save no. 16 Moore Street

P. Breathnach

barrylyons wrote: »

I could be great, temple bar without the pubs, The cultural quarter of Dublin

And what happens when the businesses fail for want of customers?

If the idea was commercially good (rather than just romantically appealing) Moore Street might be like that already.

barrylyons

I was in The ILAC last week at 11am and i thought there was a bomb scare, it was empty.
The reason Moore street is run down is because of the carlton develpment plan. All of the shops are on a weekly lease...how could it be like that all ready?

There is nothing romantic about the Birth of the Irish Nation been destroyed.

This is a unique opportunity to do the right thing in this country for once.Even Leaving politics out of it , you have a streetscape that was laid out in 1780. it was built before ,O Connell st, The GPO, Parliament buildings, it pre dates the Famine,

One of the Most important things to happen on Irish soil in the 20th century happened here..like it or lump it...and you have developers with profit on there mind looking at the short term gains to there wallets.
Save our history , there is very little left

P. Breathnach

barrylyons wrote: »

... The reason Moore street is run down is because of the carlton develpment plan....

I don't think so, although the development plan certainly doesn't help. That area has been run down for decades.

I'm not seeking to defend what is there. It's just that I think an effort to elevate Moore Street to upmarket status with "artisan shops, specialty food stores, cheesmongers,fish shop,butcher,bakery,cafes and nice restaurants" is likely to fail.

barrylyons

Yes but tie that in with an Historic trail, The terrace properly preserved, perhaps even returned to the 1900 style of shop fronts. Advertising it as a Tourist Freedom trail ,It would bring a lot of footfall to the area...have you been to the Paris bakery in Moore st, It has expanded twice and is quiet full.
of course you could not forget the street traders and what they bring to the are.

But to be honest the most important thing is ,this is where Ireland comes from.. that alone is enough reason.

FreudianSlippers

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think so, although the development plan certainly doesn't help. That area has been run down for decades.

I agree with you that the carlton development isn't the cause, but how is it hurting? Is it just a general anti-urban renewal stance, or is there a valid reason that the proposed development (being blocked at every stage by anti-urbanisation people) would actually damage Moore Street.

P. Breathnach

barrylyons wrote: »

Yes but tie that in with an Historic trail, The terrace properly preserved, perhaps even returned to the 1900 style of shop fronts. Advertising it as a Tourist Freedom trail ,It would bring a lot of footfall to the area...have you been to the Paris bakery in Moore st, It has expanded twice and is quiet full.

Tourist footfall (if there were much of it, something about which I am not convinced) would not contribute greatly to the takings of a specialist food shop such as a cheesemonger.

of course you could not forget the street traders and what they bring to the are.

I was wondering if you favoured allowing them to remain. Given that most of what they offer is cheap fruit and vegetables, I would again have doubts about a balanced mix of retail activities.

But to be honest the most important thing is ,this is where Ireland comes from.. that alone is enough reason.

Not for me, it isn't. I think there is a case for trying to ascertain if there is sufficient general support for the idea, backed by a willingness to pay for it.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I agree with you that the carlton development isn't the cause, but how is it hurting? Is it just a general anti-urban renewal stance, or is there a valid reason that the proposed development (being blocked at every stage by anti-urbanisation people) would actually damage Moore Street.

It is regrettable that commercial activity on Moore Street takes place on such an ad-hoc short-term model. If traders were given medium-term leases with some reasonable hope of renewal, they might be induced to invest a little and smarten up the shops. Easily said, but it is difficult to abrogate owners' rights to continue doing what they are doing now.

All this is happening in a context where central Dublin is overshopped. If some traders were induced to locate in Moore Street, it would be at the cost of units elsewhere in the city centre falling empty.

There are no easy solutions.

barrylyons

Tourist footfall (if there were much of it, something about which I am not convinced) would not contribute greatly to the takings of a specialist food shop such as a cheesemonger.

Look at Kilmainham

I was wondering if you favoured allowing them to remain. Given that most of what they offer is cheap fruit and vegetables, I would again have doubts about a balanced mix of retail activities.

yes of course they should remain ..maybe if the area was improved the food quality would ,however not all of the traders offer low quality

Not for me, it isn't. I think there is a case for trying to ascertain if there is sufficient general support for the idea, backed by a willingness to pay for it.

This is where 5 of the leaders of the 1916 rising met for the last time ,after that they were executed. That in itself is part of our past ..and it happened in the terraces of Moore street..there is no getting away from that ,whatever side you fall on politically


The most outstanding point which i think is been missed ...if the carlton development was to go ahead There will be no moore street...what signals would that send out to develpers..Build where ever you want..Sure if a place is given National monument status it is ok to build on it , below it , to the sides of it ,

A national monument is accorded certain protections under articles like the Venice charter ect.. but the signal we are giving out here is ... Cowboy builders and Golden circle cronie ism is still very Alive

Would it not go against your principles if this Developer who was named as a member of the anglo Golden circle got the go ahead???

FreudianSlippers

barrylyons wrote: »

The most outstanding point which i think is been missed ...if the carlton development was to go ahead There will be no moore street...what signals would that send out to develpers..Build where ever you want..Sure if a place is given National monument status it is ok to build on it , below it , to the sides of it ,

A national monument is accorded certain protections under articles like the Venice charter ect.. but the signal we are giving out here is ... Cowboy builders and Golden circle cronie ism is still very Alive

Would it not go against your principles if this Developer who was named as a member of the anglo Golden circle got the go ahead???

I haven't looked at the plans now in circa 3 years, but I don't believe that is correct at all. Even a cursory look at this picture and you can see that where the current Carlton cinema is located, we have a new pedestrian street about 1.5 times as wide as Henry street going straight back into Moore street with demolition of (I think) 19 and 18 Moore Street - one hideous 70s building and a culturally insignificant and dilapidated building.





If anything, a main artery into Moore street with good development of the pedestrian corridor would only help Moore Street.


Edit: note that this shows relocation of the façade of the Carlton to the North.

P. Breathnach

barrylyons wrote: »

Look at Kilmainham

What do we get from looking at Kilmainham? It's a greatly different tourism product. Even then, I don't see it driving a great deal of local retail.

yes of course they should remain ..maybe if the area was improved the food quality would ,however not all of the traders offer low quality

The Moore Street traders are savvy people: they will identify what the market requires, and deliver that. Their traditional market is very price-sensitive, and also expects reasonable quality. What you have in mind might cost them their present market, and perhaps not gain them something new.

This is where 5 of the leaders of the 1916 rising met for the last time ,after that they were executed. That in itself is part of our past ..and it happened in the terraces of Moore street..there is no getting away from that ,whatever side you fall on politically

I don't think anybody is trying to get away from that. I certainly am not. But that fact is the accidental outcome of the battle at the GPO. To my mind, that does not invest the site with any great significance, and I don't think it gives it any special tourism appeal. There are several other sites in Dublin that I would think more interesting or more significant to those with an interest in 1916.

...Would it not go against your principles if this Developer who was named as a member of the anglo Golden circle got the go ahead???

What has the identity of the developer got to do with the intrinsic merits of a development proposal? Either an idea is good or it is not.

As it happens, I am not particularly enthusiastic about such a development; as I said already, Dublin city centre is overshopped (and overofficed, and overapartmented). I entered this discussion to express my disagreement with bb1234567's suggestion of a particular alternative development strategy.

A Disgrace

That extra storey should go, and I'm not keen on the 'plaza' idea, it creates too much of a break in the building line. A covered laneway would be a better idea, leading into an enclosed plaza if needs be. The exisitng lanes around Moore St should be used too, with all the planned units being split into various architecturally sensitive standalone buildings rather that a giant shopping centre. Moore st itself might have a run down look to it, but it has a busy, multi-cultural vibe and this should be retained, along with the 1916 house as a small museum devoted not only to the Rising, but Irish independence overall

barrylyons

I will say it once again,

Under the current developers plans ..60% of what has been declared a national Monument..(HAS BEEN ALL READY DECLARED)will be built on..The proposal also cites that Directly underneath the NATIONAL MONUMENt be excavated and a 3 story carpark be installed.. Toilets and a kitchen area are to be placed in the national monument .

The fact that a Developer, that has screwed this country ,is in NAMA ..owes the country 2.8 Billion ...(that is a lot of money). is entertained at all is beyond a mystry to me .

This has nothing to do with an anti general urban renewal stance. this is about ripping the heart out of the city .an historic one at that.

What do people want to see when they visit Dublin ...shopping centres or places of interest.

Linking up the ILAC centre which has seen a dramatic decline in retail trade over this past 6 years with another devlopment into OConnell street will only suit the Developers wallet.

Look at Parnell street ..at the rere of the ILAC..its a ghost street.

The pictures you provided show sunny skys ,sure we dont get many 0f them over here....

ALSO there is a planning application to Knock down the corner of OConnell and Henry street.

Answer me this .... DO YOU SUPPORT THE DEVELOPER ..

FreudianSlippers

barrylyons wrote: »

I will say it once again,

Under the current developers plans ..60% of what has been declared a national Monument..(HAS BEEN ALL READY DECLARED)will be built on..The proposal also cites that Directly underneath the NATIONAL MONUMENt be excavated and a 3 story carpark be installed.. Toilets and a kitchen area are to be placed in the national monument .

As I said, I haven't seen the plans in about 3 years. I think what you're saying is factually incorrect, post the plans so and let's see if you're right or not.
Otherwise we're going to go around in circles and you say one thing and I say the other.

Just to pre-empt you saying "why don't you look for the plans?" Well, firstly, you're making the assertion. Secondly, you seem to have them handy since you're referring to them.

The main reason I bring this up is because the permission granted clearly states that 14 to 17 Moore St must be preserved and the plans further show that block of houses will contain a a commemorative centre.

The fact that a Developer, that has screwed this country ,is in NAMA ..owes the country 2.8 Billion ...(that is a lot of money). is entertained at all is beyond a mystry to me .

Irrelevant to the design and pretty much everything to be honest.

What do people want to see when they visit Dublin ...shopping centres or places of interest.

Exactly, this project with it's commemorate centre to be built in the preserved and restored 14 - 17 Moore Street will be great. This is not a "shopping centre" we're talking about here, it's more akin to Henry Street or Grafton Street. It just makes me think you haven't actually seen the approved plans tbh.

Linking up the ILAC centre which has seen a dramatic decline in retail trade over this past 6 years with another devlopment into OConnell street will only suit the Developers wallet.

Developers exist to make money, surprise, they're not doing it for charity. What doesn't make money? Empty shopping centres and lots with no buildings sitting vacant for decades. This development only promotes the area and will hopefully bring in more quality shops etc. into Ilac as well.

Look at Parnell street ..at the rere of the ILAC..its a ghost street.

That's because it's underutilised and separated from the area.

The pictures you provided show sunny skys ,sure we dont get many 0f them over here....

:rolleyes:

ALSO there is a planning application to Knock down the corner of OConnell and Henry street.

It will never be approved. An Taisce has appealed as have many others. It's unrelated in any event.

Answer me this .... DO YOU SUPPORT THE DEVELOPER ..

Do I support the developer? I don't really care... they're a company. The project has nothing to do with the developer really.

barrylyons

I do not have a copy of the developers plans ...Do You

I am been as accurate as i possibly can ..If you would be so kind as to point out the pieces which you seem to think are factually incorrect. If you happen to be refering to the fact that the Developer is encroaching on 60% of the national Monument ,this is a fact..if you pop up to the planning authorities you can see for yourself.

I really dont understand the following and would be greatful if you could explain the following

I said

The fact that a Developer, that has screwed this country ,is in NAMA ..owes the country 2.8 Billion ...(that is a lot of money). is entertained at all is beyond a mystry to me .

you replied

Irrelevant to the design and pretty much everything to be honest.

How could this be irrivelant , Its the developers plan , the same developer that owes 2.8 billion to the state ,The Developer who is in Nama , theAnglo golden Circle "

This is probably on of the most relevant things.

Again i would be greatful how this, according to your quote is Irrivelant.

Does this not bother you

If not ,why not

Exactly, this project with it's commemorate centre to be built in the preserved and restored 14 - 17 Moore Street will be great. This is not a "shopping centre" we're talking about here, it's more akin to Henry Street or Grafton Street. It just makes me think you haven't actually seen the approved plans tbh.

Have you seen plans for a commemoration centre..if so could you post them.

I would also like to point out that No plans have been yet approved

Be under no Illusion this is a Shopping Center. ....

With no disrespect intended.. Maybe you need to have a look at the plans .they have them in the DCC planning office ,After all its been 3 years or more since you seen them.

Could you explain why the Northside needs a new street.

Do I support the developer? I don't really care... they're a company. The project has nothing to do with the developer really.

Could you answer this.

How has the Project got nothing to do with the developer .. That is a rather odd thing to say.It has everything to do with him ,That statement alludes to putting distance beteween the proposed development and the Member of the Anglo golden circle . once again i will ask

How has this project got nothing to do with the Developer .

Pacifist Pigeon

Why should we preserve the HQ of a terrorist insurgency that lead to the deaths of hundreds of people in Dublin City and surrounding areas during that tragic week. It reflects a bloody, painful and regrettable part of Irish history. If it serves no real or essential function I say it ought to be destroyed.

And no, I'm not a troll.

Alias G

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Why should we preserve the HQ of a terrorist insurgency that lead to the deaths of hundreds of people in Dublin City and surrounding areas during that tragic week. It reflects a bloody, painful and regrettable part of Irish history. If it serves no real or essential function I say it ought to be destroyed.

And no, I'm not a troll.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and all that. I'm personally grateful that I have never had to live under foreign rule. I think you would be in a distinct minority in not wishing to preserve structures of historical significance.

barrylyons

Why should we preserve the HQ of a terrorist insurgency that lead to the deaths of hundreds of people in Dublin City and surrounding areas during that tragic week. It reflects a bloody, painful and regrettable part of Irish history. If it serves no real or essential function I say it ought to be destroyed.

And no, I'm not a troll

You are more than entitled to this opinion............ but i could not disagree more .We were one of the first countries to free ourselves from an tyrannical Imperialistic great britan ,

Would you really like to still be under British rule ?

Rashers

HellFireClub wrote: »

When this all came up a few years ago, the authorities didn't seem to be too sure if the current no 16 Moore Street is the same property that was the 16 Moore Street of 1916... Has this been finally settled???

Before she died nurse Elizabeth O'Farrell pointed out the building herself. Can't get a better authentication than that IMO.

Breatnach

delta_bravo wrote: »

There wasn't much fighting around there.

A thought came to my head really about this. The GPO itself would be an excellent place for a museum/centre about 1916. Kick An Post out and send their HQ out to Clondalkin or somewhere else. The building is very much under-utilised by the public in terms of its potential.

The paintings of the fighting there should be returned to the GPO and it should be included in historical tours, while continuing as a post office, as it was then.
There was plenty of fighting between the GPO and the whole occupied parade in Moore Street. The O'Rahilly and others were actually killed in a charge on the British Army barricade at the end of Moore Street. A civilian was accidentally killed by the Volunteers there too. A plan for a diversionary attack to cover a mass breakout was on the point of being carried out when the decision to surrender was taken instead.
Instead of marching out without their weapons, as required by the British, the Volunteers and ICA marched out in full military formation, to the fury of the British commander. They were then kept prisoner in the Rotunda grounds (ironically the birthplace of the Irish National Volunteers), near where Pearse had met the British commander to formally surrender.
The whole area was a battleground and would be great for tourism if properly preserved and developed. Killmainham jail was allowed to fall into terrible disrepair until it was saved by voluntary work by a committee and handed over to the state for the fiftieth anniversary of the Rising. Now more people turn up to visit than it can actually accommodate -- and that is quite a distance from the city centre.
Our politicians have no real interest in history and cannot understand that many other people do.

stoneill

delta_bravo wrote: »

There wasn't much fighting around there.
.

?

The British Army had a machine gun post on Parnell Street at the top of Moore Street with withering fire at anything that moved. Nurse O'Farrell gives an account of a man leaving one of the houses under a white flag to try save his wife and kids, only to see him later dead under the white bed sheet he used as a flag when she was delivering messages between Pearse and the British.
She also described the bodies of Dublin citizens lying about the street.
Also The O'Rahilly was shot on Moore Street in a charge before he struggled into what is now called O'Rahilly Parade where he eventually died.

Breatnach

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Why should we preserve the HQ of a terrorist insurgency that lead to the deaths of hundreds of people in Dublin City and surrounding areas during that tragic week. It reflects a bloody, painful and regrettable part of Irish history. If it serves no real or essential function I say it ought to be destroyed.

And no, I'm not a troll.

You may not be a troll but you are certainly deficient in a sense of history or justice. Those Volunteers were formed to free Ireland from imperialist rule and the Irish Citizen Army was formed to defend workers from the attacks of the police at the behest of the capitalists. Together they fought for an independent and a better Ireland. That is admirable, not regrettable (except certainly by the British and their minions at the time and by colonially-minded people today). Not only did they do a great thing for the Irish people, they sent shock waves through the British Empire and inspired people as varied as the Ghandis, the Nehrus and others, including the those of the Connaught Rangers who mutinied in India. Would we had their like today!

Apart from that, the city and area would greatly benefit commercially from tourist history trailing. The shopping in Henry Street is already sufficiently used and should there be a need for more, Talbot Street and Parnell Street could be developed better, as well as O'Connell Street itself. There is no need for the commercial centre being proposed and it would greatly damage the historical industry potential.

Pacifist Pigeon

Alias G wrote: »

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and all that. I'm personally grateful that I have never had to live under foreign rule.

"Foreign" is subjective.

Breatnach wrote: »

You may not be a troll but you are certainly deficient in a sense of history or justice. Those Volunteers were formed to free Ireland from imperialist rule

Ireland was one of the "home nations" of the UK, in all legal technicalities, the British Empire was just as much Ireland's empire as it was England's. Very little is mentioned in Ireland nowadays of the Irish people who helped build the empire and indeed fought and died for it. More Irish people died in the service of the empire than those who fought against it.

Breatnach wrote: »

and the Irish Citizen Army was formed to defend workers from the attacks of the police at the behest of the capitalists corporatism/state-capitalism.

FYP. Also many non-socialists fought in 1916.

Breatnach wrote: »

Together they fought for an independent and a better Ireland.

Look what they fought and died for:

Breatnach

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

"Foreign" is subjective.

If "Foreign" is subjective then so is "native" and if you don't agree with these distinctions it would be more honest to say so and to say what you do believe in.

Ireland was one of the "home nations" of the UK, in all legal technicalities, the British Empire was just as much Ireland's empire as it was England's. Very little is mentioned in Ireland nowadays of the Irish people who helped build the empire and indeed fought and died for it. More Irish people died in the service of the empire than those who fought against it.

You are correct that Ireland was a "home nation" but it was also clearly a subject one, demonstrated by a great many things including a host of coercion laws. All imperial armies have included many recruits from subject people in their ranks. Many Irish people were subject to what Connolly called "economic conscription" (as were English people and some probably also joined for excitement. However, it is doubtful that they were "for the Empire" in the same sense and to the same degree that the Volunteers and ICA were "for Ireland".


FYP. Also many non-socialists fought in 1916.
So what?


Look what they fought and died for:

You cannot demonstrate that this is what they died for. The writings of Pearse and Connolly among others, as well as their deeds, are a powerful rebuttal of this disgusting assertion of yours. It was the group who seized power at the end of that struggle who defeated their erstwhile comrades and brought that about. Later on, De Valera split from the remnants of the Volunteers and formed FF, with which he came to power in an alliance with the Catholic Church (while an even more reactionary regime had been imposed north of the Border). The fact remains that during the Rising the Volunteers and the ICA fought for a better Ireland and one free from the Empire. There is nothing you can do or say that can justly deny that because it is so clearly true.

Your behaviour is becoming increasingly troll-like (post extremely provocative statement, then jab at responses and post more highly-provocative statements). Of course, it is comfortable to do while hiding behind an alias.

stoneill

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Why should we preserve the HQ of a terrorist insurgency that lead to the deaths of hundreds of people in Dublin City and surrounding areas during that tragic week. It reflects a bloody, painful and regrettable part of Irish history. If it serves no real or essential function I say it ought to be destroyed.

And no, I'm not a troll.

History is History.
These event in 1916 took place whether you agree with it or not
The preservation of historical site is of utmost importance for all people,
there are generations not yet born that will need to see where and when these event took place.

Similar arguments have taken place all over Europe about whether to destroy or remove Nazi symbolism from occupied countries or not.
Also the US have had arguments whether to remove pro-native american graffiti from Alcatraz in 1969.
Both these cases have settled with the decision to leave the sites as they are as the events they mark did take place, did happen, are historic and are important for future generation to learn and study.

You can't just wipe away Moore Street just because you don't agree with what took place - that is not a decision for you to make.

barrylyons

You can't just wipe away Moore Street just because you don't agree with what took place - that is not a decision for you to make.

Whoever said the above ,hit the nail on the head.

[QUOTELook what they fought and died for:][/QUOTE]
Dear Mr Pacifist Pigeon

If you paid any attention to detail you would realise, that the people in the Photograph (Bertie and Charlie) are as far removed from those who fought in 1916.

However them same people who you have in your photographs were ,and are in one case, are still well in with the Developers.

I dont think that is what they fought for. and without giving a lecture in history ,You would want to substantiate your words a little bit better as you are comming across as an Imperialiastic fan of the relm to put it mildly

MadsL

Glad to see Moore Street getting some attention on boards.

How about this vision for restoring Moore St? A monument to the Rising and the proclamation. What a great tourist attraction for 2016...



http://www.generalmichaelcollins.com/Fine_Gael/Moore_Historic_Tour/Moore_Street.html

alastair

Breatnach wrote: »

You cannot demonstrate that this is what they died for. The writings of Pearse and Connolly among others, as well as their deeds, are a powerful rebuttal of this disgusting assertion of yours. It was the group who seized power at the end of that struggle who defeated their erstwhile comrades and brought that about. Later on, De Valera split from the remnants of the Volunteers and formed FF, with which he came to power in an alliance with the Catholic Church (while an even more reactionary regime had been imposed north of the Border). The fact remains that during the Rising the Volunteers and the ICA fought for a better Ireland and one free from the Empire. There is nothing you can do or say that can justly deny that because it is so clearly true.

The writings of Pearse are nothing to aspire to - pretty creepy stuff in many aspects.

It's also untrue that the Volunteers were about freeing Ireland from Empire - they were formed to defend the Home Rule bill - which retained a role for Ireland within the British Empire (and the UK). That the IRB were able to manipulate the Volunteers into participating in the rising is another matter.

Boulevardier

In other words a nice, posh yuppy street.

barrylyons

It's also untrue that the Volunteers were about freeing Ireland from Empire - they were formed to defend the Home Rule bill - which retained a role for Ireland within the British Empire (and the UK). That the IRB were able to manipulate the Volunteers into participating in the rising is another matter.

The Irish Volunteers were formed because of the Arming of the Ulster volunteers and the Citizen army because of the Lockout . It was nothing to do with the home rule .
bill .
Please stick to the facts and dont invent your own

Boulevardier

Are we still pretending that this is a non-political thread?

alastair

barrylyons wrote: »

The Irish Volunteers were formed because of the Arming of the Ulster volunteers and the Citizen army because of the Lockout . It was nothing to do with the home rule .
bill .
Please stick to the facts and dont invent your own

Nothing to invent - what prompted the formation of the Ulster Volunteers?

Hint - a covenant against the very bill that the Irish Volunteers were formed to protect.

Maybe if you boned up on your own history? It was everything to do with Home Rule.