Castle in co Laois demolished :O

Mountainsandh

Coolbanagher Castle becomes a modern day cairn

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/laois.archaeology/media_set?set=a.508391285936021.1073741856.100002954623255&type=1

I am so shocked, I thought the NMS were there to protect heritage ?!
Apparently they knew about it ?

How can this happen ?
Does this often happen and I just happen not to know about it ?
Isn't the policy to make a structure safe in this event, rather than bulldoze it down ?

youtube!

It is sad aright but in fairness I can understand the decision to knock it down.

On the grounds of safety I would say. If you take a look at some of the pics after the storm the castle is really just a couple of freestanding dangerous walls.

It lasted hundreds of years but nature brought it to a state of almost complete destruction. Even if there were funds allocated to fix it back up it would never be the same original castle, it was it's time to die in my opinion.

Mountainsandh

But like suggested by more knowledgeable people than me online, something may have been learned from taking it down in an organized, supervised, manner.

This is a meaningless heap of stones now, that might have had a story to tell as to how it was built.

Also, I have seen many consolidated ruins in Ireland with similar free standing structures, and imo there is still something to learn and something to teach from a consolidated structure. Look at Newgrange ffs (not for the freestanding walls, but for the massive work done on it).

youtube!

You do have a point but you really cannot compare a world heritage site the size scale and sheer uniqueness of Newgrange to a standard broken down Norman tower house in a clearly dangerous condition.

It was right to knock it down but yes in a more orderly manner, for what it's worth there would have to have been some kind of site survey before demolition took place and perhaps you should seek to get a copy of that. It may shed some light as to how exactly the decision was made.

Mountainsandh

Wouldn't have a clue where to find a site survey, and haven't spotted same from googling the name.
I think it sets an awful precedent at this particular point in time when funds are low. There is one such type of castle (more recent even I think) near me, only the facade remains, and it is sandwiched between 2 houses. I would hate to see it pulled down too.

There are many Consolidated Norman towers around Ireland, they are part of the fabric of the Irish landscape, and IMO it should remain that way. As a large body of evidence of a certain era they are just as important as one major site IMO. I don't like the idea that because there is an abundance of them it's ok to pull a few down.

Maudi

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/laois.archaeology/media_set?set=a.508391285936021.1073741856.100002954623255&type=1

I am so shocked, I thought the NMS were there to protect heritage ?!
Apparently they knew about it ?

How can this happen ?
Does this often happen and I just happen not to know about it ?
Isn't the policy to make a structure safe in this event, rather than bulldoze it down ?

Lol.the n.m.s protecting monuments..where does all the visitor money over the years of say ..newgrange go to? Who gets the millions ? Just a tiny fraction of a years "takings"from newgrange would have saved this castle.

cfuserkildare

This is just another disgusting example of what is still to come.

Remember that most of the sites are to be sold off by the OPW to private firms.

robp

youtube! wrote: »

It is sad aright but in fairness I can understand the decision to knock it down.

On the grounds of safety I would say. If you take a look at some of the pics after the storm the castle is really just a couple of freestanding dangerous walls.

It lasted hundreds of years but nature brought it to a state of almost complete destruction. Even if there were funds allocated to fix it back up it would never be the same original castle, it was it's time to die in my opinion.

Its baffling that you can agree with the decision without even knowing if it was done legally. BTW you don't know its dangerous. It needs assessment for that to be established.

Oink

It's really at times like this I wish I was a billionaire.

I would have loved to pick up the phone, call a professional builer/restorer type of guy, and say: Not on my watch. This thing is staying up. Do what you gotta do, do it well, do it now.

cfuserkildare

Oink wrote: »

It's really at times like this I wish I was a billionaire.

I would have loved to pick up the phone, call a professional builer/restorer type of guy, and say: Not on my watch. This thing is staying up. Do what you gotta do, do it well, do it now.

Second that.

Maudi

Can we know who drove the bulldozer /crane or whatever that was used? Does he hold a licence/permit to destroy state property? Who condemned it? Were the qualified to do so ..so many questions..nd its getting a bit stinky..your man got a huge fine remember a couple of years ago for bulldozing a ring fort is this any different?..so it got a bit more damaged in a storm.thats to be expected.the rest of us fix repair our property after a storm ..why wasnt an emergency opw crew sent to stabilise this structure?

Mountainsandh

This was not in the OPW books. This was privately owned. Apparently, the NMS referred the matter to the section of Laois co Council which deals with dangerous buildings. They were supposed to report back to NMS, and were given the go ahead to pull down parts that may be dangerous and could not have been made safe. Next thing, everything was simply pulled down :mad: .
Explained in this link :
http://rmchapple.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/demolition-of-13th14th-castle.html

NMS now reviewing case.

Very hasty action imo.

Maudi

Mountainsandh wrote: »

This was not in the OPW books. This was privately owned. Apparently, the NMS referred the matter to the section of Laois co Council which deals with dangerous buildings. They were supposed to report back to NMS, and were given the go ahead to pull down parts that may be dangerous and could not have been made safe. Next thing, everything was simply pulled down :mad: .
Explained in this link :
http://rmchapple.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/demolition-of-13th14th-castle.html

NMS now reviewing case.

Very hasty action imo.

Yes I came across that link elsewhere..so if im to understand it correctly its nothing to do with opw or nms? Q a spate of castles/ruins/old houses that are *in the way* suddenly falling down...what use are the nms or opw to us concerned about heritage?

robp

This makes a mockery of the National Monuments Act. Lets hope no sympathy is shown prosecuting the landowners with the highest penalty.

Mountainsandh

Maudi wrote: »

Yes I came across that link elsewhere..so if im to understand it correctly its nothing to do with opw or nms? Q a spate of castles/ruins/old houses that are *in the way* suddenly falling down...what use are the nms or opw to us concerned about heritage?

Yes, it's kind of opening the door for other landowners to pull down buildings on the grounds of safety when same could have been consolidated.

This is near me, and sandwiched between properties
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQ9-rBzCYAAo6rb.jpg
http://www.britainirelandcastles.com/Ireland/County-Waterford/Sleady-Castle.html

I would be very worried about other heritage sites such as this after the Laois example.

dubhthach

I'm assuming Laois county council will be clearing the summit of the Rock of Dumanse next, after all the remains on top of that are probably in worse condition given the pummelling they took form Cromwellian artillery.

Tbh it's fairly typical example of official Ireland's view of mounments, after all wasn't the landowner up in Tailltiu (Teltown) allow get way with destroying a good chunk of the monument there (The sight of the Aonach)

pueblo

Small article about the incident in the Sunday Independent today.

Summary
- Locals outraged
- Owners had contacted Dept. of Arts. Heritage and the Gaeltacht with safety concerns after 'storm damage'.
- Laois County Council provided the order

The recent storms have been a handy cover for plenty of sharp practice all over the country.

Looks like the storm (whether causing damage actual or not) both gave (exposed neolithic forest) and took away (Coolbanagher Castle, Laois)

dubhthach

My feeling is that somebody in Laois CoCo legal department basically saw a potential legal case with council getting sued and decided on a "pre-emptive strike". The number of cases against CoCo's around the state has mushroomed since the recession began.

*CoCo = County Council

mocmo

Discussed on Morning Ireland today, you can listen online (link below). No contribution from an archaeologist which is unfortunate. As others have pointed out this is a dangerous precedent. Listening to the show it does seem that the castle was in a very dangerous condition after the storm, but that an engineer / county council can make the final decision and carry out this kind of work is wrong and totally undermines the profession.

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/

Mountainsandh

Thanks for the link.

In fairness the health and safety risk was really to the driveway, or to whoever would have been stupid enough to walk close to it while waiting for it to be consolidated.
https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=coolnabagher+co+laois&hl=en&ll=53.078,-7.232531&spn=0.00176,0.005284&sll=53.3834,-8.21775&sspn=7.670309,21.643066&t=h&hnear=Coolbanagher,+County+Laois&z=18

It didn't look in too good a state even before the storm. As said in the radio interview, really the landowners should be supported to maintain such heritage spots.
From a landowner point of view it was better down right then, than crumbling in dribs and drabs over time.

It makes me mad.:(

Guillelligan

Many people were interviewed for that section on Morning Ireland, only a few made it in. I gave the full history and archaeological significance of the castle but they only used a quick stat about the amount of castles in Laois that I gave at the very end of the segment. I do have a background in archaeology.

More on the history and significance of the castle here: http://www.thestandingstone.ie/2014/03/coolbanagher-halltower-house-demolished.html

cfuserkildare

Right,

Time for a rant.

Regarding the attitude towards historic monuments, I have never seen such a selfish attitude towards land and " Private Property ".

Before I came to Ireland I was involved in Tourism Ententainment, In a small city of around 40'000 people, we catered to over 2.5 million tourists per year who came primarily to see the monuments around our city.
Due to the way that there is no real understanding of what really benefits a nation, and the money-grabbing mindset here, it is no wonder that incidents like this happen, OPW contract out Monuments of National Importance and because a historic monument is in the way it is Bull-Dozed.

Shame on the people responsible for this.

Shame on you.

Maudi

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Right,

Time for a rant.

Regarding the attitude towards historic monuments, I have never seen such a selfish attitude towards land and " Private Property ".

Before I came to Ireland I was involved in Tourism Ententainment, In a small city of around 40'000 people, we catered to over 2.5 million tourists per year who came primarily to see the monuments around our city.
Due to the way that there is no real understanding of what really benefits a nation, and the money-grabbing mindset here, it is no wonder that incidents like this happen, OPW contract out Monuments of National Importance and because a historic monument is in the way it is Bull-Dozed.

Shame on the people responsible for this.

Shame on you.

You are speaking for a lot of us..ive over the years expressed concern over heritage sites.the people in charge that I felt should also be concerned basically dont give a sh1t.i expect nothing will happen to the "local man"who carried out the destruction of this castle with his bulldozer..unless someone is held responsible ive no faith in the opw or nms re.protecting irish heritage.

AngryHippie

Okay, so the correct procedure wasn't followed by the book as regards an Engineers survey, demolition plan, permits etc etc.

All of that goes out the window as there was an imminent risk of collapse clearly evidenced in this photograph of the castle.

There is a clear risk of collapse and further damage to property and people outside of the building's footprint.

Furthermore, in order to stabilize the remaining unsupported walls, there would be considerable, (as in a major or sever hazard) of further total or partial collapse as soon as the rubble was being cleared to allow falsework etc.

From what I have seen evidenced above, People here know plenty about archaeology, and fcuk all about construction or structures.
What remained after the storm was a death-trap. It's sad that it was allowed to decay to the point shown in this photograph

But unfortunately once those vertical cracks appeared in the wall, it was just a waiting game for a high wind.

To do anything about it after the initial collapse is to put lives at risk. Get real.

If you want to prevent this happening again, then get out and start surveying the structures that are still standing and lobby the OPW to stabilize them.

In my opinion there will be no funding available for monuments for some time coming, due to the extent of the damage to waterway and marine infrastructure and the scale of the challenge to repair them. But at the very least a prioritized list of damaged structures and remediation could be drafted and listed for action ?

I think that would be more productive than crying about the sad demise of a long neglected death-trap:(

robp

Maudi wrote: »

You are speaking for a lot of us..ive over the years expressed concern over heritage sites.the people in charge that I felt should also be concerned basically dont give a sh1t.i expect nothing will happen to the "local man"who carried out the destruction of this castle with his bulldozer..unless someone is held responsible ive no faith in the opw or nms re.protecting irish heritage.

I don't think any archaeologist has any faith in the OPW. The NMS are usually decent but they underfunded and are awaiting legislation over due for ~ 8 years. I wonder if the biggest problem is the lack of archaeological expertise at county council level. There should be a county archaeology in ever county but they are the exception rather then the norm. Too many decisions are made by engineers turned planners.

AngryHippie

robp wrote: »

Too many decisions are made by engineers turned planners.

Planning is a part of any Engineering course.

Is it part of any Archaeology courses ?

robp

AngryHippie wrote: »

Planning is a part of any Engineering course.

Is it part of any Archaeology courses ?

Why should it be part of an archaeology course? The role of the county archaeologist is to mitigate the impact on archaeology during the planning process, not do the urban planning. Specialised planners and engineers turned planners are in no way qualified to assess archaeological impact. A county archaeologist is not a planner. They work with the planner.


BTW a few modules in a civil engineering course is no substitute for a focused planning degree.

Mountainsandh

AngryHippie wrote: »

Okay, so the correct procedure wasn't followed by the book as regards an Engineers survey, demolition plan, permits etc etc.

All of that goes out the window as there was an imminent risk of collapse clearly evidenced in this photograph of the castle.

There is a clear risk of collapse and further damage to property and people outside of the building's footprint.

Furthermore, in order to stabilize the remaining unsupported walls, there would be considerable, (as in a major or sever hazard) of further total or partial collapse as soon as the rubble was being cleared to allow falsework etc.

From what I have seen evidenced above, People here know plenty about archaeology, and fcuk all about construction or structures.
What remained after the storm was a death-trap. It's sad that it was allowed to decay to the point shown in this photograph
[]
But unfortunately once those vertical cracks appeared in the wall, it was just a waiting game for a high wind.

To do anything about it after the initial collapse is to put lives at risk. Get real.

If you want to prevent this happening again, then get out and start surveying the structures that are still standing and lobby the OPW to stabilize them.

In my opinion there will be no funding available for monuments for some time coming, due to the extent of the damage to waterway and marine infrastructure and the scale of the challenge to repair them. But at the very least a prioritized list of damaged structures and remediation could be drafted and listed for action ?

I think that would be more productive than crying about the sad demise of a long neglected death-trap:(

That's a load of excuses. Really the bottom line is your initial statement, procedure was not followed, resulting in irreversible and immediate destruction of an entire historical structure, without any sort of rescue/record whatsoever.

To then suggest that it's up to the public to draw a list of monuments they think could be threatened is illustrative of the current attitude that "it's not our/their/his job it's somebody else's", particularly when said responsibility should be that of the State. After all, I am posting here because I like archeology but have very little knowledge ; however, I do pay a load of taxes which more than likely support some of the planners and engineers in Laois co Council and other relevant and involved state bodies.(nms, opw...)

There are a lot of potential lawsuits too in having the public roaming around unsafe buildings to assess them in place of professionals, no ?

AngryHippie

robp wrote: »

Why should it be part of an archaeology course? The role of the county archaeologist is to mitigate the impact on archaeology during the planning process, not do the urban planning. Specialised planners and engineers turned planners are in no way qualified to assess archaeological impact. A county archaeologist is not a planner. They work with the planner.

You have pretty much ended your own argument there.

The county archaeologist is consulted on the archaeological impact of planning and development.
There was no safe way to salvage the structure in question here without putting lives at risk. I know it might clash with your save the monument ethos, but human life comes first.

robp wrote: »

BTW a few modules in a civil engineering course is no substitute for a focused planning degree.

Agreed, but 10 years experience in Engineering, construction and Design is streets ahead of any 4 year planning degree. to suggest otherwise is tosh.

That's a load of excuses. Really the bottom line is your initial statement, procedure was not followed, resulting in irreversible and immediate destruction of an entire historical structure, without any sort of rescue/record whatsoever.

The end result would have been the same. If you had gone in there with a trowel and pick, you would probably be dead now. The structure was unstable and unsafe.

There are a lot of potential lawsuits too in having the public roaming around unsafe buildings to assess them in place of professionals, no ?

Again, an argument closer. The building was unsafe, so you presume it would have been safe for a worker to be in there because he had a hard hat or some PPE on ?

There was no way to isolate, eliminate or re-engineer the structure to make it safe to work on it. Employers (Council & OPW included) have a duty of care not to put their employees or members of the public at risk. So how do you propose they would do anything different to what was done ? (stabilize the structure at great cost years earlier excepted)

The immediate course of action was to minimize the risk to people and property. The required action was demolition.

Instead of hand wringing about it, ensure it doesn't happen to monuments in future, by having preventative maintenance works prior to becoming unstable.

robp

AngryHippie wrote: »

You have pretty much ended your own argument there.

The county archaeologist is consulted on the archaeological impact of planning and development.
There was no safe way to salvage the structure in question here without putting lives at risk. I know it might clash with your save the monument ethos, but human life comes first.

Its remarkable that you can say that without any formal assessment of the building. To my eye it looked far more stable after the storm. No one in Laois Co Co has made you claim so I don't believe it for a word. No one lived within stone falling distance of rubble. The structure could have been fenced off and assessed. If the Coco members had a shred of decency they would have at least alerted the NMS about their intention to knock the entire structure.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Agreed, but 10 years experience in Engineering, construction and Design is streets ahead of any 4 year planning degree. to suggest otherwise is tosh.

Maybe so or maybe not but the many examples horrendous state of boom planning in Ireland wouldn't lend much credence to your argument.

AngryHippie wrote: »

The end result would have been the same. If you had gone in there with a trowel and pick, you would probably be dead now. The structure was unstable and unsafe.


Again, an argument closer. The building was unsafe, so you presume it would have been safe for a worker to be in there because he had a hard hat or some PPE on ?

There was no way to isolate, eliminate or re-engineer the structure to make it safe to work on it. Employers (Council & OPW included) have a duty of care not to put their employees or members of the public at risk. So how do you propose they would do anything different to what was done ? (stabilize the structure at great cost years earlier excepted)

The immediate course of action was to minimize the risk to people and property. The required action was demolition.

Instead of hand wringing about it, ensure it doesn't happen to monuments in future, by having preventative maintenance works prior to becoming unstable.

Lots of statements but no evidence. Even if it was as dangerous as you claim there is no reason that due process should be avoided. Its blatantly clear this was knocked with the intention of doing it quickly, skipping proper channels in a heavy handed fashion with the assumption no one would notice. How wrong were they.


I don't know why people keep mentioning the OPW. They have no practical or statuary role in this castle or any other archaeological site apart from a few tourist sites.

Guillelligan

People did live in a house behind the castle and it fell across their driveway - I think that was the excuse given for demolishing it. Many local heritage societies are worried that this has now set a precedent for other castles to be demolished. People in the thread above have suggested creating a list of such structures. There is already a list of every archaeological site in the country. There are 30 castles in Laois along, only two have preservation orders. The other 28 are on private land and left to fall into ruin. I have been to many of these and a lot are in a bad condition like Coolbanagher was.

This castle, for example, is in a poorer state and I went to check after the storm whether or not it was still standing as I was convinced it was going to fall. Luckily it is still standing.

http://www.thestandingstone.ie/2009/08/cloncourse-fortified-house.html

Other castles are in the same situation. Sadly, it all comes down to money. Something which could help is more permissions given to local heritage groups and authorities to carry out work on this sites. Even something like removing ivy from a castle wall can help to halt further deterioration at a site.

On a more positive note, some money has been given to Laois for heritage this year and Lea castle in Portarlington (not far from Coolbanagher) is set to get this money and the castle will be preserved and opened to the public. So this will make 3 out of 30 in Laois that get some money for preservation.

bawn79

AngryHippie wrote: »

You have pretty much ended your own argument there.

The county archaeologist is consulted on the archaeological impact of planning and development.
There was no safe way to salvage the structure in question here without putting lives at risk. I know it might clash with your save the monument ethos, but human life comes first.

I normally stay out of these argumentative threads but I have to take you up on that. A safe solution can always be found, it may be expensive but there is always a way. Without physically having visited the site after the damage occurred and before it was knocked, I can't present you with a solution but to be honest it actually didn't look that bad from the pictures (and hence not that expensive). As others have said - there are other castles in worse repair still standing.

AngryHippie

bawn79 wrote: »

I normally stay out of these argumentative threads but I have to take you up on that. A safe solution can always be found, it may be expensive but there is always a way. Without physically having visited the site after the damage occurred and before it was knocked, I can't present you with a solution but to be honest it actually didn't look that bad from the pictures (and hence not that expensive). As others have said - there are other castles in worse repair still standing.

It's not about the state of repair, it was in a state of partial collapse, leading to the remaining walls effectively being left without any bracing whatsoever. Due to the fact that it's adjacent a trafficked driveway, and not far from a dwelling, it would pose a serious risk to human life in the state it was in.

As for a "safe" solution for dealing with the structure as it was after the storm, yes there would have been one, which would have involved working on it from above with boom lifts, out of the way of potential collapse to put braces on the remaining structure, with the aim of putting a full bracing frame on it to stabilize the remains. Big cranes, Big Steel Sections, Big Expense What you would have been left with, would have taken weeks, tens of tonnes of steel, and would only have preserved the partially collapsed remains of 3 walls. not really justifiable as a solution.

Aside from the fact that funds from public coffers are urgently needed just about everywhere else.

The decision was made by someone somewhere, that the required work could not be performed in a timely or financially feasible way, should that person have to explain their decision, Yes. Should this be treated as some sort abominable act of desecration ? not really, It's hysterical carry on.

Its baffling that you can agree with the decision without even knowing if it was done legally. BTW you don't know its dangerous. It needs assessment for that to be established.

BTW, I can tell you with certainty from the photographs given, that a 13th Century norman tower with serious longitudinal structural cracking, a partial collapse due to high wind, and saturated mortar will be an extremely dangerous structure. Saying that it's uncertain is utter numptidity. It is as self evident as the piano over Wylie Coyote's head. Safety would be land in the realm of luck and good timing. Not good enough for construction in the 21st Century.

You have to be realistic and have a priority on the monuments you can save. If saving this was at the expense of vital repairs/stabilisation to a dozen other examples, would you still be singing out about it ?

Or would you be whining about the NMS and council blowing the money saving this one while a dozen other fell apart ? And before you dismiss this as a strawman, keep in mind that it is a real decision that every effort at conservation under budgetary constraints faces. You cannot save them all. Sometimes nature makes the choice.

RobbingBandit

Make you sick to think a fraction of the monies pissed away on the Moriarty Tribunal and other such nonsense would make places like this safe to enjoy again, this stupid country does not respect the past.

robp

AngryHippie wrote: »

It's not about the state of repair, it was in a state of partial collapse, leading to the remaining walls effectively being left without any bracing whatsoever. Due to the fact that it's adjacent a trafficked driveway, and not far from a dwelling, it would pose a serious risk to human life in the state it was in.

If a wall being free-standing is sufficient justification for knocking then there are hundreds of structures up and down the length of Ireland that ought to be knocked.

The safest and cheapest solution would be fencing the structure off and adjusting the driveway a few metres south in his garden or if necessary into the next-door field. I have looked at maps of the area and this would have been a simple straight forward solution.

I am sick to death of this ruthlessly arrogant approach to heritage. The National Monuments Act is not a guideline. Avoiding destroying historic sites is not a charitable act or being nice. It is a moral and legal responsibility. It does not matter if it means losing a few metres of garden or arable land. The national (cultural and scientific) interest takes precedent.

cfuserkildare

robp wrote: »

If a wall being free-standing is sufficient justification for knocking then there are hundreds of structures up and down the length of Ireland that ought to be knocked.

The safest and cheapest solution would be fencing the structure off and adjusting the driveway a few metres south in his garden or if necessary into the next-door field. I have looked at maps of the area and this would have been a simple straight forward solution.

I am sick to death of this ruthlessly arrogant approach to heritage. The National Monuments Act is not a guideline. Avoiding destroying historic sites is not a charitable act or being nice. It is a moral and legal responsibility. It does not matter if it means losing a few metres of garden or arable land. The national (cultural and scientific) interest takes precedent.

Second that mate

AngryHippie

robp wrote: »

If a wall being free-standing is sufficient justification for knocking then there are hundreds of structures up and down the length of Ireland that ought to be knocked.

The safest and cheapest solution would be fencing the structure off and adjusting the driveway a few metres south in his garden or if necessary into the next-door field. I have looked at maps of the area and this would have been a simple straight forward solution.

But unless the structure is stabilized, what will this have accomplished ?

It will have isolated the danger zone, wonderful, but that doesn't mean that the structure itself is any safer from further collapse, or that it can be preserved for a definite period of time.
So you would advocate spending tens of thousands of euro on fencing and re-routing a driveway to achieve......nothing.

Can you see where I am coming from here ?

Those tens of thousands of dollars will come from the purse that has to pay for preservation of the ones that can be saved.

My point is that they cannot all be saved. Not with finite resources, some people on here seem to disagree with that. Unfortunately they seem to working on a false assumption that all of the structures are of equal importance and value, and that there are resources to deal with all of them ?

Yes, I agree that the decision making process on demolishing the structure seems to have been very brief, and not so comprehensive, and that measures should be taken to improve on that and prevent it happening in this way again.

On the other hand, will it happen again.....definitely. Is there any way of avoiding it ? probably not.

Mountainsandh

robp wrote: »

Its remarkable that you can say that without any formal assessment of the building. ...

Lots of statements but no evidence. Even if it was as dangerous as you claim there is no reason that due process should be avoided. .

+1

Could the Higher section of the building have been knocked with the lower section remaining in place for study and assessment ?

We'll never know.

Could one, two, or sections of facades have been saved, thereby making study and possible preservation of some of the building possible ?

We'll never know.

When I bought my house, if I had listened to the architect and the first builder who saw it, it would have been immediately pulled down (it was old and hadn't been lived in in years).

Aren't I glad I promptly requested the services of a builder with a different outlook.

It was a hasty decision.

It is easy to retreat behind statements about safety when the building is now rubble.

edit : completely agree with robp btw.

A driveway is just that, a flipping driveway for heaven's sake.
One could argue that placing a driveway along the castle walls was a wrong decision to start with. After all, how old exactly is this driveway ? Was the castle in spick and span condition when the driveway was freshly covered with tar and chip ?

The house is not within a perimeter that would make it unsafe should the castle have tumbled down as far as I can see. In fact, the castle did tumble and without damage to the house.

By securing the area, you would have bought time to think of solutions, to possibly knock some sections (or let them naturally crumble), and then come back and presumably get to work on the stronger sections that would have remained.

If indeed the standing sections of the structure were so close to collapsing, is there a chance some lesser action than boomlifts might have done the job ?

Oh wait, we'll never know.

Maudi

It sets a precedent. .thats all...I wonder how long before 'little jonnie' from next door is building on /beside the bulldozed castle..not long id guess

Mountainsandh

AngryHippie wrote: »

My point is that they cannot all be saved. Not with finite resources, some people on here seem to disagree with that. Unfortunately they seem to working on a false assumption that all of the structures are of equal importance and value, and that there are resources to deal with all of them ?
...

On the other hand, will it happen again.....definitely. Is there any way of avoiding it ? probably not.

I completely disagree with this outlook. Imo :
When something is not right, we try to fix it.
We do not simply shake our heads and move on, crucially not when it concerns heritage.

That a weather event should take its toll is natural, and something that can be accepted.

The weather event did not flatten the castle however, the local authorities did.

Had a 4 meter high base section of the castle remained, a footprint of it, it would still have held an interest, and have been of some historical value. There are many 4 meter high, consolidated at reasonable cost chapels, ancient churches, houses, and castle foundations in Ireland. Are they uninteresting and of no value ?

AngryHippie

AngryHippie wrote: »

It will have isolated the danger zone, wonderful, but that doesn't mean that the structure itself is any safer from further collapse, or that it can be preserved for a definite period of time.
So you would advocate spending tens of thousands of euro on fencing and re-routing a driveway to achieve......nothing.

Those tens of thousands of dollars will come from the purse that has to pay for preservation of the ones that can be saved.

My point is that they cannot all be saved.

None of the posts since have addressed the elephant in the room - If money is spent on this one, with no guarantee of any success, then there is less money to spend on others.

Call it what you like but it boils down to a .....waste of money.

It doesn't matter how much you agree or disagree with it, the cold hard reality is you need to use the resources you have efficiently to achieve the best result. It's up to the NMS and Local Council and OPW to make these decisions, if you aren't satisfied with the job they do, get on to your representatives about it.

We do not simply shake our heads and move on, crucially not when it concerns heritage.

It's not a particularly proud point of Irish behavior, but for generations, many elements of our heritage have been subject to head-shaking and subsequent moving on. To suggest that it hasn't sounds like a touch of denial to be honest.
By all means, try and fix it, don't be happy about it, raise a stink, but do it in a productive way ?

As for precedents, I'd be more upset about the monuments that there aren't similar examples of....

Regarding Little Johnny next door building on it, That might be a step to far in your extrapolations.

cfuserkildare

Just a quick point,

Regarding the access road beside the castle, who did that belong to?
If it belonged to the Castle estate then the house owner should have built a separate entrance way, if the drive-way belonged to the house holder, then they should have had the common sense to build it further away because the castle would have been unstable anyway, finally, how come the property owner was allowed to lay a driveway so close to a historic site/monument in the first place?

"There is a special place in Hell for those who selfishly destroy history for they're own personal gain"

wayoutwest

Now that the damage has been done, could the stones not be used to restore other buildings of the same age/type in the same area(same stone)?
Don't tell me that all those lovely corner stones and possibly other carved lintels etc are going to be used as hardcore.What will happen to the 'rubble'?.

Mountainsandh

AngryHippie wrote: »

None of the posts since have addressed the elephant in the room - If money is spent on this one, with no guarantee of any success, then there is less money to spend on others.

Call it what you like but it boils down to a .....waste of money.

It doesn't matter how much you agree or disagree with it, the cold hard reality is you need to use the resources you have efficiently to achieve the best result. It's up to the NMS and Local Council and OPW to make these decisions, if you aren't satisfied with the job they do, get on to your representatives about it.

This is the issue though here, it was my understanding that NMS had more of an input in these decisions (directly related to the retaining of a historical structure) than the council. This did not happen. NMS recommended to retain what could be saved, Council took the decision to flatten it. NMS did not have a chance to assess potential cost of potential consolidating measures, so the decision to spend money on it or not did not arise, not from the concerned body.
This is what I and others on here are not happy about, this is what we are speaking out about.

It's not a particularly proud point of Irish behavior, but for generations, many elements of our heritage have been subject to head-shaking and subsequent moving on. To suggest that it hasn't sounds like a touch of denial to be honest.

I'm French so not really in denial about the lack of protection for heritage in Ireland, but appalled at the poor record.

Again I don't take it for granted that because that's the way it's always been, that's the way something is going to remain.

By all means, try and fix it, don't be happy about it, raise a stink, but do it in a productive way ?

Drawing attention to, giving due importance to, and talking about a problem is/are a productive way(s) to ensure that the problem may be fixed in the future.

Mobilisation on social networks for example, is a valid way to highlight a problem, and people's concerns about an issue.

In fact, the above are probably the most powerful tools to let State representatives know what our concerns are at this moment in time. Along with email, or maybe a call into a clinic.

By talking about, and drawing attention to an issue first, though, we can add weight to our arguments since not just one concerned, isolated person is going to call to a state representative clinic, or email them, but a more meaty portion of the population can ask for representation/support.

So really, since as has been rightly pointed out :
~ there is already a very handy list of historical monuments and places in Ireland for people to go inspect,
and
~ since it's not really the general public's job (and it is kind of dangerous that they should) to go inspect and assess such monuments for state of conservation,

>> that part of the job to be done, that would probably appear more "productive" to you, is not really something that I can or should do.