For the week that’s in it.
James Morrissey writes:
Here’s a short video that summarises the key “Battle of Clontarf Sea Wall” issues into less than three minutes, Big issue for Dublin and all its coastal communities going forward.
I am an actuary by profession. One of the keys questions that actuaries focus on is the trade-off between certainty and the costs of achieving that certainty. To be absolutely sure of something, you need enormous safety margins.
However, to be 99.9% sure, i.e., if a very small probability of failure can be countenanced, then safety margins can be materially lower.
Full letter to Dublin City Council here
Previousl;y: The Clontarf Wall
Sponsored Link
Good argument, without even mentioning how awful it looks.
Yep. At f
phone rang as i was commenting. I thought it was just posh people moaning at first. But he seems bang on.
It’s not that good an argument.
There will now be weaker points elsewhere. Fine. By that logic, no work will be done anywhere. Because at any point at time, there will always be somewhere worse.
Anyway, this wall will presumably be designed for a predicted future flood height (based on climate change etc.) rather than the highest height recorded in the last couple of hundred years (since accurate readings were taken.
He is confusing the point. The design solution DCC have adopted is blunt & horribly ugly and in a sensitive area. They can & should do better.
it’s a stupid argument, he has no specialist knowledge relevant to flood defenses, it’s nothing more than silly old pub talk
global warming stupid, you wanna ride around your SUVs in your fat ass and expect us all to pay to fix your flooded gaffs? Think again, suck it up and stop moaning.
None of this happens.
i think you’ll find, the problems with flooding in that particular area are more to do with silting, poorly maintained culverts and the placement of bull bridge.
The point is as a Dubliner (one that is not from this part of the city) the solution they have adopted is horribly ugly and blunt. This is a beautiful aspect of the city (sited along the coast) and this route in particualr is a favourite of walkers, joggers, cyclists – Dubliners & tourists alike.
We are a modern, developed nation now & we should using some imagination & challenging ourselves to deal with this problem in a smarter fashion.
I disagree classter I think it looks well, concrete will always look like concrete, I think concrete is beautiful
There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
Logical argument, presented convincingly without need for dramatic rhetoric.
Not a chance will he be listened to!
How on earth did this much of the wall get built?
Well rather than dig up that stretch of road three times in a short space of time, Dublin City Council who often get criticised for a lack of joined up thinking have combined three projects into the works.
A much needed upgrade to the Watermain
A portion of the Sutton to Sandycove cycle track
and the Flood Protection Wall
The level rising up on to the Causeway road is not a top priority as very few properties would flooded, with Bull Island and St Anne’s Park taking the brunt of it.
There are also separate flood protection works planned along the Liffey and I would assume that the IFSC has been considered
Some information…. http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/WaterWasteEnvironment/Documents/s2s/PresentationtoElectedOfficials5thNov2015.pdf
Thats a windward wall, and as a guy who spends a lot of time on the water , its curious how he left that bit out.
Basically the windward side of his bath would need to be higher in certain storm conditions , for example an onshore wind + a flooding tide after a lot of rain …
Yes. I came on to make that very point. A strong onshore wind can create waves of a metre high which adds to the water levels he outlines on his video.
He’s an actuary, not a hydrologist.
The argument that another part of the wall is lower so therefore this part doesn’t need raising doesn’t hold much water (pun very much intended). Presumably all parts of the coast will have their walls raised eventually and there’s no harm in future proofing now instead of complaining in 20 years time when sea levels have risen. That being said, it does look absolutely gack.
Yes, this too. His argument does not make sense..
Some fine, flood defenses being built along the dodder from The Aviva to the Bars in Ballsbridge. Mustn’t allow the rich folk get their feet wet.
You’re actually beyond stupid. The flood walls were built because Irishtown repeatedly flooded to the extent that the residents could not get house insurance. Those houses were originally bought from the council by their old tenants back in the 80s/early 90s. The rest was built as part of the permission of the upgrade of the stadium there. DCC would have had to do it otherwise.
Futureproofing is good but that is a lot of concrete in that there wall, hi. The cogent and logical argument explaining the local hydrography leads to the conclusion that this mass of poured concrete was an unnecessary expense on the council – who got the contract?
#loadsamoney, hi….
it’s called engineering Kolmo, are you proposing we make flood defenses from plasterboard and floral wallpaper?
Very few flood defenses are built from concrete.
https://www.google.com/search?q=flood+defenses&num=100&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEuZPK-tHJAhXF6iYKHZ6jBq8Q_AUICCgC&biw=1018&bih=1055&dpr=0.9
And when you are dealing with one of the best amenities of a capital city perhaps more novel, less impactful approaches should be tried, but then again, it’s only the fuppers in those expensive houses that like a view of the sea, it’s not like EVERYONE can go and walk along that promenade.
Mukifisht most of what you have referenced are temporary solutions. In terms of permanent solutions there isn’t enough width for an earth berm several metres wide in Clontarf and most of the metal structures you have shown are pop-up duplo style dams only suitable over small widths, where there might be a break in a larger solution (consider the boardwalk on the Liffey). A permanent steel and glass design would be outrageously expensive and carry an enormous maintenance burden, and would probably end up looking worse over time
The real issue is that no rise in sea defences is required in this location. As such, the argument over concrete versus glass is a red herring. The New Wall, if allowed to stand, will be 1.40 metres above highest ever tide. Old Wall is approximately half that. Still plenty of margin, while very significant other parts of the city’s defences are materially lower. Even keeping the focus local, what is the point of a wall higher than the Bull Bridge (which is a Protected Structure) or the Causeway given that water can get in behind it via either end?
brownbull – stop limiting yourself to the simplest possible existing solutions.
There is no reason why DCC couldn’t run an international design competition.
Or pull together a body of experts (in Ireland) to contribute ideas.
Perhaps a demountable system could be used if the concerned residents agree to be part of a committee to take responsibility for the ‘mounting’
This is a major amenity – it shouldn’t be damaged so lazily.
No they’re not. Explain how they are temporary.
Would you call the Thames Barrier a temporary solution? I’m not saying that could work here, my point is that if you think outside the box you don’t have to be as limited to think building a massive fupp off concrete wall is the only way to go.
unbelievably thick people want excellent views of their impending doom
I have to take issue with people saying it’s horrible and blunt – it’s a concrete wall because anything else wouldn’t work or be economical as a flood defense. They could have spent money on paint or linings but that would create a maintenance problem and it would end up looking even worse, granted they could have employed different textural or surface effects in the concrete but I’m sure that wouldn’t have made a difference to most of the people criticising it.
You have no imagination, brownbull.
This fits in with a model where we always wait for others – sometimes in relatively small countries like the Netherlands – to come up and trial new ideas.
@brownbull -the fact that they haven’t even ’employed different textural or surface effects in the concrete’ is indicative of the slapdash and insensitive approach they have to this challenge (like many others).
I agree with his sentiment, definitely not with his argument though. As a non-engineer his points are hollow and reductive, he may as well have been a chef staring at the wall yelling “But you cannot eat the wall! Why would you build it if you cannot eat it? You can grab a burger down near the IFSC, but we have this wall. It doesn’t make any sense.”
Knowing this area and the history of floods in this area the guy has a point (although there is more to consider). First of all, the region that needs to be dealt with first is between Clontarf and the Wooden bridge. This region is exposed to the sea and, if the winds are in the right direction coupled with a high enough tide and low pressure, this is the region that experiences flooding. Not surprising when you look at it on a map. The wall is really not needed past here YET as Bull Island acts as a breakwater, so the wall is not even being built in the right place, as is in fact just short of the right place.
The next thing that should be considered is how this legacy will affect the area for decades to come. This will be a lasting monument to poor planning for generations and what they have been given is an ugly grey block that will be hte perfect canvas for Micko and Wanko and Bazzer to scrawl their crap tags all over in place of one of the best views of hte city.
And finally, it seems there’s a misunderstanding this was the only option. This is the most drastic option, but far from the only one. Other options such as hinged shuttering which could be used in the event of bad conditions and left down the rest of hte time (and in fact that would have been quite cheap), perspex hoarding, or a break water would have been much more subtle and less impactful than the monolithic, ugly, industrial concrete wall that was put up instead. This is ONLY supposed to be stopping waves from breaking over the top, not holding back a rising tide (as the guy in the vid seems to think it is).
The Clontarf promenade is one of the nicest amenities in Dublin, accessible to hundreds of thousands of people, a jewel in the crown of the capital and the country, something other European cities would kill for, and it’s been effectively destroyed by the lazy, unoriginal plans of dim witted penny pinchers.
No doubt that the promenade along Clontarf is a lovely walks but anyone that claims the new sea wall will spoil their view is talking through their hat. I wouldn’t call a view of office blocks and fuel tanks a beautiful view
Being able to comfortably see the sea gives a sense of space, even when there are office blocks to be seen on the other side.
Anyway, even the office blocks are a more interesting visual environment than a continuous flat, concrete wall.