Tabnabs wrote: » I sincerely hope you're right about the development and the NIMBYism from Ciaran Cuffe and the other "locals" gets a dose of realism.
Aard wrote: » What was Cuffe saying about it?
pedroeibar1 wrote: » I was in Dun Laoghaire yesterday, first time for ages. I was there to meet my former office landlord for lunch, arrived much too early so drove around old haunts. A bigger kip than ever it was, still sliding further down the gutter. Its biggest problem is DLRCC, who appear to still have an absolute disconnect with commercial reality, not just in relation to the town itself, but also with other areas & traffic control within their jurisdiction. It is hard to know where to start...... Commercial Rates – still no relation between services provided / money paid. It’s on the DART, Several bus routes, so it is ‘desirable’ if run properly but sadly it’s not.... (I closed my office there, years ago, saw no point in paying almost €20k p.a. in rates for nothing. It's still unlet................)
pedroeibar1 wrote: » A town of two halves – a strip mall, interrupted by the ‘Adelphi’ site - now blank offices – what were the Planners thinking? Are they even qualified?
pedroeibar1 wrote: » S#ite PVC windows have been installed in many nice buildings....why has that been allowed?
pedroeibar1 wrote: » Image – derelict buildings, junkies, pharmacies, €shops, charity shops everywhere. Retail – blank vacant shopfronts, crap image, skangers allowed do what they like in doorways.
pedroeibar1 wrote: » Parking – ridiculously expensive for a suburban town. My lunch host kept on looking at his watch to remind me not to get a ticket. Wardens apparently are a curse, clampers on the seafront.
pedroeibar1 wrote: » Dunnes – they own the block they are on, they had/have planning, they should be forced to improve their frontage, most of the shopfronts are a disgrace and smell of pi$$.
pedroeibar1 wrote: » Charity shops – does the CoCo not realise that these shops are killing real traders? Charity shop product is provided FREE, their staff are volunteers and work for FREE. How can ordinary businesses compete? Also, in general, pop-up shops do not pay VAT, here today, gone tomorrow.
pedroeibar1 wrote: » New library – well it will provide shelter for the skangers, heat and warmth for them, oldies and the junkies. I’m not a fan of what is currently viewable, it destroys the symmetry of the seafront.
pedroeibar1 wrote: » I arrived via Cherrywood on M50, drove to DL via Vico Rd and Dalkey – disgraceful condition, the railings on Killiney Hill could not be seen they were so overgrown, (is there a Parks Dept. still?) a really stupid ugly concrete ‘curb/kerb’ ran along them buried under weeds and the parking area was so narrow even a small car protruded over the lines. Five hundred metres from the village there are two (yes, just 2) metered spaces on Sorrento Rd, FFS! All that from a drive-by; imagine what it would be like if anybody took time to study it at length.
pedroeibar1 wrote: » So the ladies who lunch or old fellas like me up from the country have a choice of going to Dundrum (BTs, Harvey Nichs, House of Fraser, ect, ) or Dun Laoghaire (Age Action, Vincent de Paul, Barnardos, etc.) . Errr, em, was that a question, or even a choice??
Larbre34 wrote: » That badeschiff proposal for the harbour is ridiculously expensive for punters, I think its a pity if theres never a public sea bath in the bay again.
What would you rather see, the dereliction remain exactly as is or a simple scheme that opens up the site and makes it accessible while improving the visual and continuing the busy route from Sandycove to the Pier? The thing is being built in such a way that it doesnt obstruct a future building of sea-baths if money becomes available.
pedroeibar1 wrote: S#ite PVC windows have been installed in many nice buildings....why has that been allowed?
Tabnabs wrote: » He had a €15m alternative in mind.http://www.ciarancuffe.ie/PR/2005/PR051010D.DunLaoghaireBaths.htm
ted1 wrote: » that's from 2005. what ever about the idea i'm sure the figures would be very different.
"My preference would be for the development of a heated 25 metre pool on the site, together with a children's paddling pool and a café with views across Dublin Bay. I'd also like to see a small gym in the development. This might cost around 15 million Euro. That would be around the same price as the Monkstown ringroad proposals that were published by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council last week. Why not drop the road and spend the money on the Baths instead? "I don't want to see a high rise proposal on the site, and I don't want to see infill of ScotsmansBay."
Cookie_Monster wrote: » Because security, insulation and energy usage reduction trumps minor visual changes.
Larbre34 wrote: » Basic maintenance is one thing, but you cant force a private entity to invest where there is no trade. So long as they dont commence any work, any current planning permission withers after 5 years.
Larbre34 wrote: » No function here for the CoCo, the shops are let by private owners, charity shops pay money to rent them, they are engaged in retail trade which is what the buildings are zoned for. The country is on its knees so charity shops are booming, thats just where we are right now. Wouldnt begrudge them any money they make for cancer, homelessness etc either.
Larbre34 wrote: » Presumably the facility will be managed better than the old park that preceded it, however the scale of it is a bit scary, turning out much more imposing than the plans suggested. Taking a wait and see on this one.
Larbre34 wrote: » The locals rejected a plan to make Vico one-way some years ago, now its a case of 3 into 2 doesnt go. Killiney Hill is a wild common land park, I wouldnt expect it to be manicured, but in fairness some of the parks around the area are kept beautifully. Cabinteely, Marley, Peoples Park look really well.
Tabnabs wrote: » Anyone in the area should take a walk down today to see why this spot is not the best location to start building beaches, baths etc.
ricero wrote: » what also helped to kill dun laoghaire was the way in which they made the main street heading towards the hospital a one way street which imo was an absolutely stupid idea
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » One major culprit which is holding Dun Laoghaire and indeed other coastal towns like Blackrock and especially Dalkey back from competing properly with the newer town centers is the overly stringent conservation laws. To a certain extent, I can understand the need to preserve a towns character. However, upon reading some of the documents which outline measures for conservation, some of the regulations have seriously negative implications for urban and suburban vitality. For example, it discourages modest scale advertisement panels or illuminated signage along commercial building fascia. Apparently, the reason for this is to prevent "visual clutter" which is a rather petty reason at that. It is completely out of touch with modern business practices and particularly, those which stimulate revenue. Other examples of restrictions include limitations on the size (square footage) of retail units. The way I see it is, if shop owners and other merchants can find a way to achieve maximum retail unit space without destructive alterations to the build facade, be my guest. One of the reasons why the newer town centers are doing so well is that their retail units are much bigger in scale and hence, are able to accommodate better variety. The two aforementioned examples of conservation measures seem to be closely tied in with the prevalent coastal NIMBY attitude which is choking the life out of the towns along it. Whilst I amn't suggesting the destruction of the character in these towns, I do think the level of nit picking seen in conservation documents needs to be heavily revised to remove obstacles to progress.
ted1 wrote: » I really think you havn't got a clue on no way can Dalkey compete with purpose built town centres, not should it. As a village it's not doing to bad. It serves its purpose, it would be destroyed if cheap and tacky billboards etc where allowed its a heritage town and should be preserved as such. If you want generic town centres then you should just relocate to any town in England that has being ruined by generic high streets. Purpose built town centres have sufficient parking, low energy buildings, no life after shops close, no soul, no appeal to tourists
ted1 wrote: » I really think you havn't got a clue on no way can Dalkey compete with purpose built town centres, not should it.
Alias G wrote: » Have to agree with this. I sometimes wonder why Patrick even chooses to live in the area considering some of his posts.
ted1 wrote: » As a village it's not doing to bad.
ted1 wrote: » It serves its purpose, it would be destroyed if cheap and tacky billboards etc where allowed its a heritage town and should be preserved as such.
ted1 wrote: » If you want generic town centres then you should just relocate to any town in England that has being ruined by generic high streets.
ted1 wrote: » Purpose built town centres have sufficient parking, low energy buildings, no life after shops close, no soul, no appeal to tourists
Larbre34 wrote: » If anything conservation was too slack for too long. If you go to old cities in places like Germany and Austria, you can see how they blend modern signage and building use with stringent building conservation. They lost so much of their architectural heritage in the war they are very strict on preservation of whats left, and it doesnt hinder the ability of buildings to remain vital and useful. We are fortunate to have a decent architectural heritage, despite our best efforts to demolish it between the 1950s-80s, I dont think we can go too far in trying to protect it.
ted1 wrote: » I really think you havn't got a clue on no way can Dalkey compete with purpose built town centres, not should it. As a village it's not doing to bad. It serves its purpose, it would be destroyed if cheap and tacky billboards etc where allowed
Alias G wrote: » Dun Laoghaire will still have a scattering of charity shops and there is no harm in that either since not everyone has money.
Alias G wrote: » Didn't mean to come across as hostile.
Alias G wrote: » Simply that your idea of the modern shopping experience as I believe you called it is simply never going to fit into the Dun Laoghaire or Dalkey model.
Alias G wrote: » These areas should be aiming to attract more artisan type stores. They are never going to compete with Dundrum anyway.
Alias G wrote: » It just strikes me that an apartment in Carrickmines or Dundrum would suit your tastes. All the modern shopping convenience you want and the M50 on your doorstep.
Aard wrote: » A big problem with Dalkey and other older coastal suburbs is that they they lack the modern building infrastructure required by retailers of today.
Aard wrote: » I'm not too familiar with the Starbucks fiasco, but it sounds like a case of shooting yourself in the foot. Even if Starbucks wasn't "local" it still would have boosted retail confidence.
Aard wrote: » Dalkey needs to loosen up a bit, or all of this preservationism could lead to unhalting decline.
patrickbrophy18 wrote: » On that note, the road infrastructure between Dun Laoghaire and Shankill along the coast is shockingly bad. This holds true particularly, in Dalkey and further south where roads are barely suitable for cars let alone buses and much bigger vehicles. Dalkey Avenue, Barnhill Road and many of the roads in the Killiney area stand out the most in this regard in that they are too narrow for a suburban setting. While other roads like Castlepark Road, Hyde Road, Ulverton Road and Breffni/Sandycove Road aren't too bad, some of them still have cars parked on both sides hindering bus access. Given that Ulverton, Breffni and Sandycove Roads are collectively the most direct and main route to Dun Laoghaire, there should be double yellow lines most of the way along. I'm sure that many people would agree that Fitzpatrick's Castle Hotel is a very prominent building to the south of Dalkey Town. In fact, it's a very big hotel on a similar scale to those in Dun Laoghaire, Stillorgan and Sandyford. Yet, accessibility is very poor as all of the roads which feed on to it's grounds are inadequate. By it's very nature, it's a tourist attraction. As such, tour buses should be encouraged to visit the hotel on a regular basis on top of the existing Aircoach service. However, for buses to get in, it requires lengthy detours through roads which would be considered mediocre (at best) by today's standards. One would think that the local council might have reserved land for road widening between Dalkey and Fitzpatrick's Castle since the hotel was established in the 1970's. Unfortunately, the disorganized or non strategic residential planning in the intermediate area since then has left no room for adequate improvement to the road infrastructure. This also goes for the rest of the road network to the south-east of Fitzpatrick's Castle as far as Shankill. There were numerous invalid reason's why people objected to Starbucks in Dalkey. Many of them where seen in a Bebo profile entitled "Dalkey Against Starbucks" which was really pathetic. Some people objected to it because it was an American brand which is xenophobic. Some people even cited the areas heritage as an excuse. Any argument that uses an areas heritage as a smoke screen for xenophobia is devoid of credibility and makes me embarrassed to be Irish. That makes two of us!
ted1 wrote: » Your a comedian the roads in the area date back a long time and there's not much scope to widen them. They add to the areas charm.
ted1 wrote: » As suggested before by another poster I think you should really look at moving else where as you don't appreciate the area and want to change it so that it matched the soulless apartments/ concrete jungles being built in places like carrick mines.
ted1 wrote: » As regards xenophobia that's a ridiculous comment, people didn't want Starbucks as they want to keep the charm if the village and keep it unique. To many villages have become clones in that they all ate copied of each other and offer the same shops etc. people want to keep Dalkey different
ted1 wrote: » As regards killiney castle being a tourist attraction , it's the area and roads that make it such. It would lose its character if there was a wide modern road leading straight up to it.
