save no. 16 Moore Street

FreudianSlippers

The fact of the matter is that 14-17 Moore Street are protected structures and there is no evidence that the developer is "encroaching on 60%" of these properties.

In fact, at the 2009 oral hearing it was made clear that Number 16 would become a commemorative centre. So even if it was correct that 60% of 14-17 Moore Street were being demolished, it doesn't logically lead to the fact that 16 Moore Street (a protected structure) is being demolished at all. Not least for the fact that DCC will not allow it.

Someone supply proof to show they are going to or /thread.

MadsL

Boulevardier wrote: »

In other words a nice, posh yuppy street.

27th Feb 2012, 11:56am - a new low-tide mark for Irish self-loathing.

MadsL

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that 14-17 Moore Street are protected structures and there is no evidence that the developer is "encroaching on 60%" of these properties.

In fact, at the 2009 oral hearing it was made clear that Number 16 would become a commemorative centre. So even if it was correct that 60% of 14-17 Moore Street were being demolished, it doesn't logically lead to the fact that 16 Moore Street (a protected structure) is being demolished at all. Not least for the fact that DCC will not allow it.

Someone supply proof to show they are going to or /thread.

I'm actual laughing at the "DCC will not allow it", DCC have been gunning to have this happen way back to the CPO of a portion the site and the gifting of it to the developer in quick order, not to mention the disposal of the yards on Moore Lane to the developer. The history of this site is murky in the least.

DCC bizarrely also wanted the 'ski-slope' portion in the plans as the design was not 'iconic' enough for DCC's tastes.

Dick Gleeson made a public commitment at the Oral Hearing to supply the minutes/notes of those pre-planning consultations during the hearing, he was reminded of that at the end. The minutes were never forthcoming.

"The planning authority representatives endeavoured at the request of Ms. O’Shea, through the Inspector, to obtain and make available the records of pre planning consultation meetings with the applicant that Ms O’Shea had been unable to obtain through enquiries at the city council’s offices. The planning authority representatives stated that they were unable to locate and make these documents available before the closure of the hearing but would arrange to have them located as soon as possible."
http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/232/R232347.pdf
Never located or published.

However regarding work on the National Monument, the permission of ABP, overturning its Inspector's refusal states;

Works to the National Monument at numbers 14-17 Moore Street, which are subject to Ministerial Consent under the National Monument Act, include the following: works to number 14 Moore street to include demolition of non-original additions and partitions, lowering of basement floor level, extension at basement, ground, first and second floor levels of 319 square metres to rear, repair of timbers, roof, windows, doors, plaster, stone, brick and metal, change of use to a café/restaurant with ancillary offices; works to number 15 Moore Street include demolition of non-original additions and partitions, lowering of basement floor level, 34 square metres extension at basement level with lobby provided to the rear, repair of timbers, roof, windows,
plaster, stone, brick and metal, use as retail with ancillary offices; works to number 16 Moore Street include demolition of non-original additions and partitions, lowering of basement floor level, extension at basement level (33 square metres), repair of timbers, roof, windows, plaster, stone, brick and metal, change of use to a commemorative centre; works to number 17 Moore Street include demolition of nonoriginal additions and partitions, lowering of basement floor level, extension at basement level and two storey extension to the north-western elevation (81 square metres), provision of new stairs, repair of timbers, roof, windows, plaster, stone, brick and metal, use as a retail unit; and all ancillary, structural services and development
works. A total of 1,115 number parking spaces are to be provided at basement level on four levels from Level -2 to Level -4 (including Level -2a) and are to be accessed via ramps from Level 0. A single vehicular entrance is to be provided off O’Rahilly Parade, to be accessed via Parnell Street and Moore Street and two number vehicular exits are to be provided at Moore Street and Moore Lane, both access Parnell Street.
Delivery, refuse and service areas are located at basement level and utilise the access and exit points at O’Rahilly Parade, Moore Street and Moore Lane, respectively. 560 number cycle parking spaces are to be provided at Level -4, accessible via a bicycle lift on O’Rahilly Parade. Ancillary uses include a sprinkler tank room at Level -5, storage, residential and commercial waste storage, bicycle storage, car park management office, anchor units collection and storage, communications rooms, a control room, cleaner storage, staff areas, two number landlord tank rooms with booster pumping stations, a meter room, public toilets and family rooms and plant areas. A total of 12 number electrical substations are proposed, three number on Henry Place and nine number on Moore Lane at Level 0. A vehicular turning area is
to be provided on Henry Place. All other buildings, other than the protected structures and façades and national monuments noted above, are to be demolished. Works to include all site excavation, demolition, temporary and development works; and all landscaping, services and ancillary works.

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/orders/232/D232347.pdf


So it's a bit of yes and no...work will take place on the National Monument, including demolition.

This may be a moot point, given O'Reilly's financial status, what worries me is that a 7 year permission was granted for the site which carries it through into 2017. By that date, 16 and the other parts of the terrace, may have collapsed through sheer inertia of any restorations.

FreudianSlippers

YOU CANNOT DEMOLISH A NATIONAL MONUMENT.

The development of the site in accordance with granted permission is unrelated to the status of 14-17 Moore Street. They can do whatever they want with the rest of the site, but 16 is a monument which the developer cannot demolish.

If you can show me that the DCC are "gunning" to demolish 14-17 Moore Street, I'll accept your point. Demolition of non-original extensions is a good thing, btw.

Laugh all you want, but there is no proof that the developer is planning on demolishing 60% of 16 Moore Street.

Boulevardier

Oh come on! I meant I do NOT want a posh, yuppy street. Should Moore St become one? I say no! If that is self loathing, too bad.

MadsL

Boulevardier wrote: »

Oh come on! I meant I do NOT want a posh, yuppy street. Should Moore St become one? I say no! If that is self loathing, too bad.

restoring the streetscape to how it looked in 1916 is in your view creating a "posh, yuppy street'?

Interesting.

Is Newgrange a "posh, yuppy garden" then?

MadsL

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

YOU CANNOT DEMOLISH A NATIONAL MONUMENT.

That is exactly what the National Monuments Act (Amendment) 2004 grants the Minister the power to do.
Read section 14 of this Act
The Minister is given powers to protect, but also to destroy.

Regarding work on the National Monument at Moore Street...

http://www.nga.ie/news-Moore_St_Appeal.php

Has full details of proposed works that constitute a danger to the National Monument

The development of the site in accordance with granted permission is unrelated to the status of 14-17 Moore Street. They can do whatever they want with the rest of the site, but 16 is a monument which the developer cannot demolish.

Actually no-one can do "whatever they want" with any property unless they are exempt works, however the Monument is 14-17 - not just 16

Chartered Land seem to still be in operation, at least being wined and dined by NAMA...

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/daly-uses-his-trusty-hymn-sheet-to-preach-to-the-choir-of-commerce-3017104.html

When campaign founder Patrick Cooney wrote to Nama querying the €10m funding, he received this response: ‘I can confirm that Nama approved funding in respect of the application for Ministerial consent to works at the National Monument.’
The response was sent via email by Felix McKenna of Nama on September 14.
But when pressed to be more specific, Mr McKenna’s next email seemed to row back.
‘I confirm that no decision has yet been taken in respect of funding the proposed works to the National Monument, the subject of the Ministerial consent application,’ he wrote.
http://www.newsscoops.org/?p=858

I never said that DCC were "gunning" to demolish 14-17 Moore Street, I said they were gunning for the O'Reilly development to happen.

Further evidence of this 'cosy' relationship between DCC and the Developer was attempted to be put into evidence at the Oral Hearing but the Inspector would not allow it as it only came to light on the last day of the hearing. The contract that DCC granted O'Reilly in secret was used as leverage by him to buy out leases along the site before this application for permission. Councillors were not told of this legal contract until leaseholders began to speak out. O'Reilly told traders they would be CPO'd by DCC unless they sold to him.

The Councillors have since passed a motion calling for the whole terrace to become a National Monument.

Laugh all you want, but there is no proof that the developer is planning on demolishing 60% of 16 Moore Street.

When did I say that?

Boulevardier

Don't get me started on Newgrange. It is a dog's breakfast.

FreudianSlippers

MadsL wrote: »

That is exactly what the National Monuments Act (Amendment) 2004 grants the Minister the power to do.
Read section 14 of this Act
The Minister is given powers to protect, but also to destroy.

Regarding work on the National Monument at Moore Street...

http://www.nga.ie/news-Moore_St_Appeal.php

Has full details of proposed works that constitute a danger to the National Monument



Actually no-one can do "whatever they want" with any property unless they are exempt works, however the Monument is 14-17 - not just 16

Chartered Land seem to still be in operation, at least being wined and dined by NAMA...

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/daly-uses-his-trusty-hymn-sheet-to-preach-to-the-choir-of-commerce-3017104.html

When campaign founder Patrick Cooney wrote to Nama querying the €10m funding, he received this response: ‘I can confirm that Nama approved funding in respect of the application for Ministerial consent to works at the National Monument.’
The response was sent via email by Felix McKenna of Nama on September 14.
But when pressed to be more specific, Mr McKenna’s next email seemed to row back.
‘I confirm that no decision has yet been taken in respect of funding the proposed works to the National Monument, the subject of the Ministerial consent application,’ he wrote.
http://www.newsscoops.org/?p=858

I never said that DCC were "gunning" to demolish 14-17 Moore Street, I said they were gunning for the O'Reilly development to happen.

Further evidence of this 'cosy' relationship between DCC and the Developer was attempted to be put into evidence at the Oral Hearing but the Inspector would not allow it as it only came to light on the last day of the hearing. The contract that DCC granted O'Reilly in secret was used as leverage by him to buy out leases along the site before this application for permission. Councillors were not told of this legal contract until leaseholders began to speak out. O'Reilly told traders they would be CPO'd by DCC unless they sold to him.

The Councillors have since passed a motion calling for the whole terrace to become a National Monument.



When did I say that?

I accept those points, but that doesn't really contradict what I was saying earlier in relation to a poster saying that 60% of 14 - 17 Moore St. was going to be demolished.
That's why I think there was confusion.

I'm also saying that I agree that part of 16 Moore Street should be demolished; these are the later additions that were tacked on to the historic building over the years. It should be restored to its period condition.

MadsL

Boulevardier wrote: »

Don't get me started on Newgrange. It is a dog's breakfast.

Clearly you like your heritage "down and dirty"

As in falling down, and so dirty as to be unrecognisable.

I'm all ears as to why Moore st should stay as a dodgy mobile phone and hair extensions 'centre of excellence'.

MadsL

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I accept those points, but that doesn't really contradict what I was saying earlier in relation to a poster saying that 60% of 14 - 17 Moore St. was going to be demolished.
That's why I think there was confusion.

I'm also saying that I agree that part of 16 Moore Street should be demolished; these are the later additions that were tacked on to the historic building over the years. It should be restored to its period condition.

Are you supporting the Chartered Land development or the Save 16 proposals? I'm confused....

FreudianSlippers

MadsL wrote: »

Are you supporting the Chartered Land development or the Save 16 proposals? I'm confused....

Both. The Carlton development isn't proposing the demolition of No. 16. Just the newer add-ons.

P. Breathnach

MadsL wrote: »

Are you supporting the Chartered Land development or the Save 16 proposals? I'm confused....

Obviously I don't speak for FreudianSlippers, but one can reasonably be opposed to both.

Addendum: in the light of FS's post, which appeared while I was typing the above, one can also (to an extent) reasonably support both.

MadsL

Can anyone shed any light on if Chartered land intend to proceed with this? I can't see John Lewis being interested now.

FreudianSlippers

MadsL wrote: »

Can anyone shed any light on if Chartered land intend to proceed with this? I can't see John Lewis being interested now.

As of ~4 months ago they were still planning on going ahead once the whole arsenic thing on the site was sorted out (however long that'll take). Website still says "opening 2013" :rolleyes:

MadsL

Where is Chartered Land getting the money for this. Thought O'Reilly was bankrupt???

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlV6jFjykyK6dHdKR0kwY2FkcEtQT19NQ2p6NkwwRkE&hl=en#gid=0

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/from-trophy-assets-to-deep-trouble-2263235.html


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/1009/1224256256882.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1110/1224258482029.html

http://www.shopping-centre.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/1472/A_scheme__too_far_.html

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1207/mibusiness.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293783/Builder-Joe-OReilly-friend-Fianna-Fail-frolics-sun-NAMA-takes-Anglo-debts.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/plans-for-carlton-site-rocked-by-arsenic-find-2297964.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/tycoons-transfer-luxury-homes-to-wives-2362636.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/riches-of-the-nama-wives-who-hold-the-purse-strings-2474212.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/oreilly-pressing-ahead-with-massive-adamstown-project-2483914.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0428/1224269221469.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/green-light-for-40000-homes-as-thousands-more-stand-idle-2498844.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/dundrum-town-centres-oreilly-is-in-discussions-with-lenders-2505478.html

http://www.tribune.ie/business/article/2009/apr/26/joe-oreilly-takes-firm-unlimited-despite-slump/

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0328/1224293220847.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2011/0526/1224297780648.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2011/0615/1224298921671.html

FreudianSlippers

AFAIK O'Reilly is bankrupt but the company is solvent and a lot of the money for this is already there.

Boulevardier

Madsl, I very much hope this is not an immigrant thing.

That area is presently very multicultural. Gentrification would tend to make it somewhat more racy of the soil, as Griffith might have said.

I presume that is not your agenda.

P. Breathnach

Boulevardier wrote: »

Don't get me started on Newgrange. It is a dog's breakfast.

And off-topic for a Dublin forum!

MadsL

Boulevardier wrote: »

Madsl, I very much hope this is not an immigrant thing.

That area is presently very multicultural. Gentrification would tend to make it somewhat more racy of the soil, as Griffith might have said.

I presume that is not your agenda.

Absolutely not. As a repeated immigrant (!) I'm absolutely not of that agenda.

However, how do you feel as an Irishman (presumably) that one of the key locations of the Rising is left to rot in on itself, and that other key buildings that were tunneled through to serve as the last impromptu barracks will be demolished.

The irony is that visitors to the 'commemoration centre' will be told
(if this ever opens under the Chartered Land plan)

"oh, they tunnelled through the rest of the terrace"

To which the question will be "did the rest of the buildings get bombed/torn down in the Rising"

No, they were torn down two years ago to make way for a shopping centre

Imagine the look on tourists faces?

I cannot think of another country that would treat it's Independence history in this casual manner.

Hell, I'm English and I feel strongly about this...I cannot comprehend why this absurd nonsense has gone on for years.

This is about history, not politics. And certainly NOT race politics.

Oddly this 'commemoration centre' will have to commemorate things destroyed to make way for the 'commemoration centre'. ???!?

Fuinseog

Boulevardier wrote: »

I still think that

(1) 16 Moore st was a place of defeat and surrender. My grandad fought in 1916 (South Dublin Union) but I would have little pride in any monument at Moore St.

(2) The GPO, which already has a reasonable 1916 memorial in situ, should stay a post office. My reasons I are socio-political and apparently not welcome on this thread, but they are valid nonetheless.

However, if people really want to preserve 16 moore St, I would not lose any sleep over it.

its part of Irish history and culture. folks from outside of Dublin learn about these things in school and sometimes come to Dublin to check out these places.

they made a mess of viking Dublin. no need to do the same with 1916 Dublin.

MadsL

16 Moore st was a place of defeat and surrender.

So was the Alamo, go ask Texans if they feel a sense of pride and place about it.

The History....

Originally named Misión San Antonio de Valero, the Alamo served as home to missionaries and their Indian converts for nearly seventy years. Construction began on the present site in 1724. In 1793, Spanish officials secularized San Antonio's five missions and distributed their lands to the remaining Indian residents. These men and women continued to farm the fields, once the mission's but now their own, and participated in the growing community of San Antonio.

In the early 1800s, the Spanish military stationed a cavalry unit at the former mission. The soldiers referred to the old mission as the Alamo (the Spanish word for "cottonwood") in honor of their hometown Alamo de Parras, Coahuila. The post's commander established the first recorded hospital in Texas in the Long Barrack. The Alamo was home to both Revolutionaries and Royalists during Mexico's ten-year struggle for independence. The military — Spanish, Rebel, and then Mexican — continued to occupy the Alamo until the Texas Revolution.

San Antonio and the Alamo played a critical role in the Texas Revolution. In December 1835, Ben Milam led Texian and Tejano volunteers against Mexican troops quartered in the city. After five days of house-to-house fighting, they forced General Martín Perfecto de Cós and his soldiers to surrender. The victorious volunteers then occupied the Alamo — already fortified prior to the battle by Cós' men — and strengthened its defenses.

On February 23, 1836, the arrival of General Antonio López de Santa Anna's army outside San Antonio nearly caught them by surprise. Undaunted, the Texians and Tejanos prepared to defend the Alamo together. The defenders held out for 13 days against Santa Anna's army. William B. Travis, the commander of the Alamo sent forth couriers carrying pleas for help to communities in Texas. On the eighth day of the siege, a band of 32 volunteers from Gonzales arrived, bringing the number of defenders to nearly two hundred. Legend holds that with the possibility of additional help fading, Colonel Travis drew a line on the ground and asked any man willing to stay and fight to step over — all except one did. As the defenders saw it, the Alamo was the key to the defense of Texas, and they were ready to give their lives rather than surrender their position to General Santa Anna. Among the Alamo's garrison were Jim Bowie, renowned knife fighter, and David Crockett, famed frontiersman and former congressman from Tennessee.

The final assault came before daybreak on the morning of March 6, 1836, as columns of Mexican soldiers emerged from the predawn darkness and headed for the Alamo's walls. Cannon and small arms fire from inside the Alamo beat back several attacks. Regrouping, the Mexicans scaled the walls and rushed into the compound. Once inside, they turned a captured cannon on the Long Barrack and church, blasting open the barricaded doors. The desperate struggle continued until the defenders were overwhelmed. By sunrise, the battle had ended and Santa Anna entered the Alamo compound to survey the scene of his victory.

While the facts surrounding the siege of the Alamo continue to be debated, there is no doubt about what the battle has come to symbolize. People worldwide continue to remember the Alamo as a heroic struggle against impossible odds — a place where men made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. For this reason, the Alamo remains hallowed ground and the Shrine of Texas Liberty.

Saving the Alamo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_Republic_of_Texas#Saving_the_Alamo

FreudianSlippers

MadsL wrote: »

Boulevardier wrote: »

Madsl, I very much hope this is not an immigrant thing.

That area is presently very multicultural. Gentrification would tend to make it somewhat more racy of the soil, as Griffith might have said.

I presume that is not your agenda.

Absolutely not. As a repeated immigrant (!) I'm absolutely not of that agenda.

However, how do you feel as an Irishman (presumably) that one of the key locations of the Rising is left to rot in on itself, and that other key buildings that were tunneled through to serve as the last impromptu barracks will be demolished.

The irony is that visitors to the 'commemoration centre' will be told
(if this ever opens under the Chartered Land plan)

"oh, they tunnelled through the rest of the terrace"

To which the question will be "did the rest of the buildings get bombed/torn down in the Rising"

No, they were torn down two years ago to make way for a shopping centre

Imagine the look on tourists faces?

I cannot think of another country that would treat it's Independence history in this casual manner.

Hell, I'm English and I feel strongly about this...I cannot comprehend why this absurd nonsense has gone on for years.

This is about history, not politics. And certainly NOT race politics.

Oddly this 'commemoration centre' will have to commemorate things destroyed to make way for the 'commemoration centre'. ???!?

So you would still protest if they were only demolishing later additions to the building to put it back to 1916 condition? Because to my knowledge and understanding (and until it is proven otherwise) that's the only plan for 14-17

barrylyons

Oddly this 'commemoration centre' will have to commemorate things destroyed to make way for the 'commemoration centre'. ???!?

That is a fantastic way of putting it ...spot on .......... and they want us to take the word of a developer who said this about it

'the commemoration of the volunteers retreat and surrender could be considered morbid and martyrological'. Saturday April 19th,2006,The Irish Times.

MadsL

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you would still protest if they were only demolishing later additions to the building to put it back to 1916 condition? Because to my knowledge and understanding (and until it is proven otherwise) that's the only plan for 14-17

There is the plan to demolish the rest of the terrace except 14-17. I don't see the logic of that as the entire terrace was tunnelled through to provide the last barracks, the other buildings in the terrace are no less important in telling that story, as are the Lanes at the back of the terrace.

In my view picking out four buildings and demolishing the rest is as meaningful as knocking down the rest of the Tower of London and retaining the Bloody Tower because where the 'killings' were done.

Can you give me any reason why the rest of the terrace should be bulldozed?

FreudianSlippers

14-17 are the only originals left standing currently AFAIK.

barrylyons

14-17 are the only originals left standing currently AFAIK.

That is not true at all .where on earth did you pull that one from .
14 -17 have national monument status as we speak. but there are plenty more Original buildings. not to mention Moore lane and Henry Place I could bring you on a tour and show you them if you like !

FreudianSlippers

You're telling me that 10-13 and 18-20 are from the same period as 14-17? Let's just focus on Moore Street for now. There is no way the surrounding buildings are contemporaneous to 14-17 Moore Street.

P. Breathnach

MadsL wrote: »

There is the plan to demolish the rest of the terrace except 14-17. I don't see the logic of that as the entire terrace was tunnelled through to provide the last barracks, the other buildings in the terrace are no less important in telling that story, as are the Lanes at the back of the terrace....

Where do you draw the line? They passed through some buildings, so those buildings should now be preserved indefinitely? Was it a crime against history to repair the holes made in the party walls of the buildings? Was it wrong to resurface Henry Street since they crossed it?

I'm not sold on the No. 16 thing, but I can shrug my shoulders and not worry about it. But Jaysus, lads, don't get carried away and try to make shrines out of everything.

MadsL

Don't confuse a modern-ish facade with the age of the building. Bolds mine below.

‘The historical analysis in Chapter 3 of this report describes the extent to which the rebels infiltrated and occupied the houses on Moore Street, in particular those within the central terrace on the east side of the street, namely No.s 10 to 25 which were all occupied during the final stages of the Rising. However a small number of buildings / sites can be identified as being of particular significance due to the specific events which took place within them. In addition to No. 16, No. 10 – on the corner of Moore Street and Henry Place, Nos 20 21 the former Hanlons fish shop, and the corner site at the junction between Moore Lane and O Rahilly Parade .. are also sites of considerable importance’

Conservation architects (Shaffrey and Associates report to Dublin City Council dated Nov 2005 )

These buildings are all part of the demolition plan shown on Drawing No. 5539-004 by Chartered Land.

No. 10 is the undisputed entry point used by the Provisional Members to the terrace (10 to 25) and indeed it is confirmed that this is the house in which many members spent the last night of the Rising, yet this proposal will see it demolished to the ground, complete with all the party walls that these men spent the night and the day breaking through.

http://www.nga.ie/news-Moore_St_Appeal.php


Here's the complete proposal for renovation of the terrace.

http://www.gaelicadventure.org/pdfs/h16.pdf