Crazy council plan for clontarf.

odyssey06

tampopo wrote: »

Go upstairs if you want to look out the window at the bay. Simples.
Those headlines should read "insane residents object to flood defence plans".

Dublin City Council has repeatedly destroyed the historic assets of the city, from Wood Quay, to Georgian Dublin. They don't care about Clontarf, and it only took considerable opposition in previous decades to stop previous plans to ruin the entire area - from infilling the bay, to vast underground oil storage facilities.
If I knew nothing about the issue, except that on one side were the residents whose whole lives are invested in the area; and on the other side were Dublin Ciy Council, I would support the residents until proved otherwise.

It's perfectly possible to put in improved flood defences that do not destroy Clontarf seafront promenade and turn it into a no-go area at night. It should tell you a lot about Dublin City Council that it took mass uproar and demos in Clontarf to get a sane plan for flood defence out of them.

It should also tell you a lot about how bad this plan is, that residents would rather run the risk of floods while DCC is coming to its senses, that let it go ahead.
If DCC screw this up, they can just walk away from it. Can the people who own homes in Clontarf?

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

Dublin City Council has repeatedly destroyed the historic assets of the city, from Wood Quay, to Georgian Dublin. They don't care about Clontarf, and it only took considerable opposition in previous decades to stop previous plans to ruin the entire area - from infilling the bay, to vast underground oil storage facilities.
If I knew nothing about the issue, except that on one side were the residents whose whole lives are invested in the area; and on the other side were Dublin Ciy Council, I would support the residents until proved otherwise.

It's perfectly possible to put in improved flood defences that do not destroy Clontarf seafront promenade and turn it into a no-go area at night. It should tell you a lot about Dublin City Council that it took mass uproar and demos in Clontarf to get a sane plan for flood defence out of them.

It should also tell you a lot about how bad this plan is, that residents would rather run the risk of floods while DCC is coming to its senses, that let it go ahead.
If DCC screw this up, they can just walk away from it. Can the people who own homes in Clontarf?

so the people who can't quickly walk away from the homes, you're happy to have them flood, I don't think DCC want one of their main thoroughfares closed/or slowed for flooding on a regular basis.

odyssey06

expectationlost wrote: »

so the people who can't quickly walk away from the homes you happy to have them flod, I don't think DCC want one of their main thoroughfares closed/or slowed for flooding on a regular basis.

1. Please re-read my last post and highlight the sentence where I said I was happy for people's homes to flood. You won't be able to, because I did not say it. People would rather run the risk of another flood, if it means in the long-run getting a proper solution. Nothing in that can possibly translate as being happy for their homes to flood, unless through wilful misinterpretation.

2. When did Clontarf Road last flood on a regular basis due to tidal waters?

Clontarf needs improved flood defences, it also needs better drainage as a number of flood events in Clontarf are actually to do with heavy rain and culverted rivers - something the previously proposed plan might actually have made worse.
Just because something needs to be done, it doesn't give DCC carte blanche to put in whatever ridiculous flood defence scheme they want, with total disregard for its impact on residents.

If DCC had their way, we'd all be living in Ballymun-style tower blocks, it only took them decades to realise their mistakes there...

odyssey06

Gomango wrote: »

They are placing vertical steel columns in the grass area opposite Marlowe dry cleaners all last week. Anyone an idea what they are? Theyre hardly for flood defence?

I think a new water main is being connected...
http://www.dublincity.ie/disruption-water-supply-%E2%80%93-sunday-26th-april-2015

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

1. Please re-read my last post and highlight the sentence where I said I was happy for people's homes to flood. You won't be able to, because I did not say it. People would rather run the risk of another flood, if it means in the long-run getting a proper solution. Nothing in that can possibly translate as being happy for their homes to flood, unless through wilful misinterpretation.

2. When did Clontarf Road last flood on a regular basis due to tidal waters?

Clontarf needs improved flood defences, it also needs better drainage as a number of flood events in Clontarf are actually to do with heavy rain and culverted rivers - something the previously proposed plan might actually have made worse.
Just because something needs to be done, it doesn't give DCC carte blanche to put in whatever ridiculous flood defence scheme they want, with total disregard for its impact on residents.

If DCC had their way, we'd all be living in Ballymun-style tower blocks, it only took them decades to realise their mistakes there...

odyssey06 wrote: »

It should also tell you a lot about how bad this plan is, that residents would rather run the risk of floods

...

Kermit.de.frog

When residents are flooded out again I propose help is with held and would say insurance companies should refuse to cover vulnerable properties.

It is so stupid that a view (that need not be even effected that badly) is so much more important to these people than their safety and property.

odyssey06

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It is so stupid that a view (that need not be even effected that badly) is so much more important to these people than their safety and property.

And how safe will Clontarf promenade be, if walking on the other side of a 9ft high flood defence wall, you can't be seen from the road? Nearby Fairview Park is already a no-go area at night. And bushes were removed last year from the promenade for security reasons... So a council that removed bushes for security reasons think it's now safe to run a wall the whole length of the promenade? Really?

It is entirely possible to build better flood defences that local residents will be happy with. Given that, why is DCC intent on a plan that they are openly hostile to? Just because better flood defences are needed, it does not mean it is right for DCC to put in *any* kind of flood defence, regardless of the concern or impact on local residents.

To be so mean-spirited that you suggest aside from the difficulties of dealing with flood events, you advocate punishing them by with-holding insurance... well, frankly, a lot of the comments about local residents seem inspired by jealousy and envy and hostility to them just because they live in houses with a nice view of the sea. Maybe you don't value living beside the sea, but these people do, you should respect that.

expectationlost

odyssey06 wrote: »

And how safe will Clontarf promenade be, if walking on the other side of a 9ft high flood defence wall, you can't be seen from the road? Nearby Fairview Park is already a no-go area at night. And bushes were removed last year from the promenade for security reasons... So a council that removed bushes for security reasons think it's now safe to run a wall the whole length of the promenade? Really?

It is entirely possible to build better flood defences that local residents will be happy with. Given that, why is DCC intent on a plan that they are openly hostile to? Just because better flood defences are needed, it does not mean it is right for DCC to put in *any* kind of flood defence, regardless of the concern or impact on local residents.

Frankly, a lot of the comments about local residents seem inspired by jealousy and envy and hostility to them just because they live in houses with a nice view of the sea. Maybe you don't value living beside the sea, but these people do, you should respect that.

the comments are motivated by perspective, floods vs views.

anyway current plan is to build a curved wave return wall, and a berm (that can be slightly lower because of this), but you won't get any detail on this because DCC are withholding the info and only telling people who are more worried about views then floods.

expectationlost

they are starting the work for the cyclepath down at Dollymount including slight adjustments of walls heights and more drainage http://www.clontarf.ie/news/s2s-cycleway-project-important-statement-from-cba-cra cra

expectationlost

New plans for flood walls as sea levels to rise 0.7m by 2100 https://shar.es/1q6sdZ via @herald_ie

DCC received planning permission to build a 2.75 metre-high wall in 2008, but this received numerous objections, including concerns that it would obstruct people's view.
Sea level rise projections for northern Europe under RCP8.5

Aslak Grinsted, Svetlana Jevrejeva, Riccardo E. M. Riva, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen

Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c064p015.pdf

uncertainty percentiles 5% 17% 50% 83% 95% 99%
Dublin 0.32 0.46 0.69 1.05 1.63 2.29

expectationlost

people complaining about the Dollymount part now, see photos in tweet https://twitter.com/LorraineGCurran/status/634392890081472512 I presume that large piece of precast concrete isn't in place yet, the plans say a ~3 foot wall along that stretch http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-major-transport-projects/sutton-sandycove-cycleway-and-footway

yes it might block the view a bit more but, public consultation > flood defence > view

Tommy Broughan inquired about it http://www.tommybroughan.com/index.php/raheny-clontarf-flood-defence-wall-not-fully-thought-through-broughan/ "when footpaths are restored, Road will also be raised slightly"

see the plans in the Scheme Preliminary Design Sheet http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-major-transport-projects/sutton-sandycove-cycleway-and-footway

as better drawings and pre-viz would be welcome

deandean

I was looking at the new wall being built at Dollymount only yesterday, while I was stuck for 25 minutes in a pathetic piece of traffic management (10 cars one way, 3 minute break, 10 cars the other way).

That wall is about 1 metre higher than what it needs to be. it might be needed for that blue pipe they are laying, but it certainly is not needed for coastal defence. There has never been any flooding from the sea along the area between the wooden bridge and the causeway, the land is a couple of metres higher than what is down the road at Clontarf.

It's a real shame, I used to enjoy the view along that stretch of road, in a month or two it will be gone. I suppose the spray-can graffiti that will end up on the wall might brighten it up a bit.

odyssey06

That wall is higher than 3 feet unless the person next to it is a hobbit. Is it too much to expect Dublin City Council to follow its own rules?

Squeaksoutloud

I drive through here every day. In fairness the traffic has been managed pretty well and I haven't been held up much.

I noticed the view is somewhat obscured at that bend but there is also a big slope on the road there...Id say the sea side footpath is a lot higher than the one on the opposite side so totally different effect on which side of the road you are on.

expectationlost

via Clontarf RA DCC says http://www.clontarf.ie/news/information-update-on-s2s-sea-defence-wall it won't be that high when its done, but climate change.

Squeaksoutloud

I see this project is now getting the full on Councillor treatment..

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-causeway-wall-2411582-Oct2015/

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/residents-say-clontarf-sea-wall-construction-must-be-stopped-1.2409083

I cycle through this at least twice a week. The wall at the moment does look very high but everything looks unfinished..no footpaths are done yet.

People seem to be complaining they weren't properly consulted and not told about the height or the flood defence element but yet a quick google showed me this! Why cant the Councillors get involved before its too late!

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-major-transport-projects/sutton-sandycove-cycleway-and-footway

seems to show the wall being heightened by about 60cm over the existing in places which looks about right in the Irish Times photo..and clicking on the link above tells me that the wall will be about 85cm above the finished footpath - that's not even above my waist!

Hopefully it will be getting cladded or plastered or whatever as the current bare concrete looks terrible alright. Just hope it gets done asap and we don't end up with delays because of this as sick of having to hop on and off the road.

subpar

Liveline here we come. The revenge of the midgets

Atlantic Dawn

Why are they putting a 3 foot wall in an area that has never ever flooded before and never will?

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

I see this project is now getting the full on Councillor treatment..

.and clicking on the link above tells me that the wall will be about 85cm above the finished footpath - that's not even above my waist!

where exactly did you get that number?

Squeaksoutloud

Was in link provided in post at top of page..your link in fact!

Once completed, the height of this section of wall will be approximately 85cm above the finished footpath level. Due to the existing incline on the James Larkin Road at this bend and the fact that the wall has yet to be backfilled and the footpath completed; the current height of the wall appears greater than what it will be when the works are completed.

http://www.clontarf.ie/news/information-update-on-s2s-sea-defence-wall

I see its even lower further down where houses are.

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Was in link provided in post at top of page..your link in fact!



http://www.clontarf.ie/news/information-update-on-s2s-sea-defence-wall

I see its even lower further down where houses are.

ok yes but that statement was put out mid-build, that number may be in the original plans, may not be, but its very hard to conceive the size of the wall from the drawings they showed beforehand. they do think its a pity that car passengers view will be blocked.

Pete_Cavan

expectationlost wrote: »

ok yes but that statement was put out mid-build, that number may be in the original plans, may not be, but its very hard to conceive the size of the wall from the drawings they showed beforehand. .

The drawings have sections every couple of hundred metres showing the road and cycle lane level, the wall level and an indicative person for reference, what more do you want?

expectationlost

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The drawings have sections every couple of hundred metres showing the road and cycle lane level, the wall level and an indicative person for reference, what more do you want?

the height of wall when finished

3d previs of how it will look

Cllr Damien O Farrell made good suggestion of wooden mock up of the wall at the places it will be be built

Pete_Cavan

expectationlost wrote: »

the height of wall when finished

3d previs of how it will look

Cllr Damien O Farrell made good suggestion of wooden mock up of the wall at the places it will be be built

The height of the wall is given. It is given as 4.25mOD. Ordnance datum is the only consistent way to present the height. Height relative to the existing road fluctuates with the change in level of the road. The height of the wall relative to the road changes constantly. The drawings also indicate the additional height of the proposed wall above the existing wall/embankment at a number of locations.

Apart from the thickness of the wall, what will 3D tell you? Unless a 3D image is set from above the wall looking down, you will only see the wall in two dimensions anyway. Any view over the wall will depend on how high and how far back from the wall the image is set. The sections show the height of the road, path and wall at regular intervals with a reference to gauge a persons/cars heigh relative to the wall, a lot more informative.

The time to request wooden mock ups was during consultation, not construction.

expectationlost

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The height of the wall is given. It is given as 4.25mOD. Ordnance datum is the only consistent way to present the height. Height relative to the existing road fluctuates with the change in level of the road. The height of the wall relative to the road changes constantly. The drawings also indicate the additional height of the proposed wall above the existing wall/embankment at a number of locations.

they could easily have stated the height of the wall a various points

Apart from the thickness of the wall, what will 3D tell you? Unless a 3D image is set from above the wall looking down, you will only see the wall in two dimensions anyway. Any view over the wall will depend on how high and how far back from the wall the image is set. The sections show the height of the road, path and wall at regular intervals with a reference to gauge a persons/cars heigh relative to the wall, a lot more informative.

3d would allow you to look around and you could have sticky points set in the 3d visualisation to show the various views

The time to request wooden mock ups was during consultation, not construction.

tell that to DCC

Squeaksoutloud

I see DCC have a mock up of the finish up on their webpage...wall does seem lower down this end alright.

expectationlost

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

I see DCC have a mock up of the finish up on their webpage...wall does seem lower down this end alright.

so they choose to feature the lower part http://www.dublincity.ie/s2s-project
http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/s2s/FAQ_29thOctober2015.pdf

What changes to the existing height of the wall will occur as a result of the
works to the existing wall from the Wooden Bridge to the Causeway road?
30% of it or 475m will stay at the same level and remain largely untouched except for
replacement of lost stones, pointing and other minor repairs.
10% of it or 155m will be raised by 30mm-200mm (1 to 8 inches).
32% of it or 500m will be raised by 200mm to 400mm (8 to 16 inches (1 foot 4 inches).
28% of it or 450m will be raised by 400mm to 690mm (1 foot 4 inches to 2 foot 3 inches).
The maximum increase in wall height is 69cm or 690mm.

odyssey06

Further proof, if any were needed, of the contempt with which DCC view ordinary citizens... Maybe DCC are right, maybe they're not, but why take the chance when you smuggle in changes like this with deception. The stupid little people will never notice until it's too late. Is this accountable, democratic government? I think not.

deandean

Can someone more capable than me please check this out?
So the new wall is at a height of 4.25 metres OD.
I have a feeling that if we ever have a tide at 4.25mOD:
The dublin quays will be submerged
fairview will be submerged
sandymount will be drowned
bull island will be swamped
And water will just flow in around both ends of this new 'Maginot Line'.

expectationlost

deandean wrote: »

Can someone more capable than me please check this out?
So the new wall is at a height of 4.25 metres OD.
I have a feeling that if we ever have a tide at 4.25mOD:
The dublin quays will be submerged
fairview will be submerged
sandymount will be drowned
bull island will be swamped
And water will just flow in around both ends of this new 'Maginot Line'.

waves