GPO to be turned into Shopping Mall? (3 Viewers)

[classic seanc]

I bet you there'll be a Starbucks in it.

 

[Hair Iron Madin]

Most people don't go into the GPO for years on end. It doesn't even cross their minds for years on end but then someone mentions that they're turning it into a shopping mall and its the worse thing they've ever heard. As long as they don't knock it down or change the facade, what's the problem?
Is it really important to people that it stays as a post office?

i think whats being overlooked is the fact that this building will be preserved in its entirety. it is a listed building so any use of the builidng internally cannot alter the look/facade of the building. it will be more open to the public than it currently is as most of the space is reserved for the post office counters and offices.

a friend of mine was abhored at the use of the old church on jervis square as a new bar. i had a hard time trying to get him to accept the fact that the only source of finance to restore and preserve the building would come from the commercial sector. it is a horrible pub but they have done a great job preserving and restoring the interior and what would have probably been a building up for eventual demolishing is now going to survive a good few years more.

its not an ideal state of affairs but if commercial sector is willing to invest in a buildings preservation regardless of its ulterior motives (over priced apartments and more shitty clothes shops/cafes) then its better than let something fall into a state of total disrepair.

look at the issues surrounding the carlton cinema and moore street. the council made a balls of the compulsory purchase on the 1916 building on moore street owned by the carlton group and now no development is underway on either the old carlton cinema or moore street until the legal issues are sorted and in the meantime both buildings fall into further states of disrepair.

the area of proposed development behind the gpo is on property owned by the arnotts group. the proposed development creates a new street and a square proposing to create a northside quarter similar to that in temple bar.

i think its a great proposal for the area as it opens up a site that would have been unseen to the public and brings more open public space to the city - most european cities have several piazzas/squares that encourage people to congregate, and can be used for cultural events, markets, etc.

so whats so bad about this development? i dont think it can be comparable to newgrange or tara.

 

[jane]

Most people don't go into the GPO for years on end. It doesn't even cross their minds for years on end but then someone mentions that they're turning it into a shopping mall and its the worse thing they've ever heard. As long as they don't knock it down or change the facade, what's the problem?
Is it really important to people that it stays as a post office?

I see your point, and no, if it can't function as a post office anymore, then artificial life support might not be the best solution. But there are a thousand options that do not have the end result of luxury apartments and high-end boutiques.

As for the heritage centre thing, yes, once a site gets a certain number of visitors, you do have to take measures to ensure that the place isn't destroyed, but it seems that the aims of heritage and interpretative centres in Ireland are ONLY a combination of getting money off people and preventing access to anything except a really standardised narrative that is, more often than not, totally wrong.

The 'story' you get in Newgrange is appallingly out of line with any even remotely current archaeological research or interpretation. Same goes for a lot of sites I've been to. If there's any information at all, it's beyond out of date, it's simply wrong. And the thing is, it's not like it's on 20-year old placards, it's that no one challenges it.

There are so many different approaches to heritage presentation, many of which involve the participation of the wider public, but in Ireland, 'public participation' is entirely limited to the public being a passive audience. Ireland is waaaay behind the times when it comes to heritage stuff.

There are some really innovative (I hate that word) approaches to heritage in the US and UK, many of which would create sustainable tourism, support the local economy, and encourage respect for the landscape, all while presenting a more interesting and less bullshitty story of the past, but Irish heritage professionals and academics do nothing more than pay them lip service. They really aren't interested in anyone who is remotely critical of the way things are done here. Academics think they're too good to do anything except be patronising to 'the rabble', contract archaeologists aren't allowed to talk at all, and other heritage professionals aren't really considered at all, and have very little public presence.

 

[magicbastarder]

The 'story' you get in Newgrange is appallingly out of line with any even remotely current archaeological research or interpretation. Same goes for a lot of sites I've been to. If there's any information at all, it's beyond out of date, it's simply wrong. And the thing is, it's not like it's on 20-year old placards, it's that no one challenges it.

i'd be very curious to hear what current archaeological thinking is - is there anywhere i could find out, in layman's language?

 

[jane]

i think whats being overlooked is the fact that this building will be preserved in its entirety. it is a listed building so any use of the builidng internally cannot alter the look/facade of the building. it will be more open to the public than it currently is as most of the space is reserved for the post office counters and offices.

a friend of mine was abhored at the use of the old church on jervis square as a new bar. i had a hard time trying to get him to accept the fact that the only source of finance to restore and preserve the building would come from the commercial sector. it is a horrible pub but they have done a great job preserving and restoring the interior and what would have probably been a building up for eventual demolishing is now going to survive a good few years more.

its not an ideal state of affairs but if commercial sector is willing to invest in a buildings preservation regardless of its ulterior motives (over priced apartments and more shitty clothes shops/cafes) then its better than let something fall into a state of total disrepair.

look at the issues surrounding the carlton cinema and moore street. the council made a balls of the compulsory purchase on the 1916 building on moore street owned by the carlton group and now no development is underway on either the old carlton cinema or moore street until the legal issues are sorted and in the meantime both buildings fall into further states of disrepair.

the area of proposed development behind the gpo is on property owned by the arnotts group. the proposed development creates a new street and a square proposing to create a northside quarter similar to that in temple bar.

i think its a great proposal for the area as it opens up a site that would have been unseen to the public and brings more open public space to the city - most european cities have several piazzas/squares that encourage people to congregate, and can be used for cultural events, markets, etc.

so whats so bad about this development? i dont think it can be comparable to newgrange or tara.

Yes, I agree with this to a point, but there's a range of other options that can be looked at that will keep the building within the community.

The shopping mall of the 'exclusive' variety will not encourage people to congregate -- it will encourage people with money to spend that money for a private investor's benefit.

Piazzas and squares and public spaces are great, but if it's a private concern, it won't be for everyone's benefit. Not everyone will be encouraged to congregate there, and if it's primarily shops and cafes, then it will mean paying money to sit down. We need more spaces that are for the public good, not more places that are for private profit with a side benefit for the moneyed public.

I agree that in some cases -- like with the church on Jervis St -- developing it into a private concern will give a building new life, reinventing it and thus preserving it, not just as a shell, but with a new function. But that's not the only option, and I think the GPO is more significant to a lot of people than can be adequately acknowledged by handing it over for boutiques. We need more places where truly independent traders can thrive, not more high-end boutiques and watery five-euro cappuccinos.

Yes, there are times when a private business is the best and most positive solution to reinventing an old building, but it's not the only way.

 

[Wilbert]

I think the GPO is more significant to a lot of people than can be adequately acknowledged by handing it over for boutiques.

Not trying to be funny but in what way is it significant to people?

 

[magicbastarder]

there was a bit of a kerfuffle there once. you might have heard about it.

 

[therealjohnny]

I don't see whats wrong with it the way it is, a fully functioning, neccessary amenity in the centre of town, that happens to be a of cultural/historical significance

leave it alone i say

 

[Diddles]

They should shell it from a warship. And fuck that statue of Chuculainn into a skip while they're at it. Fucking Brits.

 

[Wilbert]

there was a bit of a kerfuffle there once. you might have heard about it.

True but it didn't happen because it was a post office and changing it from a post office (remembering they are not changing the building structurally in any way) is not a sign of disrespect. By that logic, you couldn't change anything on O'Connell Street.

 

[jane]

i'd be very curious to hear what current archaeological thinking is - is there anywhere i could find out, in layman's language?

Honestly? Not really. This is one of the major problems in Irish heritage, and very few people are willing to do anything about it. When I went to Newgrange, I was really shocked at how bad the tour was, but I was like, "Fair enough, they don't want to hire someone who cares what he or she is saying, but at least I'll get five minutes to look around when it's done." But we were pretty much shoved out of the place as soon as she was finished talking, therefore her explanation that the three burial chambers were for 'people of lower, middle and upper classes' was the story that most people got. And so wrong on so many levels that I felt like, if this was how they were going to present a heritage site, they might as well just knock the place down.

Archaeology Ireland is pretty okay as a magazine aimed at the professional and the interested amateur, but that's pretty much it. You won't see anything on TV, nor will you hear much about it on the radio. You might hear the more senior professionals saying their bit, but it's generally still with the assumption that heritage has a passive audience, rather than an actively-engaging pulbic.

If you look at the plan for the future of Irish heritage, 'better engagement with the public' is not anywhere on the agenda. There's a plan for better PR, but public relations are not the same as actually including the public and helping people to engage with their own heritage. They want to improve their image in the eyes of the public, so that the taxpayer will continue to shell out money for a heritage to which they are pretty much denied access.

The lack of anything really useful for the non-professional is second only to Immigration on my list of problems in this country.

And the thing is, people don't need a really detailed narrative, what they need are the tools to engage with it themselves. Interpretation is hardly an exact science, and archaeological thinking is much more fun when you invite lots of different people to get involved and actually invite imaginative uses and interpretations. People really should be encouraged to contribute to all kinds of debates and discussions.

The uncertainty of interpretations should make it ripe for lots of interesting public involvement, but instead, the uncertainty is seen as a reason to fucking close ranks and keep everyone out and say things like, "This site proves that the ancient Irish were great." Or "This site is important because it's older than the pyramids." Rather than, look, this site is part of a really interesting ritual landscape in the neolithic, and but it was also part of the landscape for everyone who came after it, and it's spent most of its existence actually being an 'old' thing, and has probably been interpreted and used millions of different ways in 5000 years. In fact, it was only a burial chamber for a really short period of time, so that's only part of its story. It was one of the first sites that came to the attention of antiquarians as early as the late 17th century, and was also incorporated as a sort of folly on a gentleman's estate.

And then later, it was part of a vicious feud between archaeologists, with the quartz facing stones that were placed there as part of its rebuilding causing a rift in the discipline that is actually still felt today. People didn't speak to each other for DECADES over those things -- the debate being over whether the quartz belongs there or not.

Much, much more interesting than what they tell you when you're there. So really, anything that's genuinely interesting about archaeology and heritage is left out of what the 'public' gets told.

I don't have anything against reconstructions or preservations or whatever, but there needs to be a better transparency. Fourknocks, which is not far from Bru na Boinne, is much more exciting. The roof on it is modern and concrete, but it's really well done, and I absolutely love it. For a reconstruction effort of the 1950s, it is WAY ahead of its time.

 

[magicbastarder]

the tour guide is basically where the buck stops for most people, it seems - i wouldn't be able to spot problems with the delivery in the way you are, but when i visited newgrange last, i was impressed with her. she went into the concerns about the quartz stones, and was happy to admit there were things they simply didn't know - things which were not preserved by archaeological record, which have been in dispute for years, so she told us to keep an open mind about what she was saying when she said "it is thought that..." when on the tour.

not archaeology related, in any great sense, but i've been to crag cave and ailwee cave recently, and both times came away feeling cheated out of the entrance fee; and both times it was due to shit tour guides.

 

[jane]

the tour guide is basically where the buck stops for most people, it seems - i wouldn't be able to spot problems with the delivery in the way you are, but when i visited newgrange last, i was impressed with her. she went into the concerns about the quartz stones, and was happy to admit there were things they simply didn't know - things which were not preserved by archaeological record, which have been in dispute for years, so she told us to keep an open mind about what she was saying when she said "it is thought that..." when on the tour.

not archaeology related, in any great sense, but i've been to crag cave and ailwee cave recently, and both times came away feeling cheated out of the entrance fee; and both times it was due to shit tour guides.

It sounds like you got a decent tour guide at Newgrange, but the thing is, she probably did that off her own back, rather than as part of an overall agenda to encourage people to make their own interpretations of a site. I've heard some pretty appalling stories of recent visits, so I think she may be the exception rather than the rule.

The thing is, there are good and bad examples of public and private heritage sites, but it's not always necessary to have an interpretative centre and a guided tour. I almost always feel guided tours are a waste of time, and I hate when they're required because the chances are slim that you'll get someone who is genuinely knowledgeable and enthusiastic. And if they are enthusiastic, it's usually enthusiasm about their own knowledge, and little else.

Another option is to have an interpretative centre somewhere in a region, without having to build shops and stuff on site (although I also favour, if this is an option, a bus/shuttle service and/or encouragement to cycle or walk between sites), where people can choose a guided tour or get material to guide themselves.

The thing is, it has to be part of a real strategy that gives people the tools to be part of the process in some way. It's not that hard. Human behaviour is incredibly complex, but archaeological interpretation isn't any more complicated than the kinds of interpretations people make about the modern world every day. And if more people had a sense of intellectual ownership over the heritage, it would be better protected because people would feel they had a vested interest in it.

For example, Time Team has probably done more to preserve heritage in Britain than any fences or concrete ever could. By showing people the process of archaeology, people quickly learned about the kinds of questions archaeologists ask, and therefore were better equipped to visit sites for themselves without the need for guided tours. Or, when they did have a tour, they had much more interesting questions. Basically, a greater number of people now have the basic interpretative tools to challenge, discuss, and debate because of this one TV show, and more people feel they have a vested interest in their heritage. I think it's piqued interest in Ireland, too, but there haven't really been any changes within the heritage world to account for it. And I still think that, at the heart of the Tara controversy is a demand for better public involvement in heritage in general. People are passionate about the past, and Ireland's antiquities laws are -- on paper -- some of the strongest (or most Draconian, depending on how you look at it) in the world, but rather than protect heritage for the sake of the public, it seems to protect heritage FROM the public.


There are also really interesting projects that involve the public, not just in the end result, but in the process. They aren't necessarily the norm in the UK, but they do exist.

 

[Janer]

Sometimes I can't wait to get kicked out of this fucking country.

They're pacing themselves with you to be fair.

 

[jane]

Fuck you, Janer.

 

[Janer]

U gonna be on top then?

On a serious level I just wanted to see if you were angry with me, if u have noticed I have toned down since I ceased to be a JANER, yet you throw it back in my face.

I might as well go back to being a JANER

 

[jane]

U gonna be on top then?

On a serious level I just wanted to see if you were angry with me, if u have noticed I have toned down since I ceased to be a JANER, yet you throw it back in my face.

I might as well go back to being a JANER

So because you changed your name, everyone should start you over with a clean slate, despite your long history of dickheaded behaviour? Nice try. If you feel you have something to atone for, you should fucking do some serious atoning, not just expect that a change in your screen name makes it everyone else's problem.

In any case, I haven't been reading thumped much lately, and when I do, I pay little to no attention to your posts.

 

[Wilbert]

If you feel you have something to atone for, you should fucking do some serious atoning,

This is not the way of The Punk, Jane.

 

[Janer]

I feel that Jane is blocking my way to martyrdom.

 

[Janer]

In any case, I haven't been reading thumped much lately, and when I do, I pay little to no attention to your posts.

Magnified and pinkified because it appears inconsistent with her education.