Cultural heritage being concreted over

Screaminmidget wrote: »

I wouldnt mind if the tunnels were open or if people even knew about them and were accessible, but the fact that they were closed and not many people cared suggests to me that they werent that significant in the first place...

I know what you mean but at the same time the general publics access to a monument is probably not an appropriate means of judging its cultural importance, if that makes sense. Im not arguing for these mind, the simple fact of the modern world is that archaeology is precious but it cant always trump new development, especially in a scenario like this where it appears to be in a very central area. I just meant that its sad (albeit often necessary) to see little bits of culture get destroyed.

I find that actually quite sad. Was over in Manchester and you can walk through the old foundations and there is a chronological history of the city from the settlement until it was rebuilt in the 1990's. Why couldn't they have done something like that?

Deleted User wrote: »

Clay brick + lime mortar + moisture + time = dust

Sure they could be fixed up but it would cost a whole lot of money. Do I know exactly how much? No.

It is a shame they have to be destroyed in this way but there is no financially viable alternative.

As I said before, the same was done in Cork after sections of road started collapsing.

In this case they are making a pre emptive strike, a rare example of forward planning.

Would you like if it was you or one of your family that was passing over when they finally give way?

Lime mortar not only survives better in moist conditions. It actually needs moisture. I thought you'd know that.

Anyway, I''m not too interested in a pissing contest. You raised a number of engineering concerns and I provided the appropriate answers. I don't intend to go into a dissertation on circular, elliptical and parabolic arches.

The pre-emptive strike undertaken by Limerick city council in this case is a clumsy, heavy-handed admission of defeat, in my opinion, and not something that any professional ought to be proud of. It's like shooting the patient to get rid of the headache.

Those arches are not just an archaeological curiosity. Used with imagination, they could have been, and still could be where they remain unvandalised, a valuable resource.

I don't know about you, James, but this town is where I grew up. I value my town and its heritage. For too long, our country was controlled by bean counters and look where that got us. Maybe it's time we got back to a place where we value things that aren't measurable on dials and gauges.

In other words, let's get back to being civilised, and start to value what we have before it's all gone.

Deleted User wrote: »

I admire your idealism, I just don't think it's particularly feasible in this case. Stregthening old masonry arches to the point where you can be confident they can support HGVs and so on is very difficult, time consuming and expensive. I don't think the people of Limerick would be particularly happy to have large sections of the cities streets shut down for weeks on end so that subterran arches can be restored, when filling them with concrete is so much cheaper and faster.

It isn't idealism. If anything, it's pragmatism, since these vaults could be used to generate money for the town. I'd be interested to see precisely what signs of failure have been observed in William Street. Are you aware of any?

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously I haven't, but, as I've said several times now, similar arches have collapsed before, leading to large sections of street disappearing into a hole in the ground. It is a known risk with this type of structure.

We can only deal with what's in front of us. Some of the commenters here have been quite specific in stating that the William Street arches are about to fall down, despite an apparent absence of evidence in support of that claim.

Normally, when making a categorical statement of this kind, the least one might expect is an empirical observation indicating that a problem exists.

Yes?

Deleted User wrote: »

Observing that similar structures have failed is an emperical observation.

I'm afraid it isn't. That's simply an indication that it would be prudent to survey these ones.

Empirical observation happens when someone studies the arches in William Street to check for signs of failure.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

By "foreseeable future" I was considering a 5-7 year time-frame.

How did you calculate the figure of 5 to 7 years?

Deleted User wrote: »

em-pir-i-kuhl] –adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment

Oh dear. Are we back to that?

Insect Overlord wrote: »

By estimation.

Consider a scenario where the road is fixed up on the surface only. It gets its new wide footpaths and bus-stops, but without updates to the foundations. The proposed changes to O'Connell Street still go ahead, forcing far more traffic onto William Street. Demand on the street increases (because, let's face it, the Shannon Tunnel isn't taking the traffic it was intended to) and the foundations will be stressed more.

When you say "stressed more", do you mean in the classical sense that measurable stresses will be higher due to heavier vehicles, or do you mean vehicles will be more frequent?

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The latter of the two, combined with the following.

Consider also the weather patterns we've experienced in recent winters/springs. You'll have noticed the widespread pot-holes all over the city and suburbs. I'd imagine that 200 year old concrete is liable to damage by freeze-thaw action too, although probably not to the same extent as tarmacadam.

Again, even without the architectural considerations, do you believe that the tunnels in that particular location could have been made attractive as a tourist spot? I can see how it might have been interesting to engineering students, but there's no financial gain in field-trips from I.T.s.

Therefore, are you saying that the extra traffic frequency will give rise to some sort of fatigue failure? I ask you this because it will certainly not give rise to increased loading on the foundations. At present, and for many years, traffic has been at a standstill on that street, and that represents the maximum possible static loading.

I agree with you that William Street has been disgracefully neglected, but that's a wider planning issue, outside the scope of the two posts I wrote on BTR. However, I certainly don't advocate surrender simply because successive planning authorities have been too myopic to realise that the street needs protection.

Regarding your comment about freeze-thaw action, let me return to a question I already asked : where are the survey data?

I'll take that as a pass, then.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Likewise.

If you're not going to research your articles properly, you'll be lucky if anyone takes them seriously.

Excuse me? If a council engineer wants to comment on this discussion, I'll be happy to engage with him. Right now, I have only you.

Please indicate where my post is improperly researched.