Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fire in Douglas - See Mod note in post #506

1…1112141617…38

Comments

  • #392
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    Yes I guess that was the thing, people were glad of some kind of development and maybe they didn't really appreciate fully the negative impacts it would have in terms of noise, dust etc. In a depressed and miserable 1980s Ireland, something being visually obtrusive wasn't really considered an issue.

    Now with years of experience with noise, dust and taking up of amenity land people look back and say maybe we don't want to do things like that again as it has had negative impacts on people living nearby.

    All I know is this, if that road wasn't there and it was proposed by TII/council to be built in its current form, it would not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting approved. No-one would tolerate putting an elevated dual carriage way through that area nowadays.

    Look at the opposition to virtually every other significant road project in Cork, except maybe for Dunkettle, but even it has its detractors, including myself.


  • #393
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,591 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    A tunnel might not have been hugely expensive at the time as it could have been done via cut and cover. Would never have been considered back then.


  • #394
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,793 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    To be honest, I think that the revamped shopping centre was way more of an eyesore that the dual carriage way. In my opinion, that shopping centre completely ruined Douglas from an aesthetic point of view.

    Did the elevated dual carriage way really go in in the 80's?
    I would have thought it was the 90's.


  • #395
    jhegarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,441 ✭✭✭jhegarty


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    To be honest, I think that the revamped shopping centre was way more of an eyesore that the dual carriage way. In my opinion, that shopping centre completely ruined Douglas from an aesthetic point of view.

    Did the elevated dual carriage way really go in in the 80's?
    I would have thought it was the 90's.

    It opened in sections starting in 1990. I presume work was already started during the late 80s.


  • #396
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    Yes I agree, the shopping centre is a terrible eyesore on the village. It sucked the village feel out of Douglas. Hopefully the damage is extensive enough to warrant a complete demolition and perhaps it would make way for a redevelopment more a appropriate to its setting.

    The flyovers opened in 1986. There is a plaque on the abutment of the east flyover anyway saying as such.
    A tunnel might not have been hugely expensive at the time as it could have been done via cut and cover. Would never have been considered back then.

    A tunnel would have be vastly more expensive true, but it would have been easily technically feasible.
    Certainly if that road was not there and had to be build now, a tunnel would be the only option with half a chance of success.

    The loss of the foreshore and adjacent lands overlooking Lough Mahon to the N40 land take along Douglas and Rochestown was a travesty. If that land was there now it would have been an amazing public amenity, no doubt it would have facilitated a greenway and provided habitat for wildlife. All that is there now is noise and tarmac and barreling traffic.

    I would be opposed to any further development of the N40 including Dunkettle. Build it an they will come! A wider or higher capacity road will only enable and facilitate more traffic to thunder through that corridor meaning more noise, more dust and more noxious gases. Capacity restrictions serve as a brake or throttle on the road and encourage people to stagger their travel times. With an even higher capacity road, there is no such incentive.
    I think the Dunkettle upgrade is a bad idea. The only throttle on the route is to be removed. Imagine then with no incentive to change commute timing, that amount of traffic being rammed unimpeded in along lower Glanmire road and rammed out towards douglas. It will just be chasing our tail with road upgrades.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,793 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    Yes I agree, the shopping centre is a terrible eyesore on the village. It sucked the village feel out of Douglas. Hopefully the damage is extensive enough to warrant a complete demolition and perhaps it would make way for a redevelopment more a appropriate to its setting.


    .

    Problem is that it's the front part where the gym is that I find really ugly. I don't imagine they will redevelop that part if it's not damaged. I don't really see how they could improve the look of the car park much.


  • #398
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    It could certainly be made to look less imposing by removing the large angular projecting canopy and installing a facade more in keeping with the look and feel of the village. Stepping back of the upper stories would reduce the perceived height of the building, which dwarfs all neighbouring buildings.

    The car park is by far the most ugly. The impact of the car park could have been reduced by putting perhaps 2 basement levels instead of all above ground. The likely very significant loading from the adjacent N40 reinforced earth structure might make this risky or too costly though.


  • #399
    zilog_jones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,638 ✭✭✭zilog_jones


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    A tunnel might not have been hugely expensive at the time as it could have been done via cut and cover. Would never have been considered back then.

    Most of the South Ring follows the path of the Tramore River, in particular the Douglas flyover which is built right over it. Where is there space for a tunnel?

    The Douglas Village car park was probably one of the nicest looking multi-storey car parks in the city, IMO. Look at Merchant's Quay, Paul Street, or pretty much everything in the city centre - they are just grey desolate concrete. North Main Street car park wouldn't look out of place in a war zone, I didn't even know it was open it looks so derelict! That area of the city is a disgrace.

    I agree it is too imposing and totally out of place in comparison to the rest of Douglas village though.


  • #400
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    It could have been simply tunneled underneath the Tramore river. I doubt a small river like that would have prevented a tunnel. Sure the Lee and Shannon tunnels go under vastly larger rivers for a longer distance than would be required in Douglas.

    I agree about the car park. It is probably the least ugly of the multistorey car parks in Cork. At least some sort of effort was put into giving a facade that was not simply grey concrete.

    Multistorey car parks are curse. Underground car parks should be the only type permitted.

    I was recently in Belgium and saw about the history they had with historic town squares blighted by car parking. What they did was to simply bury the problem - a lot of the squares are underlain by large underground car parks. I was surprised to learn of it. To walk along the square with it's open air bars and restaurants you'd never imagine there were cars beneath you.


  • #401
    TheDriver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,793 ✭✭✭✭TheDriver


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    The impact of the car park could have been reduced by putting perhaps 2 basement levels instead of all above ground. .

    The burning zafira would have had some impact then


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    Well underground car parks require sprinkers or other fire suppression. So maybe, maybe not.

    People are giving out and saying it is a disgrace that the car park didn't have sprinklers. The building and fire safety regulations don't require them in overground car parks. So why would they put them in if it wasn't required. There was nothing illegal about it.


  • #403
    Herb Powell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭Herb Powell


    What's legal and what's good are two separate things


  • #404
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    That is true.

    But there was no obligation on the owners to install sprinklers.
    So people who are shocked and complaining and saying it's a disgrace are only wasting their breath.


  • #405
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,793 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Is the story that the woman drove into the carpark with a smoking car verified or is it still hearsay?


  • #406
    who_me
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    Well underground car parks require sprinkers or other fire suppression. So maybe, maybe not.

    People are giving out and saying it is a disgrace that the car park didn't have sprinklers. The building and fire safety regulations don't require them in overground car parks. So why would they put them in if it wasn't required. There was nothing illegal about it.

    I think we now know the answer to that.


  • #407
    mytholder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 ✭mytholder


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    The car park is by far the most ugly. The impact of the car park could have been reduced by putting perhaps 2 basement levels instead of all above ground. The likely very significant loading from the adjacent N40 reinforced earth structure might make this risky or too costly though.

    Doesn't a stream flow right under the shopping centre?


  • #408
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    It does.

    It could be worked around.

    that stream shouldn't have been culverted. It should have been left open and the centre built around it and the stream kept as a featuer and amenity.

    I know someone who was walkigng their dog and the dog went into the culvert and ran off under tesco and didn't come out for ages.


  • #409
    run_Forrest_run
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,486 ✭✭✭run_Forrest_run


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    It does.

    I know someone who was walkigng their dog and the dog went into the culvert and ran off under tesco and didn't come out for ages.

    dog owner could have popped into maxi zoo to buy a dog lead :rolleyes:


  • #410
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    jhegarty wrote: »
    It opened in sections starting in 1990. I presume work was already started during the late 80s.

    The South Link Road was constructed mid-1980s, work on sections of the South Ring Road began in the 1980s.


  • #411
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    mytholder wrote: »
    Doesn't a stream flow right under the shopping centre?

    It used to be largely open and ran to the north of the old surface car park. It's part of the Tramore River, An Dubh Glas in Irish, anglicised to Douglas.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    airy fairy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭airy fairy


    sondagefaux wrote: »
    The South Link Road was constructed mid-1980s, work on sections of the South Ring Road began in the 1980s.

    I'm in denial of my age...is it really that long ago?!
    I guess admitting I remember Quinnsworth would really be an admission of my aging years!


  • #413
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    Yes I agree, the shopping centre is a terrible eyesore on the village. It sucked the village feel out of Douglas. Hopefully the damage is extensive enough to warrant a complete demolition and perhaps it would make way for a redevelopment more a appropriate to its setting.

    The flyovers opened in 1986. There is a plaque on the abutment of the east flyover anyway saying as such.



    A tunnel would have be vastly more expensive true, but it would have been easily technically feasible.
    Certainly if that road was not there and had to be build now, a tunnel would be the only option with half a chance of success.

    The loss of the foreshore and adjacent lands overlooking Lough Mahon to the N40 land take along Douglas and Rochestown was a travesty. If that land was there now it would have been an amazing public amenity, no doubt it would have facilitated a greenway and provided habitat for wildlife. All that is there now is noise and tarmac and barreling traffic.

    I would be opposed to any further development of the N40 including Dunkettle. Build it an they will come! A wider or higher capacity road will only enable and facilitate more traffic to thunder through that corridor meaning more noise, more dust and more noxious gases. Capacity restrictions serve as a brake or throttle on the road and encourage people to stagger their travel times. With an even higher capacity road, there is no such incentive.
    I think the Dunkettle upgrade is a bad idea. The only throttle on the route is to be removed. Imagine then with no incentive to change commute timing, that amount of traffic being rammed unimpeded in along lower Glanmire road and rammed out towards douglas. It will just be chasing our tail with road upgrades.

    The Dunkettle interchange will have to go ahead if the upgrades and expansion at Ringaskiddy, including the construction of the M28, is to succeed.


  • #414
    TheDriver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,793 ✭✭✭✭TheDriver


    The cars in section beside the fire have now been taken out I think so they're flying it


  • #415
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    airy fairy wrote: »
    I'm in denial of my age...is it really that long ago?!
    I guess admitting I remember Quinnsworth would really be an admission of my aging years!

    I remember Quinnsworth (for younger posters: one of Ireland's two dominant supermarket chains before it was sold to Tesco) and the arrival of Santa Claus by helicopter to the Shopping Centre in the early 1970s. Back in the day, only smaller shops opened for a few hours on Sundays so the old surface car park made a grand spot for skate-boarding when the shopping centre was closed on Sundays.

    As far as I know, it was the first suburban shopping mall in Ireland outside of Dublin, and was built in the mid/late 1960s.

    It was originally semi uncovered, with large canopies rather than a fully-covered mall, similar to the original Stillorgan Shopping Centre.

    I don't remember it being enclosed and renamed to Douglas Village Shopping Centre until after Douglas Court SC opened.


  • #416
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,441 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    More allegations doing the rounds this lunchtime. One of the lads at work said they were told that the owner of the Opel Zafira got a recall notice and ignored it, only alleged but still food for thought, if true where do the manufacturer stand in regards liability, where does the owner stand regarding their own insurance if they ignored a recall.


  • #417
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    sondagefaux wrote: »
    The Dunkettle interchange will have to go ahead if the upgrades and expansion at Ringaskiddy, including the construction of the M28, is to succeed.

    does it HAVE to?

    The existing interchange is perfectly adequate for the traffic that uses it 21 or 22 hours per day. Spending fortunes ungrading it to cater for 1 hour morning and evening seems excessive to me.
    Measures to encourage businesses and institutions, including the port, to stagger their start/finish times might achieve the same goal. And the incentives would come at a much reduced monetary cost.
    Say, for example, an ANPR system at port and dunkettle, and port bound/originating vehicles are surcharged a €10 toll or whatever for using the junction between 8-9am and 5 - 6pm.
    Businesses given incentives, tax relief to offset shift times.
    ANPR barrier free tolling for use of the junction during rush hours.

    Of course there are challenges in this, but they are much more easily overcome than the engineering challenges of the upgrade.

    Upgrading it is the same old thinking - bigger, wider road at the end of the day. That will give us the same old results - more cars, more trucks, moving the traffic jam on down the road to the next weakest point.
    A system to promote behavioural like I describe change is worth investigating in future problems like that.

    The M28 project is over zealous. A realingment and widening of the existing N28 would suffice. Along with perhaps alteration of the Shannonpark junction and perhaps a relief road to give residents around Seanbally respite from the traffic.


  • #418
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,570 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    sondagefaux wrote: »
    It used to be largely open and ran to the north of the old surface car park. It's part of the Tramore River, An Dubh Glas in Irish, anglicised to Douglas.
    The stream running under the car park is the Ballybrack Stream, runs through the park before cutting under the car park. It was the source of most of the flooding a years ago.


  • #419
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    The trash screen got blocked and the stream spewed out into the village.


  • #420
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,618 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Herb Powell wrote: »
    What's legal and what's good are two separate things

    There was a fire expert on Red FM who said sprinklers would have been useless.
    Only a foam suppression system would have worked.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    That's what I was thinking too. Car fires are mostly burning plastic and oil, a sprinkler spraying water will have a hard time putting them out, probably ineffective. Also, a fire in a car is mostly sheltered and protected by the shell of the car. Water from sprinklers won't get in.

    And if you are spraying the high volumes of water you'd need to extinguish a car fire or foam into a car park, that would not be safe as there will be people in there that could be injured by high pressure water gushing out of nozzles.


Advertisement