News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]

F3

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Boat Pens & Greystones Harbour 07/10/2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Next time pan the camera right John, the compound where the community buildings are to be built in 2025 has been left like a dogs dinner.

Jammyc

Jimjay wrote: »

What is with that bloody awful bench near the anchor?
It looks like they had some spare railing left and fettled a bench together.
It's also so cold to sit on and I can imagine sticking to it in the winter.

This genuinely made me laugh, thanks!

On topic, what is the most recent proposal time for opening of the harbour?

pixbyjohn

Greystones Harbour ongoing works Oct 2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

pixbyjohn

Greystones Harbour Oct 2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

F3

Thanks John ! You're photography records of the harbour are superb!
Ever think of doing a book? I could imagine the correlation and chronology of all the press, promises, truths, untruths, politics, local unrest, rebellion etc would be a global best seller !!! [well a town best seller anyway!]

Regards

Francie,

The Durutti Column

mango salsa wrote: »

Ok I think I get it; I think I get it - sispar told your friend and GUBOH and Cllr Grainne Mcloughlin the same thing. And you told us weeks ago that's what GUBOH were saying.

I think the point was that
A. GUBOH said it and other things
B. Some others poo-pooed this
C. Sispar went ahead and did some of it
D. And then repeated the rest to Ms McLoughlin
E. Thereby confirming that GUBOH had it right all along?

So we can conclude with reasonable degree of certainty that Sispar will fix the Cliff Walk approach and landscape the Beach Road stretch. Or can we?

<<Snip>>

F3

<<Snip>>

LEIN

The Durutti Column wrote: »

I think the point was that
A. GUBOH said it and other things
B. Some others poo-pooed this
C. Sispar went ahead and did some of it
D. And then repeated the rest to Ms McLoughlin
E. Thereby confirming that GUBOH had it right all along?

So we can conclude with reasonable degree of certainty that Sispar will fix the Cliff Walk approach and landscape the Beach Road stretch. Or can we?

<<Snip>>

F3 wrote: »

<<Snip>>

Both posters banned for a week for ignoring moderator warnings and continuing to drag this subject off topic.

Fiachra2

NAMA to build sailing and other marine clubs? Great news for the clubs if it happens but I wonder what the average taxpayer thinks?


http://www.greystonesguide.com/articles/article/6961207/160302.htm

Blanchflower

Fiachra2 wrote: »

NAMA to build sailing and other marine clubs? Great news for the clubs if it happens but I wonder what the average taxpayer thinks?


http://www.greystonesguide.com/articles/article/6961207/160302.htm

I would not hang my hat on this yet. There is nothing definite from NAMA that any funding will be provided. It only says that "discussions are continuing" and that "the matter will be brought to a conclusion in the next few weeks."

As NAMA are in effect now a debt collection agency I would be very surprised if they funded this.

Tabnabs

No funding for the marina then?

Cheeky Chops

Every time I open this thread I hope for some good news or even some definitive news and it is always the same ... just going around in circles.

Are the bold boys allowed back yet ... they will be all fired up with ... er, like everyone else ... no news. It's all very exhausting when it seems that a resolution is truly impossible.

loyatemu

NAMA are tasked with recouping the money in the long run. They'll never recoup anything on the harbour unless the public areas are completed (who'd buy an apartment on a long-term building site?).

Being optimistic they might decide that doing Phase 2 now (while building costs are cheap) will save them money in the long run and make selling Phase 3 (whenever that happens) easier.

</speculation>

Jimjay

I read that the government are looking to change the rules of Nama so that they can take in to account how the development would benefit a community money wise by being completed and not by profiting from the development itself. This would mean changes to legislation which will take time to complete so unfortunately will probably be too late for this decision.

Blandpebbles

On a positive note.. On a sunny Sunday afternoon the harbour looks truly glorious... We are lucky to have such a wonderful amenity and coast line, evidenced by the number of D reg cars coming down to see Greystones.

Taking all the characters and BS out of the equation... we are getting something close to what was the 'dream', slowly.

Jimjay

Blandpebbles wrote: »

On a positive note.. On a sunny Sunday afternoon the harbour looks truly glorious... We are lucky to have such a wonderful amenity and coast line, evidenced by the number of D reg cars coming down to see Greystones.

Taking all the characters and BS out of the equation... we are getting something close to what was the 'dream', slowly.

I agree it is starting to look great.
I don't see what evidence d reg cars provides though.

Blandpebbles

Large influx of d regs every weekend. Nothing wrong with it, it's a popular spot,

mirrorball

Blandpebbles wrote: »

Large influx of d regs every weekend. Nothing wrong with it, it's a popular spot,

Popular reg too, especially in North Wicklow. Both our cars have a D reg, as do the neighbours' cars either side. Sorry if we are skewing the visitor stats!

Great to see the progress. I can't wait until a visit to the sweet shop followed by a stroll around the harbour is part of the Sunday afternoon routine.

LEIN

On my road in Charlesland Court id say 18 out of the 20 odd cars are D registered.

Blandpebbles

Ok for the pedants... there is a large influx of people driving to the harbour who may or may not be from Greystones or the wider wicklow area or indeed they maybe from outside a specific regional location but who in fact all enjoy the location.

Meanwhile back to the harbour..

danjo

Going for a stroll around the harbour I see nothing to be excited about. After such a long and inconvenient wait we are left with a harbour wall that blocks the view out to sea. The boat pens are poorly finished and the whole vista reminds one of Guantanamo Bay.

The only redeeming aspect is that the apartments have not been built.

On a posititve note it is nice to see the dolphins frequenting our shore,

Blandpebbles

danjo wrote: »

Going for a stroll around the harbour I see nothing to be excited about. After such a long and inconvenient wait we are left with a harbour wall that blocks the view out to sea. The boat pens are poorly finished and the whole vista reminds one of Guantanamo Bay.

The only redeeming aspect is that the apartments have not been built.

On a posititve note it is nice to see the dolphins frequenting our shore,

Harbour wall blocking the seaview? From what vantage point? directly below it?

Also Gitmo doesn't have a marina

loobylou

Blandpebbles wrote: »

Also Gitmo doesn't have a marina

Plenty of waterboarding though.:p

Blanchflower

danjo wrote: »

Going for a stroll around the harbour I see nothing to be excited about. After such a long and inconvenient wait we are left with a harbour wall that blocks the view out to sea. The boat pens are poorly finished and the whole vista reminds one of Guantanamo Bay.

The only redeeming aspect is that the apartments have not been built.

On a posititve note it is nice to see the dolphins frequenting our shore,

Nay good danjo the absence of apartments is not a redeeming feature!

Alas Poor Yorick verily I say onto you that the new Greystones harbour, a hideous offspring of the Property Bubble era, resembles a cross between an ugly industrial site and the Guantanamo Bay prison. It has ruined Greystones for many generations to come and longer.

It is built on an old dump on an eroding coastline with concrete blocks which has an estimated useful life some say of only 25 years. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0767312

It is really a very ugly piece of concrete with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever.

Sispar deserve all the luck they have gotten with this, a financial disaster of biblical proportions, which will only generate a tiny fraction of the revenue that they speculated they would get back in the Celtic Tiger Property Bubble in 2005.

recedite

Blanchflower wrote: »

concrete blocks which has an estimated useful life some say of only 25 years. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0767312

One presumes they used sulphate resisting cement.

karma_coma

danjo wrote: »

Going for a stroll around the harbour I see nothing to be excited about. After such a long and inconvenient wait we are left with a harbour wall that blocks the view out to sea. The boat pens are poorly finished and the whole vista reminds one of Guantanamo Bay.

The only redeeming aspect is that the apartments have not been built.

On a posititve note it is nice to see the dolphins frequenting our shore,

I think a lot of the detraction from the visual amenity has to do with the low quality of the street furnishing & lack of any intelligent landscaping. Why for instance was it deemed necessary to put up a visually obtrusive road barrier style railing along the new wall separating the Marine road and the harbour? The wall this road barrier sits on, in further discussion, is a concrete wall finished will cheap render. This does not reflect the value of the area.

There are a good few houses on the Marine road that are protected structures and there is also a protected view from this location:

(Local Heritage Objectives Map for Greystones/Delgany)

http://www.wicklow.ie/Apps/WicklowBeta/Publications/Planning/GreyDelganyLAP/Adopted%20Plan/GDLAP_MapA.pdf


The finishing for road surfacing within the harbour area has been left as tarmac, divided by low grade concrete curbing and separated by seemingly pointless gravel sections?

I totally agree on your point about the fencing around the boat pens for the various marine clubs. It really isn't necessary and semantically diminishes the sense of the harbour being a public space.

I am not a 'NIMBYer' and I do support the development at the harbour. I think however, that as an area cited in the Greystones/Delgany L.A.P. for town centre use, the standard of finishing so far for this intended function has been extremely substandard. The cause of this is ultimately lack of funds (that would have arisen from the sale of the property development element) which mean paying experts such as landscape architects, urban planners and a street furniture expert have been totally neglected.


As a result we have not been given the product we as a community were initially sold and probably wont see it for many years to come...really is a shame.

Blandpebbles

karma_coma wrote: »

I think a lot of the detraction from the visual amenity has to do with the low quality of the street furnishing & lack of any intelligent landscaping. Why for instance was it deemed necessary to put up a visually obtrusive road barrier style railing along the new wall separating the Marine road and the harbour? The wall this road barrier sits on, in further discussion, is a concrete wall finished will cheap render. This does not reflect the value of the area.

There are a good few houses on the Marine road that are protected structures and there is also a protected view from this location:

(Local Heritage Objectives Map for Greystones/Delgany)

http://www.wicklow.ie/Apps/WicklowBeta/Publications/Planning/GreyDelganyLAP/Adopted%20Plan/GDLAP_MapA.pdf


The finishing for road surfacing within the harbour area has been left as tarmac, divided by low grade concrete curbing and separated by seemingly pointless gravel sections?

I totally agree on your point about the fencing around the boat pens for the various marine clubs. It really isn't necessary and semantically diminishes the sense of the harbour being a public space.

I am not a 'NIMBYer' and I do support the development at the harbour. I think however, that as an area cited in the Greystones/Delgany L.A.P. for town centre use, the standard of finishing so far for this intended function has been extremely substandard. The cause of this is ultimately lack of funds (that would have arisen from the sale of the property development element) which mean paying experts such as landscape architects, urban planners and a street furniture expert have been totally neglected.


As a result we have not been given the product we as a community were initially sold and probably wont see it for many years to come...really is a shame.

Simple answer = Agreement that harbour be finished to a reasonable level. As pointed in this thread by me many many moons ago... reasonable level means different things to different people, as well as not being measurable.

Pens are required to house boats, kayaks and equipment

Dunphus

Blanchflower wrote: »

It is built on an old dump on an eroding coastline with concrete blocks which has an estimated useful life some say of only 25 years. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0767312

According to the eurocodes structures are designed with an intended design life based on their design working life category, the concrete mix is then designed on an exposure class and there is a specific class for seawater structures which is based on corrosion due to chlorides. A structure like this would have a design life for at least over 100 years.

The report you have given is from 1973, I'm confused as to how this is applicable? Has there been talk of the concrete not being suitable? I did hear that some of the columns had cracked but that isn't related.

The Durutti Column

karma_coma wrote: »

I think a lot of the detraction from the visual amenity has to do with the low quality of the street furnishing & lack of any intelligent landscaping. Why for instance was it deemed necessary to put up a visually obtrusive road barrier style railing along the new wall separating the Marine road and the harbour? The wall this road barrier sits on, in further discussion, is a concrete wall finished will cheap render. This does not reflect the value of the area.

There are a good few houses on the Marine road that are protected structures and there is also a protected view from this location:

(Local Heritage Objectives Map for Greystones/Delgany)

http://www.wicklow.ie/Apps/WicklowBeta/Publications/Planning/GreyDelganyLAP/Adopted%20Plan/GDLAP_MapA.pdf


The finishing for road surfacing within the harbour area has been left as tarmac, divided by low grade concrete curbing and separated by seemingly pointless gravel sections?

I totally agree on your point about the fencing around the boat pens for the various marine clubs. It really isn't necessary and semantically diminishes the sense of the harbour being a public space.

I am not a 'NIMBYer' and I do support the development at the harbour. I think however, that as an area cited in the Greystones/Delgany L.A.P. for town centre use, the standard of finishing so far for this intended function has been extremely substandard. The cause of this is ultimately lack of funds (that would have arisen from the sale of the property development element) which mean paying experts such as landscape architects, urban planners and a street furniture expert have been totally neglected.

As a result we have not been given the product we as a community were initially sold and probably wont see it for many years to come...really is a shame.

All very true. The GUBOH crew asked for high quality finish and, according to their website and FB page, Sispar said it would be high quality. Sispar then refused to meet any community group again and stated its plan was final. That was back at the end of June.

Despite protests by GUBOH, the Mayor and some town councillors Sispar persisted in this arrogant attitude and the result is the poor quality, industrial/prison camp vista that you see now.

Granted, this is all supposed to be temporary, but given the death of the Celtic Tiger temporary could mean 'to be replaced in 2025'.

Sisk is supposed to have a good reputation, or so I am assured. On the evidence of Greystones Harbour, they don't deserve it.

BTW, you could be more correct than you know comparing it to Gitmo. I heard a rumour the harbour <snip>


unsubstantiated rumour removed

Cheeky Chops

Dunphus wrote: »

According to the eurocodes structures are designed with an intended design life based on their design working life category, the concrete mix is then designed on an exposure class and there is a specific class for seawater structures which is based on corrosion due to chlorides. A structure like this would have a design life for at least over 100 years.

The report you have given is from 1973, I'm confused as to how this is applicable? Has there been talk of the concrete not being suitable? I did hear that some of the columns had cracked but that isn't related.

I love it when we talk concrete porn. Hubba hubba.
(yeah I know I will be banned for being frivolous)