begrudgers or something for trying to maintain their neighbourhood.

skelliser wrote: »

And if i remember correctly the residents in rockbarton road were originally against the re-development of pearse stadium..

Indeed they were, but the GAA allayed their fears, promised there would be no added disruption to residents....of course the GAA were just talking their usual brand of sh1te and built whatever they wanted (check the blog, they did not build accordning to plans, they did not put any of traffic plans in place) and ignored the planning conditions.

skelliser

Sconsey wrote: »

the heigth of the masts and lights in the plans is 37 metres....so maybe 13 storeys with a little to spare.

first they were 39 metres plus a 7 metre base, then they were 39metres and now 37.

i thinks its you who have the issue with facts!

i dont know the exact height of the lights at the dog track but i would guess they are ~30 metres high.

galwayrush

skelliser wrote: »

i dont know the exact height of the lights at the dog track but i would guess they are ~30 metres high.

The lights at the Sports Grounds are certainly not obtrusive, they won't be any more obtrusive on a Stadium that's been there for many years.

Sconsey

skelliser wrote: »

first they were 39 metres plus a 7 metre base, then they were 39metres and now 37.

i thinks its you who have the issue with facts!

i dont know the exact height of the lights at the dog track but i would guess they are ~30 metres high.

Sorry typo, should have been 39 not 37. Who said anything about a 7 metre base, not me?

Do you see the irony in telling me to check my facts when in the same post you are saying you are 'guessing' your facts?

skelliser

Sconsey wrote: »

Terryland is not surrounded on all sides by mature residential ares, or any houses for that fact so there is no comparison there.
College Road residents may well have objected, and they would have had every right to....you'd probably consider them begrudgers or something for trying to maintain their neighbourhood.

there are residential estates on two sides of terryland which are right beside it, backgardens etc.
and i spent ~10 years in the vaccinity of the track and never heard anything about residents objecting to the lights.

skelliser

I do agree with you,Sconsey, on the traffic management issue.

civis_liberalis

extraice wrote: »

this towers will also have Phone mast add to them with 2 schools with in meters as the cow flyes 400 kids

Yes, and as you know, it will be the first mobile phone mast in Galway City.

Gimme a break ffs.

Sconsey

skelliser wrote: »

there are residential estates on two sides of terryland which are right beside it, backgardens etc.
and i spent ~10 years in the vaccinity of the track and never heard anything about residents objecting to the lights.

Agreed, I have never seen the houses at the back of the grounds, can't see them from the road, but I still think it is an unfair comparison, you aren't going to have nearly as many objections based on the number of residents close to Terryland....http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.284626,-9.056339&spn=0.003284,0.01369&t=k&z=17

versus the numbers around Pearse Stadium http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.263333,-9.08358&spn=0.003286,0.01369&t=k&z=17

galwayrush

civis_liberalis wrote: »

Yes, and as you know, it will be the first mobile phone mast in Galway City.

Gimme a break ffs.

Those 400 kids will have better coverage on their mobile phones if a mast is included.:cool::P

skelliser

Sconsey wrote: »

Do you see the irony in telling me to check my facts when in the same post you are saying you are 'guessing' your facts?

im guesiing my facts! i dont understand!!
since when is ~30 metres a fact!!!

Anyway, i do believe its sensationalism because when people hear 14 storeys high they immediatly think of a tall obtrusive building when for example the lights at the track could be 10 storeys high but in reality they're just tall poles and not obtrusive at all.

JohnCleary

extraice wrote:

this towers will also have Phone mast add to them with 2 schools with in meters as the cow flyes 400 kids

I'm guessing that the majority of these kids have phones in their pockets on a daily basis. Let me tell you, from going to many public lectures on the subject, the phone in your pocket is doing a lot more damage than a phone mast accross the road

citycentre

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

That's not licence for GAA authorities to do anything they want with the area however. Things change, the existence of the GAA itself is proof if that.


The Ardilaun hotel wanted to knock a hole in a wall and route traffic through a quiet residential suburb in Salthill. They were stopped in court, and rightly so. Just because a facility exists doesn't give the owners of that facility a free hand to do whatever the hell they like.


A poor comparison, since the docks are vital to the economic and logistic survival of the city and the surrounding area. The sports grounds are not.


And once again, thats not a licence to do whatever pops into you head.


What, are you begrudging people the fact that they live in a nice area of the city? How typically Irish...


What the locals should be doing is pressuring the GAA to sell the premium land in the area taken up by the sports ground, and use the proceeds to build a new state of the art facility elsewhere. With the amount of money that lot is worth, even these days, they could build two new stadiums and new t-shirts for the boys while they were at it.

A number of your "rebuttals" are completely irrelevant, particularly the Ardilaun case. That was clearly an opportunistic, wrong-headed application which was rightly shot down for many VALID reasons. The addition of floodlights to a long established sports stadium is a perfectly reasonable proposal. The way you describe it as doing "whatever pops into their heads" or "whatever the hell they like" makes it sound like they are proposing something completely out-there. Pure hysteria.

To claim that the County Ground of the largest sporting body in the country is not essential to the city for any reason just goes to reinforce your general antipathy towards the GAA and leads me to believe that you'd object to basically anything they'd propose. Pearse Stadium in it's current location brings economic, cultural, recreational and social benefits to Salthill and to the many users of the facility. Just because you don't feel or wish to be party to those benefits dosen't mean it dosen't belong where it is.

To accuse me of begrudgery is rich! I stated that there is "an element" of snobbish, anti GAA attitudes in the locality who are whipping up the anti- Pearse Stadium hysteria. How you read begrudgery into that is beyond me. And anyway, if you're suggesting that I should be Jealous of where you live then think again. I'm quite happy where I am thank you very much (and it isn't too far away.).

Im afraid the battle over Pearse Stadium staying in the centre of Salthill was decided long ago. The logic of selling the land and building a new stadium elsewhere is flawed and best practice internationally is now to build new stadia in central locations thus avoiding them becoming totally car-dependant, little used white elephants divorced from the communities they are serving. Granted, they really need to put a proper traffic plan in place and the Park & Ride option seems perfectly logical and necessary to stop the choking effect on the area on big match days. These are all things that can happen through positive action and engagement with the relevant parties rather than the constant negativity and animosity that's developed.

Sconsey

skelliser wrote: »

im guesiing my facts! i dont understand!!
since when is ~30 metres a fact!!!

Anyway, i do believe its sensationalism because when people hear 14 storeys high they immediatly think of a tall obtrusive building when for example the lights at the track could be 10 storeys high but in reality they're just tall poles and not obtrusive at all.

Meh, I'm just saying that earlier you siad they would be the same heigth as the sportsground, I assumed you knew that for a fact, you should have said you were guessing they would be similar heigth...but let's not dwell on it.

The reference to a building is made more so that people can get an idea of the scale, it's hard to visualise (sp?) how high 39 metres is without some sort of reference.

Sconsey

BTH wrote: »

...... I stated that there is "an element" of snobbish, anti GAA attitudes in the locality who are whipping up the anti- Pearse Stadium hysteria. ......

Agreed, there is an element of anti-gaa attitude (not snobbish), and the GAA are responsible for generating that attitude....if you mess people round long enough they react, the GAA have fostered that attitude.

BTH wrote: »

Im afraid the battle over Pearse Stadium staying in the centre of Salthill was decided long ago. *snip* .

Yes, and theer were pro's and con's to choosing Pearse over Tuam stadium, the GAA are now faced with one of the cons!

skelliser

Sconsey wrote: »

The reference to a building is made more so that people can get an idea of the scale, it's hard to visualise (sp?) how high 39 metres is without some sort of reference.

i agree but in fairness it is inaccurate and does aid to paint a negative picture.

The reason im saying that they will be similar to the track lights is because they illuminate an area roughly the same size, if you take it that the average gaa pitch is 130metres long, the rugby pitch in the sports ground is 100m plus the length to the lights which are outside the racetrack itself.


The traffic management is the issue for me but in fairness thats a national problem thats been there for decades-
"blatant abandonmentness!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8k1d8uX9Gw
go to ~1.06

skelliser

Sconsey wrote: »

Agreed, there is an element of anti-gaa attitude (not snobbish), and the GAA are responsible for generating that attitude....if you mess people round long enough they react, the GAA have fostered that attitude.

i disagree, that attitude was there when they first proposed the re-development.

SimpleSam06

BTH wrote: »

Pure hysteria.

Its a fairly clear cut case, tbh, and I feel perfectly relaxed about it.

BTH wrote: »

To claim that the County Ground of the largest sporting body in the country is not essential to the city for any reason

Its not essential. If it vanished tomorrow, the city would keep ticking over just fine, thank you very much.

BTH wrote: »

Pearse Stadium in it's current location brings economic, cultural, recreational and social benefits to Salthill and to the many users of the facility.

If the people who have chosen to make the area their homes feel that it no longer serves a valuable purpose, perhaps it would be worth your while to listen to them rather than trying to bully them into accepting your way of thinking by calling them hysterical snobs?

I mean no doubt every other part of the city will be baying for the opportunity to host a new stadium, given all of the many benefits that you claim. Would that not make more sense than trying to shoehorn ongoing development into a mature residential area?

BTH wrote: »

To accuse me of begrudgery is rich!

Not really.

BTH wrote: »

I stated that there is "an element" of snobbish, anti GAA attitudes

Again with the snobbish. You don't need to be snobbish to be anti-GAA, especially given that they have run roughshod over planning conditions in the area, as I understand it. Its much easier to paint the residents as "dem toffs" though, keeping the hardworking men of Ireland from having their fun.

BTH wrote: »

And anyway, if you're suggesting that I should be Jealous of where you live then think again.

I suggested no such thing. Its quite telling that you read that into my statement though, lending more weight to the begrudgery.

BTH wrote: »

Im afraid the battle over Pearse Stadium staying in the centre of Salthill was decided long ago.

And yet here we are.

BTH wrote: »

The logic of selling the land and building a new stadium elsewhere is flawed and best practice internationally is now to build new stadia in central locations thus avoiding them becoming totally car-dependant, little used white elephants divorced from the communities they are serving.

Galway is a small place. Nowhere in the city is more than 10 minutes away by car, traffic allowing, and trying to make out that Salthill is the only suitable location is misleading at best. If you're worried about all the loyal fans that somehow can't be bothered to go ten minutes out of their way to get to a stadium, lay on the buses as I suggested earlier.

skelliser

We are not debating the location of the stadium in fairness. its been there for 50 years and from the looks of it, its not going anywhere soon!

citycentre

Incredibly strong arguments there SimpleSam... :rolleyes: Reasoned discussion is obviously not your strong point. What it boils down to is that you and some of your neighbours simply don't like the presence of Pearse Stadium in your neighbourhood despite the fact that it was clearly already there when you decided to move to the area...
If you think that that'll be enough to win over either neutral observers or planners to your cause then you're quite mistaken. It's a clear cut case alright. I'm afraid you'll have to invest in the blackout blinds...

citycentre

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I suggested no such thing. Its quite telling that you read that into my statement though, lending more weight to the begrudgery.

Oh and again, I'll challenge you to explain EXACTLY and with quotations where this notion of "begrudgery" emerged in any of my posts. I'll be interested to find out...

Sconsey

BTH wrote: »

*snip* What it boils down to is that you and some of your neighbours simply don't like the presence of Pearse Stadium in your neighbourhood despite the fact that it was clearly already there when you decided to move to the area...

Again with the argument that the stadium was there before the houses? that is getting old and IMO it's irrelevant. There were houses there before the stadium, residents in those houses now object to the plans but that's still irrelevant.

The fact is if someone is trying to make a change, then the change should be appropriate/well planned/in keeping with the surroundings and follow planning guidelines. It really doesn't matter if the person looking to make the change has been there 50 years or 5 months, the decision by any planner should not be based on who was ther first.

By that reasoning the first person living in a housing estate should be given planning permission for whatever they want and tough luck to all the neighbours that moved in since them.

citycentre

Sconsey wrote: »

By that reasoning the first person living in a housing estate should be given planning permission for whatever they want and tough luck to all the neighbours that moved in since them.

Oh come on, dont be so disingenuous. That's not my argument and you know it.

Give me the reasons why the addition of floodlights to Pearse Stadium is inappropriate (it is a sports stadium after all), not well planned (they look like any other floodlights to me - could maybe be designed to look more elegant but thats for the planners to push for) or not in keeping with their surroundings (a sports stadium). Pearse Stadium is THERE for God's sake, its not as if these are random floodlight towers being thrown into the middle of a residential area.

There is absolutely no doubt that they will be passed and that the decision will be upheld by ABP given precedent already set around the country. Spend money on objections and appeals if you want but you'll be throwing it away. Sorry to be going on and on about it but I hate to see people wasting their time on battles that cannot be won.

Sconsey

BTH wrote: »

Oh come on, dont be so disingenuous. That's not my argument and you know it.

Give me the reasons why the addition of floodlights to Pearse Stadium is inappropriate (it is a sports stadium after all), not well planned (they look like any other floodlights to me - could maybe be designed to look more elegant but thats for the planners to push for) or not in keeping with their surroundings (a sports stadium). Pearse Stadium is THERE for God's sake, its not as if these are random floodlight towers being thrown into the middle of a residential area.

Just because something is there does not mean the ownders have the right to change it however they want....so I stick by my point that the argument that Pearse has been ther for 50 years is not a reason for allowing lights.

Addition of lights is inappropriate: because of the location of the stadium, the GAA's own guidlines state: “Lighting should be designed to avoid lighting overspill into surrounding areas particularly in sensitive residential areas” and “clubs should consider the height and location of proposed structures in relation to the surrounding residential properties”. The Gaa didn't even do a proper study of the levels of light pollution that would be caused by the lights.

Not well planned: the first plan the GAA put in was pulled days before the council made their decision, the second plan they submitted was put on hold because it lacked sufficient detail....if they can't even get the plans together what chance have they of managing the actual installation?

Not in keeping with surroundings: the stadiums surroundings are houses not sports stadiums!

BTH wrote: »

There is absolutely no doubt that they will be passed and that the decision will be upheld by ABP given precedent already set around the country. Spend money on objections and appeals if you want but you'll be throwing it away.

Nahhh, I wouldn't be so sure.

citycentre

Sconsey wrote: »

Not in keeping with surroundings: the stadiums surroundings are houses not sports stadiums!

They are looking for planning for four floodlighting structures within an already existing stadium. You are still acting as they are just proposing four random floodlight towers in a residential area, ignoring the fact that the Stadium is already there! If they were proposing a wholly new stadium plus floodlights on that site then you'd have a damn good case to object. As it stands the grounds for objection are extremely tenuous. I'm just going by the way planning law works here and no matter what way the city council decide (it could be a refusal - I'm not ruling out political "intervention" by any means) upon any appeal to ABP they will invariably pass the application as they have every other application for sportsground floodlights thats come before them.

I won't argue with you on the likely incompetence of the County Board in getting a decent planning application together or a lack of proper thought going into the design of the lighting towers. Unfortunately there is an "it'll do.." attitude when it comes to GAA grounds in the county. But they'll pull something together that meets all the guidelines eventually and mark my words it'll happen. Thats why I'm saying that its up to the planners to hopefully force them this time to do the job properly and put up something that WONT be an eyesore!

I hope you realize what I'm getting at here - It's not that I just want to see Pearse Stadium developed at all costs and feck the residents (although some of my posts may have been somewhat offhand I admit). It's that my strong strong instinct is that they WILL be passed no matter what the residents do. I just want to see the job done properly so that there will be minimal light spillage into the surrounding area (the technology is there if they are willing to pay for it) and that the design is considered and as visually pleasing as possible (if collapsible masts are good enough for croke park then why not Pearse Stadium?).

Anyway I've said enough I think! Don't want to keep going round in circles arguing, it'll get none of us anywhere!

mikemac

Sconsey wrote: »

Addition of lights is inappropriate: because of the location of the stadium, the GAA's own guidlines state: “Lighting should be designed to avoid lighting overspill into surrounding areas particularly in sensitive residential areas” and “clubs should consider the height and location of proposed structures in relation to the surrounding residential properties”. The Gaa didn't even do a proper study of the levels of light pollution that would be caused by the lights.

Not in keeping with surroundings: the stadiums surroundings are houses not sports stadiums!


Nahhh, I wouldn't be so sure.

I've edited your post but it's in context.
They did it in Croke Park and that's a residental area. In fact it's probably higher density then Salthill due to numerous apartment and flats like Croke Park Villas in Ballybough. Do you have flats in Salthill too? lol, I can imagine the outrage if they decided to build flat complexes in Salthill
You can be sure it's going ahead for Pearse Stadium, it's the next stage of development for a large county ground.

I've heard of these objections before as a Croke Park resident and it worked out fine. Oh and to dispell the myth, we get 1500 free concerts tickets and 800 match tickets. Sounds a lot but it's a raffle and you might have a 10/1 shot of getting something.
The residents in Salthill have many concerns and you are right to raise them. But imo and from past experience in Dublin 3, this will go ahead.

extraice

skelliser wrote: »

The title of this thread is "Massive floodlights to line Galway skyline over Galway bay" if that isnt scaremongering then i dont know what is.
Also, I dont remember hearing any objection or any sensationalism to the floodlights in terryland and college road.

And if i remember correctly the residents in rockbarton road were originally against the re-development of pearse stadium.

Was out in company off one the residents and wornt against the re-development , that ask for condition on few buildings , And walls to have tres and creappers plantes ,
when the Gaa went re-development most bought the 10 yar ticket for 2,000 pounds , wich Gaa reduce to 6 years Gaa also to the loacl no Gigs to be held in stadium ,
most important what can see in city hall is old application and new is "not" on disply yet ?

some one say about that park and ride , well this was how that got the planning in frist place ,all park for the big games where to used the Galway Race Course , but that back out after planning was given as people wont used it

Traffic Management Plan up few days ago want pasted by and heads in salthill . Garda wont come near the place unless there more then 10,000 people are at match , so the Gaa put 8,000 up for sale and rest go to clubs

the schools/churchs are to used as as carparks the gaa say in the planning application and the stadium grounds have 500 spaces ? Prairie that a playying pitch , like there going to let any one park there , told there yes few helicopters have park for matches Ha ha ha salthill church has no parking from what i know ? and have down for 100 spaces ?
what school going to have it pitch racked by car park on the grounds in wet weather , still no park in the area

Dublin , london and lot place have good under grounds are bus system to bring people to and from area but salthill Dont not

the resident i was chattng say every time there small match are big his day is gone as here can get in are out off his drive way .... ringing the Garda is waste off time you told the tow truck is bussy wont around untill after the match , are cant get there due to the parking in the area ...... the buses wont even come down on match days as it not safe for them
"resident access only" signs area over the area but how real take note ,

Garda that do the big matches , no combustion is maked to the garda and with cut back think could do with few extra euros from some where , dont for get 30,000 tickets last big match ticket where 30 euros to 15 eros avg at 20 euros that 600,000.00 euros with tv right add 5 ,000 euros with new rights that Setanta Sports

well that my 2 cents

extraice

micmclo wrote: »

I've edited your post but it's in context.
They did it in Croke Park and that's a residental area. In fact it's probably higher density then Salthill due to numerous apartment and flats like Croke Park Villas in Ballybough. Do you have flats in Salthill too? lol, I can imagine the outrage if they decided to build flat complexes in Salthill
You can be sure it's going ahead for Pearse Stadium, it's the next stage of development for a large county ground.

I've heard of these objections before as a Croke Park resident and it worked out fine. Oh and to dispell the myth, we get 1500 free concerts tickets and 800 match tickets. Sounds a lot but it's a raffle and you might have a 10/1 shot of getting something.
The residents in Salthill have many concerns and you are right to raise them. But imo and from past experience in Dublin 3, this will go ahead.

know i for got some think the Galway gga board wont chat to loacls there

SimpleSam06

BTH wrote: »

Incredibly strong arguments there SimpleSam... :rolleyes: Reasoned discussion is obviously not your strong point.

The irony of that statement is overwhelming.

BTH wrote: »

What it boils down to is that you and some of your neighbours simply don't like the presence of Pearse Stadium in your neighbourhood despite the fact that it was clearly already there when you decided to move to the area...

I'm trying to work out how you could be any more wrong, its just not coming. What makes you think I live in Salthill?

BTH wrote: »

If you think that that'll be enough to win over either neutral observers or planners to your cause then you're quite mistaken

And I bet those people are glad you're speaking for them as well.

BTH wrote: »

Oh and again, I'll challenge you to explain EXACTLY and with quotations where this notion of "begrudgery" emerged in any of my posts. I'll be interested to find out...

If you can't work it out from my posts I despair tbh.

BTH wrote: »

Spend money on objections and appeals if you want but you'll be throwing it away.

I bet the Ardilaun said the same thing.

Sconsey wrote: »

There were houses there before the stadium

Lookit, lets not be injecting actual facts into the discussion, it will upset poor BTH.

skelliser

extraice wrote: »

Was out in company off one the residents and wornt against the re-development , that ask for condition on few buildings , And walls to have tres and creappers plantes ,
when the Gaa went re-development most bought the 10 yar ticket for 2,000 pounds , wich Gaa reduce to 6 years Gaa also to the loacl no Gigs to be held in stadium ,
most important what can see in city hall is old application and new is "not" on disply yet ?

some one say about that park and ride , well this was how that got the planning in frist place ,all park for the big games where to used the Galway Race Course , but that back out after planning was given as people wont used it

Traffic Management Plan up few days ago want pasted by and heads in salthill . Garda wont come near the place unless there more then 10,000 people are at match , so the Gaa put 8,000 up for sale and rest go to clubs

the schools/churchs are to used as as carparks the gaa say in the planning application and the stadium grounds have 500 spaces ? Prairie that a playying pitch , like there going to let any one park there , told there yes few helicopters have park for matches Ha ha ha salthill church has no parking from what i know ? and have down for 100 spaces ?
what school going to have it pitch racked by car park on the grounds in wet weather , still no park in the area

Dublin , london and lot place have good under grounds are bus system to bring people to and from area but salthill Dont not

the resident i was chattng say every time there small match are big his day is gone as here can get in are out off his drive way .... ringing the Garda is waste off time you told the tow truck is bussy wont around untill after the match , are cant get there due to the parking in the area ...... the buses wont even come down on match days as it not safe for them
"resident access only" signs area over the area but how real take note ,

Garda that do the big matches , no combustion is maked to the garda and with cut back think could do with few extra euros from some where , dont for get 30,000 tickets last big match ticket where 30 euros to 15 eros avg at 20 euros that 600,000.00 euros with tv right add 5 ,000 euros with new rights that Setanta Sports

well that my 2 cents

i dont understand any of this

citycentre

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The irony of that statement is overwhelming.


I'm trying to work out how you could be any more wrong, its just not coming. What makes you think I live in Salthill?


And I bet those people are glad you're speaking for them as well.


If you can't work it out from my posts I despair tbh.


I bet the Ardilaun said the same thing.


Lookit, lets not be injecting actual facts into the discussion, it will upset poor BTH.

Ah yet more quality... I sometimes wonder why people even bother to contribute when they can barely be bothered to string a few coherent sentences together to explain their standpoints and opinions...

Go on, explain yourself rather than throwing childish generalizations around! Main question for now - If you don't live in Salthill then what exactly are you getting so worked up over?! Strange...

And the "fact" is that there wasn't a residential area surrounding Pearse Stadium when construction began back on it in the mid 1950s. The first of the estates in the area began construction in 1957 at around the same time as the stadium opened. The majority of the houses were built in the 1960s spurred by the opening of Scoil ide in 1962. A number of older houses did exist south of Pearse stadium along Rockbarton North, only one of those could be described as being in the "immediate" vicinity. What's your version of the "facts"? its not really relevant to the overall discussion upon which I summed up my arguments a few posts ago (and you conveniently ignored in order to get some oh so funny sarcastic digs in) but you'd be wrong if you think I don't know the history of the area.