Agree rating.
How do you mean?
Think I read it in a review of his book in the Sunday Time on 28/10/2018. When I clicked through the page was gone so it may have fallen foul of the lawyers.
He wants Dublin the way he likes it. Low rise, restoring old Georgian terraces and thatās that.
He has been a consistent source of objection of major infrastructure projects for years. The only one he proposed was that those dastardly capitalists wouldnāt get their hands on the old Central Bank (beside his home) and that it would he turned into the new city public library. He claimed that rather than spending money on a run down area desperately needing renovation in Parnell Square (which he described as fringe), spending millions there would be much better for the State (when private money was willing to go in).
It is very easy when youāre slap bang in the middle of a city to be like that.
The Tara Street development is part of sustainable development. It will be on the major commuter transport hub in the city in a few years- DART and Metro beside it and both LUAS lines close by. One of his points is particularly risible, that the development is bad because of no residential. He has a track record of objecting to height everywhere and anywhere, if it was a 22 storey residential tower he would object. He is just looking for an excuse.
Thanks.
Iāll do some digging.
And anyway we need more hotels to put the homeless in
Who can argue with the old central bank bank being a public library rather than home to the dastardly capitalists?
Are you sure he would object to a 22 storey building on the docklands say? How are you so sure?
Have you read the article? Conclusions were reached about the development that were the opposite of initial findings with no reasoning given.
Regulations were previously in place to protect the cityscape. They were changed and we get this yoke. Do we need this yoke? Will it help with the housing crisis?
What view is blocked by this, 22 stories isnāt that towering, the first of many hopefully, residential and office space
Yes. I have followed this process.
Actually he is being disingegous with that. There were disagreements last time between planners on it.
In terms of āhelping the housing crisisā, what a dumb argument. There are different types of developments. It makes absolute sense to have a large office space right on top of a public transport hub office blocks. This allows for development in and around it (including residential) alongside offering people quick and easy means into the city on public transport.
This is much better than for example, Google buying up building upon building in the city centre. More dense developments (including height) will allow for extra spade for residential development. That is not what we have been doing up until now.
Regarding the public library. I simply said that one of the few times he agreed with development was his own proposal there which was interestingly right beside where he lived. In actual fact, the country are putting millions into another city centre site that has gone to rack and ruin (which he described as fringe) and that will hopefully mean a revitalization of the north inter city.
McDonald is right in terms of that he wants more people to live between the canals, but he is often in dreamland about how to achieve that. One of his proposals a few years ago was for the State to pay ā¬2m+ for Georgian homes around the likes of Mount Street and to put families there. It is absolutely crazy stuff.
I am not advocating the destruction of the Georgian core, but cities evolve and change.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this in London for example;
Tara Street for years has been a derelict shithole located right in the heart of the city.
What do you think of this for example, where there are City Architechts resistant to the idea of redevelopment of atrocious housing developments because of their academic architectural value?
Many of these developments are absolutely shocking from the outside (not to mention the inside) but it is demanded they are kept because of academic theory.
The cost of refurbishing these blocks goes into the millions and is a wholly inefficient use of land. Meanwhile residents live in horrible conditions. It is easy for people to demand these kinds of things stay when they donāt actually have to deal with it.
This is what you are dealing with the likes of An Taisce, certain architects and the likes of Frank McDonald.
8 Likes
A view of Pearse Street flats maybe?
This time itās different.
1 Like
Chip off the old block, James Ronan destroys Frank McDonald.
He does look like his old man alright
Gang related?
The dog 
RTE saying it is
Would have been great if the dog decided to take a shit there and then.
2 Likes
In the states theyād have shot the dog because they thought he had a gun.
3 Likes