Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
OVER THE PAST several weeks, Fora has taken a look at some of the more notable big-ticket projects that were floated during the Celtic Tiger period – or in the aftermath of its demise.
Most recently, we detailed the story behind plans for a ‘park in the sky’ on O’Connell Street. The project would have seen a major revamp of the thoroughfare to make it a shopping hub, and the centrepiece was to be a 12-storey, triangular building that would house a park on its roof.
In this installment, we’re going looking at a development that was to be built just down the road.
Cable cars are a feature in several Western cities such as San Francisco, and developer Barry Boland wanted to bring them to Dublin. Here’s how that panned out.
What is it?
Boland wanted to build a cable car system that would run from around Heuston station to the Dublin docklands, providing a tourist attraction along the River Liffey.
The company he set up to manage the project, the Liffey Cable Car Company, originally submitted a proposal to build four towers along the river, two of which would have been 80m tall.
This would have put the towers among the tallest structures in the country and about 20m taller than Liberty Hall.
The towers would have been used to suspend the cable cars in the air and run them along the length of the river. The cars would each hold 25 people and passengers would pay €15 for a one-way, 20-minute trip.
Boland would later tell the Herald that the objective of the project, which was dubbed ‘Suas’, was “to create a Dublin icon along the lines of the London Eye or the Eiffel Tower”.
“We’re not looking to compete with tourism venues along the Liffey but work alongside existing tourism attractions and add something that enhances the route,” he said.
When was it first suggested?
2006.
What happened?
The project was first estimated to cost €90 million. Boland tried to get it fast-tracked by asking An Bord Pleanála to rule that Suas could qualify as strategic infrastructure.
Planning permission could not be submitted without approval from the council as the supports for the cable car would be located on public property.
However if An Bord Pleanála had ruled that the development was strategic infrastructure, it would have bypassed many normal planning rules. The planning board ruled against Boland in 2007.
In 2008 it was reported that Boland wanted to make a presentation on the project to Dublin City Council’s environment special policy committee.
The Herald later reported that Boland had the “sizeable amount of money necessary for the project already in place” and was looking for support from council officials.
Suas was floated again in 2014, when it was debated by Dublin city councillors. Labour councillor Dermot Lacey proposed the motion, saying that it was an idea “worth pursuing”.
What’s the latest?
Suas seems to have dropped off the radar after the flurry of media reports in 2014, and there has been virtually no mention of it in the press since then.
Some officials are thought to be cool on the scheme and the potential impact it would have on Dublin’s skyline.
When Fora contacted Boland, he maintained he was still hoping to submit a planning application for the project.
“We fully accept that the Suas project will have an impact on the Dublin skyline,” he said.
“We would argue that it will have a positive impact, but we are anxious that our application for planning permission should go forward to Dublin City Council.”
However, Dublin City Council told Fora that the organisation “has not given approval for its lands to be included in any application”.
“No planning application from any party has been submitted,” a spokesman confirmed.
For his part, Dublin councillor Lacey said that he has not heard of any progress on Suas, but that he would still be in favour of more discussion of the idea.
“My own view is that they should be able to proceed with planning. The city council regularly allows applicants to put city land in planning bids without saying that they will support the project.
“I always said that I may oppose the project in the end, but they should at least be able to apply. I wanted a debate to take place. My concern is that people won’t bring forward imaginative ideas in the future if they’re shot down at the first planning hurdle.”
Written by Paul O’Donoghue and posted on Fora.ie
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
they did this in the uk over 20 yrs ago – the only difference it made was that response time were slower and ‘smaller’ crimes went un-investigated due to a lack of manpower at local level ,instead of getting an officer at your door to deal with an incident ,you got a ‘crime number ‘ from someone in a call centre , it was up to YOU to ‘check up’ on the ‘progress’ of the case, al that happened was that people stopped reporting ‘minor’ incidents like shed break-ins, car thefts ,street robberies etc , and those in charge of the police force were able to say that ”reported crime numbers were down ” and so deemed the move to regional offices a success . in reality -crime numbers were rising but no one was reporting them as they new it would be a waste of time doing so . what is needed is MORE gardai at local level -not fewer !
@Eric Davies: I thought the whole idea of the restructuring was to increase the number of garda and Sargents as there would be less admin and the reduction in high level salaries would be reinvested in local level gardai, hence the number of local gardai would increase, would it not?
@Eric Davies: and that’s when the Tony martin incident took place!!
@Eric Davies: yes I got a crime number in Cardiff Wales and that was that
@Vocal Outrage: It didn’t work when the divisions in England/Wales were reduced, there are 20,000 fewer officers now,the divisions in England/Wales rank 27 out of 31 in an International survey of the number of police officers per 100,000 population
@Honeybee: you are right. And guess what, we are ranked even lower.
@Vocal Outrage: thats how it was sold to people -but its not how it turned out – stations that were 20 or so miles apart were ‘amalgamated’ into one – some where even in different counties (lancashire and cheshire for instance) leaving one of the communities without proper cover – when shift changes took place officers had to be at the station for their ‘sign on’ briefing – by the time that was done it meant no officers being available in the non stationed town for over an hour sometimes 2 – also any incidents reported in the town where there was a station would get priority with regard to manpower as they were closer to the station … i know former police officers who were serving at the time and it messed up the entire system .
Also a list of where Krispy Kreme donut outlets will be opening up soon.
@WoodlandBard: hilarious
@Mark Spain: they’re shite donuts.
our fine ruc
@Kieran Cronin: yawn
@Kieran Cronin: Your stone must have needed cleaning that’s fine. Now crawl back under that stone. Stay their clown.
@Kieran Cronin: Muppet
@Kieran Cronin: I, for one, believe the Chief Constable is doing a fine job.
The Cities of Galway, Cork and Dublin are Regional HQs – Kilkenny is upgraded to include its very own ‘Regional Chief Superintendent’ while both the Cities of Limerick and Waterford are ignored? By most accounts both Limerick and Waterford have a higher inner-city crime rate then the entire County of Kilkenny. Something politically amiss here even though I think Commissioner Drew Harris is a breath of fresh air in the corp and the right person to lead the organisation.
@Conor Nolan:
because there is an eastern region covering from meath to waterford. Kilkenny would be in the middle of that. seems logical to me.
@Tim Pot: it does seem strange that. the regional HQ for the Eastern Region is in Kilkenny, I can understand the geography of that one, but the divisional HQ that covers Kilkenny itself will be in Waterford
@Vocal Outrage:
Its the same for the others, example the western region the regional hq is galway, the superintendant monaghan yet the monaghan division hq in drogheda. Its just about finding the right balance between local and central governance. I see no issue.
@Tim Pot: I guess so, I don’t think the army have their overall HQ is the same location as the HQ for the region it’s in, so perhaps that’s a better practice to avoid undue interference from the regional chief super or something
Wenger out
Anyone else see the ad for the fine transit there boss
Joke simple as
As kildare and meath have the lowest number of guards per population this is not good news. We need kildare meath wicklow and louth to be a region on their own. This will lead to these regions losing more guards to other regions. This is not a good idea.
have your say