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

Dublin home of 1916 Rising leader demolished

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,621 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Typical Irish way, sell sell sell......

    Look at all the towers along the east coast most in private hands, shocking to be honest.

    We should be doing everything to keep our heritage but to be honest the way things are going we will be foreigners in our own country.....

    How does knocking the the O'Rahilly house make us foreigners in out own country exactly?


  • Options
    #93
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    to be honest the way things are going we will be foreigners in our own country.....

    ah come on now this is absolute nonsense.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #94
    It wasnt me123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭It wasnt me123


    The old house of O’Rahilly was a dump - it hadn’t been preserved and had loads of modern add ons and didn’t look anything like it had when he lived in it. Nobody even knew the house was his until the planning permission went in - nobody in Dublin City Council cared. What is the point in preserving a house with a 70’s look? Use that money to build/renovate houses for the people of today that need it.


  • Options
    #95
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,934 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Maybe I'm missing something, this issue has been in the news for months, I've seen various articles about it and yet whilst the dogs on the street knew what the developers intentions were, even having received permission to demolish, a few days later politicians, public interest groups etc start screaming blue murder about what's occurred . Hypocrisy or incompetence, actually both by all accounts, even Leo coming out with a "shouldn't have happened comment", I suggest like most things he does, a little late I'm afraid. Just as an opinion, not exactly the most pleasing or significant building I've seen, actually never heard of the previous owner.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Options
    #96
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    It wasnt me123 wrote: »
    The old house of O’Rahilly was a dump - it hadn’t been preserved and had loads of modern add ons and didn’t look anything like it had when he lived in it. Nobody even knew the house was his until the planning permission went in - nobody in Dublin City Council cared. What is the point in preserving a house with a 70’s look? Use that money to build/renovate houses for the people of today that need it.


    no point as the money wouldn't go anywhere near being able to make a dent in the rennevations of houses today most likely.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,529 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    It was just on the news that DCC have passed a motion ordering that the house be rebuilt.

    I like our politicians, whilst recognising the seriousness of the housing crisis it's still a non stop fight to prevent anything getting built.


  • Options
    #98
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,244 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Are they going to rebuild it in a 70's style? Get Dermot Bannon on the job, isn't his own house something similar...


  • Options
    #99
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,833 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    I don't know which is worse; DCC waking up far too late or a cute hoor of a developer.


  • Options
    #100
    Hamsterchops
    Registered Users Posts: 3,133 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    It wasnt me123 wrote: »
    The old house of O’Rahilly was a dump - it hadn’t been preserved and had loads of modern add ons and didn’t look anything like it had when he lived in it. Nobody even knew the house was his until the planning permission went in - nobody in Dublin City Council cared. What is the point in preserving a house with a 70’s look? Use that money to build/renovate houses for the people of today that need it.

    It's like anything to do with the 1916 rising was after the event. The rising itself went ahead after it was cancelled, the rebels only became "heroes" after their deaths, Michael Rahilly only became "The O'Rahilly" after he changed his name, and now his house is to be rebuilt after it was demolished :(


  • Options
    #101
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,529 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    Are they going to rebuild it in a 70's style?

    It would be a crime for the developer not to rebuild exactly what he flattened.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    It would be a crime for the developer not to rebuild exactly what he flattened.

    In other words, a derelict eyesore.


  • Options
    #103
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,621 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    whisky_galore wrote: »
    I don't know which is worse; DCC waking up far too late or a cute hoor of a developer.

    He was given permission from an bord pleanala and I don't think he has done anything unlawful.

    I also don't think we need to save every house that a rising leader lived in for a few years


  • Options
    #104
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,833 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    He was given permission from an bord pleanala and I don't think he has done anything unlawful.

    I also don't think we need to save every house that a rising leader lived in for a few years

    He knew full well what DCC were going to do and he pulled a stroke.


  • Options
    #105
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,621 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    whisky_galore wrote: »
    He knew full well what DCC were going to do and he pulled a stroke.

    If it was still lawful I don't blame him. All this sudden political nonsense over a house that no one wanted all because The lived there for 6years


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whisky_galore wrote: »
    He knew full well what DCC were going to do and he pulled a stroke.

    If the building was so important, why wait 100 years to attempt to preserve it?


  • Options
    #107
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    If it was still lawful I don't blame him. All this sudden political nonsense over a house that no one wanted all because The lived there for 6years

    well you need to blame him.
    we cannot have the likes of him trying to get around the various processes in place to deal with such matters, and the council have an obligation to get this individual in any way they can to send a message to others thinking of pulling similar strokes.
    trying to get around the process = knowing the council would appeal the decision and demolishing the house at dawn so as to not be caught.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #108
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,621 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    end of the road wrote: »
    well you need to blame him.
    we cannot have the likes of him trying to get around the various processes in place to deal with such matters, and the council have an obligation to get this individual in any way they can to send a message to others thinking of pulling similar strokes.
    trying to get around the process = knowing the council would appeal the decision and demolishing the house at dawn so as to not be caught.

    What did he do that was illegal? The council had a long time to object before this suddenly
    became a political cause.


  • Options
    #109
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,529 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If the building was so important, why wait 100 years to attempt to preserve it?

    It may be something to do with the multistorey block of apartments the locals don't want built.

    (While acknowledging the gravity of the housing crisis)


  • Options
    #110
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    It may be something to do with the multistorey block of apartments the locals don't want built.

    (While acknowledging the gravity of the housing crisis)

    Good old NIMBYism.


  • Options
    #111
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,529 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Good old NIMBYism.

    Lower the value of their property and attract the wrong types into the area.

    Not everybody can live within the m50 just because they work there, better to make them drive in from Mullingar.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    What did he do that was illegal? The council had a long time to object before this suddenly
    became a political cause.


    i never said what happened was illegal, it's certainly a dick move and is why i am on the council's side here.
    because there is a process in place and that should be followed to the end. that was effectively prevented from happening here and that cannot be allowed, at any cost.
    it's not about the building, it's preservation and the rights and wrongs of that, that's a side show for me.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #113
    Smiles35
    Registered Users Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The Bank of Ireland building on College Green should've been taken off them during the bailout.


    That building should be moved. Reclaim that land. It's a horrible spot there as a predestrian.


  • Options
    #114
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    The notion of rebuilding it seems bizarre and a bit pointless to me.


  • Options
    #115
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,621 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    The notion of rebuilding it seems bizarre and a bit pointless to me.


    If he did do something illegal they should have a more inventive punishment like make him hand over a bunch of the new flats he is gonna build.


    And to preserve the memory of 1916 call them "The" apartments.


  • Options
    #116
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    end of the road wrote: »
    well you need to blame him.
    we cannot have the likes of him trying to get around the various processes in place to deal with such matters, and the council have an obligation to get this individual in any way they can to send a message to others thinking of pulling similar strokes.
    trying to get around the process = knowing the council would appeal the decision and demolishing the house at dawn so as to not be caught.

    Don't bother rebuilding. I think the developer should just tidy it up, put down a bit of tarmac and offer it to Pavee Point as a suitable halting site. The objections to apartments would be withdrawn pronto.


  • Options
    #117
    Hamsterchops
    Registered Users Posts: 3,133 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If the building was so important, why wait 100 years to attempt to preserve it?

    My point exactly in #101.
    Make it a listed building, after it is knocked down.


  • Options
    #118
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    Hamsterchops wrote: »
    My point exactly in #101.
    Make it a listed building, after it is knocked down.

    Something which I suspect the Councillors will very soon discover that they hadn't got the legal power to do. But they got the favourable headlines in the media, so all is well.


  • Options
    #119
    Feisar
    Registered Users Posts: 6,610 ✭✭✭Feisar


    Nexytus wrote: »
    An interesting character The O'Rahilly. Possibly his greatest achievement was getting people to use his name in the The_______ format.

    An interesting one. The “the” goes back to the O’Neill dynasty, may have been used elsewhere as well. The clan chief would have been referred to as The O’Neill. O’Rahilly must have had some opinion of himself.
    Hahaha just googled him, another clown who adopted the O his ancestors gave up!

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Options
    #120
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,621 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Feisar wrote: »
    An interesting one. The “the” goes back to the O’Neill dynasty, may have been used elsewhere as well. The clan chief would have been referred to as The O’Neill. O’Rahilly must have had some opinion of himself.
    Hahaha just googled him, another clown who adopted the O his ancestors gave up!

    I feel this has a fair bit with why the Dubs are suddenly mad about him. Given their odd notions about being silver tongued street poets


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,100 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    It was a private house, and I bet the heirs wanted it sold rather than having to maintain that wreck of a thing.

    They sold it a very long time ago. Their input into what happened to it ended when their ancestors cashed out.

    Sick of the sense of entitlement off the self-important "1916 royalty" who think due to an accident of birth they have the right to dictate how the event is commemorated etc. - and now even what is built or not built in our city.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



Advertisement