BRENDAN McCANN DID IT AGAIN

yoursfaithfully

Does your architect friend think it good practice to erect a seven storey apartment block adjacent to and dwarfing an historic castle at the entrance to the old city ?

yoursfaithfully

Send an email to info@greenparty.ie and tell them what a great job their man in Waterford is doing. Long may he cycle.

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that the frontages to be seen down Penrose Lane etc. (gates to car parks, ESB substations, kitchens in your face, bare walls, drab railings etc.) are preferable to frontages like that of the Metropole. If so you must be suffering from severe depression or you soon will be if you live down that way !

The correct question, with regard to the metropole application, is do I think that a nice new Mariot hotel frontage is preferable to frontages like that of the Metropole?

The answer is of course I do! The Metropole was/is in a disgraceful state, and the building was/is too small to be of any modern commercial use anyway.

As to the development of the bridge street/mary street/penrose lane area, I think it can only be seen as positive since the area was de-populated and was blighted by urban decay. It was a no go area of town. With these new developments, none of which infringe on our historical heritage, the area looks better and people are starting to live there again.

You can't honestly tell me that the developments in this area have been negative? It was like beirut!

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Does your architect friend think it good practice to erect a seven storey apartment block adjacent to and dwarfing an historic castle at the entrance to the old city ?

Waterford is blessed to have retained so much of its medieval heritage, a lot more than any other city in Ireland, with the possible exception of Derry. The reason they survived was because they fitted in with the plans of the georgians; if they had got in the way, like the city wall on the quay, or the old christ church cathedral, they were demolished without hesitation.

These days we have more respect for our historical buildings, but that does not mean that we must give them pride of place in our skyline until the end of time! Do you think that in a living 21st century city that all our medieval towers, built between the 12th and 15th centuries, will always be the tallest and most imposing buildings for miles around?

The point is that you couldn't build any large building anywhere in Waterford city centre without it overlooking an old medieval building. That is a fact. But nonetheless we must develop our city so that we can have jobs and services and everything that a city should have. We have to design our new buildings in such a way as to complement and highlight the older buildings in close vicinity. And yeah, we have to do it right.

One thing I do not accept is that we shouldn't build 7 storey buildings in Waterford. I think we should and I think we need them.

The railway square project pledged to highlight and emphasise the old tower beside it in the plans. The fact that it has gotten planning permission for a plan that was little changed after the McCann appeal, means that Bord Planala was happy with it, and of course Waterford city council is also happy with it. That's good enough for me!

The only thing that McCann may have achieved by objecting to the railway square project was reducing the size of the cinema from its original 11 screen size to a rumoured 8, since Bord Planala nearly always get you to take a bit of height and width off your building if it gets objected to. As an avid cinema goer I'd like to say, "thanks for that Brendan!" God forbid Waterford would have a decent cinema!

yoursfaithfully

Merlante,

Waterford is blessed to have retained so much of its medieval heritage,

Where is the church that was under Burger King ?

These days we have more respect for our historical buildings,

How come so many of them have pvc windows then ? You call that respect ?

We have to design our new buildings in such a way as to complement and highlight the older buildings in close vicinity. And yeah, we have to do it right.

You are probabley speaking of the Maritana between the Courthouse and the Bank of Scotland !

yoursfaithfully

Merlante

I think it can only be seen as positive since the area was de-populated and was blighted by urban decay. It was a no go area of town.

A case of anything will do ! - A new school of architecture ?

mike65

I never thought I'd have to warn two fans of [size=-1]architecture[/size] to be "careful now"
but please keep this civil (I can sense some tension in the air on this!).

Maybe a fresh thread would be a good idea if either of you fancies starting one, its a good subject for debate.

Mike.

yoursfaithfully

You could be right Mike. However it is difficult to watch a genuine guy like McCann being assualted without reply on this and other threads. I hardly know the guy but I know that we could do with more like him.

Aquos76

yoursfaithfully wrote:

a genuine guy like McCann

Are you for real. He is a pr**k who goes out of his way to object to everything and anything in the city centre.

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Merlante,

Where is the church that was under Burger King ?

How come so many of them have pvc windows then ? You call that respect ?

You are probabley speaking of the Maritana between the Courthouse and the Bank of Scotland !

I don't know anything about the church under burger king or what buildings have pvc windows. But if you want examples of how much the city cares about its historical buildings you only have to look to the re-renovation of Reginald's Tower, the restoration of the granary, the recent works outside of the french church where Luke Wadding is now, the restoration of the organ in Christ Church cathedral (and other restorative work), etc. I'm not denying that there have been mistakes in the past though.

As for the Maritana Gate building, I think it's the finest example of modern architecture in the city, and a perfect example of how a tall building can be tastely placed between a civic park and the courthouse & grounds. And if not there, where else would you put it anyway?

What annoys me about Brendan McCann is not that he holds a different opinion to me, or even a different opinion to (I think) most people, but that he knowingly abuses the individual's right to lodge a planning appeal by objecting to more or less everything. Those of us who want to see (balanced) development remain the silent majority while McCann, who is totally unelected, forces each development to be delayed for 18 months, puts legitimate plans in peril and, I have been assured, has put developers off developing in Waterford, just by dint of his reputation alone.

I make no apologies for discussing him in an open forum, because he is a public figure, and uses his public position as spokesman for the green party in order to leverage media exposure to further his own personal goals. I say personal goals because last year the green party in Waterford held a vote of no-confidence in him (which admittedly he survived) and Trevor Sargent himself has apparently distanced himself from his activities. There is little recourse for those of us who eagerly want to see the city develop but to highlight our grievances on forums like these. We can't vote for him any less, and we can't vote against his objections!

Having said that I will try to be less personal in my comments, since I do not intend to offend anyone - even though the situation as it is drives me nuts.

angry_fox

Ask anyone in Waterford about Brendan McCann and they will say "He is the guy who objects to evertything". Thats all he seems to be known as, a person who gets in the way of things and to be honest no man should be known/remembered as that. If only he could get a bit of sense.

The Metropole should either be demolished or given some sort of face lift. Its a disgrace.

yoursfaithfully

As for the Maritana Gate building, I think it's the finest example of modern architecture in the city, and a perfect example of how a tall building can be tastely placed between a civic park and the courthouse & grounds.

Am I missing something ? I would have thought that the new Bank of Scotland had set the example for the type of architecture that would have fitted in with the existing apartment blocks, the Park, the Court House, South Parade, Waterpark and De La Salle College.

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Am I missing something ? I would have thought that the new Bank of Scotland had set the example for the type of architecture that would have fitted in with the existing apartment blocks, the Park, the Court House, South Parade, Waterpark and De La Salle College.

It's personal opinion, I just think it looks well; gives the place a central park sort of feel if you're looking in the right direction.

I don't generally like the sort of generic modern architecture that you get in cities in Ireland though, but that's the way things are being built. Developers/architects are not going to go back to developing georgian/victorian buildings unfortunately, so we have to make the best out of what we have.

Just because architecture is gone to the dogs does not mean that we should simply stop building until the fashions turn. In any case, we're a long way off the standards of the 70's/80's which gave us the train station, the ESB building on the mall and the Ard Ri (although the Ard Ri used to look better). I'm sure you'll agree with me that these buildings are among the ugliest in the city at the moment. If McCann is objecting against the redevelopment of the Ard Ri, you can understand why people are raging. The building is so ugly!

Marcopolo85

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Merlante,

Where is the church that was under Burger King ?

How come so many of them have pvc windows then ? You call that respect ?

You are probabley speaking of the Maritana between the Courthouse and the Bank of Scotland !

Yours faithfully - you must be a big fan of Waterford City Council's Planning Department.....one of the biggest offenders by their mere lack of consistency.

I know of a family who were renovating their house in the Upper City area. Tiles, etc had to match perfectly (good idea). However, two years later a nearby house was allowed plaster over a beautiful stone frontage and replace the roof tiles with slate!! - Offence number one.

City Hall - a beautiful building to which the Planning Department allowed the front of an Airport terminal to be attached.....all for two toilets and a hallway!
Offence number two.

17/18 Lady Lane. Uproar caused by a small group of people to have two tumble-down houses 'preserved'. Subsequently (after 'saving' them) the equivalent of a bus shelter was attached to the side of them.
Offence number three.

The Good Sheperd Convent. Since handover to the educational authorities it has suffered the equivalent of structural rape. Flat felt-roofed dormers; chrome vent pipes - and the piéce de resistance - prefabricated bulidings fronting onto the street.....in the 21st Century! And all this in the name of education.
Offence number four.

And if I hear any more about bloody wooden windows! People replace wooden windows with PVC for several reasons:

* The wooden ones are rotten and falling out
* The PVC ones actually look more presentable.
* Theywant to cut down on paint jobs.

I could go on about places like Knockboy with visual monstrosities ruining the skyline and other 'decisions' taken, but would pose the question....where was Mr. McCann when all this was going on? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

yoursfaithfully

Well said Marcopolo,

Not only was the side of an airport terminal attached but the much loved Flaggy Lane, steeped in history, was blown out of the place. It just goes to show that McCann type observers are essential and should not be ridiculed.

I must disagree however with regard to pvc windows. They take from old buildings because they do not have the depth or profile of old windows. They are usually flat and totally out of character.

AdMMM

I don't think any of us on the forums have any objections (excuse the pun) to people who object to developments with a worthwhile reason. However Brendan McCann seems to be objecting to things with no worthwhile reason in order to build up his profile and thats why we ridicule him and would rather him being at the bottom of the river (thats my opinion btw).

It just goes to show that McCann type observers are essential and should not be ridiculed.

No matter what angle I look at it from, I just can't seem to see how you think McCann types are essential! I would hardly call him an astute observer, he merely looks over the Waterford Today everyweek for the Planning noticed, cuts out the page and sends it up to An Bord Pleanala. These McCann types are hindering the development of the City as they scare developers away, I feel that that is sufficent reason to ridicule them!

Marcopolo85

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Well said Marcopolo,

Not only was the side of an airport terminal attached but the much loved Flaggy Lane, steeped in history, was blown out of the place. It just goes to show that McCann type observers are essential and should not be ridiculed.

I must disagree however with regard to pvc windows. They take from old buildings because they do not have the depth or profile of old windows. They are usually flat and totally out of character.

Thank you, but you may have missed my point. I don't class McCann as an astute observer, merely an eccentric serial objector. If he were to focus on much of the issues raised in my reply, then he might be better deployed.

But objecting to most things (just 'cause he can) constitutes, in my book, a grave abuse of the planning laws. He would be better employed keeping an eye on the ridiculous City Council decisions which I mentioned in my reply. :rolleyes:

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

Well said Marcopolo,

Not only was the side of an airport terminal attached but the much loved Flaggy Lane, steeped in history, was blown out of the place. It just goes to show that McCann type observers are essential and should not be ridiculed.

I must disagree however with regard to pvc windows. They take from old buildings because they do not have the depth or profile of old windows. They are usually flat and totally out of character.

We can all agree that citizens are obliged to prevent business, misguided councillors, or whoever, from damaging our heritage. That much is clear.

Obviously, we are not all going to agree on what constitutes "damaging our heritage" or what constitutes bad planning. But the way I see it, planning appeals can be broken down into three broad categories:
a) Bad plans that are objectively flawed and universally criticised.
b) Plans which some/many consider to be subjectively flawed.
c) Fundamentally sound plans which are overwhelmingly endorsed by the public.

We can all think of plans in the a) category that were allowed through in the past: destruction of the old train station (+ poor replacement), the plastering of reginalds tower (!), etc. We are morally obliged to object to these sorts of plans, because they are so bad.

In category b) I would put the Maritana Gate building and the Railway Sq. complex. I think they're fine and they're needed, but others would argue that they are too tall or aren't attractive. If people feel strongly about it, they should probably object, provided they look at the other side of the argument first.

In category c) I would put things like widening the airport road, renovating the Ard Ri and the proposed shopping complex on michael st (provided the specific plan is not flawed). Plans in this category provide badly (direly?) needed infrastructure/development, have a low impact on the environment/heritage or renovate/rejuvinate old, decrepid buildings. You would expect only occasional objections to such developments, and you certainly wouldn't expect the same individuals to object to a number of them.

(you can disagree with my specific examples, but I think the categories are more or less there)

Most of us, if we were inclined to object to developments, would object to most of a), some/a few of b) and maybe one c) in our lives. The problem with McCann is that he objects to everything across the board. That is what we are complaining about.

He is one of the anti-deveopment greens who objects to plans on philosophical grounds. This is an abuse of the planning laws, which are supposed to allow individuals to highlight a possibly injustice, and not to allow one, unelected man to dictate city development policy to our elected representitives and to the people of the city. McCann and his ilk will ruin this law, which is meant to empower the small man, because sooner or later these abuses will no longer be tolerated and the law will be changed. Then if I wanted to object to something, for the first time in my life, I'd probably have to get 20 signatures on a piece of paper and a grand in cash before I could do it.

This guy is not just "saving" reginald's tower, he's saving Waterford from hotels, shops, businesses and whatever else. The architects and city hall get him involved with many projects/plans/groups from the start to see if they can fullfill his requirements, but it simply doesn't make any difference. It's a desperate situation.

Aquos76

angry_fox wrote:

The Metropole should either be demolished or given some sort of face lift. Its a disgrace.

I take it you have not been down that way recently. It was demolished a couple of weeks ago. They have already began the new development of a new hotel on the site.

angry_fox

Leonard wrote:

I take it you have not been down that way recently. It was demolished a couple of weeks ago. They have already began the new development of a new hotel on the site.

No i havent . Must have a look tomorrow.

Think its fantastic how much Waterford has come along over the past few years. Anyone remember life pre-City Square? Waterford has become a fantastic place to live in and also for the tourists to visit, pity that some people are getting in the way of its development

Mossy Monk

aye, compared to the old days it is a whole lot better, cant disagree about that

merlante

Leonard wrote:

I take it you have not been down that way recently. It was demolished a couple of weeks ago. They have already began the new development of a new hotel on the site.

Yeah, heard something about that - don't know how I could have missed that when I was down. The Mariot must have gotten permission then, albeit it'll probably be a 2 storey building with the name in tiny letters above the door.

Trotter

I heard the Radisson was going in there.. and there'll be an underground carpark so it wont be ready for another year or so. Sounds good to me.

merlante

Trotter wrote:

I heard the Radisson was going in there.. and there'll be an underground carpark so it wont be ready for another year or so. Sounds good to me.

Class, much needed. How many stars do those hotels usually have. Thought they were usually 5 star hotels?

yoursfaithfully

I must say that the castle in Railway Square is very much improved with the backdrop of glazing from the new development.
The Maritana also looks as if it might grow on you.
Sure we're doin alright.
The sun is shining too !

merlante

yoursfaithfully wrote:

I must say that the castle in Railway Square is very much improved with the backdrop of glazing from the new development.
The Maritana also looks as if it might grow on you.
Sure we're doin alright.
The sun is shining too !

There you go.

In fairness to the railway square lot, the first thing they said was that they were going to emphasise the old tower in the plans, which it sounds like they have done. Can't wait to see it.

kano476

I must say i didn't like maritana gate when it was built first but it has grown on me, looks quite impressive from the park. Railway sq. also looks good and god knows that area of the city needs a facelift. Buildings like these make waterford look like an important place.

Mr. McCann is probably thinking along the lines of what the french have done in Avignon which is a city about twice the size of waterford afaik and also located on a wide river which is completely walled. here they have kept everything inside the walls as an old town and buit a new town around the walls to preserve all the old buildings and cathedrals. However i doubt this would work in waterford.

merlante

kano476 wrote:

I must say i didn't like maritana gate when it was built first but it has grown on me, looks quite impressive from the park. Railway sq. also looks good and god knows that area of the city needs a facelift. Buildings like these make waterford look like an important place.

Mr. McCann is probably thinking along the lines of what the french have done in Avignon which is a city about twice the size of waterford afaik and also located on a wide river which is completely walled. here they have kept everything inside the walls as an old town and buit a new town around the walls to preserve all the old buildings and cathedrals. However i doubt this would work in waterford.

Well, for a start, the Georgians got there first and destroyed a lot of what they thought wasn't trendy, like the city walls on the quay and the medieval Christ Church cathedral, and probably countless other "old-fashioned" medieval buildings.

Was this a bad thing? Today we would think it definitely was, but Waterford was enjoying a period of prosperity in the late 18th century, and it was very keen to shake off the image of a medieval city which was dominated (to them) by grim towers and walls, which were no use against the modern cannon anyway. They were more into fancy civic buildings, wide thoroughfares and commerce, etc.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that, for us to still have all the medieval stuff perfectly preserved, we would have had to forego that great period of prosperity that we had in the time of the georgians.

The other point is that, despite the attitude to old stuff that the georgians had, we are very lucky with the amount of stuff that has survived. The wide streets commission was set up during this time to widen the streets of Irish cities: this mostly meant knocking down most of our cities and rebuilding them. Dublin changed greatly, e.g. Westmoreland st. was built for a start: it used to be a small laneway. Limerick seems to have been almost completely rebuilt as a grid of wide streets, which is generally unusual for Ireland.

In the case of Waterford, they had to make a decision on whether to demolish the old viking triangle between reginalds tower and Broad st./ Barronstrand st. or to built outside of it. Luckily for us, they decided to built outside of it. Instead of getting rid of the old narrow streets and the likes of the french church and other old buildings, they decided they would dredge the pill (much of the mall and the tower hotel stands on what used to be an inlet called the pill) and build a wide thoroughfare called the Mall (which used to have a row of trees down the centre!). They also decided to knock the walls on the quay and eventually they built Parnell st to link up to Johnstown. (that ****ty little alley parallel to Parnell st, off Colbeck st., used to be the way over!)

Bishop's palace was the first building in Waterford to face outside of the old triangle, facing onto to what initially would have been countryside!

So in a way, we have preserved our old town. Not much business is done around cathedral square, lady lane, high st., etc. anymore, and what used to be Waterford's city centre is now a labyrinth of narrow streets, with some nice old buildings, a statue of Luke Wadding and a few good restuarants. In Ireland, it doesn't get any better than that.

witless

merlante wrote:

As for the Maritana Gate building, I think it's the finest example of modern architecture in the city, and a perfect example of how a tall building can be tastely placed between a civic park and the courthouse & grounds. And if not there, where else would you put it anyway?

I disagree. For what it's worth, I live in Maritana Gate. It looks very nice and certain aspects of its design are great, like its visual impact, the use of balconies, roof terraces and so on.

However, it has fundamental flaws. The apartments are simply too small to sustain families and the development of a community in the medium to long term. They're well constructed and have a nice finish, but one of the design criteria was clearly to squeeze in as many as possible. The apartments are separated by what I presume is just plasterboard as sound travels between apartments just as much as between rooms within an apartment. There is extremely poor natural light to the front living room of most apartments, due to the use of external corridoors which overhang each apt. They're designed entirely for the short-term buy-to-let market with little regard for the prospects of people wanting to own and live in one. Also, I think direct street access would foster more of a community spirit that the "gated" feel that the place currently has...

merlante

witless wrote:

I disagree. For what it's worth, I live in Maritana Gate. It looks very nice and certain aspects of its design are great, like its visual impact, the use of balconies, roof terraces and so on.

However, it has fundamental flaws. The apartments are simply too small to sustain families and the development of a community in the medium to long term. They're well constructed and have a nice finish, but one of the design criteria was clearly to squeeze in as many as possible. The apartments are separated by what I presume is just plasterboard as sound travels between apartments just as much as between rooms within an apartment. There is extremely poor natural light to the front living room of most apartments, due to the use of external corridoors which overhang each apt. They're designed entirely for the short-term buy-to-let market with little regard for the prospects of people wanting to own and live in one. Also, I think direct street access would foster more of a community spirit that the "gated" feel that the place currently has...

That's a pity. All I was saying was that it looks nice on the outside, what the interior design is like is another thing entirely.