Proposed/Recently Refused Infill Developments in Dalkey

I might as well bump this thread up given that some of the developments mentioned at the start of the thread are pressing ahead (notably Dalkey Manor, Charleville, Castlepark School and NOW, Bulloch Harbour).

As well as that, there is a proposal to build a New Parish Hall which will completely enclose the Dalkey main street and result in the loss of parking spaces for Dalkey Church.

In response to this, I posted the following piece to the Dalkey Open Forum on Facebook which I still think needs to be considered:

I think before anything is done with the Church Car Park for the New Parish Centre, consider the following project I have been working on:
It aims to re-organise traffic movements in Dalkey:

1. A new road way above the railway would transform it from a half-pipe to a tunnel with cars, buses, trucks and bicycles on the top deck and trains on the bottom deck which it is presently.
   
2. A new road going southbound would link Castle Street to the the road-way mentioned in 1.
   
3. Dalkey Avenue and Kilbegnet Close would carry traffic northbound.
   
4. Cunningham Road would become one-way going southbound from the road-way in point 1.
   
5. Dalkey Park, Hillside, Old Quary and Dalkey Avenue Upper would form a cohesive roundabout with widening on Dalkey Avenue from Old Quary to the road-way in point 1.
   
6. A turnabout facility on a second level of Dalkey Station would be provisioned for buses as a longterm plan for a transport interchange facility.
   Anyway, let me know what you all think.
   

Also, the following is a link to the project I call "Dalkey2.0":

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1D_U4YPboq-L4fQtbs36GSWhKY6H4GxXB&usp=sharing

Let me know what you guys think.

Larbre34 wrote: »

You've come up with a few doozies in your time but this is crazy stuff, with no grounding in necessity, cost benefit, engineering or sustainable planning consideration.

"A new road way above the railway would transform it from a half-pipe to a tunnel with cars, buses, trucks and bicycles on the top deck and trains on the bottom deck which it is presently."

A new road whose purpose is what? A segregated road that could be no longer than about 1.2 kms and that has no prospect of high quality connectivity at either end. Basically useless.

"A new road going southbound would link Castle Street to the the road-way mentioned in 1.
Dalkey Avenue and Kilbegnet Close would carry traffic northbound."

"A new road going southbound" through where? I hope its somewhere more accessible than your northbound option, Kilbegnet Close, which by the way dead ends at the private gate and grounds of a large house. Utterly uneconomical and indefensible in a Part 8 hearing. Not to mention the drop in grade from Dalkey Avenue would be something like 6 metres over 3 metres, do you plan to fit a car lift?

"Cunningham Road would become one-way going southbound from the road-way in point 1.
Dalkey Park, Hillside, Old Quarry and Dalkey Avenue Upper would form a cohesive roundabout with widening on Dalkey Avenue from Old Quary to the road-way in point 1.
A turnabout facility on a second level of Dalkey Station would be provisioned for buses as a longterm plan for a transport interchange facility."

Whats the point in funnelling that traffic around to either Castle Street or your new railway line road, the lack of permeability leaves you no better off. A second deck on Dalkey Station. Right. Nothing quite says heritage town quite like deep piling and concrete decks, not to mention the buildings that would have to be demolished to build ramps of sufficient approach grade.

"Anyway, let me know what you all think."

The only thing destined to happen to Dalkey in the future is a greater squeeze on the private car in a reallocation of the existing roadspace. In other words, the same as every place else.

As always, your response is very condescending. You think that because you're an architect, you know what is best for an area. I am talking about a long-term plan where the necessity for better infrastructure may accumulate over time. I understand the cost benefit skepticism. However, we need to start planning a future for Dalkey that ensures that it doesn't become a silo.

The map which I provided should be pretty self-explanatory. Also, when I was designing it on Google Earth, I was considering what space was available from what is seen in the satellite imagery. Now, maybe I didn't take into account drops in grades and other more technical design aspects. Finally, the limited capabilities of Google Earth restricted my design to the use of polygons layered meticulously on top of each other.

The black areas represent pathways while the grey areas represent roadways. The black lines are merely points where the aforementioned polygons meet or rough outlines for road direction and width consistency. For example, Kilbegnet Close, Castle Street, the new road through the Church Car Park and the Westbound Lane on the deck 2 Railway Road would form a cohesive loop. Similarly, Dalkey Park, Dalkey Avenue, the Eastbound Lane on the deck 2 Railway Road and Cunningham Road would be another loop.

The more exposed parts of this second deck like that above Dalkey Dart Station would NOT be rendered in concrete and would instead be built with castle like rendering and Roman style arches so that they compliment the heritage of the area. Moreover, the second deck would be on the same level as the bridge adjacent to the train station so that the current road incline between it and the station itself can be maintained.

Also, if the traffic generated from Cherrywood causes existing tailbacks in Dun Laoghaire to become exacerbated, the proposal I have or a variation there of would provide Dun Laoghaire some much needed relief. In short, I think Dalkey needs to get with the times and play a far more prominent role for public transport provision and cycling too. Currently, the road system caters almost exclusively to the car.

So, allowing it to stagnate and become more cut off is what is right for it?

What are the benefits of being more cut off and isolated?

All this serves to do is make Dalkey more car dependent.

How does that make any sense?

I would like to see new life breathed into the area instead. Also, what do you mean by sustainable?

Larbre34 wrote: »

Is that really what you've responded with? A common colloquial saying as old as the hills and you are more concerned about it being sexist?

A tad dramatic on my part, I know!

Larbre34 wrote: »

Do you know anything about anything or is the reality in your head just very different? I'm done with you now.

As an ordinary consumer of the suburban environment, I can tell you first hand how frustrating it was to get anywhere in my teens and early 20s without a car. For example, while I was working for Dunnes Stores in Cornelscourt, I found it intensely annoying relying on the 59 which came every 45 minutes. On occasion, I would miss it if it left 10 minutes earlier than the posted time. Once, I had to get a taxi as a result of this forcing me to fork up a considerable sum of my earnings given the part time nature of the work.:mad:

Next up, while I was working for IBM in Damastown, the situation was far worse. However, it was the length of time rather than the frequency of routes which made getting there sole destroying. DCU was the only manageable one given that the timetable wasn't so stringent.

So, in summary, having the denizens of Dalkey try keeping it exclusive leaves those willing to avail of transport modes other than the car out in the cold. In other words, the smug superior types are part of the problem. Dublin's disjointed transport situation is the much bigger problem. Therefore, I do know precisely what I am saying from a consumer, commuter and employee perspective.

There's my life story!

ted1 wrote: »

I’ve suggested in the past that you move to a development like Carrickmines, where’s there’s access, random retail parks etc.

As per my main response to Larbre34 (directly above), as a kid, teen or someone in their early 20s, many people are unable to afford this move. So, getting to areas like Cornelscourt, Stillorgan and other employment centres is a nightmare and their parents should certainly not try keeping it that way.

On an unrelated note, I do have Asperger's Syndrome. As such, I see things differently and prefer a more systematic approach to places, politics and others.

ted1 wrote: »

You seem to completely miss the perks and reasons why people choose to live in the Dalkey area.

It's for the sea views, village (:rolleyes:) style town and amenities. I don't imagine that the narrow roads are part of these perks and yes, the bulk of the roads can afford to stay narrow as they lead to nowhere.

ted1 wrote: »

There’s a reason for high property prices.

This is another problem entirely where people try to restrict the housing stock to keep prices artificially inflated.

ted1 wrote: »

And that is because people want to live in the area.

I think expectations for new comers needs to be changed where Dalkey is tastefully updated for better public transport and cycle provision instead of having the outpost nature the status quo.

Kingp35 wrote: »

I am utterly amazed that you grew up in Dalkey if you believe the above.

So, you're amazed that I grew up in Dalkey because I don't perpetuate the snobbish, divisive and identity politics driven attitude of others.

Kingp35 wrote: »

The reason I and most people who grew up in Dalkey love it so much is BECAUSE it is cut off.

Again, divisive! How is that good for the rest of the potential footfall?
Also, how is this good for business?
What message does this convey?

Kingp35 wrote: »

It is completely unique in that it's a Dublin suburb that still feels like it's own isolated community with no through road and it's all the better for it.

Let's run down a list of what Dalkey has and has not compared with other suburbs:

Dalkey Has:

1. Nice-houses like loads of others in Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Bray and many more.
2. The DART which I amn't disputing is a brilliant transport mode.
3. Sea views which, again, is the same situation in Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Bray etc.
4. An island off it which IS unique and which wouldn't be affected by any proposals I would have.
5. A hill shared with neighbouring Killiney which again would be largely unaffected by any of my proposals. Technically, there is Dalkey and Killiney Hills which are conjoined at car-park level. Having said that, it isn't dissimilar to Bray Head.
6. A beautiful village feel of similar caliber to that of Blackrock Village.
7. Beautiful walk-ways.

Dalkey Does Not Have:

1. Decent roads and are, in fact, dangerous in parts due to their narrow nature. Many of them lack pedestrian paths in large parts because provision of such would encroach on the already narrow carriageways.
2. The rather sparse bus provision coupled with their poor permeability (crippled by the narrow roads mentioned above) doesn't lend itself to people in the area willing to switch modes away from the car (a must for a suburb in my opinion).
3. Closely tied in with the previoius point, cycle infrastructure provision is next to impossible without narrowing the already narrow roads.
4. Some solutions which I have proposed for the aforementioned short-comings are more one-way systems where widening would be destructive (this was slated by Larbre34 because it wouldn't revolve around people and places which I think is the mind-set of someone who is high-maintenance).

In any case, it isn't incredibly unique as it has a mix of traits common to many other areas, both nationwide and worldwide.

Kingp35 wrote: »

When people ask me about the Dalkey the first thing I say is it's a unique town in that if you drive to Dalkey it's because you are visiting Dalkey and not to drive through it.

You are actually confirming one of my qualms that the only attractive way of accessing Dalkey is by car and bicycle (if you are reasonably fit).

Also, the reason for my proposals of a through-road is more for the benefit of buses and bicycles so that it is on the way instead of out of the way.

Kingp35 wrote: »

I have no idea how you think it's stagnating, it's thriving, particularly with all the festivals.

Yes, the festivals are great craic and brilliant attractors of footfall. However, what about the rest of the year?

With the exception of Extra-vision (now gone) and Chartbusters (once upon a time), I found Dalkey very bland during my childhood and teenage years.

Kingp35 wrote: »

If any of your hare-brained ideas get even close to being approved, I would be the first in line to protest them despite the fact I don't live in Dalkey anymore. Madness.

While I have a very thick skin personally, many posters would feel ganged up on with the amount of hostility displayed by yourself, ted1 and Larbre34 over the past few posts alone.

I consider myself a very ambitious person and a reasonable one at that. However, I see the toxic reaction to it as a remnant of the parochial state that we once were. It's also a reminder of how suffocating this country can be when anything remotely ambitious or outside the box is even mentioned or proposed.

Finally, the proposal I made when I bumped up this thread is not an official one by any means and is a personal one which I made a project out of.

I don't mind people saying that they disagree with everything I say about Dalkey. The method and way some posters have criticised me is very condescending as though I don't know what I am talking about. I also think many of them are deliberately choosing to misunderstand them to derail the thread.

Anyway, I was merely saying that in light of many housing developments in the area getting the go ahead that more roads in the area need to be improved either by making them one-way, widening where it wouldn't harm the character or a mixture of the two.

Now, maybe the proposal I made was a tad ambitious for the area given that some of the demographics here are already feeling violated by them.

ted1 wrote: »

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Now, maybe the proposal I made was a tad ambitious for the area given that some of the demographics here are already feeling violated by them.

No they were not ambitious, they are just not suitable, required or wanted.

Right. So, either you clearly don't know the meaning of the word ambitious or your idea and my idea of the concept are different:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambitious

In any case, it appears to be open to interpretation given your relentless condescending attitude. Then again, I don't know why I am trying to prove myself here. We'll leave it there.