Moore Street demolition

[StGallsGAA]

Perhaps the Lizzy's arse licking jackeens could rename it Bobby Moore Street as they doff their caps once again to the crown?

[foxcommander]

It's not about whether it's in the same condition, but whether it's effectively a post 1916 building. And i'm only asking the question, which seems to be difficult to get a clear answer to.

In that case should someone be allowed build houses on top of the hill of Tara. There's no evidence apart from folklore that it has any real historical significance. That stone is possibly a hoax.

An estate of 4 bed semi-detached homes with that view would certainly fetch top dollar.

What do you reckon? Shall we give Heather a ring and see if she can push though planning permission?

There's archeological evidence that it's a site of historic significance. Can you point to anyone disputing its significance?

I don't know of anyone with first hand evidence to support the claim. Artefacts could have been planted.
Can't they not build the estate around the mound? The rest of the field wouldn't be of any significance. Might have to knock a few quid off the asking price for the homes.

You're right. Letting them build the estate around the mound sounds like a good compromise.

You might have to drive over the mound, dig some parts of it up and maybe knock over the stone a few times but sure it's all in the name of progress and profits. Make history history.

[macdanger2]

TBF, it should be historians making this type of decision rather than developers, councillors, relatives, etc.

Absolutely not. Historians (putting aside how you would actually define a historian, and the element of subjectivity on historical matters) have no mandate or accountability to be making any decisions. Elected representatives should make the decisions, obviously taking into account the various facts and opinions.

So where are the elected officials supposed to get these "facts" that you're talking about from?? Historians perhaps??

The decision about whether or not the site is of historical significance should be taken by someone qualified to do so based on facts.

Yes, historians can inform those who make the decisions. But the historians don't make the decisions, as your earlier post suggested.

In this case, there appears to be historical records to suggest the disputed buildings are not historically significant:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/buildings-at-centre-of-moore-st-protest-not-historically-significant-1.2489475
That's what officials are pointing to as the basis for their decision. Therefore they're doing what you seem to be suggesting, surely?

I'm not saying that they are or aren't correct - I don't know enough to say. Simply saying that historical considerations should (within reason) be the only thing taken into account and not any commercial benefits to the council or whoever.

[Rossfan]

Perhaps the Lizzy's arse licking jackeens could rename it Bobby Moore Street as they doff their caps once again to the crown?

Take your tablets like a good gasùn.

[Main Street]

TBF, it should be historians making this type of decision rather than developers, councillors, relatives, etc.

Absolutely not. Historians (putting aside how you would actually define a historian, and the element of subjectivity on historical matters) have no mandate or accountability to be making any decisions. Elected representatives should make the decisions, obviously taking into account the various facts and opinions.

So where are the elected officials supposed to get these "facts" that you're talking about from?? Historians perhaps??

The decision about whether or not the site is of historical significance should be taken by someone qualified to do so based on facts.

Yes, historians can inform those who make the decisions. But the historians don't make the decisions, as your earlier post suggested.

In this case, there appears to be historical records to suggest the disputed buildings are not historically significant:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/buildings-at-centre-of-moore-st-protest-not-historically-significant-1.2489475
That's what officials are pointing to as the basis for their decision. Therefore they're doing what you seem to be suggesting, surely?

I'm not saying that they are or aren't correct - I don't know enough to say. Simply saying that historical considerations should (within reason) be the only thing taken into account and not any commercial benefits to the council or whoever.

The buildings were designated the status of national monuments in 2007 after years of struggle.
I am absolutely shocked that the buildings today are not in the same condition they were  in 1916 when occupied by the provisional government of the republic. And because they are not in the same condition, is absolute proof that the buildings are completely insignificant in historical terms.
I am a great believer in that energy and memory of great historical events are somehow stored in bricks and mortar.
Let the bureaucrats write our history and discriminate what is and what isn't important to do with our history. We should just trust them totally  when they take a decision to sell national monuments to private developers and explain  'well actually these national monuments are not actually national monuments but just different buildings of bricks and mortar which just happen to be in the same place while that historical event took place and any relationship is purely coincidental'.

[weareros]

It's not about whether it's in the same condition, but whether it's effectively a post 1916 building. And i'm only asking the question, which seems to be difficult to get a clear answer to.

In that case should someone be allowed build houses on top of the hill of Tara. There's no evidence apart from folklore that it has any real historical significance. That stone is possibly a hoax.

An estate of 4 bed semi-detached homes with that view would certainly fetch top dollar.

What do you reckon? Shall we give Heather a ring and see if she can push though planning permission?

There's archeological evidence that it's a site of historic significance. Can you point to anyone disputing its significance?

I don't know of anyone with first hand evidence to support the claim. Artefacts could have been planted.
Can't they not build the estate around the mound? The rest of the field wouldn't be of any significance. Might have to knock a few quid off the asking price for the homes.

You're right. Letting them build the estate around the mound sounds like a good compromise.

Has anyone stood on Hill of Tara. There's a modern Republican grave and headstone right next to Lia Fail. Not the first time Republicans have shown a lack of respect for an ancient monument. Bit of zealotry there which was also shown by Israelites who tried to dig up Noah's Ark there. Righteous men have a lot to answer for.

[Maguire01]

TBF, it should be historians making this type of decision rather than developers, councillors, relatives, etc.

Absolutely not. Historians (putting aside how you would actually define a historian, and the element of subjectivity on historical matters) have no mandate or accountability to be making any decisions. Elected representatives should make the decisions, obviously taking into account the various facts and opinions.

So where are the elected officials supposed to get these "facts" that you're talking about from?? Historians perhaps??

The decision about whether or not the site is of historical significance should be taken by someone qualified to do so based on facts.

Yes, historians can inform those who make the decisions. But the historians don't make the decisions, as your earlier post suggested.

In this case, there appears to be historical records to suggest the disputed buildings are not historically significant:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/buildings-at-centre-of-moore-st-protest-not-historically-significant-1.2489475
That's what officials are pointing to as the basis for their decision. Therefore they're doing what you seem to be suggesting, surely?

I'm not saying that they are or aren't correct - I don't know enough to say. Simply saying that historical considerations should (within reason) be the only thing taken into account and not any commercial benefits to the council or whoever.

The buildings were designated the status of national monuments in 2007 after years of struggle.

Is it not the case that the buildings at the centre of the protest do not have, and have never had, the status of national monument? My understanding is that numbers 14 to 17 were declared a national monument in 2007. The protests are about numbers 13, 18 and 19, which were never part of the national monument.

I am absolutely shocked that the buildings today are not in the same condition they were  in 1916 when occupied by the provisional government of the republic. And because they are not in the same condition, is absolute proof that the buildings are completely insignificant in historical terms.
I am a great believer in that energy and memory of great historical events are somehow stored in bricks and mortar.

I don't know how to interpret this. If you do actually believe that the energy and memory of great historical events are stored in bricks and mortar, then there's no point in saving those buildings that are not substantially as they were in 1916. If, as I imagine, you're being sarcastic, and you don't believe that energy and memory of great historical events are somehow stored in bricks and mortar, then you couldn't really argue against demolishing all the buildings!

[Maguire01]

Diarmaid Ferriter: Noisy campaign to 'save' the Rising street rings hollow
'There is ignorance behind the well-intentioned 'Save Moore Street' slogan'

As a rallying cry, "Save Moore Street" seems compelling as the centenary of the 1916 Rising approaches. The cry has been adopted by various politicians and protestors who claim that not enough is being done to preserve the street where the Rising leaders made their last stand.

Dig deeper, however, and there is hollowness to the slogan that does scant justice to the complications associated with a street neglected for decades. These include the different responsibilities of local and central government, vested private interests, conservation architecture, and conflicting witness accounts of what went on in Moore Street towards the end of the Rising.

It is difficult to translate what occurred in the laneways of history into a complete narrative that is verifiable, but it can be confidently asserted that Nos 10 to 25 were occupied to varying degrees during the final stages of the Rising.

Shaffrey Associates Architects have specialised in the conservation of historic buildings since the 1960s. In 2005, the firm completed a weighty report for Dublin City Council assessing the architectural and historical importance of No 16, most likely the last HQ of the Rising. The report found that No 16 retains much of its original mid-18th century fabric and character.
While recognising that other Moore Street buildings were significant due to the events that took place within them, Shaffrey said Nos 20-21 "have been altered extensively since 1916 and retain little of the character of this time". Due to that, "the substantially intact No 16 takes on a greater significance and the importance of its protection becomes more relevant".

No 16 is part of a group of buildings within the central terraced block on the east side of Moore Street, which comprises Nos 14 to 17 inclusive "and which forms a coherent streetscape of substantially intact mid-18th-century buildings".

In 2006, Nos 14-17 were designated a national monument by the government. The following year, a preservation order was placed on them.

Shaffrey Associates and archaeologist Franc Myles compiled another dense report in 2012 for Chartered Land, the owner of Nos 14 to 17. This report was in response to a request for additional information after Chartered Land applied for ministerial consent to carry out works at Nos 14-17.

The report concluded that "the most significant survival is the row of 18th century houses which constitutes the national monument", Nos14 -17. It also identified "the perception that much of the historic streetscape and fabric survives intact, although this is clearly not the case". Of particular note are openings in the walls between Nos 14 to 17, which "retain a coherence".

In 2014, Dublin City Council chose not to acquire Nos 14-17 when offered them in a land swap by Nama, which took control of Chartered Lands' loans. So the Government bought the buildings from Nama for €4 million. This brought the national monument into public ownership and ensured its restoration.

What remains in Nos 14- 17 is significant and evocative; the restoration of these buildings, showcasing their 18th-century features and allowing visitors to see the attempts of 1916 rebels to tunnel between the houses, will make it a significant attraction and permanent monument to the status of Moore Street in the Rising story. This is a positive development.
I am no cheerleader for the Department of Arts and Heritage; it has failed to adequately communicate what is going on and should make the reports I cited above publicly accessible and explain why it paid €4 million for the buildings.

However, I also believe there is ignorance behind the well- intentioned "Save Moore Street" slogan. It is reductive and simplistic and avoids nuanced analysis of the practical problems of preserving intact large historic sites. It doesn't appreciate the existing commitment to conserve the most significant buildings or the experienced hands – literally – that will do the necessary work.

Given their delicate state, the buildings need to be stabilised. This requires demolishing Nos 13, 18 and 19, which are essentially post-1916 structures. The contract for the work was awarded to Lissadell Construction, which specialises in heritage work (it has worked on the restoration of Kilmainham Court House). Lissadell is working closely with the OPW, the National Archives and the National Museum.

Talk of planned shopping centres and the desecration of sacred sites invites a neat narrative of contemporary philistinism. It ignores the consequences of decades of inactivity, land speculation, and the extent to which the city council is responsible for missed opportunities and has approved planning permission for large commercial development in Moore Street. The council, not the government, remains the development authority for the street.

At least the key buildings are now being preserved and in capable hands. Conservationists should be allowed get on with their jobs.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/diarmaid-ferriter-noisy-campaign-to-save-the-rising-street-rings-hollow-1.2524437

[foxcommander]

Good news

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0318/775798-moore-street/