Paris Bakery gone soon to make way for shopping centre

Einhard

According to RTE, the only buildings on the street to have been used during the Rising- numbers 14 to17- are going to be preserved. Perhaps my understanding of the situation is somewhat lacking, but surely that's a good thing? Why are people still protesting about this? They want a 1916 commemorative centre based around the buildings that were used in the Rising. And they're getting a 1916 commemorative centre based around the buildings that were used in the Rising. Nothing more to see here surely?

expectationlost

Einhard wrote: »

According to RTE, the only buildings on the street to have been used during the Rising- numbers 14 to17- are going to be preserved. Perhaps my understanding of the situation is somewhat lacking, but surely that's a good thing? Why are people still protesting about this? They want a 1916 commemorative centre based around the buildings that were used in the Rising. And they're getting a 1916 commemorative centre based around the buildings that were used in the Rising. Nothing more to see here surely?

this is the bit they dispute, i think they dont want the context demolished

Qualitymark

But this is completely incorrect! If you read the many, many Bureau of Military History accounts, they describe breaking in through number 20 and then breaking through all the houses on the terrace till the 300 men and women of the garrison were occupying all of the houses and the back gardens and their outhouses, sheds and storage barns.

Einhard

Qualitymark wrote: »

But this is completely incorrect! If you read the many, many Bureau of Military History accounts, they describe breaking in through number 20 and then breaking through all the houses on the terrace till the 300 men and women of the garrison were occupying all of the houses and the back gardens and their outhouses, sheds and storage barns.

Are the other houses original though?

alastair

Einhard wrote: »

According to RTE, the only buildings on the street to have been used during the Rising- numbers 14 to17- are going to be preserved. Perhaps my understanding of the situation is somewhat lacking, but surely that's a good thing? Why are people still protesting about this? They want a 1916 commemorative centre based around the buildings that were used in the Rising. And they're getting a 1916 commemorative centre based around the buildings that were used in the Rising. Nothing more to see here surely?

They want a holy 'revolution quarter', where all the buildings on that side of the street are 'preserved' in aspic, so that the full route from abandoning the GPO, to never making it to the chocolate factory is unsullied by a shopping centre. That nothing much actually happened on Moore street (no significant military exchanges, no hold-out, no surrender, no declarations, etc - it's just an arbitrary and peripheral location amongst many), while the genuine focal points of the rising don't seem to factor into the 'revolution quarter' might suggest that there's other factors in the desire to drag this whole thing out.

Qualitymark

alastair wrote: »

They want a holy 'revolution quarter', where all the buildings on that side of the street are 'preserved' in aspic, so that the full route from abandoning the GPO, to never making it to the chocolate factory is unsullied by a shopping centre. That nothing much actually happened on Moore street (no significant military exchanges, no hold-out, no surrender, no declarations, etc - it's just an arbitrary and peripheral location amongst many), while the genuine focal points of the rising don't seem to factor into the 'revolution quarter' might suggest that there's other factors in the desire to drag this whole thing out.

All fantasy.

Sulla Felix

expectationlost wrote: »

one wonders whether those in the Save 1916 Group will get seats on board for the Museum?

Call me cynical but that's the main aim afaic

Qualitymark

Who says there's going to be a board? The current plan has the developer being paid by NAMA to develop a few of the houses into a museum. It's not clear who will have control of this.
Various other groups, including the descendants of many of those who fought in 1916 (not the Save 16 group), want the houses to be kept as a quarter of local shops, with a small commemorative centre in one house.
But in no case is anyone looking for personal advantage from this - either the Save 16 people or the groups looking for the State to take ownership of and protect the terrace and lanes.

Einhard

Qualitymark wrote: »

Who says there's going to be a board? The current plan has the developer being paid by NAMA to develop a few of the houses into a museum. It's not clear who will have control of this.
Various other groups, including the descendants of many of those who fought in 1916 (not the Save 16 group), want the houses to be kept as a quarter of local shops, with a small commemorative centre in one house.
But in no case is anyone looking for personal advantage from this - either the Save 16 people or the groups looking for the State to take ownership of and protect the terrace and lanes.

How would a quarter of local shops commemorate the Rising? I mean, they have the right to agitate for a fitting commemoration centre, but from what you're saying, they seem to want to dictate urban policy in the capital city, an that's certainly nor their perogative.

Qualitymark

Einhard wrote: »

How would a quarter of local shops commemorate the Rising? I mean, they have the right to agitate for a fitting commemoration centre, but from what you're saying, they seem to want to dictate urban policy in the capital city, an that's certainly nor their perogative.

Scarcely "dictate urban policy in the capital city"!

Einhard

Qualitymark wrote: »

Scarcely "dictate urban policy in the capital city"!

I don't know, I'm only going by your account of their wishes. The Council want a large retail development in that part of the city; you stated that this 1916 group want small scale indepent retailers. If this is true, and this is what they're agitating for, then yes, they're seeking to dictate urban policy in the capital.

A Disgrace

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know, I'm only going by your account of their wishes. The Council want a large retail development in that part of the city; you stated that this 1916 group want small scale indepent retailers. If this is true, and this is what they're agitating for, then yes, they're seeking to dictate urban policy in the capital.

Strong way of putting it, but they're pushing for the site to be used sensitively I'd imagine - I'd say that a Marks and Spencer or some other typically 'British' store, wouldn't be on their list of dream-tenants (considering the history of the site) - and I would tend to agree with that in all honesty.

Aard

No Marks and Spencer there just because they're British? Have we not moved on as a society over the past hundred years?

hfallada

There is a ton of people who would prefer the city centre to be a run down reminder of various eras. Such as keeping liberty hall as it has some importance even through its horrible and not functional as a modern office block. How can we have a viable city, if a small minority want to keep it exactly as it is? I have a few people would protest over Hume house being demolished even through its a eye sore.

You can never please Irish people.

alastair

Aard wrote: »

No Marks and Spencer there just because they're British? Have we not moved on as a society over the past hundred years?

There's the transparent agenda of many who subscribe to this 'revolutionary quarter' nonsense. Plain old demonisation of anyone outside their worldview. see earlier in this thread:

...turned into walkways inside the mall, where shoppers can stroll and admire the window displays of multinational chain clones to the tinkling muzak of Irish Blood, English Heart

Also, for those who think 1916 was an awfully bad idea, and we'd be better off with dear old Blighty, what, what

wandererz

hfallada wrote: »

There is a ton of people who would prefer the city centre to be a run down reminder of various eras. Such as keeping liberty hall as it has some importance even through its horrible and not functional as a modern office block. How can we have a viable city, if a small minority want to keep it exactly as it is? I have a few people would protest over Hume house being demolished even through its a eye sore.

You can never please Irish people.

I second this.
Terrible on the outside compared to some of the bright modern buildings lifting up the city center.
What's the view from one of the meeting rooms on the top floors of Liberty Hall but a grimy windowed view of the city outside and a shopping bag of hard liquor sitting on the floor - smirnoff comes to mind.. That was my experience anyway.

The average citizen does not even have the opportunity to take in the view from the top of one of the tallest buildings in the city center.

How about the quays? Take a walk or drive down the Liffey from Heuston to the Custom House and the view is of grimy and graffiti-ridden buildings.

With all the taxes being collected, those buildings should at least be pressure washed once in a blue moon. It's a terrible reflection of the capital city.

The next time you walk down the quays or some other area in Dublin City center, just think about how much better it would look if they just bovvered to clean the facades of the buildings.
If it's that important yet they can't be bothered to do so...well then, just rip it down and build something else.
Even the UK has copped onto the fact that you can't keep things for posterity's sake - if you do then future generations won't have anything worthwhile of this current generation to look back on.

What you want is for the good stuff to be maintained and the crap to be replaced ...but then perhaps i'm wrong....

Qualitymark

Einhard wrote: »

According to RTE, the only buildings on the street to have been used during the Rising- numbers 14 to17-

No, no, that's not correct. The GPO garrison retreated from the burning O'Connell Street and Henry Street down Henry Place and broke into No 20; they then occupied the whole terrace - over 300 people spread out through the houses and in the back yards and outbuildings. Read the accounts in the Bureau of Military History - http://www.bureauofmilitaryhistory.ie and search for "Moore Street" - and you'll see that this is so.
An earlier examination by a firm of architectural conservators concluded mistakenly that only those four buildings showed physical evidence of the fighting during the Rising; a more recent examination has disproved this.

RobbingBandit

There are billboards covering the doorway they broke in through presently I believe, it was not from the front of the street but rather the side at the entrance to Moore Lane.

Qualitymark

RobbingBandit wrote: »

There are billboards covering the doorway they broke in through presently I believe, it was not from the front of the street but rather the side at the entrance to Moore Lane.

The great thing about Henry Place/Moore Lane is that it used to be called Of Alley. Henry Moore, Earl of Drogheda, built Henry Street, Moore Street, Earl Street, Of Alley and Drogheda Street. (Drogheda Street being the northern end of O'Connell Street.)

expectationlost

The Moore Street National Monument will be compromised if the surrounding area is not restored appropriately in respect of its historical importance. http://www.maureenosullivan.ie/2/post/2014/05/the-moore-street-national-monument-will-be-compromised-if-the-surrounding-area-is-not-restored-appropriately-in-respect-of-its-historical-importance.html

now where would we go check that ' the moore street advisory committee' appendix http://www.dublincity.ie/YOURCOUNCIL/COUNCILPUBLICATIONS/Pages/ReportoftheMooreStreetAdvisoryCommittee.aspx

this is the quality of the images they release to the public

*

*actual size and quality of image provided

expectationlost

Money is needed for Moore Street to bloom, say traders http://www.herald.ie/news/money-is-needed-for-moore-street-to-bloom-say-traders-30245023.html 25 years for deliberate rundown

Aard

Plenty of private businesses would give their eye teeth for a shopfront on Moore Street. If they had security of tenure, that is. Start offering longer leases, and you'll see the money flowing in.

cgcsb

As far as I'm aware the people who want to 'preserve the entire terrace' seem to be missing the fact that much of the terrace are infact modern builds and not the building that were present in the year 1916. I believe the plans for an interpretive centre on the site of the remaining buildings are a perfect solution, and the new shopping centre will be a great improvement on that block's current use i.e. DR Quirkeys, some tacky fast food places, a few weave shops where you can get your hair braded while you get your phone unlocked. I hope work starts soon in order to finish at least the museum element by the end of next year.

Qualitymark

cgcsb wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the people who want to 'preserve the entire terrace' seem to be missing the fact that much of the terrace are infact modern builds and not the building that were present in the year 1916.

Not in fact so. Some of the houses on the terrace have had parts replaced, but they're substantially the same.

expectationlost

Aard wrote: »

Plenty of private businesses would give their eye teeth for a shopfront on Moore Street. If they had security of tenure, that is. Start offering longer leases, and you'll see the money flowing in.

but the developers of dublin central don't want to, they kept leases short because they want to knock most of it down, have you not being paying attention for last 20 years?

Qualitymark

Documentary on the history of the site:

Aard

expectationlost wrote: »

but the developers of dublin central don't want to, they kept leases short because they want to knock most of it down, have you not being paying attention for last 20 years?

That's exactly what I'm referring to. The problem is as you state it. And pumping public money into the street isn't going to sort it out, as the headline of that Herald article linked to suggests.

expectationlost

Aard wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm referring to. The problem is as you state it. And pumping public money into the street isn't going to sort it out, as the headline of that Herald article linked to suggests.

who would suggest start offering longer leases?

Aard

Pumping Council money into the street is no resolution, that's my point.

The Dublin Central project is completely out of scale and should have been refused permission. That's where the Council would have been better placed to intervene.

cgcsb

Aard wrote: »

The Dublin Central project is completely out of scale and should have been refused permission. That's where the Council would have been better placed to intervene.

That's matter of opinion really