Supermack's has to remove signage in Temple Bar

MadsL

GarIT wrote: »

I've never seen any housing problems in rural Ireland.

Here's a basic clue.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/8759946/The-housing-developers-dream-that-ruined-Ireland.html

Teyla Emmagan

GarIT wrote: »

I don't see too much of a problem with that.

Things like preserving our heritage mean nothing to you?

I'm definitely glad you're not in charge then.

Frank Lee Midere

GarIT wrote: »

I think if you own a building you should be able to do what you want with it. Other people haven't paid for it so they shouldn't have any say in how it looks.

As part owner of the Coluseum I agree. The local councils objection to a much needed car park there is backward and statist.

drumswan

MadsL wrote: »

Here's a basic clue.

I think thats his first one.

Supermacs shouldnt have been allowed in Temple Bar in the first place, never mind their ****ty, gaudy culchie magnet sign

whisky_galore

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

The picture in the Examiner article is of some random Supermacs somewhere. The Irish Times article has the actual shopfront.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/supermac-s-shopfront-too-traditional-for-temple-bar-1.1896312

It's not 'traditional', it's a p*ss poor attempt at a traditional shopfront, made out of MDF or chipboard or something. Looks cheap and nasty, just like their food.

Frank Lee Midere

There are two competing arguments here:

1) should the council have the right to stop properties from alterations added without permission.
2) is the actual alteration bad.

I agree with 1) but not sure about 2). Don't see much of an issue there. But they needed permission.

GarIT

Cienciano wrote: »

You don't have a problem with this?
You're definitely in the minority.

To be honest no, the old building looked better, the new one is much taller and probably functions better.

I know I'm in the minority.

GarIT

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Things like preserving our heritage mean nothing to you?

I'm definitely glad you're not in charge then.

Not at all, I've no interest in heritage, it's pointless to me.

I don't have a problem with buildings being preserved but if someone wants to preserve something they should have to pay the going market rate and buy it rather than using laws to restrict the owners.

An example of something much closer to what happened with supermacs, because that had nothing to do with heritage; would be a guy I know of built his own house got planning permission but later was made to reapply and refused because he used a Romanesque colum to hold up his porch instead of the square brick colum in the plans. The council should be allowed have an opinion on what somebodies' property looks like.

Who is it that get to make these decisions on what looks ok and what doesn't. It's no different than the council trying to tell a person that they cant wear something outside because it is too tacky for them.

KungPao

Cienciano wrote: »

You don't have a problem with this?
You're definitely in the minority.

Never knew that was there before the monstrosity that exists there now. What idiots allowed that to happen?:(

Cienciano

GarIT wrote: »

To be honest no, the old building looked better, the new one is much taller and probably functions better.

I know I'm in the minority.

Would you think the GPO, the Four Courts, Customs House should be knocked to make something that functions better? Georgian Houses could all be knocked for better functioning homes and offices too.
If you think Dublin looks bad now, imagine property developers had free reign to do what they wanted?

Hulk Hands

drumswan wrote: »

I think thats his first one.

Supermacs shouldnt have been allowed in Temple Bar in the first place, never mind their ****ty, gaudy culchie magnet sign

But McDonald's etc should? God forbid we let in a home grown family business that always buys locally

Babooshka

drumswan wrote: »

I think thats his first one.

Supermacs shouldnt have been allowed in Temple Bar in the first place, never mind their ****ty, gaudy culchie magnet sign

it's too late to be precious about a piss stained, piss smelling cobbled area that is covered with vomit and loud drunken people.

The Backwards Man

I couldn't care less about Supermacs or Temple Bar, I'm just posting to join in on the faux outrage.

GarIT

Cienciano wrote: »

Would you think the GPO, the Four Courts, Customs House should be knocked to make something that functions better? Georgian Houses could all be knocked for better functioning homes and offices too.
If you think Dublin looks bad now, imagine property developers had free reign to do what they wanted?

No, there are certain landmarks that should be kept, but the government should purchase them. At most we should have a couple of buildings preserved, not a whole area.

Can I ask have you seen New York, or even London? That is what our planning laws are preventing us having, the property crisis is also due to our planning laws. We are stopping the city actually functioning, to preserve how it looks.

GarIT

Hulk Hands wrote: »

But McDonald's etc should? God forbid we let in a home grown family business that always buys locally

Why does it matter where the business is from or where they buy from?

MadsL

GarIT wrote: »

No, there are certain landmarks that should be kept, but the government should purchase them. At most we should have a couple of buildings preserved, not a whole area.

Can I ask have you seen New York, or even London? That is what our planning laws are preventing us having, the property crisis is also due to our planning laws. We are stopping the city actually functioning, to preserve how it looks.

New York and London have very strict planning laws,and I'd love to hear your theory about how Irish planning laws precipitated the property crisis when in fact what wasn't permitted (51 story towers at Guinness for example) would have cost the country way more in bailing out developers and banks.

GarIT

MadsL wrote: »

New York and London have very strict planning laws,and I'd love to hear your theory about how Irish planning laws precipitated the property crisis when in fact what wasn't permitted (51 story towers at Guinness for example) would have cost the country way more in bailing out developers and banks.

I don't know anything about planning laws in those cites but they clearly can't be as strict as Ireland.

I meant the current crisis, with the lack of accommodation rather than the property crisis. People can't afford to live in Dublin because there isn't enough accommodation, pushing the prices of what we do have up. There isn't enough accommodation because we aren't allowed to build high enough.

MadsL

GarIT wrote: »

I don't know anything about planning laws in those cites but they clearly can't be as strict as Ireland.

Nonsense, London has some of the most restrictive planning laws in the world when it comes to listed buildings. Ireland has one class of protected buildings, the UK has three classes and it is almost impossible to do anything with a Grade 1 listed building. Numerous decisions in Ireland for crass commercial development have involved even the full demolition of listed buildings. Look at what Bono got permission to do with the Clarence Hotel and that fecking spaceship he wanted to put on top - totally inconceivable in the UK.

GarIT wrote: »

I meant the current crisis, with the lack of accommodation rather than the property crisis. People can't afford to live in Dublin because there isn't enough accommodation, pushing the prices of what we do have up. There isn't enough accommodation because we aren't allowed to build high enough.

It wasn't a question of building high enough, Dublin is actually quite a low density city with a ton of vacant sites even in the city centre, the rent crisis is that the wrong type of properties were being built. Which means the logical conclusion is letting planning rather than money decide what is built in the city.

Frank Lee Midere

GarIT wrote: »

No, there are certain landmarks that should be kept, but the government should purchase them. At most we should have a couple of buildings preserved, not a whole area.

Can I ask have you seen New York, or even London? That is what our planning laws are preventing us having, the property crisis is also due to our planning laws. We are stopping the city actually functioning, to preserve how it looks.

Eh? There are preservation orders all over both cities.

solomafioso

I think they should change it to comic sans. For sh!ts and giggles.

Cienciano

GarIT wrote: »

No, there are certain landmarks that should be kept, but the government should purchase them. At most we should have a couple of buildings preserved, not a whole area.

Can I ask have you seen New York, or even London? That is what our planning laws are preventing us having, the property crisis is also due to our planning laws. We are stopping the city actually functioning, to preserve how it looks.

London and New York have the most expensive office space in the world. I worked in Dublin 2 (Mount Street) and there was a 5 story office empty for 5 years, a brand new office empty for 2. And London has some of the toughest planning and conservation laws in the world.