|
You can see comments
from Dec 21 2000 to Jan 19 2001 at this link
Comments from 20th
January to 29th January
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 159.134.168.174
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 29 January 2001
- Time:
- 21:06
Comments
I've visited Kilmainham Jail several times, and it is the only
place to go to see Irish history from 1798 to independence.
It doesn't make any sense to have office blocks looming over
it.
STOP
John Smith, Dublin
- Username:
- Dominique Foulon
- UserEmail:
- dfoulon@free.fr
- UserTel:
- 04 74 08 51 63
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 212.27.56.74
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 29 January 2001
- Time:
- 21:52
Comments
Do you really want Dublin look like cities of USA or make the
same mistakes who were done in France about the new building
surrended historical monuments ? Do you want Dublin more ugly ?
Why not a supermarket in the GPO ? Dominique Foulon France
- Username:
- Sarah Sénéor
- UserEmail:
- sarah.seneor@free.fr
- UserTel:
- 01 40 34 60 63
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 212.27.46.220
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 30 January 2001
- Time:
- 09:32
Comments
keep these national monuments seems to me very important for
the future and memory of Ireland Don't touch them for new and very
often ugly modern buildings(we have seen that in Paris). Sarah Sénéor,
Paris, France
- Username:
- Sarah Sénéor
- UserEmail:
- sarah.seneor@free.fr
- UserTel:
- 01 40 34 60 63
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 212.27.46.220
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 30 January 2001
- Time:
- 09:33
Comments
keep these national monuments seems to me very important for
the future and memory of Ireland Don't touch them for new and very
often ugly modern buildings(we have seen that in Paris). Sarah Sénéor,
Paris, France
- Username:
- Gary Hoctor
- UserEmail:
- ghoctor@eircom.net
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 213.190.132.187
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 30 January 2001
- Time:
- 10:04
Comments
Sir, I hereby object to the proposed contruction of office
buildings opposite Kilmainham Jail. Its present architechtural
value will be decreased if such a construction is allowed to
proceed. Yours
- Username:
- Shay Gibbons
- UserEmail:
- gibs@eircom.ie
- UserTel:
- 453 6758
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 149.157.1.55
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 30 January 2001
- Time:
- 12:01
Comments
People born and reared in Inchicore can no longer afford to buy
homes there anymore. The influx of country people, lower and
uppper middle class Dubliners and an motley array of yuppies have
now ruined what was once Dublin's best kept secret. When will
someone shout stop? Kilmainham will surrvive all wars and
conflicts that comes its way, please concern yourselves with the
distruction of a community before your very eyes. In ten years
time what was Inchivcore will be but a memory.
- Username:
- Edward Brannigan
- UserEmail:
- edbran@indigo.ie
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 149.157.1.55
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 30 January 2001
- Time:
- 15:49
Comments
Well done on your magnificant site. I would just like to point
out that no IRISH SOLDIERS fought and died in the two world wars.
Those who did, and were of Irish birth etc, fought and died as
BRITISH SOLDIERS. It is misleading to suggest otherwise.
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.145.134.220
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 30 January 2001
- Time:
- 17:18
Comments
Please find below a copy of Sinn Féin's objection to the
proposed development accross from Kilmainham Jail.
To: Mr. Christopher Geoghegan Principal Officer, Planning
Department, Dublin Corporation, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin
8, Friday 19 January 2001
Re: Revised planning application no. 2467-00 from Charmside
Ltd. Re: Proposed Development at nos 34-38 Inchicore Road,
Kilmainham, Dublin 8 (formerly Rowantrees)
A chara, I wish to again lodge an objection to the planned
development by Charmside Ltd. on the former Rowantrees site,
planning application no. 2467-00. The revised plans, which were
submitted on 22 December 2000 following a request from Dublin
Corporation for further information, are in my view still contrary
to the aesthetic, architectural, archaeological and ethos of the
area. I also believe that the project is still in breach of the
guidelines for buildings on this site as outlined in the Inchicore
Urban Design Plan issued by Dublin Corporation in May 2000 .
Obviously the developers did not understand the nature of the
objections to their first plan, that the size, density,
obtrusiveness and bulk of the three blocks should be reduced and
that a building of excellence as per Inchicore Urban Design Plan
should have been submitted. The revised plans in fact increase in
size the development by 3,351 sq. mts to 56,786 sq. mts of
accomadation. This is in fact achieved by the reduction of open
space within the site, the removal of an atrium as per original
plan. There is no serious attempt to address the concerns
regarding car-parking space and traffic to and from the site.
Traffic/Car Park The revised plan retains the proposed
two-storey underground carpark with a capacity for 587 vehicles.
This capacity will in no way be capable of handling the volume of
vehicular traffic which a development of this size would entail.
Conservative estimates by the developer that there will be less
than 1,900 people working in the offices, while other planners
suggest that the office space available if the building is
completed would suggest a working population in excess of 3,000
and possibly as much as 4,000. That would suggest that the car
park proposed would not have the capacity to deal with the level
of worker vehicles and that the surrounding area would suffer the
consequences. The revised plan has more than doubled the space for
retail and creche facilities, suggesting more people visiting the
complex, also suggesting that more than the proposed 11 visitors
car parking spaces are required. The consequences would be that
all local on-street parking spaces would be taken up to facilitate
the overflow of workers cars from that development and that the
proposed public square “civic space” in the middle of
Inchicore Road opposite the entrance to Kilmainham Jail would be
compromised or disfunctional due to traffic chaos and grid lock.
The number of car travelling into and out of the area because of
the development would make it difficult for local residents to
enter or exit their houses and would obstruct the tourism industry
as per Kilmainham Jail and the Royal Hospital. The workings of the
courthouse might also be affected. I still contend that as I said
in my initial objection that: “Even taking the conservative
estimate of 1,800 people working in the development, the level of
traffic, into an already traffic-congested area would be
unacceptable. The road network in the area cannot cope at present
with the level of traffic and this development would add greatly
to the problem, specifically at the times when the traffic
problems in the area are at their worst. As it is the planned the
introduction of the LUAS is predicted to worsen the traffic
problems of the area.” I would also submit that relying , as the
developers do in their new plans, on a reduction of car use of 20%
, and a hope that 10% would be using the LUAS, with 4% and 6%
increases over 3 years of cyclists and walkers to work
respectively is a bit far-fetched, and is a reflection of the
current trends in modes of transport for office based workers.
Size and scale Despite the minor alterations to the original
plans I believe that the new plans are no less intrusive on the
homes of existing residents on Inchicore Road and South Circular
Road, specifically St John’s Terrace amd also to the houses
adjoinging the site on Inchicore Road. The building will still be
rising three storeys above the houses on Inchicore Road and St
John’s Terrace. (An opening onto South Coircular Road from the
Gym is included in the revised plans.) The submitted photomontages
View D2 shows how much the buildings will be looming over the
houses on St John’s Terrace. Photmontage View E3 shows how
imposing the buildings will look and their bulk. View F2 show0s
that the buildings will dwarf the exisiting houses. Several of the
other views I contend are decieving. It is welcome that the
developers took on board some of the concerns of the residents and
other objectors, but it still seems that they are intend in
squeezing in as much office space and can fit on the site, with
the resultant bulk, the second class architectural appearance and
an imposing nature. Words such as “soften façade” and “
restrained façade” do not hide obstrusive nature of the
proposal. The building, despite the new proposal to have precast
Limestone and Granite panels the building, will not blend with the
existing building and will therefore be intrusive. The development
is also contrary to the development parameters outlined in Dublin
Corporation’s Urban Design Framework prepared as part of
Inchicore’s Integrated Area Plan (May 2000), i.e. “the
development of the heritage potential and associated tourism and
employment, regeneration of derelict areas whilst respecting
existing urban fabric” and that any building on this site would
“ take its building line from the adjacent development on either
frontage, perhaps responding to the strong form of the complex of
buildings opposite”. The proposal is far from being a building
of excellence and does not take its line from existing building
nor does it reflect the strong form Kilmainham Jail or Kilmaiham
Courthouse or for that matter Richmond Tower. edifice The
frontage, skyline, the size and density of the buildings will not
blend with the existing architectural construction of the local
buildings, some of which are very important to Ireland both in
terms of their architectural and their historical heritage.
Imposing a modern edifice along the lines of what Charmside are
proposing will detract, rather than enhance Kilmainham Jail, the
District Court, the Royal Hospital and Richmond Tower and thus
would discourage tourism to the area. This would be contrary to
the first key objective listed under the Economic Renewal heading
in the Kilmainham-Inchicore Integrated Area Plan 1997 was: “The
development of tourism as a means of addressing unemployment”.
That plan, the Integrated Area Plan, sees the promotion of the
full occupation of under-used sites and buildings, in accordance
with sustainable development objectives. These buildings and their
impact on the local community and local traffic network would not
be in line with the sustainable development objectives because it
would have a negative impact on the area economicaly and underwise
because it will cause gridlock and thus discourage tourists and
others from visiting or locating the area.
Railway Line While Iarnród Éireann stated that they had no
objection to planned developments near the boundary of the railway
line, they did make it conditional: that no work take place within
4 metres of the boundary wall. I would contend that the scale of
the work proposed would undermine the boundary wall and could
seriously affect the maniline rail schedules out of Heuston
Station.
I am not opposed in principal to office accomadation on this
site, but would think that in line with IAP and Urban Design
Framework that any development on this site should aimed at
enhancing the tourism potential of the area. I would also contend
that the developers were a bit previous in suggesting that the
inclusion of a hotel development on the site would be opposed by
residents. (“The latter considerations include the likely
response of adjoining residents to the development of an
hotel”.) Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t. What residents
in the area are seeking is that any development on the the site
would enhance the the area rather than detract from it. This
revised proposeal for all the reasons outlined above would detract
from the area and should be rejected by the Planning Department.
This is an ill-conceived plan in many ways and should be rejected
on grounds of height, density, intrusion of residential
properties, the level of traffic during and after construction,
not being in line with Dublin Corporation’s development plans
for the area and would detract from the historical and
architectural importance of the area. Is mise,
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Sinn Féin) 12 Bóthar na Déise, Baile
Fhormaid, Baile Átha Cliath 10.
P.S. If my objection and those of others are not upheld. I
would ask that serious restrictions be put on the hours of
building on this site, that the number of trucks removing soil
from the site (which will be substantial) be limited to a set
amount daily and that Iarnród Éireann be kept fully inform of
any work close to the boundary wall. I would also seek to ensure
that proper consideration be given to the impact pile-driving is
going to have on the houses adjoining this site.
- Username:
- Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Sinn Féin)
- UserEmail:
- sinnfeindsc@iolfree.ie
- UserTel:
- 01-4541868
- UserFAX:
- 01-4541868
- Remote Name:
- 194.145.134.220
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 30 January 2001
- Time:
- 17:23
Comments
The following is a copy of Sinn Féin's recent objection to the
proposed development. This was submitted to Dublin Corporation
To: Mr. Christopher Geoghegan Principal Officer, Planning
Department, Dublin Corporation, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin
8, Friday 19 January 2001
Re: Revised planning application no. 2467-00 from Charmside
Ltd. Re: Proposed Development at nos 34-38 Inchicore Road,
Kilmainham, Dublin 8 (formerly Rowantrees)
A chara, I wish to again lodge an objection to the planned
development by Charmside Ltd. on the former Rowantrees site,
planning application no. 2467-00. The revised plans, which were
submitted on 22 December 2000 following a request from Dublin
Corporation for further information, are in my view still contrary
to the aesthetic, architectural, archaeological and ethos of the
area. I also believe that the project is still in breach of the
guidelines for buildings on this site as outlined in the Inchicore
Urban Design Plan issued by Dublin Corporation in May 2000 .
Obviously the developers did not understand the nature of the
objections to their first plan, that the size, density,
obtrusiveness and bulk of the three blocks should be reduced and
that a building of excellence as per Inchicore Urban Design Plan
should have been submitted. The revised plans in fact increase in
size the development by 3,351 sq. mts to 56,786 sq. mts of
accomadation. This is in fact achieved by the reduction of open
space within the site, the removal of an atrium as per original
plan. There is no serious attempt to address the concerns
regarding car-parking space and traffic to and from the site.
Traffic/Car Park The revised plan retains the proposed
two-storey underground carpark with a capacity for 587 vehicles.
This capacity will in no way be capable of handling the volume of
vehicular traffic which a development of this size would entail.
Conservative estimates by the developer that there will be less
than 1,900 people working in the offices, while other planners
suggest that the office space available if the building is
completed would suggest a working population in excess of 3,000
and possibly as much as 4,000. That would suggest that the car
park proposed would not have the capacity to deal with the level
of worker vehicles and that the surrounding area would suffer the
consequences. The revised plan has more than doubled the space for
retail and creche facilities, suggesting more people visiting the
complex, also suggesting that more than the proposed 11 visitors
car parking spaces are required. The consequences would be that
all local on-street parking spaces would be taken up to facilitate
the overflow of workers cars from that development and that the
proposed public square “civic space” in the middle of
Inchicore Road opposite the entrance to Kilmainham Jail would be
compromised or disfunctional due to traffic chaos and grid lock.
The number of car travelling into and out of the area because of
the development would make it difficult for local residents to
enter or exit their houses and would obstruct the tourism industry
as per Kilmainham Jail and the Royal Hospital. The workings of the
courthouse might also be affected. I still contend that as I said
in my initial objection that: “Even taking the conservative
estimate of 1,800 people working in the development, the level of
traffic, into an already traffic-congested area would be
unacceptable. The road network in the area cannot cope at present
with the level of traffic and this development would add greatly
to the problem, specifically at the times when the traffic
problems in the area are at their worst. As it is the planned the
introduction of the LUAS is predicted to worsen the traffic
problems of the area.” I would also submit that relying , as the
developers do in their new plans, on a reduction of car use of 20%
, and a hope that 10% would be using the LUAS, with 4% and 6%
increases over 3 years of cyclists and walkers to work
respectively is a bit far-fetched, and is a reflection of the
current trends in modes of transport for office based workers.
Size and scale Despite the minor alterations to the original
plans I believe that the new plans are no less intrusive on the
homes of existing residents on Inchicore Road and South Circular
Road, specifically St John’s Terrace amd also to the houses
adjoinging the site on Inchicore Road. The building will still be
rising three storeys above the houses on Inchicore Road and St
John’s Terrace. (An opening onto South Coircular Road from the
Gym is included in the revised plans.) The submitted photomontages
View D2 shows how much the buildings will be looming over the
houses on St John’s Terrace. Photmontage View E3 shows how
imposing the buildings will look and their bulk. View F2 show0s
that the buildings will dwarf the exisiting houses. Several of the
other views I contend are decieving. It is welcome that the
developers took on board some of the concerns of the residents and
other objectors, but it still seems that they are intend in
squeezing in as much office space and can fit on the site, with
the resultant bulk, the second class architectural appearance and
an imposing nature. Words such as “soften façade” and “
restrained façade” do not hide obstrusive nature of the
proposal. The building, despite the new proposal to have precast
Limestone and Granite panels the building, will not blend with the
existing building and will therefore be intrusive. The development
is also contrary to the development parameters outlined in Dublin
Corporation’s Urban Design Framework prepared as part of
Inchicore’s Integrated Area Plan (May 2000), i.e. “the
development of the heritage potential and associated tourism and
employment, regeneration of derelict areas whilst respecting
existing urban fabric” and that any building on this site would
“ take its building line from the adjacent development on either
frontage, perhaps responding to the strong form of the complex of
buildings opposite”. The proposal is far from being a building
of excellence and does not take its line from existing building
nor does it reflect the strong form Kilmainham Jail or Kilmaiham
Courthouse or for that matter Richmond Tower. edifice The
frontage, skyline, the size and density of the buildings will not
blend with the existing architectural construction of the local
buildings, some of which are very important to Ireland both in
terms of their architectural and their historical heritage.
Imposing a modern edifice along the lines of what Charmside are
proposing will detract, rather than enhance Kilmainham Jail, the
District Court, the Royal Hospital and Richmond Tower and thus
would discourage tourism to the area. This would be contrary to
the first key objective listed under the Economic Renewal heading
in the Kilmainham-Inchicore Integrated Area Plan 1997 was: “The
development of tourism as a means of addressing unemployment”.
That plan, the Integrated Area Plan, sees the promotion of the
full occupation of under-used sites and buildings, in accordance
with sustainable development objectives. These buildings and their
impact on the local community and local traffic network would not
be in line with the sustainable development objectives because it
would have a negative impact on the area economicaly and underwise
because it will cause gridlock and thus discourage tourists and
others from visiting or locating the area.
Railway Line While Iarnród Éireann stated that they had no
objection to planned developments near the boundary of the railway
line, they did make it conditional: that no work take place within
4 metres of the boundary wall. I would contend that the scale of
the work proposed would undermine the boundary wall and could
seriously affect the maniline rail schedules out of Heuston
Station.
I am not opposed in principal to office accomadation on this
site, but would think that in line with IAP and Urban Design
Framework that any development on this site should aimed at
enhancing the tourism potential of the area. I would also contend
that the developers were a bit previous in suggesting that the
inclusion of a hotel development on the site would be opposed by
residents. (“The latter considerations include the likely
response of adjoining residents to the development of an
hotel”.) Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t. What residents
in the area are seeking is that any development on the the site
would enhance the the area rather than detract from it. This
revised proposeal for all the reasons outlined above would detract
from the area and should be rejected by the Planning Department.
This is an ill-conceived plan in many ways and should be rejected
on grounds of height, density, intrusion of residential
properties, the level of traffic during and after construction,
not being in line with Dublin Corporation’s development plans
for the area and would detract from the historical and
architectural importance of the area. Is mise,
Aengus Ó Snodaigh 12 Bóthar na Déise, Baile Fhormaid, Baile
Átha Cliath 10.
P.S. If my objection and those of others are not upheld. I
would ask that serious restrictions be put on the hours of
building on this site, that the number of trucks removing soil
from the site (which will be substantial) be limited to a set
amount daily and that Iarnród Éireann be kept fully inform of
any work close to the boundary wall. I would also seek to ensure
that proper consideration be given to the impact pile-driving is
going to have on the houses adjoining this site.
- Username:
- Stephen King
- UserEmail:
- eoghan@wanadoo.fr
- UserTel:
- ++ 33 0297325848
- UserFAX:
- ++ 33 0297325848
- Remote Name:
- 193.250.26.239
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 30 January 2001
- Time:
- 22:39
Comments
I am utterly sappalled by the proposal to build office blocks
beside Kilmainham Jail. Is that all it's about, money, money,
money (greed) and no heritage and culture.
- Username:
- D. de Coverley
- UserEmail:
- ddecoverley@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 65.64.202.34
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 31 January 2001
- Time:
- 03:02
Comments
Currently the architecture proposed does not blend with
existing buildings or enhance by virtue of scale or scope what is
needed to create a harmonised development within the neighborhood.
Imposing buildings that block visual sight lines and sunlight, and
whose design are directly opposed to the guidelines specified in
Dublin Corporation’s Urban Design Framework are not what is
needed to enhance the tourism and heritage potential of the
existing urban fabric of the area. With 160,000 visitors to the
Kilmainham Jail in 1999, it is clear that interest is very much
alive in Ireland’s history and will continue to be so. Would it
not be more in keeping with the needs of the visitors to
Kilmainham Jail to develop some sites for rest and refreshment
within the area where Charmside Ltd. wishes to build, reduce the
scale of the proposed buildings and require Charmside to adhere to
Inichore’s Integrated Area Plan (May of 2000) at the same time?
Surely a plan more beneficial to the neighborhood and in line
with the IIA plan should be required if Dublin Corporation is to
hold it’s civic honor and face intact. Honor your heritage and
history by preserving the importance of the Kilmainham Jail and
the surrounding historical sites by giving them the full
precedence they deserve within the framework of the needed urban
renewal.
D. de Coverley Dallas, Texas USA
- Username:
- Rosena Horan
- UserEmail:
- rh@paris.com
- UserTel:
- 0033320152857
- UserFAX:
- 0033320152857
- Remote Name:
- 212.27.35.139
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 31 January 2001
- Time:
- 09:49
Comments
As a native of Clondalkin, but now living in France, I was
distressed to recently learn of the proposed development opposite
Kilmainham jail. Would it not be in more keeping with the site's
cultural importance to plan the surrounding area for amenities
which would rather enhance its attraction for the numerous
visitors to the jail each year? Or will I once again be confronted
by another botched Dublin Corporation Planning development on my
next visit to Dublin? Another eyesore to explain away to our
foreign visitors.
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 195.7.34.65
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 31 January 2001
- Time:
- 10:29
Comments
Please leave Kilmainham Jail as it is !
Catherine (France)
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 195.7.34.65
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 31 January 2001
- Time:
- 12:01
Comments
Elisabeth Sabot, Country : France/Ireland
- Username:
- Shane O'Brien
- UserEmail:
- shaneobrien@ireland.com
- UserTel:
- 01 2181085
- UserFAX:
- 01 2943385
- Remote Name:
- 212.120.142.65
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 31 January 2001
- Time:
- 14:21
Comments
This is a historic building. Please do no ruin it.
Thanks, Shane
- Username:
- Dermot Keyes (The Liberty)
- UserEmail:
- dermotkeyes@ireland.com
- UserTel:
- Newsroom - 01 4023071, Mobile - 087 6413906
- UserFAX:
- Newsroom - 01 4023283
- Remote Name:
- 147.252.69.176
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 31 January 2001
- Time:
- 14:35
Comments
I agree with the motivations of this group and I must
compliment everyone involved in this website on the tremendous
efforts being made by the local residents and everything must be
done to protect another monstrosity from dotting this city's
skyline. It is bad enough that the Customs House is surrounded by
high rise buildings, most of them ugly and that the GPO stands in
the most desecrated main street of any capital city in Europe (and
that's with no spike) without one of the most historic buildings
in our country being subjected to the same fate. I am the news
editor of a free sheet newspaper in the south inner city and
though I will have to conduct an impartial approach in my story
for thus month's edition of The Liberty, I cannot understate my
vehement opposition to another office block construction which
will leave a national monument in shadow for huge portions of the
year. It is remarkable to think that Sile de Valera did not see
the importance of purchasimng this site to retain the look of the
area as it currently stands, considering that her own grandfather
and many other brave men of that age, were housed in the very jail
that we must protect. Let us hope that this technology park never
leaves the planning sheets and that a sane and reasonable future
for this precious national site can be agreed to.
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 205.188.197.51
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 31 January 2001
- Time:
- 16:03
Comments
This is the horribly familiar story of a developer trying to
squeeze the maximum possible floorspace out of a site, and to hell
with the surroundings. There comes a point when basically bad and
inappropriate proposals such as this one cannot be
"improved" any more. If it's overscaled (and it is,
grossly) then no amount of fiddling about with the elevations is
going to help much.
At which point, it is time to wave goodbye to whoever is
proposing the bad scheme, and invite new approaches from less
greedy people fielding better architects, capable of producing a
suitable lower-density scheme. Preferably mixed-use. You know,
homes, shops, cafes etc as well as offices. That way it doesn't
all go dead at 5pm.
Hugh Pearman London
- Username:
- Liam and Marti Massey
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 216.100.38.139
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 31 January 2001
- Time:
- 20:41
Comments
We support the campaign to stop the large office block
development directly across from the historical landmark, the
Kilmainham Jail.
- Username:
- Gerard Blaney
- UserEmail:
- www.thebestirishwebsite.come-mail
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.207.87
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 01 February 2001
- Time:
- 08:54
Comments
Dear John,
We have added the campaign to a prominent place on our Homepage
and I anticipate a good response.Would you mind keeping us
appraised of developments and of course the outcome ?
Wishing you all the very best on the campaign.
Gerard Blaney The Best Irish Website.com
===== visit us @ http://www.thebestirishwebsite.come-mail
webmaster@thebestirishwebsite.com
____________________________________________________________ Do
You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
- Username:
- Richard Ledwidge
- UserEmail:
- r.ledwidge@home .com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 24.112.158.238
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 01 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:08
Comments
As a city that prides itself on its history, culture, people,
and uses these strengths as a means to encourge visitors to enjoy
these attributes, I would urge you to give due consideration to
concerns regarding the proposed development across the road from
Kilmainham Jail. Here is an oppurtunity not only to practice what
you preach about Dublin, but, a way to enhance the surrounding
area by limiting development. Do we have to surrender to the
desires of developers in their relentless pursuit of profit or are
we prepared to protect and promote a part of our history?
- Username:
- Paul Canavan
- UserEmail:
- paul_canavan1@excite.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 195.7.34.65
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 01 February 2001
- Time:
- 12:02
Comments
This is a travesty, these buildings are part of our heritage. I
grew up in Drimnagh and these buildings were part of my
upbringing. Our 1916 heroes were interned and died within these
walls. This is another example of the Liam Lawlors of the world
putting money before history. What's next? A Dart station in
Christ Church?
- Username:
- Maria Delaney
- UserEmail:
- mia_delaney@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
- 0013459166133
- UserFAX:
- 0013459456401
- Remote Name:
- 205.161.241.188
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 01 February 2001
- Time:
- 13:48
Comments
As a Dubliner living abroad I realise the extent of the
historical sites in Ireland. We are blessed with our heritage and
should do everything within our power to protect it. Development
is important yet it must be controlled or it will take over and
leave Ireland as one large commercial zone, taking away its
history, charm, and everything we stand for.
- Username:
- Dr Ray Fuller
- UserEmail:
- rfuller@tcd.ie
- UserTel:
- 01-6082426
- UserFAX:
- 01-6712006
- Remote Name:
- 134.226.1.28
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 02 February 2001
- Time:
- 10:45
Comments
This revised proposed development is a minimalist and purely
cosmetic response to the considerations thoughtfully and
responsibly detailed by the Corporation in its comments on the
original proposal. There is still: No provision of green space; No
serious consideration of the height of adjacent and proximal
buildings; No responsible analysis of road infrastructure to
service access and parking (capacity and safety); No comprehensive
and sensitive consideration of the historic nature of the
immediate area; No meaningful protection of the privacy of
residents, especially those adjacent to the site on South Circular
Road; No restoration of the loss of direct sunlight to residents
adjacent to the site on South Circular Road; No reduction in the
size and density of the development which is totally out of
proportion to the existing historic and residential buildings.
This new proposal appears to be a cynical response to the
responsible position adopted by the Corporation, apparently driven
solely by a desire to exploit the site to deliver the largest
possible return on investment, with virtually no consideration for
the quality of the visual, social and historical environment.
- Username:
- Mary Upton, TD
- UserEmail:
- mary_upton@oireachtas.irlgov.ie
- UserTel:
- 6183756
- UserFAX:
- 6184637
- Remote Name:
- 193.120.127.221
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 02 February 2001
- Time:
- 10:56
Comments
This is the letter of objection submitted by local TD, Mary
Upton. From my careful examination of the file, this proposal is a
travesty and must be rejected.
Mr Christy Geoghegan, Principal Officer Planning Department
Dublin Corporation Civic Offices Dublin 8
1 February 2001
Dear Mr Geoghegan
I refer to planning application 2467/00 for new offices at the
former Nestle site, 34 to 35 Inchicore Road, Kilmainham. I wish to
respond to the points made in the additional information submitted
by the developers. I refer also to my previous correspondence of
September 15 last concerning the original application.
I have studied the details of the additional information and I
would ask that this application be rejected immediately.
1. Additional information submitted does not answer queries
raised Dublin Corporation should find that the additional
information submitted is completely insufficient. The proposed
development is of monstrous proportions and it will do serious
long-term damage to the future of Inchicore and Kilmainham.
Dublin Corporation should not feel under any obligation to
agree to this proposal. It must ensure that proper planning
guidelines are followed to the end. The Corporation should not be
bamboozled by the boxful of glossy documents submitted by the
developer.
2. Poor mix and too dense This is a huge development and the
additional information makes matters worse. There are too many
units and it is of too high a density.
The mix is appalling. The application admits that it has
nothing to offer the local community. Despite all the glossy
documents sent in from the developers, they did not bother to
draft a proper viability study on what they could offer the local
community.
Only 2% of the application is for uses other than office. This
is laughable and unacceptable.
Dublin Corporation has recently prepared a detailed Integrated
Area Plan for Kilmainham and Inchicore. This lays down what should
happen to make Kilmainham and Inchicore a better place. These
proposals fail to meet the guidelines of the IAP. On these grounds
alone, the application must be rejected.
3. Amenity and heritage value of site Many of the
representations made to Dublin Corporation mention the historic
value of Kilmainham Gaol. This needs to be at the forefront of the
Corporation's consideration of this application. As it now stands,
the proposal will dwarf the Gaol. It will severely undermine the
tourist value of the Gaol. Some 200,000 tourists visit Kilmainham
every year. Some part of this site could be used to develop and
exploit the tourism potential of Kilmainham.
Kilmainham and Inchicore are parts of Dublin with great
potential. They have been neglected in the past, but there is hope
in the air that things will improve. The local community need a
broad mix of services to improve everyone's quality of life. This
is not contained in this proposal.
4. Transport study is a joke The report submitted by the
transport consultants is shoddy and not worthy of consideration.
The additional information does not contain credible information
on how many people work in the offices.
There could be some 4000 people working in the offices. There
is insufficient provision for parking contained in the
application. It is not realistic to expect that everyone will take
public transport to work. The neighbouring area will be saturated
with daytime on-street parking.
5. Conclusion One person described this application as an ocean
liner forever docked in Kilmainham. This accurately describes the
macro and inappropriate scale of the development. If approved,
these offices would devastate Kilmainham and Inchicore and this
damage would last for many years.
This application must be rejected. Any office development
cannot be more imposing than the buildings now in place.
I look forward to the careful consideration of Dublin
Corporation of this proposal. I hope that the points I have raised
will be fully taken into account.
With best wishes.
Yours sincerely
____________ Mary Upton, TD
- Username:
- John Callery
- UserEmail:
- johncallery@eircom.net
- UserTel:
- 087 6820278
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.220.153
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 02 February 2001
- Time:
- 12:01
Comments
To everyone who has supported our campaign up until now-THANK
YOU ONE ALL from Texas to Tallaght and Paris to Inchicore.
Could you also e mail the following public servants who must
act in their professional roles as protectors of our historical
and architectural heritage. If they cannot act to protect
Kilmainham Gaol what excuses can they offer ?? Ask them. Sile de
Velera announced with a fanfare only some weeks ago that she is to
spend £1 million on the roof of the Gaol, she should concern
herself with the monstrosity that is planned to loom over the roof
of the Gaol.
Sile de Velera (Minister for Heritage & Culture)
aire@ealga.irlgov.ie
James Barret (City Architect) james.barret@dublincorp.ie
Bertie Ahern ( Irish Prime-minister and FF TD for Kilmainham )
bahern@iol.ie
- Username:
- Eithne Massey
- UserEmail:
- eithnemassey@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
- 4539381
- UserFAX:
- 4539381
- Remote Name:
- 194.168.166.180
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 02 February 2001
- Time:
- 15:53
Comments
As member of the local community in Inchicore, I would like to
lodge my strong objection to Charmside's (a most unsuitable name,
if ever there was one!) plans for the Nestle-Rowntree site. The
revised application is in no real sense an improvement on the
original one, which put forward a high-rise, high-density plan for
the site. The frontage of the site gives particular cause for
concern, removing the green area which currently exists and
creating a series of massive, monolithic structures, coming to the
very edge of Inchicore Road and the South Circular Road. Residents
in the area are opposed to the development primarily for the
following reasons;
The location: This corner is unique; it forms an axis of great
historical and cultural importance. Originally the site of a
twelfth century priory (and an earlier Celtic foundation), it now
holds the entrance to the Royal Hospital and the façade of
Kilmainham Jail. As it stands at present, the corner holds an
intact vista of seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth
century buildings. The historical and touristic importance of the
jail in particular must be obvious to anyone with even a passing
acquaintance with Irish history but the fact that it is more than
likely that the site is the location of the Knight's Hospitaller's
Great Hall - a building which was a centre of administrative life
in Dublin, on the scale of Dublin Castle - from the 12th. to the
16th. century-may not be generally known. The late twentieth
century Nestle Rowntree factory currently on the site is of
neither historical nor aesthetic importance, but it least it has
the virtue of being set well back from the road and with green
space and planting around it, and a clear view down towards the
Phoenix Park. The planned development would destroy this vista
completely. The planned buildings are completely out of character
with the area in both scale and design. The plan is not a bad
design in itself, simply the wrong buildings in the wrong place.
Modern architecture can blend in well with existing structures,
and no-one is advocating a pastiche-style building for the area,
but a much smaller, lower-scale design, with green space around it
and with some recognition of the particular character of the site
would go a long way towards making the plan acceptable.
The nature of the development: When it rejected the original
proposal, Dublin Corporation requested a more mixed development
from Charmside. The response could be considered laughable, if it
were not so insulting. Now with a few more retail units, a
restaurant (not specified for public use), a creche (not specified
for public use) and a public gym (of great benefit to the
community, considering the general age profile in the immediate
area) it has rejected the idea of a public square because of the
road junction. This despite the fact that anyone passing the area
on the mornings the court sits will find the paths full of the
waiting public. The rejection of any consideration being given to
a hotel as part of the site is also spurious. Many members of the
community would prefer have such a public facility, which would at
least bring life to the area, to a concrete ghost-town left
sitting on their doorsteps after the last commuter has sped (or
rather crawled) down towards the M50.
Traffic congestion: The scale of the planned proposal will
bring hundreds more cars to an already seriously congested area.
As it stands, there are constant rush-hour bottlenecks at all
roads around the site - South Circular Road, St. John's Road,
Kilmainham Lane, Old Kilmainham and Emmet Road. The huge emphasis
on car-parking in the scheme demonstrates that the developers see
this facility as a major selling-point in the development. At a
period when the Corporation is supposedly discouraging use of cars
in urban areas, how can they approve of such a scheme?
Finally, I would like to stress that the community realises
that what is a prime site cannot remain without development of
some kind. Office space is relatively non-pollutant and has the
potential to be designed in such a way as to retain the integral
character of an area. The Kilmainham/Inchicore area is overdue for
such development and an influx of workers would certainly be
welcomed by local businesses and no doubt stimulate new growth.
But this is not the plan that will develop this potential. If it
is approved, what it will leave us with is a monstrosity towering
over the cultural treasures of other days. Do we really want that
to be the legacy of the 21st. century?
If you are interested in further information about the site, or
interested in lodging an on-line objection, should access the
kilmainham-gaol website. I await your reply with interest,
7 Emmet Road, Dublin 8.
Tel: 4539381
Dear
Are you aware of the planned development at the Nestle-Rowntree
site at the corner of Inchicore Road and the South Circular Road?
If you are, what action do you plan to take?
A company called Charmside Developments has applied to Dublin
Corporation for planning permission to build an Office Park on
this site. Their first application was rejected and a second
application has been lodged, with the decision due to be given on
February 16th. The revised application is in no real sense an
improvement on the original one, which put forward a high-rise,
high-density plan for the site. The frontage of the site gives
particular cause for concern, removing the green area which
currently exists and creating a series of massive, monolithic
structures, coming to the very edge of Inchicore Road and the
South Circular Road. Residents in the area are opposed to the
development primarily for the following reasons;
The location: This corner is unique; it forms an axis of great
historical and cultural importance. Originally the site of a
twelfth century priory (and an earlier Celtic foundation), it now
holds the entrance to the Royal Hospital and the façade of
Kilmainham Jail. As it stands at present, the corner holds an
intact vista of seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth
century buildings. The historical and touristic importance of the
jail in particular must be obvious to anyone with even a passing
acquaintance with Irish history. The late twentieth century Nestle
Rowntree factory currently on the site is of neither historical
nor aesthetic importance, but it least it has the virtue of being
set well back from the road and with green space and planting
around it, and a clear view down towards the Phoenix Park. The
planned development would destroy this vista completely. The
planned buildings are completely out of character with the area in
both scale and design. The plan is not a bad design in itself,
simply the wrong buildings in the wrong place. Modern architecture
can blend in well with existing structures, and no-one is
advocating a pastiche-style building for the area, but a much
smaller, lower-scale design, with green space around it and with
some recognition of the particular character of the site would go
a long way towards making the plan acceptable.
The nature of the development: When it rejected the original
proposal, Dublin Corporation requested a more mixed development
from Charmside. The response could be considered laughable, if it
were not so insulting. Now with a few more retail units, a
restaurant (not specified for public use), a creche (not specified
for public use) and a public gym (of great benefit to the
community, considering the general age profile in the immediate
area) it has rejected the idea of a public square because of the
road junction. This despite the fact that anyone passing the area
on the mornings the court sits will find the paths full of the
waiting public. The rejection of any consideration being given to
a hotel as part of the site is also spurious. Many members of the
community would prefer have such a public facility, which would at
least bring life to the area, to a concrete ghost-town left
sitting on their doorsteps after the last commuter has sped (or
rather crawled) down towards the M50.
Traffic congestion: The scale of the planned proposal will
bring hundreds more cars to an already seriously congested area.
As it stands, there are constant rush-hour bottlenecks at all
roads around the site - South Circular Road, St. John's Road,
Kilmainham Lane, Old Kilmainham and Emmet Road. The huge emphasis
on car-parking in the scheme demonstrates that the developers see
this facility as a major selling-point in the development. At a
period when the Corporation is supposedly discouraging use of cars
in urban areas, how can they approve of such a scheme?
Finally, I would like to stress that the community realises
that what is a prime site cannot remain without development of
some kind. Office space is relatively non-pollutant and has the
potential to be designed in such a way as to retain the integral
character of an area. The Kilmainham/Inchicore area is overdue for
such development and an influx of workers would certainly be
welcomed by local businesses and no doubt stimulate new growth.
But this is not the plan that will develop this potential. If it
is approved, what it will leave us with is a monstrosity towering
over the cultural treasures of other days. Do we really want that
to be the legacy of the 21st. century?
If you are interested in further information about the site, or
interested in lodging an on-line objection, should access the
kilmainham-gaol website. I await your reply with interest,
7 Emmet Road, Dublin 8.
Tel: 4539381
Dear
Are you aware of the planned development at the Nestle-Rowntree
site at the corner of Inchicore Road and the South Circular Road?
If you are, what action do you plan to take?
A company called Charmside Developments has applied to Dublin
Corporation for planning permission to build an Office Park on
this site. Their first application was rejected and a second
application has been lodged, with the decision due to be given on
February 16th. The revised application is in no real sense an
improvement on the original one, which put forward a high-rise,
high-density plan for the site. The frontage of the site gives
particular cause for concern, removing the green area which
currently exists and creating a series of massive, monolithic
structures, coming to the very edge of Inchicore Road and the
South Circular Road. Residents in the area are opposed to the
development primarily for the following reasons;
The location: This corner is unique; it forms an axis of great
historical and cultural importance. Originally the site of a
twelfth century priory (and an earlier Celtic foundation), it now
holds the entrance to the Royal Hospital and the façade of
Kilmainham Jail. As it stands at present, the corner holds an
intact vista of seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth
century buildings. The historical and touristic importance of the
jail in particular must be obvious to anyone with even a passing
acquaintance with Irish history. The late twentieth century Nestle
Rowntree factory currently on the site is of neither historical
nor aesthetic importance, but it least it has the virtue of being
set well back from the road and with green space and planting
around it, and a clear view down towards the Phoenix Park. The
planned development would destroy this vista completely. The
planned buildings are completely out of character with the area in
both scale and design. The plan is not a bad design in itself,
simply the wrong buildings in the wrong place. Modern architecture
can blend in well with existing structures, and no-one is
advocating a pastiche-style building for the area, but a much
smaller, lower-scale design, with green space around it and with
some recognition of the particular character of the site would go
a long way towards making the plan acceptable.
The nature of the development: When it rejected the original
proposal, Dublin Corporation requested a more mixed development
from Charmside. The response could be considered laughable, if it
were not so insulting. Now with a few more retail units, a
restaurant (not specified for public use), a creche (not specified
for public use) and a public gym (of great benefit to the
community, considering the general age profile in the immediate
area) it has rejected the idea of a public square because of the
road junction. This despite the fact that anyone passing the area
on the mornings the court sits will find the paths full of the
waiting public. The rejection of any consideration being given to
a hotel as part of the site is also spurious. Many members of the
community would prefer have such a public facility, which would at
least bring life to the area, to a concrete ghost-town left
sitting on their doorsteps after the last commuter has sped (or
rather crawled) down towards the M50.
Traffic congestion: The scale of the planned proposal will
bring hundreds more cars to an already seriously congested area.
As it stands, there are constant rush-hour bottlenecks at all
roads around the site - South Circular Road, St. John's Road,
Kilmainham Lane, Old Kilmainham and Emmet Road. The huge emphasis
on car-parking in the scheme demonstrates that the developers see
this facility as a major selling-point in the development. At a
period when the Corporation is supposedly discouraging use of cars
in urban areas, how can they approve of such a scheme?
Finally, I would like to stress that the community realises
that what is a prime site cannot remain without development of
some kind. Office space is relatively non-pollutant and has the
potential to be designed in such a way as to retain the integral
character of an area. The Kilmainham/Inchicore area is overdue for
such development and an influx of workers would certainly be
welcomed by local businesses and no doubt stimulate new growth.
But this is not the plan that will develop this potential. If it
is approved, what it will leave us with is a monstrosity towering
over the cultural treasures of other days. Do we really want that
to be the legacy of the 21st. century?
If you are interested in further information about the site, or
interested in lodging an on-line objection, should access the
kilmainham-gaol website. I await your reply with interest,
7 Emmet Road, Dublin 8.
Tel: 4539381
Dear
Are you aware of the planned development at the Nestle-Rowntree
site at the corner of Inchicore Road and the South Circular Road?
If you are, what action do you plan to take?
A company called Charmside Developments has applied to Dublin
Corporation for planning permission to build an Office Park on
this site. Their first application was rejected and a second
application has been lodged, with the decision due to be given on
February 16th. The revised application is in no real sense an
improvement on the original one, which put forward a high-rise,
high-density plan for the site. The frontage of the site gives
particular cause for concern, removing the green area which
currently exists and creating a series of massive, monolithic
structures, coming to the very edge of Inchicore Road and the
South Circular Road. Residents in the area are opposed to the
development primarily for the following reasons;
The location: This corner is unique; it forms an axis of great
historical and cultural importance. Originally the site of a
twelfth century priory (and an earlier Celtic foundation), it now
holds the entrance to the Royal Hospital and the façade of
Kilmainham Jail. As it stands at present, the corner holds an
intact vista of seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth
century buildings. The historical and touristic importance of the
jail in particular must be obvious to anyone with even a passing
acquaintance with Irish history. The late twentieth century Nestle
Rowntree factory currently on the site is of neither historical
nor aesthetic importance, but it least it has the virtue of being
set well back from the road and with green space and planting
around it, and a clear view down towards the Phoenix Park. The
planned development would destroy this vista completely. The
planned buildings are completely out of character with the area in
both scale and design. The plan is not a bad design in itself,
simply the wrong buildings in the wrong place. Modern architecture
can blend in well with existing structures, and no-one is
advocating a pastiche-style building for the area, but a much
smaller, lower-scale design, with green space around it and with
some recognition of the particular character of the site would go
a long way towards making the plan acceptable.
The nature of the development: When it rejected the original
proposal, Dublin Corporation requested a more mixed development
from Charmside. The response could be considered laughable, if it
were not so insulting. Now with a few more retail units, a
restaurant (not specified for public use), a creche (not specified
for public use) and a public gym (of great benefit to the
community, considering the general age profile in the immediate
area) it has rejected the idea of a public square because of the
road junction. This despite the fact that anyone passing the area
on the mornings the court sits will find the paths full of the
waiting public. The rejection of any consideration being given to
a hotel as part of the site is also spurious. Many members of the
community would prefer have such a public facility, which would at
least bring life to the area, to a concrete ghost-town left
sitting on their doorsteps after the last commuter has sped (or
rather crawled) down towards the M50.
Traffic congestion: The scale of the planned proposal will
bring hundreds more cars to an already seriously congested area.
As it stands, there are constant rush-hour bottlenecks at all
roads around the site - South Circular Road, St. John's Road,
Kilmainham Lane, Old Kilmainham and Emmet Road. The huge emphasis
on car-parking in the scheme demonstrates that the developers see
this facility as a major selling-point in the development. At a
period when the Corporation is supposedly discouraging use of cars
in urban areas, how can they approve of such a scheme?
Finally, I would like to stress that the community realises
that what is a prime site cannot remain without development of
some kind. Office space is relatively non-pollutant and has the
potential to be designed in such a way as to retain the integral
character of an area. The Kilmainham/Inchicore area is overdue for
such development and an influx of workers would certainly be
welcomed by local businesses and no doubt stimulate new growth.
But this is not the plan that will develop this potential. If it
is approved, what it will leave us with is a monstrosity towering
over the cultural treasures of other days. Do we really want that
to be the legacy of the 21st. century?
If you are interested in further information about the site, or
interested in lodging an on-line objection, should access the
kilmainham-gaol website. I await your reply with interest,
- Username:
- Nick
- UserEmail:
- budskull@madmail.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.175.61
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 02 February 2001
- Time:
- 17:40
Comments
It is very disappointing to see that Dublin Corporation has no
consideration for historical landmarks such as kilmainham I am
from the kilmainham area and it would be a total disregard for the
people in the area such as myself to see a project such as this to
go forward
- Username:
- Denise Merriman,116 Kickham Road, Inchicore, Dublin 8
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.168.166.180
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 03 February 2001
- Time:
- 12:14
Comments
This site must be developed as one would see in any other
European country. This most unique site cries out for what we as
residents and our thousands of tourists require.
1) A classicaly,tastefully designed first class hotel.
2) A heritage village to to reflect the great and ancient
history of the area and site-from St. Maighneann of the 7th C, up
to the 1916 rising.
3) An OPEN PLAZA for all to sit and reflect on the great
history of the site and enjoy its unique views.
Sile de Velera and James Barret( Dublin City Architect) it's
your duty and responsibility to SAVE AND PRESERVE OUR BLUE SKIES
IN KILMAINHAM. Save us and the Old Gaol from these 3 proposed
OCEAN LINERS PLANNED TO BE bearthed in our face forever- even one
floor of offices will destroy this site for ever-and who will be
welcome on board these ocean liners - BUSINESS CLASS ONLY!!!!
- Username:
- Patrick V. Garland
- UserEmail:
- pgarland6@juno.com
- UserTel:
- USA (931) 764-2883
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 63.30.22.7
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 04 February 2001
- Time:
- 02:40
Comments
Dear Sirs: I am a first generation Irish-American, my father
emigrating to the US during the 1920s. My father was proud of his
heritage and I follow along. My wife and I have visited Kilmainham
Gaol and hope to do so again later this year. In my mind,
Kilmainham is a shrine and should be treated as such. Rather than
surrounding it with office buildings, I would rather see it
developed into a tourist site where visitors would be able to
learn more about Ireland's History, with facilities for stopping
to contemplate what took place at the Gaol, a shrine to pray,
public restaurants, and maybe a place to get a bite to eat. A gift
shop-book store would also be a nice addition.
- Username:
- Niall Rooney
- UserEmail:
- n_rooney@yahoo.com
- UserTel:
- 086 8873450
- UserFAX:
- n/a
- Remote Name:
- 136.201.1.46
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 05 February 2001
- Time:
- 04:12
Comments
I disagree with the proposed building of an office block
opposite to Kilmainham Jail as it would take away from a great
irish monument.For the record i am living in limerick city
- Username:
- John Callery,2 the Paddocks, Hy Breasal, SCR, Dublin 8.
- UserEmail:
- johncallery@eircom.net
- UserTel:
- 087 6820278
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.207.178
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 05 February 2001
- Time:
- 13:20
Comments
KILMAINHAM AND INCHICORE COMBINED RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS AND
FRIENDS OF KILMAINHAM GAOL.
Ref: Macro Blocks at Kilmainham Gaol.
James Barret City Architect Dublin Corporation Wood Quay
February 5th 2001.
We wish to state our following observations in relation to the
“revised”!! submission by Treasury Holdings pertaining to the
above.
1. Overall build of this “revised” development is now
56,786sq.m (611,245 ft. sq. ) Previous scheme = 53,388 sq.
m.(574,668 sq.ft) So proposed new build of these blocks has
increased by 3398 sq m.(36,576 sq.ft ). This is some RESPONCE to
him being asked to consider the density of his proposal.
2. Let’s now examine each block: Block A = 25,311 sq m of
which 24,788 sq m for office use Block A to contain a
“restaurant” (workers canteen)!! = 236 sq m. Also to contain
“a tourist information unit”!! = 361 sq m. Total retail = 597
sq m
So block A will provide “amenities” of 2.4% of “mixed
use”. Further more this miniscule space that he calls a
restaurant is nothing more than a tea room where the 4000
occupants of the blocks will cram in shifts for a smoke and cup of
tea. It is a token tea shop that would not even serve the needs of
the security staff of the Macro Blocks.
Block B = 9,019 sq m of which 7,616 sq m for office use. Block
B to contain 625 sq m of a “public gym”, 5 retail units = 417
sq m and “a private creche” of 361sq m.
So block B will provide the much needed “local and tourist
amenities” that this site cries out for, namely a gym and
private creche !! All he is providing is some miniscule facilities
for his tenants. Ratio here of offices to “mixed use”!! is 98%
offices to 2% office worker facilities – we ask where is the
local and tourist amenities that this site cries out for??
Block C = 2560 sq m, this remains at 100% office space.
OVERALL RATIO FOR SCHEME IS 98% OFFICES TO 2% “MIXED USE”-
which is for the benefit of the tenants.
The second so called proposal is exactly the same animal as the
first. This same proposal for this ancient and historic place is
preposterous , architecturally of no merit for such a magnificent
location just sub-urban Lego. The comments I have heard after
viewing the photomontage vary from that these blocks look like a
space station from opposite the Gaol, add a couple of flues and we
see a power station from the Pheonix Park and hospital blocks from
Con Colbert Road the Western Gateway into Dublin City. This just
cannot be passed in any shape or form and be imposed on this
ancient place. It’s like the O’ Flaherty case it will never be
right. It was wrong last year, its wrong this year and it will
never be right. A totally appropriate and well thought out design
is required here- a classic hotel, heritage park and public plaza.
3. Public space / atrium : This charade is nothing more than an
entrance foyer that “leads into the more private space of the
office atrium” to use the planning agents exacts words.
4. “A hotel was considered but not progressed” : We wish to
remind Dublin Corporation to read the 2000 very specific points as
submitted by the residents stating what this site requires (copy
enclosed).
PROPOSED OFFICE BLOCKS OPPOSITE KILMAINHAM GAOL.
Development by Charmside Developments at 34-38 Inchicore Road,
Kilmainham Dublin 8. Planning Ref: 2467 /00
I :……………… Address : ………………
…………………………. …………………………
………………………… August 29th 2000.
I wish to object to the above on the following grounds:
1. The building of the above and its function (SPECULATIVE
OFFICE BLOCKS) will diminish the integrity and national importance
of Kilmainham Jail.
2. I wish for this site opposite the Kilmainham Gaol to be
designated / zoned by Dublin Corporation as a HERITAGE / CULTURAL
site.
3. I wish for appropriate amenities for locals and the many
tourists who visit here. We require a classically designed hotel
(and its associated amenities) restaurant and heritage village for
our children and all the children of the nation which reflects the
great history of the district.
4. This is Dublin’s Bastille District – let any new
development reflect this as one will see surrounding Place de la
Bastille in Paris. This site must have public access and be
developed as “Plaza Kilmainham”
Yours sincerely,
……………………
5. This proposed development DWARFS all the protected
structures that surrounds this most unique site and it can only be
described as ARCHITECTURAL FACISM IF IMPOSED ON THE RESIDENTS of
St.John’s Terrace, Spencer Terrace and Charlton Terrace. This
most imposing scheme will be a negative externality of major
density and bulkness in the face of the Gaol and the district. It
cannot be considered be Dublin Corporation in any shape or form as
it’s apparent all the developer insists on developing is
speculative office blocks. Dublin Corporation you’re here to
serve the public not big business – you must respond to the
total con of “additional information” as submitted by the
developer in an appropriate manner. This most inappropriate (in
every sense of the word) proposal deserves total rejection, no
amount of requests to the developer will improve this scheme.
It’s architecturally, historically and morally wrong to say
nothing of its function and location. Dublin Corporation you know
yourselves this totally fails the objectives of your own IAP for
the area, the leading statement of which reads as follows-
“ On the 2nd of November 1999 Dublin Corporation launched (in
the East Wing of Kilmainham Gaol !!!) an exciting new Urban
Renewal Plan for the Kilmainham / Inchicore area. The AIM is to
bring about regeneration whilst enhancing both the built
environment and the green space”
This reads like a sick joke to us now. This proposed
development has the potential to destroy the only site in the
district where the aim of Dublin Corporation’s IAP can be
realised – opposite Kilmainham Gaol. Just view the photomontages
as submitted by the developer they do nothing to enhance his case
quite the contrary they destroy his pathetic arguments to justify
his most greedy speculative proposal for our most ancient and
historical place.
James Barret Dublin City Architect, Dublin Corporation Wood
Quay Dublin 8. Sept 8th 2000.
Re: Macro Blocks planned for Kilmainham Gaol and our IAP.
Dear Sir,
I just wish to reiterate the vision statement of the Integrated
Area Plan for Kilmainham.
. “To enhance the environment / heritage adjacent to
buildings of national importance”.
Can you imagine my feelings when only last month as I was out
pushing my young son in his buggy towards (our favourite place
among many in the district the Great War Memorial Park) when on
reading the planning application on the Nestle site railings I
turned and proceeded home shocked at what I had read. Six Hundred
and Fifty Thousand 650,000 sq ft of OFFICES, with a minimum office
population of 3,500!! to be spread over 3 blocks rising to 6
stories on the most perfect and elevated site in the district (if
not the City of Dublin) that should so rightly enhance the great
heritage and listed buildings that surround this site i.e.
Kilmainham Gaol, Bully’s Acre, ancient walls, walks and
gardens of the Royal Hospital, The Royal Hospital itself and the
War Memorial Park . From this elevated site one is in level with
the Arsenal in the Pheonix Park and the panorama of the Park
expanse itself.
We have the tourists in their thousands coming to view and soak
in the great heritage and history of Kilmainham. What is missing
is facilities and amenities for our tourists and locals alike.
This site has the potential of becoming the greatest venue in
Dublin for heritage and cultural events and all to revolve around
Kilmainham Gaol and what our district so badly lacks an tastefully
designed first class hotel to cater for tourists, the endless film
crews who come to the Jail and for ourselves as residents in the
most historic district in the city but not one single amenity to
reflect of our Jail and the other local national sites.
The next day I spent it in the planning office reading the
drawings and EIS as prepared by Treasury Holdings servants Frank
Benson ( Planning Agent) and Tony Reddy (architect ).
What is proposed to be shoehorned / built in our face and the
face of Kilmainham Gaol is THE MOST SPECULATIVE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
PLANNED IN THIS CITY SINCE THE SIXTIES. It shames the very word
architect and personifies the profession at its most greedy and
vulgar extremes. This architecture and its function is totally
alien to our district and must not stand beside the architecture
of Sir William Robinson (Royal Hospital), Francis
Johnston,(Richmond Tower) and Sir Edwin Lutyens (War Memorial
Park) to name only a few great architects whose work stands in the
district today. THIS CANNOT BE BUILT OPPOSITE KILMAINHAM GAOL AND
THE ROYAL HOSPITAL and over and around us as residents.
The integrity of the much vaunted IAP for this district, that
was launched (with a fanfare over fine wine and mature cheese) in
( Mc Caudrey’s ) East Wing of Kilmainham Gaol only some months
ago already lies shattered and irrevocably damaged. It’s also
void of any trust if this was planned as the developer says
“after detailed discussions with the senior planners and
architects of Dublin Corporation.”
The IAP has being exposed as a joke and words written on paper.
The anger in this district has steadily mounted and is about to
reach a cresendo people are shocked and stunned and so worried of
what could loom over us and the Jail forever!! The muck that was
built in the sixties still stands Hawkins House, Liffey House to
mention other 6 storey blocks although everyone agrees they should
never have being built. This is the year 2000 and the
implementation of IAPs, there are no excuses this.
This development belongs out off the M50 not on the actual
ancient lands where Brian Boru camped the evening before the
battle of Clontarf in 1014 also the ancient place of St. John’s
Well. This is reason enough why no speculative office blocks
should ever be built here. This site cries out and deserves
development in the form of heritage, tourism an international
hotel etc.- not speculative office blocks.
I write on behalf of the lads in Donoughue’s who when I told
them (with their mouths open) of what our IAP has planned for the
Nestle site, said to a man “Office blocks, never, your messing,
in front of Kilmainham Jail, the government would never allow
it.” As is the norm (after a little thought on the matter) in
this district they then put their heads back in their pints to
console themselves and their genuine feelings of “why bother
John, it’s a done deal as usual”
I also write on behalf of Rosie whom I conversed with in the
snug of Mc Dowell’s when on hearing the proposal up at the Jail
simply said “it’s a disgrace, office blocks, sure Dublin is
full of them. I’ll tell you what’s badly needed around here, a
chemist shop son, a chemist shop, tell them that!!!. Boy did she
make me realise we’re all on the one road, in that this site
must provide amenities and facilities for us and all our tourists
alike. Maybe Rosie’s ideas of ideal facilities might differ from
mine but are just as valid and desire a listener’s ear.
Many of us in Dublin are aware of the vision you manifested in
your tenure as Limerick City Architect and its great equivalent
historical site St. John’s Castle. We rest our trust in you that
when people gather again in great crowds outside of Kilmainham in
2016 that you will have played your part in ensuring that an
appropriate legacy is rightly located opposite Dublin’s and the
nation’s most historic site.
Please Jim, this is your watch over us and Dublin’s
Kilmainham Gaol. If you can spare us and the Jail from what is
proposed to loom over us forever, please do.
Yours sincerely,
JOHN CALLERY & SON.
an be realised – opposite Kilmainham Gaol. All one has to do
is to look at the photomontages as submitted by the developer.
- Username:
- Niamh Checkley
- UserEmail:
- niamhnc@yahoo.com
- UserTel:
- 087.9984990
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.106.141.66
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 05 February 2001
- Time:
- 13:36
Comments
I was appalled to hear about the office block planned for
Kilmainham. As a native of Dublin I feel this building would ruin
such a historic part of Dublin.
- Username:
- Noreen Dennehy
- UserEmail:
- noreen_dennehy@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
- 01 4544172
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 139.92.140.140
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 05 February 2001
- Time:
- 14:55
Comments
I feel that the proposed office block is highly inappropriate
to it's surroundings. I live in the area (Kilmainham, D 8) and
feel that the historical and cultural atmosphere of the area would
not be best preserved by the building of an office block. This is
not in the area's best long term interests - posterity will not
thank us for going ahead with this development.
- Username:
- Alice Da Silva
- UserEmail:
- dasilvamcp@msn.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 63.23.123.109
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 05 February 2001
- Time:
- 18:51
Comments
I am objecting to your proposed office development. These
historic buildings are a direct link to our history and should not
be adversely affected in any way. Alice in New York.
- Username:
- Captain Simon Reece
- UserEmail:
- sksisko@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 193.203.145.92
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 05 February 2001
- Time:
- 21:54
Comments
Kilmainham jail is one of the most impressive historical
buildings in europe. it captures hundreds of years of are history.
So many people died in this place so people like us can look back
and be proud of being irish and now people are going to be let
overshadow this fantastic building that symbolis's irish freedom.
People cop on
Captain Simon Reece United states airforce
- Username:
- Patrick R. E. Kelley
- UserEmail:
- lugh@ou.edu
- UserTel:
- 011-(405)447-9215
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 129.15.111.218
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 06 February 2001
- Time:
- 03:41
Comments
I believe that to dwarf Kilmainham Gaol with modern office
buildings would greatly affect the impact that the building has on
visitors to Ireland's most important historical monument. The
visual impact that its size conveys expresses the oppressive force
that the crown held over Ireland. When I visited it in 1994 I was
deeply moved by the power of the building to silence and depress I
think had it been surrounded by larger buildings its impact would
not have been as great. I am from Edmond, Oklahoma, USA and
consider this building one of the most meaningful places in
Ireland.
- Username:
- James Waugh,15 The Paddocks, South Circular Road, Kilmainham
,Dublin 8
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.220.67
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 07 February 2001
- Time:
- 16:27
Comments
Dublin City Planners - May we add our concerns to the matter
addressed by Liam O’Meara in today's Irish Times, the insane
proposal (being considered by Dublin Corporation) i.e. the
planning of massive speculative office blocks opposite Kilmainham
Gaol in this the most ancient and historic district of Dublin
City. How can this be considered by Dublin Corporation as part of
their much lauded Integrated Area Plan (IAP) for
Kilmainham/Inchicore that was launched with such a fanfare in the
East Wing of Kilmainham Gaol on the 2nd November 1999 ??
This preposterous proposal could land, surround and loom over
(on all sides) some of the greatest protected stone icons that
stand in the city of Dublin today. Namely, Kilmainham Gaol (a
national monument), The Royal Hospital, Kilmainham Courthouse, the
Richmond Tower, the ancient walls of Bully’s Acre, the Great War
Memorial Park and the residents of the Victorian dwellings of St.
John’s Terrace and Inchicore Road.
This is Dublin’s "Bastille district",it must be
developed and enhanced by an appropriate and well thought design
as one would see in any other European city. This magnificent
elevated site was chosen by Brian Boru as his campsite the evening
before the Battle of Clontarf in 1014. It is also the ancient
place of St. John’s Well. This the Western Gateway into Dublin
City deserves the planning of a landmark building (of the utmost
architectural excellence) to stand in the middle of its
illustrious neighbours. This site must have full public access to
allow our thousands of tourists / ourselves to ponder and reflect
on all the great history that surrounds this site and to enjoy its
most splendid and unique views.
Sile de Velera (Minister for heritage and culture) listen to
the voices of the people in the churches, shops / pubs of
Inchicore and Kilmainham and above all listen to the voices
reverberating of the walls and cells of Kilmainham Gaol, please no
speculative office blocks here in any shape or form !!
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 195.7.34.195
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 08 February 2001
- Time:
- 10:51
Comments
- Username:
- Paul Salmon, 29 The Coppice, Palmerstown, Dublin 20.
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 212.17.49.205
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 08 February 2001
- Time:
- 14:04
Comments
Dublin Corporation this proposal in front of you (and the Jail)
fails the objectives and aims of your own Integrated Area Plan for
Kilmainham. It also fails the criteria set out in your own
commissioned Urban Design Plan of May 2000. This stated that on
this site must arise a building of architectural excellence / a
landmark building. The proposal before you totally fails your own
criteria totally - you cannot pass this proposal before you and
have posterity ask why??
- Username:
- BETRAYAL BY DUBLIN CORPORATION.
- UserEmail:
- TREASON BY DUBLIN CORPORATION
- UserTel:
- OUTRAGE : "AFTER CONSULTATION EITH THE SENIOR PLANNERS
AND ARCHITECTS"
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.176.169
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 08 February 2001
- Time:
- 15:00
Comments
Dear Mr Callery
We act as Planning Consultants for the proposed development. I
note from the Planning Files at Dublin Corporation and from the
letters page of the Irish Voice your correspondence on this issue.
I am concerned that some of the statements you make are at odds
with the facts of the scheme. For example, the Gaol is located
south of the scheme. Therefore the proposal has shadow cast upon
it by the Gaol, not the other way around. Similarly, your
correspondence does not take into account the current and
long-standing industrial use of the site as a Chocolate Factory.
We held two meetings with local residents in June at the
Ashling Hotel to outline the scheme prior to lodgement to Dublin
Corporation.
We have also met with senior officials of Duchas - the Heritage
Service who are vested with the care of Kilmainham Gaol.
The scheme as submitted stems from detailed discussions with
senior planners and architects at Dublin Corporation, and the
developer is fully commited to the realisation of the planning
gain elements.
We will be holding another public meeting shortly (early
September)for local residents to which we will extend you an
invitation. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the scheme
with you.
I would like to correct the record in terms of your
correspondence with the Irish Voice so that any letters of
representation stem from correct information.
I look forward to meeting with you at the public meeting.
With regards
Tom R. Phillips
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.133.245
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 08 February 2001
- Time:
- 23:30
Comments
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.165.165.197
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 10 February 2001
- Time:
- 14:03
Comments
It is time people realized that the government is supposed to
work for us "The people of Ireland" We hired them we can
fire them,so hands off our heritage,leave Kilmainham alone and let
the "fat cats" find some other way to get richer and not
at our expense. Jim Wall
- Username:
- FRIENDS OF KILMAINHAM GAOL.
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.168.166.180
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 10 February 2001
- Time:
- 16:53
Comments
Q95) COUNCILLOR JOHN GALLAGHER.
To ask the City Manager(John Fitzgerald)if he will establish an
independent group of experts to examine the feasibility of a
variation of the Development Plan for the Nestle site, Inchicore
Road , Dublin 8, so that this site is re-zoned to take account of
its historic importance and vital role in the future of Inchicore.
CITY MANAGER'S REPLY.
THE SITE IS ZONED Z6 " to provide for the protection of
enterprise and facilitate employment creation" The site has a
longstanding use for industrial purposes.
According to the Integrated Area Plan " The underlying
strategy of the IAP is to " bring about economic regeneration
of Kilmainham-Inchicore, whilst protecting and enhancing both the
built environment and greenspace, all to be based on an
appreciation of the historic importance of the area."
The change of use zoning on this site and the loss of
employment potential would not be desirable and could not be
recommended.
There is a good mix of use zones in the area. There is a clear
synergy between the provision of significant employment uses on
the Nestle site and the existing residential developments nearby.
THE CURRENT APPLICATION (2467/00) AS REVISED AT THE REQUEST OF
THE PLANNING DEPT. PROVIDES FOR A MIX OF USES ON SITE INCLUDING A
RESTAURANT,CRECHE, INFORMATION AND LEISURE USES.
At a meeting with the local Councillors it seems that they are
more concerned with design issues and not so much as the Z6 zoning
per se. In practice in dealing with the current application it is
been treated as if it were a de facto CONSERVATION AREA.
**********************************************
So there you have it from the horse's mouth or rather the
developers mouths. Who does Fitzgerald represent the people of
Dublin or the developers. Obviously from his script as written
above his agenda overlaps the developers agenda to a tee. His
feeble efforts to justify the destruction of this site is pathetic
and its morally and profesionally wrong of him to present the
developers argument. In any other City Authority there would be
immediate calls for his dismissal and resignation. Note not once
did he refer to the existance of Kilmainham Gaol. So the site in
front of the Gaol was an industrial site 50 years ago and must
remain so for the next 1000 years, what a sorry justification this
is for to build high rise speculative office blocks in front of
Kilmainham Gaol. The top official in Dublin Corporation has spoken
( 5th February 2001)-my God what hands we and the Old Gaol are in.
Dublin Corporation are letting us know (and Treasury Holdings)
well in advance of their decision. The City Manager's reply to
John Gallagher's question is a disgrace. Fitzgerald ( along with
both the de Veleras) is quite happy to oversee the destruction of
the obvious potential of this site i.e. tourism and cultural
facilities.
- Username:
- Petra Schurenhofer
- UserEmail:
- petrasch@iol.ie
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.2.129
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 10 February 2001
- Time:
- 17:20
Comments
Dear Sir/Madam,
Kilmainham Jail is an important historical site. Please don't
ruin it. There are some things in life which are more important
than short-term profit.
Petra Schurenhofer (Dublin)
- Username:
- Richard Davies
- UserEmail:
- rjdavies@indigo.ie
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.205.53
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 11 February 2001
- Time:
- 11:59
Comments
The proposed development opposite Kilmainham Gaol appears to be
another nail in the Integrated Area Plan. Million Pound plans to
develop Inchicore Village (Grattan Cresent)into a Plaza and
pedestrian friendly area will be severly undermined by the
increase in traffic from the above development. R. Davies (Hon.
Sec. Tyrconnell Residents Association)
- Username:
- Ed Brophy
- UserEmail:
- edbrophy@indigo
- UserTel:
- +353 86 618 2023
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.174.25
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 12 February 2001
- Time:
- 00:39
Comments
As a local resident I am appalled that such an inappropriate
development would even be considered for this historic area.
- Username:
- Leigh Dolan
- UserEmail:
- leighdolan@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.205.246.150
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 12 February 2001
- Time:
- 10:38
Comments
Dublin Feb 01
After returning to the Gaol for the second time in three years
recently, I was delighted to see the pending removal of the
Rowentree factory opposite the Gaol. However, on passing and
viewing the planning application outside, I was amazed to see what
is to replace it. The sheer bulk and scale of the proposal is of
concern in this particularily historicaly sensitive area. Have
these developers no concern over what they are doing? Can the
Corpo not put their footdown and avoid replicating disasters such
as Liberty hall and Liffey house all over again? What about the
residents nearby?
Shame on you dublin Corp and developers.
- Username:
- DAIL DEBATE ON SITE OPPOSITE KILMAINHAM GAOL.
- UserEmail:
- Time for the Minister for Heritage and the Arts to meet the
people ??
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.148.63
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 12 February 2001
- Time:
- 12:50
Comments
^ Sale of Dublin Site. ^
Mr. G. Mitchell: I would like to give a minute of my time to
Deputies Upton and McGennis, my colleagues in the constituency.
The old Rowntree Mackintosh site on Inchicore Road, Kilmainham is
directly opposite Kilmainham Gaol, which will be well known to the
Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de
Valera, and the Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Ó Cuív,
because their grandfather, Eamon de Valera, spent some time in
that gaol at the time of the rising which gave rise to the
foundation of this State. Inchicore and Kilmainham is a very
historic area. W.T. Cosgrave was born in Kilmainham and was
incarcerated within the vicinity of Inchicore. My own father is
from Emmet Road, Inchicore and my mother is from Mount Brown,
Kilmainham, both equidistant from this site and from Kilmainham
Gaol. Both my parents could have literally thrown a stone into the
gaol yard. In their memory, the memory of all the people from
Inchicore and Kilmainham who consider that site to be precious,
the memory of the Minister of State's own grandfather, the memory
of W.T. Cosgrave and the memory of the people who gave their lives
to found this State and who served in this State, I ask the
Minister, who told us that Dúchas already has 700 sites and it
does not need one more, to now take on this historic site, which
dates back to a campsite for Brian Boru; there is evidence to show
that is the case. What is proposed for this site is a commercial
development which will be little more than a major office block
with a few dressing up facilities attached. It will do terrible
damage to the vicinity. It would bring an enormous amount of
traffic and overlook houses in the vicinity.
(Mr. G. Mitchell contg) This site, which can be seen from the
Phoenix Park and is adjacent to the Royal Hospital Kilmainham, the
only 16th century building in Dublin, if not in the country, still
in use, is an important historic site. I plead with the Minister
to enter into negotiations with Dublin Corporation to acquire this
site and put it to use for cultural and heritage purposes, perhaps
with the addition of a suitable hotel for tourists who are
attracted into the area. I ask the Minister to make it a total of
701 sites and to meet a deputation of local people and Deputies to
discuss this possibility.
Dr. Upton: I thank Deputy Mitchell for sharing his time with
me. The proposed development of this historic site will add
nothing to the area. Rather it will seriously damage the great
historic and cultural value of the environment around Kilmainham.
The application admits it has nothing to offer the local
community. Many of the representations made refer to the great
historic value of Kilmainham Gaol. This needs to be to the
forefront in the consideration of any planning application. As it
stands, the proposed development will totally dwarf the gaol.
Something like 200,000 visitors visit this historic area every
year. Some parts of the site could be used to develop and exploit
the tourism potential of Kilmainham. The Kilmainham and Inchicore
areas have great potential but in the past they have not been
developed to the benefit of local people. I ask the Minister to
give careful consideration to the request of local people who,
together with those who have an interest in local and national
culture and history, are interested in the retention of the site
for development as a cultural area.
Ms M. McGennis: I thank Deputy Mitchell giving me an
opportunity to make a plea not only on behalf of the residents of
the area but on historic grounds. The Minister may say this is a
matter for Dublin Corporation. However, even if it decides to
refuse the application, which has been described by my
constituency colleagues as an abomination, the local community and
Dublin as a whole will have to fight a running battle in relation
to this site which was once occupied by the old Rowntree factory
and has been taken over by Nestlé. Due to its zoning and usage it
is ripe for the wrong type of development. It appears from the
soundings made to Dublin Corporation there is a strong possibility
that if this application is refused a future application will
proceed. We do not want to have to fight a running battle in
relation to the future of the site. As Deputy Mitchell said, a
response to the city council indicated that the Minister has
sufficient sites in her ownership and she does not want to take on
another one. If she does not take on this site this area will be
destroyed. I plead with the Minister to look sympathetically at
our request and to urgently meet a deputation to discuss the
future of the site.
Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage,
Gaeltacht and the Islands (Éamon Ó Cuív): I am delighted to
have the opportunity to put on the record the position in relation
to Kilmainham Gaol. Kilmainham Gaol is one of the most important
of the heritage sites managed by the Department. It was first
opened in 1796 and served as a gaol until 1924. During its period
of operation Kilmainham Gaol could be said to have functioned like
a political seismograph, recording most of the significant tremors
in the often turbulent relations between this country and our
neighbours. With the exception of perhaps Daniel O'Connell and
Michael Collins, it is possible to draw up a comprehensive list of
nationalist leaders, including Éamon de Valera---
Mr. G. Mitchell: And Parnell.
Éamon Ó Cuív: I will not list all the great people such as
Robert Emmet, Ann Devlin and others who were incarcerated in the
prison. The 1916 leaders were also executed in the prison. It is
possible to draw up a comprehensive list of nationalist leaders
who were prisoners in Kilmainham during the years it operated as a
gaol. The record will show that Éamon de Valera was the last
prisoner to be released from Kilmainham Gaol. It can be said,
therefore, that while the gaol may be empty of prisoners it is
filled with history. Kilmainham Gaol is one of the most important
of the heritage sites managed by the Department. By way of
example, the number of visitors to the gaol in 2000 was in excess
of 103,000. This does not take account of the some 17,000 who
visited the site under the free educational visits scheme operated
by the Department at heritage sites. Deputies on all sides of the
House will agree that the figures I have quoted are significant
and reflect the status which the site enjoys not only among our
population but also among overseas visitors. I have long
recognised the important role the gaol has played both in terms of
the heritage of Dublin and as an integral part of the city's
tourism industry. It was for this reason the Minister, when making
decisions on the allocation of funding available to the heritage
area under the national development plan, approved substantial
funding for three separate but equally important projects at the
gaol - the re-roofing of the east wing, the relocation of the
restaurant and the provision of much needed extra storage space.
The exact sequence of these projects has yet to be determined but
I am confident work on the site will commence during 2002.
(Interruptions).
Éamon Ó Cuív: Many of the issues raised are a matter for
Dublin Corporation - they are planning rather than heritage
issues.
Mr. G. Mitchell: I want the Department to buy the site.
Éamon Ó Cuív: Dublin Corporation is considering a planning
application for the development of the old Rowntree-Mackintosh
site across from the gaol. My Department is aware of the scheme
proposed and in this context officials from the Department have
been in contact with the developer to ensure that the heritage of
Kilmainham Gaol and access to it are safeguarded.
Mr. G. Mitchell: Will the Minister meet a deputation?
Éamon Ó Cuív: The main focus of these contacts has been on
parking for visitors to the gaol, with my officials seeking to
reach agreement with the developer regarding possible parking on
the Rowntree-Mackintosh site once any development is complete. My
Department is awaiting a response from the developer on this
matter.
Mr. G. Mitchell: Will the Minister meet a deputation?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, Deputy.
Éamon Ó Cuív: My Department has advised Dublin Corporation
that the Rowntree-Mackintosh site is considered to have
archaeological potential. As is normally the case in such
instances, my Department has recommended to Dublin Corporation
that if planning permission for the development is granted
specific conditions relating to test excavations and
archaeological monitoring should be attached. My officials have
asked for these conditions to be attached specifically in the
interest of protecting possible archaeological heritage which may
be present on the site. The Minister wants to make it clear, as
she has done on a number of occasions when the matter was raised
in the House by way of parliamentary question, that as the site is
ear-marked for a major commercial development the question of its
acquisition by the Department does not arise. I will convey the
Deputy's request to the Minister who no doubt will be in contact
with him directly in relation to the request for a meeting.
Mr. G. Mitchell: Thank you.
- Username:
- Leo Birthistle , St. John's Gardens, Kilmainham, Dublin 8.
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.148.63
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 12 February 2001
- Time:
- 12:57
Comments
JAMES P. BOURKE B.E. Civil Engineer.
SON NA MARA, COLIEMORE ROAD, DALKEY, CO. DUBLIN. IRELAND.
TELEPHONE 2859954.
Proposed Development @ Kilmainham. Nestle Factory Site.
On Thursday 18th January 2001, I visited the above site, where
I carried out a hydro-geolgical survey. Before doing so, I
inspected 4 maps of the area. From an inspection of these maps it
would appear that five locations have been given for wells in this
area.
The maps examined were as follows:-
a) 1811, by Thomas Campbell. b) 1832 / 43, Ordnance Survey. c)
1886 / 87, Valuation Office.
The maps for 1811 and for 1832 both appear to show a St.
John’s Well at the point marked a on attached map. The 1832 map
also shows a “well” at the point B. the maps for 1886 and 1902
show St. John’s Well at the point C. In 1838 according to Kenny
(1995..71) the well was “exactly at the corner of Bully’s
Acre”, (point D on attached map.)
It Appears the railway cutting which was made in the 1840s, cut
the supply of water to the well, (now located at the corner of
Bully’s Acre). A new outlet for the spring that fed the well was
found on the western side of the Circular Road. The maps for 1886
and 1902 show “St. John’s Well” outside of and to the south
of the newly of the newly completed terrace “St. John’s
Gardens”. Yet it would appear that when the houses were built in
1896- 98, “they infringed upon the space around the well”.
This would indicate that marking the location at ( C ) as shown on
maps 1896 and 1902 would have been incorrect.
This point has been confirmed on the site, where it was found
that no underground stream exists here ( C ) which would be
necessary to supply a spring well. The reference that the houses
“infringed around the well” almost certainly places the site
of the well in the property of house No. 695 St. John’s Gardens.
On attached maps I have shown, dotted blue, the layout of an
under ground stream. From The Model Schools Inchicore, it follows
the gravel ridge just south of the railway embankment to pass
through the proposed development site. The stream emerges from the
site to under house No. 695 St. John’s Gardens ( E on the map ).
It then passes under South Circular Road, at D where it divides
into two streams. The main portion of the stream travels towards
the Royal Hospital, the other moves towards the point A. Here it
is met by a stream coming from a north-westerly direction before
joining the Liffey – bed a little further on.
The water in this underground stream can be observed at two
locations:- ( X ) In the recently constructed well in the grounds
of the Buddhist Community. ( Y ) In the ground of the Royal
Hospital, where it surfaces in the low-lying ground as the water
table rises. From the above information a picture emerges in
relation to the visissitudes of St. John’s Well and its various
alleged locations.
(1) St. John’s Priory was founded in 1174. It has been
established a well existed at that time ( Bersu, 1948 ). This
would presumably have been the first St. John’s Well.
(2) With the dissolution of St. John’s Priory in 1556, the
building fell into decay. Presumably the well and it’s surrounds
suffered a similar fate.
(3) The next nearest well would have been the one shown ( A ).
It most likely took on the name St. John’s Well around this
time.
(4) With the railway excavation of the 1840s, the supply to ( A
) was cut off and the stream blocked.
(5) The water in the stream would then have backed – up under
pressure to emerge at ( D ), on the corner of Bully’s Acre.
(6) The subsequent extensive road widening here would have
blocked this well. The source would again have backed – up to
emerge in what is now the back garden of No. 695 St. John’s
Gardens. This would appear to have been the final location for the
well.
Consequences of Site Excavation.
The lowering of the water table here by approx. 9 metres will
have medium and long-term effects. The subsoil around the
excavated area will Contract as it dries out. This will tend to
cause subsidence of foundations, with consequent cracking of
walls. The area to be excavated is given at approx. 16,000 sq.
metres. This means the quantity of material to be removed will be
approx. 150,000 sq. metres. Over 300,000 Tonnes would be involved,
or something of the order of 15,000 truck loads. The impact of
such heavy traffic on the roads and foundations around the area
would be incalculable.
Just outside the site on its western end is a well surmounted
by a substantial structure. This has been built for the Buddhist
Community, obviously for religious purposes. This well will
totally be without water if excavation takes place as proposed.
The houses north and south of No. 695, St. John’s Gardens
will be greatly affected by shrinking subsoil beneath their
foundations. On my visit to this area ( 18th January 2001 ) I
surveyed No. 695 St. John’s Gardens for structural defects.
Externally there were none. Internally, a crack was observed at
ceiling level in the north-eastern corner of a downstairs front
room. It was approx. 1mm wide and ran for approx. 0.5 metres.
It would appear from records ( Natural History of Co. Dublin,
1772 ) that a lead mine was in use in 1776, at Kilmainham. It was
located at the Commons , where it is reasonable to assume that
lead seams may be located beneath the Nestle site. A bore-hole
survey is imperative to decide this issue. If lead is found the
site should not be developed, because of the toxicity of lead,
especially when it is brought into contact with water.
In view of all these considerations it would be deleterious to
the residents of this locality if the development of the Nestle
Factory site were to be sanctioned.
JAMES P. BOURKE B.E. ( Civil Engineer ).
- Username:
- Paul Dunne
- UserEmail:
- pauld@gensec.ie
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.134.165
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 13 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:55
Comments
As a resident of Inchicore Road, I am quite frankly amazed that
the public need to go to these lengths to prevent this
development. Kilmainham Gaol and The Royal Hospital are two of
Dublin's most famous and historical attractions and to think that
this site may be developed to the detriment of these sites is
outrageous. We do not want an office development on a historical
site. Why the hell did we build office parks in the first place.
This development has no place in Kilmainham and should be housed
in Esat Point or one of the other many alternative office parks.
Please wake up and scrap these plans before it is too late. Yours,
Paul Dunne
- Username:
- Paul Dunne
- UserEmail:
- pauld@gensec.ie
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.134.165
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 13 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:57
Comments
As a resident of Inchicore Road, I am quite frankly amazed that
the public need to go to these lengths to prevent this
development. Kilmainham Gaol and The Royal Hospital are two of
Dublin's most famous and historical attractions and to think that
this site may be developed to the detriment of these sites is
outrageous. We do not want an office development on a historical
site. Why the hell did we build office parks in the first place?
This development has no place in Kilmainham and should be housed
in East Point or one of the other many alternative office parks.
Please wake up and scrap these plans before it is too late. Yours,
Paul Dunne
- Username:
- Johnny Fortycoats
- UserEmail:
- bangbang@brendanbehan.ira
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 149.157.1.55
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 13 February 2001
- Time:
- 13:15
Comments
A largre crowd of yuppies outside of kilmainham had their
mobiles switched off as the sat on the ground, Now inside that dim
prison live the natives of Inchicore, their house prices pushed up
by the new yuppie scum. For what once was a village is now raped
and pillaged as the old stock departs like the last 21. *(bus
route no longer in use)
God's curse on you Tiger, you cruel hearted monster, your breed
they would shame all the demons in Town. The locals are fuming but
the yuppies are booming, as they strangle oul Inchicore off the
face of the earth.
- Username:
- J.Wall
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 159.134.225.82
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 13 February 2001
- Time:
- 16:48
Comments
J.Wall The last thing Kilmainham needs is an building of of
that scale, out of context with its surroundings. Have we not
learned from our mistakes in the design and location of the
eyesore central bank on Dame St, and the pill boxes the Corpo
itself resides in. The architects and developers are not
infallible, as Dublins legacy of eyesores proves. These plans
demand a rethink.
- Username:
- Inchicore Road, Residences Association, Kilmainham Dublin 8.
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.207.239
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 14 February 2001
- Time:
- 11:58
Comments
Inchicore Road Residences Association Inchicore Road,
Kilmainham, Dublin 8.
13.02.01.
The Inchicore Road Residences Association wish to lodge an
objection to Dublin Corporation, against the revised plans
submitted by Charmside Developments for their proposed development
across from Kilmainham Gaol. (2467/00).
The reasons for the objection are outlined below. The most
important point is in relation to the zoning of the site. Other
points raised are in relation to the proposed structure.
Zoning: The zoning of this site as industrial in an area
dominated by heritage buildings and protected structures is
completely inappropriate. The site should be used as a heritage
site with facilities for the public and tourists.
New Public Space: The existing Nestle building is set back from
the building line of the houses on the north side of Inchicore
Road. This opens out the street at the entrance to Inchicore Road
and gives a feeling of space in front of the Gaol. One can clearly
visualise how this could be transformed into a public space if the
current set back line of the Nestles office block is maintained.
In contrast to this the curved wall of the proposed structure
projects aggressively out beyond the existing building line of the
houses on the north side of the Inchicore Road. In doing this it
dominates all other buildings in the area. The building is to be
built over the sunny side of the street and the space in front of
it will be in shadow for most of the year and therefore will not
be used as a public space. There is no public seating indicated in
the proposed new space. To summarise this ‘public space’ as
proposed in front of the Gaol is no more than a glorified Zebra
crossing – it’s a joke.
Character of Inchicore Road: Inchicore Road is Kilmainham’s
(Unden den Liden) it’s a most unique Tree Lined Avenue. Very
mature trees ( 100 years +) line it on either side. The developers
proposes to remove at least one of these trees opposite the Gaol.
It’s also very clear from the plan that other existing mature
trees will be in grave danger of being lost during construction
considering their proximity to the proposed structure.
The charming character of Inchicore Road is defined by this
tree lined Avenue and under no circumstances should these trees be
removed.
Scale: The scale of the building is overpowering and dominates
and dwarfs all surrounding structures. It clearly does not relate
to the surrounding structures.
Form and Mass: The form of the building is MONOLITHIC and the
proposed density on the site bears no relationship to the
surrounding structures. In fact the revised scheme increases the
size of the development by 3,351sq. metres thus increasing its
density.
Materials: The proposed use of Tecrete is totally alien to the
context.
Natural Ventilation: The developer proposes using natural
ventilation. This will be impossible on two accounts. Firstly the
depth of the building from window to atrium is up to 28 metres.
This is too wide resulting in a large volumetric space which
cannot be ventilated naturally. Secondly with a large density of
lights / to service this computers and VDUs in the building
mechanical cooling / air-conditioning plant will be required to
counteract the heat being produced. The revised scheme shows no
plant on the roof. In fact a very large plant area on the roof
will be required to service this building thus raising the
building by another storey. The developers obviously intend to
apply for this at a later date.
Public Transport: The proposed transport node of the LUAS on
Davitt Road (in Drimnagh) that is to service this building is
located at too great a distance to fulfil this role. The
surrounding roads are already pushed at peak hours to cope with
this proposed influx of traffic. The surrounding residential area
will be used as an overflow parking area for the new development.
Conclusion: This development offers nothing to the community
into which it is proposed to land other than to seriously damage
the integrity and existing historical ambience of Inchicore Road
and in particular Kilmainham Gaol.
- Username:
- James Aylward, 8 Seskin View Park, Dublin 24
- UserEmail:
- aylwardj@indigo.ie
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.220.79
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 15 February 2001
- Time:
- 10:59
Comments
More great news from Dublin Corporation's Integrated Area Plan
for Inchicore.
CORPORATION NOW PROPOSE TO ENHANCE THE GREENSPACE AND PROTECT
OUR HERITAGE BY BUILDING "THE INCHICORE PRISION" AT
JAMESTOWN ROAD INCHICORE.
WE THOUGHT OFFICE BLOCKS AT KILMAINHAM GAOL WAS THE SECRET OF
THE IAP - WHAT A JOKE IS THE CORPORATIONS IAP FOR THIS DISTRICT.
Mary Taylor( IAP Manager!! ) you have nothing to manage except
the Corporation's / developers plans and agenda for our place.
Go over to Smithfield and see an IAP working for its community
and enhancing the district.
- Username:
- Jacques Le Goff
- UserEmail:
- techtran@indigo.ie
- UserTel:
- 453 93 81
- UserFAX:
- 453 93 81
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.205.41
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 16 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:36
Comments
I'm a French person living in Kilmainham, directly under the
south side of Kilmainham Gaol. How on Earth can public
representatives support such a monstruosity? The local councillors
voting in favour of that project should be ashamed of themselves.
There is strictly no need for a block of offices as such in front
of one of your best preserved historical monument. Do we really
want that to be the legacy of the 21st. century? Wake up. Scrap
that monster.
- Username:
- Ivan Lennon
- UserEmail:
- ilennon@rochester.rr.com
- UserTel:
- (USA) 716 288 0636
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 66.24.93.133
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 19 February 2001
- Time:
- 01:53
Comments
As a people we have been quite diligent since the 1920s in
destroying national treasures.Dublin should built upon what it has
without destroying any further those features tying us to our past
- Username:
- Alan Clinton in The Netherlands
- UserEmail:
- alan_clinton@infonet-europe.com
- UserTel:
- 0031235697808
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 195.206.94.65
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:30
Comments
Sir, I wish to register my opposition to the proposed
development of the Gaol area of Kilmainham. This part of mine and
Ireland's heritage should be protected against such intrusion.
- Username:
- Cathy Burns Brian O Connr
- UserEmail:
- cathyburns@eircom.net
- UserTel:
- 087 9349828
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 193.203.147.138
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:32
Comments
We are disgusted but not all that suprised that Dublin
Corporation have granted planning permission for yet more office
blocks. It is a disgrace that a development like this could be
allowed to go ahead. The number of tourists and Irish people who
have visited the jail and been deeply moved by it is staggering.
How then could the whole atmosphere and feeling of the place be
placed in jepordy? In any other city in the world, this would be a
respected building given its historical significance and the
planning permission guidelines would be stringent. But it seems in
this country the developers call the shots - The developers have
already got their hands on several architecturaly and historicaly
significant buildings in Dublin and elsewhere and have had so
called "protected structure status" lifted. Will we have
to look back in years to come and bemoan the destruction of our
history in the name of development?
Cathy & Brian O'Connor
- Username:
- Cathy Burns Brian O Connr
- UserEmail:
- cathyburns@eircom.net
- UserTel:
- 087 9349828
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 193.203.147.138
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:32
Comments
We are disgusted but not all that suprised that Dublin
Corporation have granted planning permission for yet more office
blocks. It is a disgrace that a development like this could be
allowed to go ahead. The number of tourists and Irish people who
have visited the jail and been deeply moved by it is staggering.
How then could the whole atmosphere and feeling of the place be
placed in jepordy? In any other city in the world, this would be a
respected building given its historical significance and the
planning permission guidelines would be stringent. But it seems in
this country the developers call the shots - The developers have
already got their hands on several architecturaly and historicaly
significant buildings in Dublin and elsewhere and have had so
called "protected structure status" lifted. Will we have
to look back in years to come and bemoan the destruction of our
history in the name of development?
Cathy & Brian O'Connor
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
- l.walsh@btinternet.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 193.113.57.161
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:47
Comments
To whom it may concern As an ex Dub I felt very sad to read a
news item in todays (20/02/01) issue of the Irish Times which
informs us of the Dublin Corporations' decision to allow the
proposed developement of a block of offices opposite Kilmainham
Gaol and in the immediate vicinity of the Royal Hospital and the
National Irish Memorial. Have they not learned from the lessons of
the past, in particular the 1960s and 70s when the developers and
the money-men tore the heart out of the historic centre of Dublin.
In those dark days I was convinced that theDublin Corporation was
made up of people from outside the city who didn't care what
happened to the city and those who wanted to pull down anything
that might remind us of the British part of the cities history.
Same old story I suppose, "to hell with asthetics lads just
stick a lump of concrete and glass there". How very very sad.
There is still time to change your minds in the "Corpo".
Remember too that the day of the brown envelope is gone. Stop this
development before it is too late. The city is for your decendants
as well as yourselves. Don't leave them a legacy of concrete
blocks and carparks
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
-
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:52
Comments
7
- Username:
- Ciara Talbot
- UserEmail:
- ciara_talbot@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
- 01-4020776
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 192.89.135.198
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 10:28
Comments
Dear Sir / madam,
I live within 200m of the site of the proposed development plan
by Charmside. I wish to register my objection to the plans. I am
not against the future development of the area but I strongly
object to the use, design and visual impact of the proposed
building. The plans demonstrate a tremendous lack of foresight and
imagination on behalf of the developers.
The Planning Department has an ailing reputation in Dublin.
This would slide further into decline if this plan was to be
approved. This area has a wonderful loop of historical attractions
and Charmside wish to plug it with a modern building which
conflicts with local community and tourist interests.
The traffic problem in Kilmainham is in decline. My car is
blocked into my driveway at least once a week due to a car parked
accross the entrance. This demonstrates the parking difficulties
at present.I can't imagine how bad it would be if this development
was to go ahead.
As a state funded body, please put the interests of the
community you serve above the developers interests of thoughtless
'prog$$$$$$$ress'.
Ciara Talbot 59 Old Kilmainham
- Username:
- Donal Burke
- UserEmail:
- dburke.ca4@compapp.dcu.ie
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 136.206.11.247
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 12:26
Comments
To whom it concerns, I was horrified to read in this morning's
Irish Times that Dublin Corporation have granted planning
permission for the construction of an office block at the Rowntree
Macintosh site on Old Inchicore Road. I have been a resident of
Inchicore for the past 18 years and have experienced both the
positive and negative things associtated with
Inchicore/Kilmainham. Kilmainham is an extremely historic part of
not only Inchicore but also Dublin. I feel that you should stronly
consider the impact of the construction of a six-storey in such a
delicate environment.
Look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely, Donal Burke
- Username:
- Mark McDonald
- UserEmail:
- mcdonaldmark@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 193.120.220.18
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 12:38
Comments
This is yet another disgraceful let down on the part of a
publicly trusted body. Your role is to protect the natural
resources we have rather than bow to the wealthy developers.
Surely there could be a more tastefule way of using a site of this
type. How many times is the hostory of this city has a site come
avialable between two of the most beautiful and unexploited pieces
of architecture in Dublin? please don't let this chance pass!
Inchicore Road, Kilaminham Dublin 8
- Username:
- Belinda O'Dea
- UserEmail:
- belindao@amdocs.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 193.120.147.254
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 17:03
Comments
I am writing from Kilmainham and am appalled at the proposal
for a six storey office block - six stories !!! I am not against
progress & the Rowntree building is pretty ugly, so knocking
it is a good thing. But the area is already quite elevated &
six stories will completely ruin it. It'll over shadow not only
the Gaol & courthouse but the beautiful war memorial gardens
will have to live in its imposing presence which would completely
spoil it (the gardens) and God knows we don't have too many green
areas left. Not to mention the effect on the view from the Royal
Hospital. Just when the restoration of the old buildings is
looking so good, its seems ridiculous that in a city of low
buildings this is where the decision is made to build a
monstrosity. Why the burning desire to line some fat cat property
developers pockets ? Maybe you should consider something as awful
to put beside the GPO while you are at it. Please stop this
craziness.
- Username:
- Stuart Turnbull
- UserEmail:
- turnbuls@gofree.indigo.ie
- UserTel:
- 087 2973832
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.133.245
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 20:18
Comments
Please, please leave this beautiful, historical part of Dublin
alone. Look at the balls-up you all made of the Handel Arch! Try
and think of your Heritage and History for once instead of trying
to line your own pockets. The Leaders of 1916 would be horrified
at the thought.
- Username:
- Stuart Turnbull, Dublin Ireland
- UserEmail:
- turnbuls@gofree.indigo.ie
- UserTel:
- 087 2973832
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.133.245
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 20:25
Comments
Please, please leave this beautiful, historical part of Dublin
alone. Look at the balls-up you all made of the Handel Arch! Try
and think of your Heritage and History for once instead of trying
to line your own pockets. The Leaders of 1916 would be horrified
at the thought.
- Username:
- Ms. Lorraine Christina Chambers
- UserEmail:
- emeraldlorraine@aol.com, lorrainechambers@ireland.com
- UserTel:
- 001-949-646-2662
- UserFAX:
- 001-949-854-2154
- Remote Name:
- 24.21.109.105
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 20:55
Comments
My parents are Dubliners and we reside for the past 40 years in
Southern California. I visited the old jail in 1998 with my Dublin
cousin one afternoon. I was impressed by the restoration and
historical presentation/exhibits in the jail. The proposed
additional complexes on the site would diminish the significance
of the jail. More is less, less is more. Leave the jail alone.
Look at it like hallow holy grounds like a cementary. Let the dead
rest and history be at peace with leaving the environment of the
jail area alone. Don't let Ireland become like the overcrowded
California that I live in. Thank you.
- Username:
- Ms. Lorraine Christina Chambers
- UserEmail:
- emeraldlorraine@aol.com, lorrainechambers@ireland.com
- UserTel:
- 001-949-646-2662
- UserFAX:
- 001-949-854-2154
- Remote Name:
- 24.21.109.105
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 20:55
Comments
My parents are Dubliners and we reside for the past 40 years in
Southern California. I visited the old jail in 1998 with my Dublin
cousin one afternoon. I was impressed by the restoration and
historical presentation/exhibits in the jail. The proposed
additional complexes on the site would diminish the significance
of the jail. More is less, less is more. Leave the jail alone.
Look at it like hallow holy grounds like a cementary. Let the dead
rest and history be at peace with leaving the environment of the
jail area alone. Don't let Ireland become like the overcrowded
California that I live in. Thank you.
- Username:
- MIRIAM MURPHY
- UserEmail:
- miriammurphy@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
- 087-6549433
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.133.220
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 20 February 2001
- Time:
- 21:23
Comments
MIRIAM MURPHY KILMAINHAM DUBLIN 8.
As a local and resident of Kilmainham/Inchicore. I am deeply
disturbed by Dublin Corporations proposals in favour of a six
storey building opposite Kilmainham Gaol the plans are totally
unsuitable for the area, and not in the interest of the locals or
otherwise. Its time for the people of Dublin to Stand up to
unscrupulous property developers whose interests are purely for
financial gain. COME ON CORPO GET WITH THE PROGRAMME!!!!!!!!
BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.
- Username:
- Gerald G Pegman
- UserEmail:
- pep2@indigo.ie
- UserTel:
- 050443549
- UserFAX:
- n/a
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.174.208
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 21 February 2001
- Time:
- 15:48
Comments
I am from Co. Wicklow,Ireland and believe that any construction
to this extent right beside any of our most tresured heritage
sites is just an outrage and must not even be entertained.
- Username:
- Ciaran murray
- UserEmail:
- Carolandciaran@xtra.co.nz
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 203.96.111.201
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 22 February 2001
- Time:
- 07:51
Comments
I support the campaign to halt the proposed office block in
it,s current form.I believe it is a mistake and should not go
ahead.I have visited the Gaol on a few occasions and was very
impressed by what I saw.It is a very Important and interesting
place and should reflect that in any decision that is reached.
- Username:
- Country Yuppie
- UserEmail:
- Mobilephoneturnedoff.com
- UserTel:
- ;dakjfajfslkdjflsjf
- UserFAX:
- lkdjsafjfkas;jlkjfa
- Remote Name:
- 193.122.19.38
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 22 February 2001
- Time:
- 14:59
Comments
I thought those born and reared in Inchicore lived in St
Michaels House - so whats the problem in affordability there?
Those born in The Liberties, Coombe, Kilmainham, Inchicore and
Marrowbone Lane, Maryland Rialto and Dolphin Barn couldn't get out
quick enough hence you have hinterlands of Lucan Swords Tallaght .
All this talk of protecting our cultural heritage is crap, how
many of these objectors and their posse actually visit Kilmainham
and the Museum on a regular basis. This area badly needs
investment - what were all of you going to do were have a
wip-around or Bingo nights, open up another chipper - get real.
For all the Ex - Pats tossing in their pennies worth, the
yuppies of Ireland have enough worries with Potholes, decrepit
transport, high taxes and inner city knackers without you fretting
about our Cultural Heritage.
This site was on the market - for sale to the Highest bidder,
why didn't ye lobby the Corpo then or the Lottery, when we didn't
have a pot to piss in and paid 65% PAYE this wouldn't be an issue,
and when times were bad all those do-good ex-pats were making
their fortunes and didn't give a toss about the Cultural and
Historical responsibilities of the People of Dublin. Feck Off.
Charmside Abu!
Is Mise.
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
-
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 22 February 2001
- Time:
- 16:32
Comments
I lived in Rialto for several years. IMMA was an amenity that I
visited many times. I also visited the gaol, though less
frequently, for obvious reasons. I agree entirely with the view I
have heard expressed that visitors have no reason to spend any
further time - or, importantly, money, in the area, once they have
visited these two important sites. Having visited them, our next
step was always simply to go home. Yet it is a very attractive
area, potentially more so. I agree entirely that the former
Rowntree-Macintosh site should be developed as a visitor
recreational amenity of some kind - perhaps an 'urban plaza' as
suggested. It could become a marvellous spot to spend some time
and enjoy the view of the Park and the Memorial Gardens. Building
offices is a wasted opportunity - and will, in fact, diminish the
area.
- Username:
- Stephanie Grey
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 193.120.183.1
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 22 February 2001
- Time:
- 16:42
Comments
I live in Dublin 8, and I wholeheatedly agree with the
objections being raised against this proposed development.
Kilmainham Gaol is a major part of our history and I feel the area
should be developed to reflect this.
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
-
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 22 February 2001
- Time:
- 20:07
Comments
Darrell Flynn
- Username:
- Patrick C. Murphy
- UserEmail:
- saje12345
- UserTel:
- 818-329-5813
- UserFAX:
- 818-988-3701
- Remote Name:
- 172.137.77.47
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 23 February 2001
- Time:
- 04:23
Comments
Please don't take the valuable space which can be developed to
help the 160,000 tourist that come every year in which I will be 1
of them this Sept. I'm sure there are other areas you can put your
buildings in that would ensure your company's profits and help the
history of your great country. Im from the United States where
alot of developers don't care about the history of an area just
thier pocketbooks. Pllllease don't follow in thier footsteps.
Thank you Patrick C. Murphy from Los Angeles, Ca. USA.
- Username:
- Noeleen O'Grady
- UserEmail:
- noeleen.ogrady@eei.ericsson.se
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.106.157.202
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 23 February 2001
- Time:
- 08:54
Comments
This proposal is absolutely disgraceful.....such an historic
site and it is going to be overlooked by an office site.
Not to mention the increased traffic and parking problems that
a 6 storey office block is going to bring.
N. O'Grady, Glasnevin Dublin 11
- Username:
- Conor O'Dea
- UserEmail:
- doubleod@eircom.net
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 159.134.227.59
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 23 February 2001
- Time:
- 14:18
Comments
Conor O'Dea, 4 St. Maignenns tce, Old Kilmainham road, D8.
Sile De Valera & Charmside must be taking their cue from
the old name for the Rowntrees site - Gallows hill. Though
insisting that this 'development ' is not a sick joke, they are
going to press ahead and hang the consequences. They have
cunningly found the most elevated and prominent site in the area
to build the largest & tallest building in the area.
Underlining their sensitivity and care is the fact that the
proposed building will intrude on, and devalue not one, not two
but THREE important historical sites.
Aside from the patently obvious aesthetic and cultural
objections, there is the danger that this will turn out to be
Woodquay II. The site, apart from possibly being the location of
the priory of the Knights Hospitaller, is likely to have
significant Viking remains. In Bully's Acre, the ancient graveyard
across the road from the proposed 'development', there is a Viking
era granite shaft under which a Viking sword and gold coins have
been found, and tradition has it that Brian Boru's son and
grandson are buried there. Be that as it may, the whole area
contained Viking settlements and burial sites - five separate
Viking graves were also uncovered on the Inchicore side of the War
memorial gardens when they were being excavated in the 1930's.
Colm Kenny, in his book 'Kilmainham: The history of a
settlement older than Dublin' regards it as fortunate that much of
Kilmainham has not been built on - in particular the Royal
Hospital garden, the Memorial Gardens and the eastern side of the
Rowntree property. The last paragraph of his book is:
"The earth of Kilmainham may yet yield some important
finds, relating not only to the Viking age but also our Gaelic and
Anglo-Norman past. Any development plan for the area ought to
refer not only to the legacy of these of these earlier eras but
also to the preservation and utilisation of relics of the more
recent industrial and urban past. In this respect the recent
construction of a museum at Kilmainham Gaol is a milestone"
It is worth bearing in mind that the renovation of the Gaol was
mostly undertaken by local people, volunteers and ex-inmates, with
little government help. It is also worth remembering that many of
the older buildings in Kilmainham (mills, pubs, malt houses etc.)
have been 'developed' i.e. flattened completely and turned into
apartment blocks. Parking is already a nightmare, congestion
constant and the buses are always overflowing. The notion that
people will cycle to & from this new office development is
laughable. I cycle, it's semi-suicidal and there isn't a cycle
lane anywhere in Kilmainham or Inchicore.
With recent surge in the numbers of people living in Kilmainham
and the number of tourists, the area desperately needs a focal
point. The Rowntree site is perfect. So develop it properly. A
full scale archaeological survey, followed by a suitable
development catering to the needs of the people living and
visiting the area, NOT yet another act of wanton vandalism by the
powers that be.
Sile De Valera, our Minister for the Arts (let's befoul the
Museum of Modern Art), Gaeltacht (doesn't speak Irish), Heritage
(let's despoil our Heritage in the name of progress) and the
islands (one visit to an island during her tenure) seems to be
wreaking some horrible generational revenge on Kilmainham Gaol,
the last inmate of which was her grandfather - Eamonn De Valera.
Maybe she's just spreading herself too thin over all of those
departments.
One would hope that Dublin Corporation Planning Dept. would
learn from the fiasco of the 'development' of their home at Civic
Offices in Woodquay rather than encouraging a repeat offence.
- Username:
- Donal Moriarty
- UserEmail:
- donal.moriarty@iona.com
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 193.120.147.254
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 23 February 2001
- Time:
- 14:38
Comments
Why is that it is not politically permissable anymore to have
respect for sites of crucial historical importance - like
Kilmainham Gaol. I'm not sure where this political courage has
gone.
Maybe its with O'Leary in the grave.
- Username:
- Christopher Coughlan @ Family
- UserEmail:
- coughlanchris@hotmail.com
- UserTel:
- 2894685
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 159.134.168.59
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 23 February 2001
- Time:
- 19:48
Comments
|I'm from Foxrock in Dublin and I strongly object to the
proposed development opposite Kilmainham Jail because it is on too
grand a scale and totally out of harmony with the historical
environment of such a nationally sacred place.
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
- kdillon@sdublincoco.ie
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 159.134.175.160
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 23 February 2001
- Time:
- 22:19
Comments
Kevin Dillon Architect.... another lost oportunity. It's
especially sad when the quality of the surrounding urban fabric is
so unique. Nothing short of a comprehensive architectural
framework plan is needed for the entire area....otherwise its
destinctive charictar will be lost like in old Kilmainham
- Username:
- Chris
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 193.120.181.34
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 26 February 2001
- Time:
- 08:30
Comments
What are you people thinking of? A little bit of thought and a
consistant development plan would go a long way. The mish-mash of
planning over the last thirty years demands that improvements are
made - but only as part of an effort to get it right throughout
the city. How can this development be viewed as right in any
sense?
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 136.206.35.10
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 26 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:27
Comments
I think that the plans are outrageous. This
"building" should never have been given premission as
the site is of outstanding historic value & beauity.
- Username:
-
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 136.206.35.10
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 26 February 2001
- Time:
- 09:28
Comments
I think that the plans are outrageous. This
"building" should never have been given premission as
the site is of outstanding historic value & beauity. -Paddy
Byrne, Wexford.
- Username:
- Ben Brady, Drumullagh,Milltown, Belturbet.
- UserEmail:
-
- UserTel:
-
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 194.125.220.2
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 26 February 2001
- Time:
- 16:35
Comments
Well said the Boys of Wexford - now what about the Cavan men !!
- Username:
- Brian Gavin
- UserEmail:
- b.gavin@tinyworld.co.uk
- UserTel:
- 0044 1475 650667
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 62.60.52.190
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 27 February 2001
- Time:
- 22:16
Comments
Dublin Corporation has often been ridiculed in song for the
less than clever decisions made by the city fathers.
Will this be another occasion when the song writers and
comedians will be given furtyhe scope to pillory the
"intelligentsia" of local government ?
As international awareness of and interest in Ireland's history
grows do not commit a crime against the "old woman". In
"Juno" O'Casey wrote "no man can do enough for
Ireland". Do enough now, by not allowing this development.
- Username:
- Brian Gavin
- UserEmail:
- b.gavin@tinyworld.co.uk
- UserTel:
- 0044 1475 650667
- UserFAX:
-
- Remote Name:
- 62.60.52.190
- Remote User:
-
- Date:
- 27 February 2001
- Time:
- 22:36
Comments
Ever thought of concreting over Phoenix Park and turning it
into a car park ?
What about converting the GPO into a Macdonalds?
Could the Abbey Theatre be converted for Bingo ?
If these were planning proposals, you would laugh at them and
send for the men in white coats for the applicants. Perhaps you
should do the same for those in Dublin Corporation who think that
the construction of an office block opposite what must be regarded
as a national treasure (Kilmainhan Jail) is a proposal that might
be palatable.
Desecration seems a more appropriate word. |