Bullock and Sandycove Harbours Draft Masterplan 2019

patrickbrophy18

Given that the council have launched a public consultation phase for "Bullock and Sandycove Harbours Draft Masterplan 2019", I think it deserves a thread of its very own here. The details of it can be found at the following URL:

https://dlrcoco.citizenspace.com/masterplanning/sandycove-and-bullock-harbour-masterplan-consultat/

It is an interesting idea and I am delighted to see the council officially taking in charge of both harbours.

As with most proposals drawn up, I have my fair share of reservations either because too little is being done in one area or other more obvious opportunities are being left to the way side.

For example, I believe the prospects for the land occupied by Our Ladys Manor is many times bigger than its current use and could, in time be a catalyst. It is the only site that gets away with having a building of up to six stories high inclusive of the ground floor and the purpose it serves at present is inversely proportional to its maximum potential. The whole place could be a museum/hotel/diaspora centre/commercial centre with Bullock Castle being the museum.

ted1

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Given that the council have launched a public consultation phase for "Bullock and Sandycove Harbours Draft Masterplan 2019", I think it deserves a thread of its very own here. The details of it can be found at the following URL:

https://dlrcoco.citizenspace.com/masterplanning/sandycove-and-bullock-harbour-masterplan-consultat/

It is an interesting idea and I am delighted to see the council officially taking in charge of both harbours.

As with most proposals drawn up, I have my fair share of reservations either because too little is being done in one area or other more obvious opportunities are being left to the way side.

For example, I believe the prospects for the land occupied by Our Ladys Manor is many times bigger than its current use and could, in time be a catalyst. It is the only site that gets away with having a building of up to six stories high inclusive of the ground floor and the purpose it serves at present is inversely proportional to its maximum potential. The whole place could be a museum/hotel/diaspora centre/commercial centre with Bullock Castle being the museum.

What two harbours are the council officially taking in charge off? Bullock is under Dublin Port.

patrickbrophy18

ted1 wrote: »

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Given that the council have launched a public consultation phase for "Bullock and Sandycove Harbours Draft Masterplan 2019", I think it deserves a thread of its very own here. The details of it can be found at the following URL:

https://dlrcoco.citizenspace.com/masterplanning/sandycove-and-bullock-harbour-masterplan-consultat/

It is an interesting idea and I am delighted to see the council officially taking in charge of both harbours.

As with most proposals drawn up, I have my fair share of reservations either because too little is being done in one area or other more obvious opportunities are being left to the way side.

For example, I believe the prospects for the land occupied by Our Ladys Manor is many times bigger than its current use and could, in time be a catalyst. It is the only site that gets away with having a building of up to six stories high inclusive of the ground floor and the purpose it serves at present is inversely proportional to its maximum potential. The whole place could be a museum/hotel/diaspora centre/commercial centre with Bullock Castle being the museum.

What two harbours are the council officially taking in charge off? Bullock is under Dublin Port.

I meant taking charge of. As in, taking initiative to do something about it. No need to be such a smart alec.

qb123

For example, I believe the prospects for the land occupied by Our Ladys Manor is many times bigger than its current use and could, in time be a catalyst. It is the only site that gets away with having a building of up to six stories high inclusive of the ground floor and the purpose it serves at present is inversely proportional to its maximum potential. The whole place could be a museum/hotel/diaspora centre/commercial centre with Bullock Castle being the museum.[/QUOTE]

The last thing we need is another museum or some such folly. The one good thing about this site is its intensive usage, unlike most of the surrounding area. If it was to be replaced, apartments would be the best alternative use.

ted1

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I meant taking charge of. As in, taking initiative to do something about it. No need to be such a smart alec.

Not being smart, you made a factually incorrect statement. There is a big difference between Dublin port and DLRCoCo owning it.

developments plans are routinely carried out and are part of councils mandate

Larbre34

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I meant taking charge of. As in, taking initiative to do something about it. No need to be such a smart alec.

He wasn't being.

I think you overlook the fact that Our Lady's Manor is a very big and very busy nursing home facility, not just housing older folk long term but an important regional step-down facility for people of all ages recovering from illness or major surgery. As well as that, its privately owned, there is basically no lean that could be put on OLM to change anything about what they do, let alone give it up for conversion to a wholly inappropriate commercial centre or a useless museum.

As ever, I think your musings need to be injected with a sharp dose of seriousness and realism.

patrickbrophy18

qb123 wrote: »

The last thing we need is another museum or some such folly. The one good thing about this site is its intensive usage, unlike most of the surrounding area. If it was to be replaced, apartments would be the best alternative use.

Apartments would completely privatise the land. What good is that to the rest of the population?

ted1 wrote: »

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I meant taking charge of. As in, taking initiative to do something about it. No need to be such a smart alec.

Not being smart, you made a factually incorrect statement.

There is a difference between a typo and a factually incorrect statement. You'd swear I was saying the sky is falling.

ted1 wrote: »

There is a big difference between Dublin port and DLRCoCo owning it.

I know that. So, stop trying to derail this thread and being condescending.

ted1 wrote: »

developments plans are routinely carried out and are part of councils mandate

I am also well aware of this.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think you overlook the fact that Our Lady's Manor is a very big and very busy nursing home facility, not just housing older folk long term but an important regional step-down facility for people of all ages recovering from illness or major surgery.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I just think that the current use benefits a very limited portion of the overall population as the site is capable of so much more.

Larbre34 wrote: »

As well as that, its privately owned

Unfortunately, it is. Consequently, Bullock Castle has by extension been privatised as well and with that, a whole lot of potential footfall has been wasted.

Larbre34 wrote: »

there is basically no lean that could be put on OLM to change anything about what they do, let alone give it up for conversion to a wholly inappropriate commercial centre or a useless museum.

I was referring to Bullock Castle as being a perfect place for the museum part of my idea given that it is a listed building and all.

As for the second part of your statement about "inappropriate commercial centre", I said that it could be a commercial/diaspora centre and hotel. In any case, it would open it back up to the rest of the population.

Larbre34 wrote: »

As ever, I think your musings need to be injected with a sharp dose of seriousness and realism.

So, having a more ambitious and main stream vision for Dalkey justifies your condescending attitude.

On a broader note on your observation of "seriousness and realism", the left wing population of this country are holding it back from being a truly world class one. As a result, actual talent winds up emigrating to places like the USA, UK, Australia and Canada to achieve their goals. We can't even get high-rise or a metro done right in this oppressive suffocating country. These have become the hallmarks of some of the worlds most iconic countries and has set the standard for how a functioning city should operate.

So, yes, the reality is that opportunities in this country are repeatedly wasted to please simple minded folks who begrudgingly look down on those with ambitions and actual prospects or those who want to make a real difference.

ted1

A typo is a spelling or grammatical error. Not an incorrect statement.

The council are or have taking DL harbour over from the harbour company.
Dublin port who are fixing bullock are still the owners and in charge of it.

patrickbrophy18

ted1 wrote: »

A typo is a spelling or grammatical error. Not an incorrect statement.

The council are or have taking DL harbour over from the harbour company.
Dublin port who are fixing bullock are still the owners and in charge of it.

Grand. So, let's move on from semantics and focus on the thread topic!

Chinasea

I fail to see what the outrage over Bullock harbour is. The place is totally under utililsed, mankey, stickin and is an ugly waste of space.

That lady who has the most fabulously placed cottage with the views obscured with her net curtains, fair enough rehome her, give her the penthouse, but build up and on.

Larbre34

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

On a broader note on your observation of "seriousness and realism", the left wing population of this country are holding it back from being a truly world class one. As a result, actual talent winds up emigrating to places like the USA, UK, Australia and Canada to achieve their goals. We can't even get high-rise or a metro done right in this oppressive suffocating country. These have become the hallmarks of some of the worlds most iconic countries and has set the standard for how a functioning city should operate.

So, yes, the reality is that opportunities in this country are repeatedly wasted to please simple minded folks who begrudgingly look down on those with ambitions and actual prospects or those who want to make a real difference.

I think you've finally shown your true colours here.

Firstly, if you think the leftists of this land are the ones "holding it back" then you are somewhere between misguided and naive.

The private interests who own the development land banks in this State aren't leftists and the profile of person who joins An Taisce or the Dalkey Community Councils of the piece to agitate or further their own agendas certainly aren't leftists either. Do you think the Apple Data Centre in Athenry was stopped by lefty loons? We all know it wasnt and why. The refrain of the left is 'family homes for a fair price close to the jobs and the services'. You could hardly accuse that of prevailing over other interests in these times.

Its clear to see that your idea of iconic and mine are quite different. Yes some of the great Cities of the World have prioritised a political vision of great arteries and massive engineering to underpin and further increase their 10 or 20 million populations, but as a town planner I've visited and case studied everywhere from Mexico City and Tokyo to Shanghai, Dubai, Sydney, Singapore, Dallas- Fort Worth, Sao Paulo and Johannesburg. They aren't Dublin, they aren't even Ireland. They have in many ways sacrificed much of their heritage on the altar of growth and are now the victims of it. When my colleagues from abroad come here, they marvel at what Ireland has going for it (Dublin scarcely rates separate consideration) and they are envious at the mistakes we have not yet made, the lessons we can learn from others.

I tell them what I'll tell you, I draw my inspiration for this town not from London or Frankfurt, but from Edinburgh and Rennes and Heidelburg and Auckland, beautiful liveable cities with a village feel, not concrete canyons with elevated railways and motorway ramps in City centres. You are also very wrong about the direction of talent. Yes, Irish people are leaving to expand their horizons and experience, usually with a view to returning eventually, but the amount of science and technology talent coming to this town eclipses all others.

We'll find our way, but it will remain unmistakably Dublin, unmistakably Ireland if I have anything to do with it.

Tabnabs

Chinasea wrote: »

I fail to see what the outrage over Bullock harbour is. The place is totally under utililsed, mankey, stickin and is an ugly waste of space.

An absolute hornets nest. Now looking to scrounge around for tens of thousands of euro to put together a high court injunction to stop the development.

patrickbrophy18

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think you've finally shown your true colours here.

What colours are these now?

Larbre34 wrote: »

Firstly, if you think the leftists of this land are the ones "holding it back" then you are somewhere between misguided and naive.

Let’s just say that I’ve read through a lot of planning applications and posts on Facebook relating to planning matters. Some of the reasons behind refusal of permission stem from left wing ideologies. When it comes to retail properties in particular, they site intensifying use (i.e. making it more versatile) as a setting a bad precedent.

In residential planning, people insist on treating the airspace of neighbouring properties as being their own amenities which is where the Irish sense of entitlement comes in to play. In other words, people view neighbouring properties and the airspace above them as their own when they aren’t. The only land which a person owns is the house and land that they have paid for.

A lot of other observations are either very nit-picky or are counter productive in so far as the fact that they restrict or seek to restrict (i.e. pigeon hole) the purpose of residential or retail properties. In my opinion, many of these observations come off as narcissistic because the function of a place doesn’t revolve solely around them. As a result, they are seen as soulless.

Larbre34 wrote: »

The private interests who own the development land banks in this State aren't leftists and the profile of person who joins An Taisce or the Dalkey Community Councils of the piece to agitate or further their own agendas certainly aren't leftists either. Do you think the Apple Data Centre in Athenry was stopped by lefty loons? We all know it wasnt and why. The refrain of the left is 'family homes for a fair price close to the jobs and the services'. You could hardly accuse that of prevailing over other interests in these times.

From what I’ve seen, the entitled members of our population consistently complain to property owners that a portion of their development should be allocated to social housing which is only going to attract anti-social behaviour.
On a more local basis, the Dalkey Community Council are doing everything they can to keep Dalkey ticking over as a vibrant town while An Taisce are tasked with preserving Irelands natural and built heritage which I support.

However, as with my previous point above, many people take to nit-picking specific aspects of such developments where they fear it may make an area less exclusive. A recent example was when the council proposed a pathway through Roche’s Hill and it came under fire where a nearby resident complained that the path way would interfere with the wild appearance of the public amenity. This would have improved permeability through the Hill.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its clear to see that your idea of iconic and mine are quite different. Yes some of the great Cities of the World have prioritised a political vision of great arteries and massive engineering to underpin and further increase their 10 or 20 million populations, but as a town planner I've visited and case studied everywhere from Mexico City and Tokyo to Shanghai, Dubai, Sydney, Singapore, Dallas- Fort Worth, Sao Paulo and Johannesburg. They aren't Dublin, they aren't even Ireland. They have in many ways sacrificed much of their heritage on the altar of growth and are now the victims of it. When my colleagues from abroad come here, they marvel at what Ireland has going for it (Dublin scarcely rates separate consideration) and they are envious at the mistakes we have not yet made, the lessons we can learn from others.

I would argue that Dubai and Sydney are exempt from being “victims of it”. Before Dubai became the iconic metropolises it is today, it was a desert with nothing going for it. Sydney is another iconic city and is beautiful if photographs are anything to go by.

In contrast, Sao Paulo, Johannesburg and Mexico City are all in third world countries for the most part and are heavily crime ridden. So, growth in these cities will likely exacerbate the underlying crime.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I tell them what I'll tell you, I draw my inspiration for this town not from London or Frankfurt, but from Edinburgh and Rennes and Heidelburg and Auckland, beautiful liveable cities with a village feel, not concrete canyons with elevated railways and motorway ramps in City centres. You are also very wrong about the direction of talent. Yes, Irish people are leaving to expand their horizons and experience, usually with a view to returning eventually, but the amount of science and technology talent coming to this town eclipses all others.

While many did emigrate to survive the famine or in recent years, the recession, their ideas or ambitions were better fostered by their hosting countries. A lot of them do far better abroad because the countries they emigrate to aren’t as narrow minded or risk averse as Ireland.

Also, in recent years, London has become somewhat more unliveable than it used to be under Sadiq Khans administration due to a rise in crime levels as a result of his “diversity” vision.

Larbre34 wrote: »

We'll find our way, but it will remain unmistakably Dublin, unmistakably Ireland if I have anything to do with it.

I amn't saying tarnish Dublin or Ireland beyond recognition. However, we should strive to be less mediocre than we are at present.

hatrickpatrick

The proposal to route the S2S cycleway into Newtownsmith Green promenade / Scotsman's Bay seriously worries me, it's currently one of the only green areas which is safe both for kids to run around in and to let dogs off the lead for a stretch. Putting a cyclepath between the grass and the 'yellow brick road' would obviously change the nature of the green very fundamentally, from a relaxing spot to somewhere one has to keep vigilant at all times with small kids or pets.

Not necessarily opposed to the S2S itself, but surely it would be better to have it as an extra lane on the road end of Newtown Smith, rather than having it run between the green and the yellow promenade which are currently wholly pedestrianised such as to create one contiguous pedestrian area? Bisecting it by putting the cyclepath through it seems completely mental.

ted1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The proposal to route the S2S cycleway into Newtownsmith Green promenade / Scotsman's Bay seriously worries me, it's currently one of the only green areas which is safe both for kids to run around in and to let dogs off the lead for a stretch. Putting a cyclepath between the grass and the 'yellow brick road' would obviously change the nature of the green very fundamentally, from a relaxing spot to somewhere one has to keep vigilant at all times with small kids or pets.

Not necessarily opposed to the S2S itself, but surely it would be better to have it as an extra lane on the road end of Newtown Smith, rather than having it run between the green and the yellow promenade which are currently wholly pedestrianised such as to create one contiguous pedestrian area? Bisecting it by putting the cyclepath through it seems completely mental.

I don’t think it’s legal to let dogs off the lead there...

It’d be much safer for cyclists to put it beside the promenade than beside the road. Especially younger cyclists.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The proposal to route the S2S cycleway into Newtownsmith Green promenade / Scotsman's Bay seriously worries me, it's currently one of the only green areas which is safe both for kids to run around in and to let dogs off the lead for a stretch. Putting a cyclepath between the grass and the 'yellow brick road' would obviously change the nature of the green very fundamentally, from a relaxing spot to somewhere one has to keep vigilant at all times with small kids or pets.

Not necessarily opposed to the S2S itself, but surely it would be better to have it as an extra lane on the road end of Newtown Smith, rather than having it run between the green and the yellow promenade which are currently wholly pedestrianised such as to create one contiguous pedestrian area? Bisecting it by putting the cyclepath through it seems completely mental.

put it on the road and people will just park on it, as they do the pavement at the moment.

Gareth Keenan

Aegir wrote: »

put it on the road and people will just park on it, as they do the pavement at the moment.

bollards were erected to stop all that, seems to have worked well to stop the illegal Sunday parking.

Stick the cycle lane in just inside the low wall that runs along Newtownsmith & Marine parade, that would suit the feral cyclists, road users and dogs.