Pedestrianise College Green for 2016

Cathaoirleach

So you consider The Square Tallaght but not College Green. LOL

Wild Bill

Another modern square I like is the modern Grand Canal Dock; where the water plays the essential role of the trees in creating beauty.

It has always amazed me how visually illiterate most Irish people are; it may be a colonial hang-over. Back in the 1700s when the physical and cultural genocide was ongoing all the beautiful spaces and places were owned by the oppressors, this bred resentment to everything about them.

And after they had wiped out the great forests and established the plantations they started planting trees and forests, surrounded often by vast estate walls.

This bred a deep atavistic strain in the native psyche which we can see manifested here today.

We need to move on and hug some trees. :cool:

Wild Bill

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

So you consider The Square Tallaght but not College Green. LOL

No, College green is fine (with the trees) - I can't name every bloody square I like - the list would grow to hundreds.

gjim

Wild Bill wrote: »

No, College green is fine (with the trees) - I can't name every bloody square I like - the list would grow to hundreds.

The trees on College Green are vile. They're bent out of shape and are bunched in a meaningless muddle. The place looks noticeably better in winter when there are no leaves; it would look even better with the trees completely gone - especially in Summer. And it would allow tourists to take photos of some of the most iconic buildings of Dublin. Trees can have their place in public squares but never to completely dominate them like this. These ones can't be chopped soon enough.

Blisterman

Agreed. Plus the positioning of the trees is such that it draws your eyes only in an East-West direction along Dame Street, reinforcing the "street" as opposed to "public square" feel.

If they kept the trees around foster place and removed the ones from the centre, it'd work well to give the square a sense of enclosure.

Aard

Wild Bill wrote: »

The People's Square in Shanghai is a foreign favourite - there are so many though.

Azadi Square in Tehran is amazing; though not really square.

Merdeka Square in Jakarta is pleasant and Zion Square in Jerusalem is interesting even if more of the Irish scale.

In Europe, Place du Luxembourg in Brussels is cool.

Dam Square in Amsterdam was, like College Green a treeless prison until after WW2 but the trees have brought out it's beauty; created it even.

Red Square, Moscow of course - maybe the best of the lot.

OK, St Marks in Venice is obviously top class but it could do with some trees; but they can't survive the sea-water flooding and salty water table.

In London many of the Squares are pretty soulless (even ugly) but Leicester Square is a beautiful exception; though I also like that wee square behind Big Ben were the anti-war folk gather.

Save the Irish ones you noted which are better classed as parks, none of these squares have very tall trees. Indeed, many if not most of them have landmark buildings whose presence would be rendered irrelevant had obscuring trees been installed.

Zion Square above (I've never been, so I'm only going by photos) looks comparable, as you say, to the size of College Green. The latter is only about 3,000 m² -- a small square by international standards. As such, it is unlikely to ever achieve the status of a vast grey expanse (characteristic, incidentally, of your Red Square, the best of the lot), especially given that it's a major pedestrian thoroughfare and is busy at all times of day. The current trees are out of scale with the relatively compact nature of the area. Even moving them to the southern side would open the place up for views of Trinity and the Old Parliament. It's not an all-or-nothing case of green or no green, but it is an urban environment after all; if one wants "natural" beauty, Stephen's Green is about five minutes away.


At any rate, by the sounds of it you've made up your mind on this already and won't be swayed. I'm clearly an extremist -- but I'll gladly take the moniker of sophisticate over sophist.

Wild Bill

Aard wrote: »

I'll gladly take the moniker of sophisticate over sophist.

Why not, like me, be both? Add a pinch of visual literacy and, heck, we couild almost have sound judgement :eek:

Love the chap who complained that the trees are "crooked"!

So is the street. :cool:

Aard

Why not address the main point of my post?

Jayuu

I think before you decide what needs to be moved you need to ask what is the purpose of pedestrianising the street and how big the pedestrian area is going to be.

If its to create a space for large crowds to gather then the trees are a problem. However if its just to create a more viable living public space then I don't think there's a strong case to be made for the trees to go.

Personally I like the fact that the trees aren't in any sort of pattern or defined shape. Nature isn't exact and the idea that we should prune things back to make it rigid and controlled doesn't appeal to me. I like the fact that the tree create areas of shade and light.

monument

Blisterman wrote: »

Agreed. Plus the positioning of the trees is such that it draws your eyes only in an East-West direction along Dame Street, reinforcing the "street" as opposed to "public square" feel.

The road and the buildings reinforce the street line and trees interrupt this. If the trees were removed the building further reinforce the street line.

gjim wrote: »

The trees on College Green are vile. They're bent out of shape and are bunched in a meaningless muddle.

Somebody call the tree police! The trees are bent out of shape?! Who would such abuse to nature!?

Some people like the trees, some don't. I don't think anybody here is going to convince the others to change their minds.

In general, I would be against this kind of square as pictured in the OP and below -- if there's any point in pedestrianising College Green it's to make it a living place where people can sit down, eat at tables, hang around, ...

Wild Bill

Aard wrote: »

Why not address the main point of my post?

I thought describing yourself as a "sophisticate" was the main point.

If not, what is it?

Amtmann

As an avowed tree lover, I initially agreed with Wild Bill that some trees should be retained in College Green. Having read the points by other posters, though, I now agree that trees should be removed from that particular square.

I would say however that in general however Irish people have a bizarre and irrational hatred of trees. I think it's one of the reasons why so many Irish towns look dreary and depressed - nothing but cracked concrete pavements with no greenery at all. Cities like Erlangen and Cincinnati are lovely because they have so many trees.

I would call for far more trees to be planted along Dublin's streets, but not in College Green.

Aard

Wild Bill wrote: »

I thought describing yourself as a "sophisticate" was the main point.

If not, what is it?

This:

Aard wrote: »

Save the Irish ones you noted which are better classed as parks, none of these squares have very tall trees. Indeed, many if not most of them have landmark buildings whose presence would be rendered irrelevant had obscuring trees been installed.

Zion Square above (I've never been, so I'm only going by photos) looks comparable, as you say, to the size of College Green. The latter is only about 3,000 m² -- a small square by international standards. As such, it is unlikely to ever achieve the status of a vast grey expanse (characteristic, incidentally, of your Red Square, the best of the lot), especially given that it's a major pedestrian thoroughfare and is busy at all times of day. The current trees are out of scale with the relatively compact nature of the area. Even moving them to the southern side would open the place up for views of Trinity and the Old Parliament. It's not an all-or-nothing case of green or no green, but it is an urban environment after all; if one wants "natural" beauty, Stephen's Green is about five minutes away.

Wild Bill

Frankly folks, if you try to remove those trees, you'll find me chained to them.

Metaphorically speaking. :cool:

Aard

Why can't you reply in any way more in-depth than a short quip and a smiley? Several posts of back-and-forth and you're still obfuscating more than those trees.

Wild Bill

Aard wrote: »

Why can't you reply in any way more in-depth than a short quip and a smiley? Several posts of back-and-forth and you're still obfuscating more than those trees.

I have replied more than a short quip and a smiley. But repetition gets tedious. Yours and mine.

Clearly we have failed to convince each other; this is common in matters of taste.

Thus I cited (to quote but one example) the shade provided by the trees as a positive while another rather insightfully described it as "blocking the sun".

Another had problems with the trees being "crooked".

And so on. What do you want me to say to this?

Aard

You're right; we've failed to convince each other. Thanks for replying all the same.

gjim

Wild Bill wrote: »

Another had problems with the trees being "crooked".

- there are two separate issues.

You can agree or disagree as to whether there should there be trees there at all. I'm actually somewhat open to argument on this front. Something more subtle like the new O'Connell St trees might be appropriate.

But you can independently criticize the current "scheme" which consists of randomly bunched, overbearing (in the context of the surrounding buildings, monuments and street scale) and ugly ("bent out of shape") trees of a variety chosen purely because it grows quickly.

The entire area is a muddle of trees, surface utility boxes, unless phone boxes, pointless bollards and street signage. There is no point adding more clutter in the name of improving it. So the first step would be to de-clutter the area and in my mind that should start with the most prominent element - the trees - which by the way are a relative novelty in the area historically. Then the rest of the clutter: bury the utility boxes, remove excessive and useless road signage and bollards, move the phone boxes, consider moving the taxi rank, reposition the cycle parking, etc. Only then should you think about pedestrianisation.

imme

Yixian wrote: »

Would be so gorgeous with a large fountain+statues, lined with outdoor eating cafés in the summer. Also an ideal place for political rallies etc., as there currently is none.

There are french villages a 100th the size of Dublin with plazas, it really is a gaping hole in the city.

Once you imagine it there, you can't imagine Dublin without it.

"Pearse Street would have to become a two way system again and take over from Nassau Street as the area to get buses from. This would actually help to generate more activity on Pearse Street. It would obviously take a huge amount more than just this, but it is one of my first thoughts on it anyway."

don't we already have Smithfield.:(

Political rallies were held in College Green back in the 1930's, I don't think we want them held again, they were a feature of the times, pre modern communications and similarly a feature of the Great Dictators of Europe. There's no need for them any more.

I wish people would stop saying that College Green could the this or that of Bologna/ London/ Paris/ New York or where ever.

It's the College Green of Dublin and always will be. We're Dublin, we're not Milan, Paris, London or NYC.

I think something too shiny and steel would be totally out of place in College Green.

Pearse Street can't be regenerated, there's too much traffic on it and Trinity owns too much of it.

donvito99

imme wrote: »

Pearse Street can't be regenerated, there's too much traffic on it and Trinity owns too much of it.

Pearse Street is and has been regenerated to an extent, namely by Trinity.

seamus

imme wrote: »

don't we already have Smithfield.:(

Smithfield is in the arse-end of nowhere, tourism-wise. There are a couple of attractions up that end of the city, but Smithfield itself is in the middle of a residential area and isn't a through-way to anywhere. And I wouldn't recommend having tourists walk from Phoenix Park to O'Connell street via Smithfield unless you're going to massively increase the Garda presence and clear out the scum.

College Green by contrast is part of a primary pedestrian thoroughfare for the city, which starts St. Stephen's Green shopping centre, all the way down to the Spire in one direction and up to the top of Dame Street in the other. College green is the pedestrian hub of the city, in effect. It's bizarre that traffic it still given such priority to go through it.

leshamry

Wild Bill wrote: »

Frankly folks, if you try to remove those trees, you'll find me chained to them.

Metaphorically speaking. :cool:

Ok we will do a deal what do you think?
I'll trade those few trees for 30 in Dame in distress st.
12 in West More Land st.
12 in Lier St.
6 in Grafton St.

I've got more trees than you?

FreudianSlippers

I have no problem with trees on College Green to be fair, but they should be implemented in accordance with a new pedestrian layout and they should be better suited for the area and much better maintained.

The current trees are the wrong types of trees for that area and are poorly looked after.
There is certainly not no room for trees in a pedestrianised College Green, on the contrary I think it'd look to sterile without some greenery.

The one that sticks in my mind as a cool open urban area in the middle of a city. It's about the same area as a pedestrianised College Green would be with water features and trees and seating areas:

imme

seamus wrote: »

Smithfield is in the arse-end of nowhere, tourism-wise. There are a couple of attractions up that end of the city, but Smithfield itself is in the middle of a residential area and isn't a through-way to anywhere. And I wouldn't recommend having tourists walk from Phoenix Park to O'Connell street via Smithfield unless you're going to massively increase the Garda presence and clear out the scum.

College Green by contrast is part of a primary pedestrian thoroughfare for the city, which starts St. Stephen's Green shopping centre, all the way down to the Spire in one direction and up to the top of Dame Street in the other. College green is the pedestrian hub of the city, in effect. It's bizarre that traffic it still given such priority to go through it.

I was being facetious when I said about Smithfield already being our civic space.

It's a total failure imo, failed square, turned off gas braziers, hotel closed down, Chimney tower closed down, empty shop units, unused offices.

Of course the emptiness mirrors the emptiness up and down the country. But the concept itself hasn't worked.

The cobblestones are a nightmare to walk on.

It's a failure.

I hope the same people who 'redeveloped' Smithfield won't be a part of the College Green Plan.

Smithfield was a market place, that's why it's surrounded by a residential area as you say, this needn't be a block to a redevelopment.

College Green at present is a primary route across the city centre, how do you see that being altered, a tunnel?

imme

donvito99 wrote: »

Pearse Street is and has been regenerated to an extent, namely by Trinity.

I don't see how Trinity regenerated Pearse St, they bought functioning businesses and now the street is a dead zone. There might as well be hoarding up in front of the buildings they occupy across from the Fire Station and further back towards The Science Gallery.

The Science Gallery has brought people to the area, but as there's no parking near there I guess most people get there by DART or a long 30 minute trek the other side of Trinity itself.

FreudianSlippers

imme wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

Smithfield is in the arse-end of nowhere, tourism-wise. There are a couple of attractions up that end of the city, but Smithfield itself is in the middle of a residential area and isn't a through-way to anywhere. And I wouldn't recommend having tourists walk from Phoenix Park to O'Connell street via Smithfield unless you're going to massively increase the Garda presence and clear out the scum.

College Green by contrast is part of a primary pedestrian thoroughfare for the city, which starts St. Stephen's Green shopping centre, all the way down to the Spire in one direction and up to the top of Dame Street in the other. College green is the pedestrian hub of the city, in effect. It's bizarre that traffic it still given such priority to go through it.

I was being facetious when I said about Smithfield already being our civic space.

It's a total failure imo, failed square, turned off gas braziers, hotel closed down, Chimney tower closed down, empty shop units, unused offices.

Of course the emptiness mirrors the emptiness up and down the country. But the concept itself hasn't worked.

The cobblestones are a nightmare to walk on.

It's a failure.

I hope the same people who 'redeveloped' Smithfield won't be a part of the College Green Plan.

Smithfield was a market place, that's why it's surrounded by a residential area as you say, this needn't be a block to a redevelopment.

College Green at present is a primary route across the city centre, how do you see that being altered, a tunnel?

In fairness if you're desperate to keep traffic I suppose a cut and cover tunnel is viable. It was discussed either earlier in this thread or the thread on this topic on archiseek

dubhthach

imme wrote: »

I don't see how Trinity regenerated Pearse St, they bought functioning businesses and now the street is a dead zone. There might as well be hoarding up in front of the buildings they occupy across from the Fire Station and further back towards The Science Gallery.

The Science Gallery has brought people to the area, but as there's no parking near there I guess most people get there by DART or a long 30 minute trek the other side of Trinity itself.

well trinity wanted to demolish those buildings in the late 90's but they were refused permission -- part of the plan had included retaining the elaborate shopfronts that were on them.

dubhthach

Some great colour shots of Dublin in 1961 here:
http://www.howtobearetronaut.com/2010/02/dublin-1961-in-colour/

Relevant ones to College green are:

mgmt

I was watching the final stage of the Tour de France in Paris. They have a short transit tunnel running under a park beside the Champs Élysées:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Champs-%C3%89lys%C3%A9es,+Parys,+Frankryk&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.861141,2.330174&spn=0.002012,0.005284&sll=53.120405,-3.306885&sspn=0.931292,2.705383&dirflg=ht&doflg=ptk&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=48.861141,2.330174&panoid=jD_iLkN3UQsKj6etzBYn5Q&cbp=12,26.95,,0,1.01

There is tons of examples of these tunnels in cities across the world. Surely this option should be considered for College Green or better still a short tunnel under the cricket grounds of Trinity.

monument

mgmt wrote: »

I was watching the final stage of the Tour de France in Paris. They have a short transit tunnel running under a park beside the Champs Élysées:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Champs-%C3%89lys%C3%A9es,+Parys,+Frankryk&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.861141,2.330174&spn=0.002012,0.005284&sll=53.120405,-3.306885&sspn=0.931292,2.705383&dirflg=ht&doflg=ptk&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=48.861141,2.330174&panoid=jD_iLkN3UQsKj6etzBYn5Q&cbp=12,26.95,,0,1.01

There is tons of examples of these tunnels in cities across the world. Surely this option should be considered for College Green or better still a short tunnel under the cricket grounds of Trinity.

Unless for buses, why would such be needed in Dublin?