THE 2025 PHOTONIQUE BLOG

THE GRAFTON STREET TO DAWSON STREET REGENERATION PROGRAMME IS ABOUT TO COMMENCE

by

The Grafton Street to Dawson Street Revamp: Assessing Potential Business Impacts

  1. Executive Summary

Dublin City Council is preparing to commence a significant €6 million regeneration of the streets connecting Grafton Street and Dawson Street, a project first announced a decade ago. This report addresses the understandable concerns raised about the potential disruption to businesses during the anticipated two-year construction period. The recent closure of Luigi Malones in Temple Bar, partly attributed to lengthy roadworks, and the varied experiences of businesses following the pedestrianisation of Capel Street serve as important examples of the challenges such urban development projects can present.

This analysis examines the specifics of the planned revamp, draws valuable lessons from similar past initiatives in Dublin City Centre, and carefully assesses the potential implications for businesses in the affected area. It highlights the critical need for Dublin City Council to implement robust mitigation strategies and provide comprehensive support to minimise any negative impacts on the local economy.

The report concludes with actionable recommendations aimed at fostering a collaborative approach between the Council and the business community. The goal is to ensure the successful delivery of the project while safeguarding the livelihoods of those operating within the Grafton Street to Dawson Street quarter.

  1. Introduction

Background to the Revamp Project:

Dublin City Council is scheduled to undertake a substantial €6 million regeneration of the streets situated between the prominent retail hub of Grafton Street and the adjacent Dawson Street. This ambitious project, aimed at enhancing the public realm of a key area in Dublin’s city centre, was initially announced ten years prior as an integral component of the Grafton Street Quarter Public Realm Plan. The commencement of these significant works is slated for May of this year, with an estimated duration of up to two years. The considerable time elapsed between the project’s announcement in 2013 and its impending commencement in May 2025 may understandably lead to apprehension and a degree of scepticism among business owners regarding the projected timeline and the potential for further delays, which could impact their operations and future planning.

Concerns Regarding Business Disruption:

The impetus for this report stems from valid concerns regarding the potential negative repercussions for businesses operating within the Grafton Street to Dawson Street area during the extensive regeneration project. These concerns are amplified by recent events and past experiences in Dublin City Centre. Notably, “Luigi Malones,” a long-established restaurant in Temple Bar, recently ceased trading, citing the prolonged duration of nearby roadworks as a significant contributing factor to a “plummeting turnover”.

Similarly, the redevelopment of Capel Street, which involved pedestrianisation, saw some businesses, such as “Eatokyo,” reporting losses due to the extended period of disruption caused by the works. It is acknowledged that the challenges faced by businesses on Capel Street were also influenced by other factors, including the Covid-19 pandemic and specific local events. The fact that Eatokyo’s locations on Capel Street and Talbot Street (both situated on the Northside of the city) closed, while their Temple Bar branch (Southside) remained operational, suggests that location-specific vulnerabilities, potentially exacerbated by redevelopment works, can significantly impact business viability. These prior instances underscore the legitimate anxieties of stakeholders in the Grafton Street to Dawson Street area regarding the upcoming revamp.

Report Objectives and Scope:

This report aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the planned Grafton Street to Dawson Street revamp. Its objectives include detailing the specifics of the project and examining the impact of comparable redevelopment initiatives in Dublin City Centre, particularly focusing on the business outcomes of the Temple Bar roadworks and the Capel Street pedestrianisation.

Furthermore, the report will assess the potential implications of the upcoming revamp for businesses within the affected area and review Dublin City Council’s established approach to supporting businesses during periods of roadworks and urban regeneration. Finally, it will offer a set of actionable recommendations designed to mitigate potential negative impacts and foster a more supportive environment for businesses throughout the duration of the project.

The scope of this report encompasses the geographical area between Grafton Street and Dawson Street, the anticipated two-year timeframe of the revamp commencing in May 2025, and the case studies of Luigi Malones and Eatokyo. The analysis will primarily draw upon the information provided in the research snippets to inform its findings and recommendations.

  1. The Grafton Street to Dawson Street Revamp

Project Details:

The extensive regeneration of the streets between Grafton Street and Dawson Street represents a significant investment of approximately €6 million by Dublin City Council. This substantial project is scheduled to commence in May 2025 and is expected to take up to two years to complete. The specific areas earmarked for this revamp include South Anne Street, Duke Street, Lemon Street, and the various lanes that interconnect them. This initiative is not a new undertaking but rather the next phase of the broader Grafton Street Quarter Public Realm Plan, which was first announced in 2013. The considerable duration of this project could present a substantial challenge for businesses operating within the area. Prolonged periods of construction and associated disruptions have the potential to significantly reduce footfall and negatively impact the daily operations of these establishments.

Planned Improvements:

The planned regeneration aims to significantly enhance the public realm of the area, introducing several key improvements. For the first time, automated rising bollards will be installed to manage vehicular access. The project also includes the planting of trees and flowers to improve the aesthetic appeal and introduce greenery. To promote sustainability, water bottle filling stations will be installed. The existing streetscape will be upgraded with the laying of new granite paving, specifically Leinster granite. On Lemon Street, plans include the creation of a dedicated play area for children. Additionally, the area will benefit from the installation of new public seating and bicycle stands, encouraging both pedestrians and cyclists. A notable addition to the public art in the city centre will be a bronze sculpture to be located on South Anne Street. These improvements collectively aim to create a more attractive, accessible, and pedestrian-friendly environment. While the immediate construction phase may cause disruption, these enhancements hold the potential for long-term benefits for businesses by attracting a greater number of visitors and encouraging them to spend more time in the area.

Traffic Management Plans:

Dublin City Council has outlined plans to manage traffic and pedestrian flow during the regeneration project. The works are scheduled to be completed in phases, a strategy intended to minimise overall disruption. Crucially, pedestrian access to businesses and through the area will be maintained at all times throughout the construction period. It is important to note that South Anne Street was already pedestrianised four years prior, indicating a pre-existing commitment to prioritising pedestrian movement in this part of the city. Similarly, Duke Street is currently pedestrianised from just past Duke Lane up to its junction with Grafton Street. Following consultations with organisations representing disabled people, the section of Duke Street from Dawson Street to Duke Lane will remain open to vehicular traffic. The newly installed automated retractable bollards on South Anne Street and the western end of Duke Lane on Duke Street will regulate access for delivery trucks, permitting entry only between the hours of 6 am and 11 am. General parking will not be available within the revamped area. Lemon Street will continue to operate as a pedestrianised street and will also be the location of the new play space. While the commitment to maintaining pedestrian access is a positive aspect, the restrictions on general vehicular traffic and the limited delivery window could present logistical challenges for businesses that rely on customer access by car or require deliveries outside the specified morning hours.

  1. Impact of Previous Dublin City Centre Redevelopments

To understand the potential impact of the Grafton Street to Dawson Street revamp, it’s helpful to examine the outcomes of similar projects in Dublin City Centre.

Luigi Malones (Temple Bar):

Luigi Malones, a restaurant that had been a fixture in Temple Bar for 28 years, made the difficult decision to cease trading on Sunday, April 13th. A primary reason cited for this closure was the significant decline in customer numbers, leading to a “plummeting turnover,” directly attributed to the ongoing construction work immediately outside the restaurant’s premises. The owners expressed a sense of frustration, stating that they had been “effectively barricaded into our own premises” for a period of three months due to extensive street works involving digging and rebuilding. Adding to their difficulties, the duration of these works significantly overran the initial estimate, lasting over three months instead of the anticipated one month. While the roadworks were the immediate trigger for the closure, the owners also acknowledged a broader context of a “gradual but general decline in trade in Dublin City Centre” and the increasing pressure of “inflationary pressures,” which had made it challenging to operate profitably. The experience of Luigi Malones starkly illustrates the potentially devastating financial consequences that prolonged and highly disruptive roadworks can have on businesses, even those with a long and established presence. The significant discrepancy between the planned and actual duration of the works further compounded the negative impact, making it impossible for the restaurant to sustain its operations.

Capel Street Pedestrianisation:

Capel Street underwent a significant transformation in May 2022 when it was permanently pedestrianised, becoming the longest traffic-free street in Dublin City Centre. This decision followed a period of temporary pedestrianisation implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic and a subsequent public consultation in which a substantial 91% of respondents expressed their support for making the change permanent. The impact of this pedestrianisation on businesses along Capel Street has been multifaceted, with both positive and negative outcomes reported.

On the positive side, many businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector such as restaurants and cafes, have benefited from a notable increase in pedestrian footfall, especially during weekends. The creation of a more pedestrian-friendly environment has also allowed for the expansion of outdoor dining areas, which has proven to be a significant advantage for eateries. The improved public realm has made Capel Street a more pleasant place for people to walk and spend time, and the absence of vehicular traffic has led to a reduction in noise and air pollution. Some businesses have reported an overall increase in trade due to the higher volume of people on the street, and Capel Street has gained recognition as a vibrant “destination street”.

Conversely, some businesses have voiced concerns about the negative impacts of pedestrianisation. Retail businesses that historically relied on passing vehicular traffic and the convenience of on-street parking have reported a reduction in passing trade. Difficulties with deliveries outside the limited window of 6 am to 11 am have also been cited as a challenge. A significant point of contention was the feeling among some business owners that they were not adequately consulted before the permanent pedestrianisation was implemented. Furthermore, some residents and businesses in the surrounding areas reported an increase in traffic on adjacent residential streets as a consequence of the Capel Street closure. Notably, Eatokyo, a Japanese restaurant with a location on Capel Street, closed its doors in January 2025, to be replaced by another restaurant. While the specific reasons for Eatokyo’s closure are not explicitly detailed in the provided information, it occurred after the pedestrianisation of the street. Additionally, a survey of businesses on Capel Street indicated that over 70% were “unsatisfied” with the traffic ban, and just over half reported a “negative effect” on their business. Concerns about a potential increase in anti-social behaviour in the absence of regular vehicular traffic were also raised.

The experience of Capel Street underscores that while pedestrianisation can bring about positive changes, particularly for certain sectors like hospitality, it can also present significant challenges for other types of businesses. Effective communication, thorough consultation with all stakeholders, and proactive measures to address concerns regarding access, deliveries, and traffic management in surrounding areas are essential for the successful implementation of such projects. The closure of Eatokyo, despite the generally positive assessment of the pedestrianisation by city councillors, serves as a reminder that various factors can influence business viability, and even well-intentioned urban development projects can have unintended consequences for individual establishments.

Comparison of Previous Dublin City Centre Redevelopments:

To provide a clearer overview, the table comparing the previous redevelopments can be summarised as follows:

Temple Bar Roadworks (Luigi Malones): This project involved street rebuilding and digging. It experienced significant timeline overruns (1 to 3 months). The business impact was severe, leading to the closure of Luigi Malones due to plummeting turnover. Key concerns included inaccessibility and prolonged disruption. The level of Council support was not explicitly detailed.
Capel Street Pedestrianisation (Eatokyo): This project involved the pedestrianisation of an entire street. The timeline impact was a permanent change following trials. The business impact was mixed, with positive outcomes for some and negative for others; Eatokyo closed. Key concerns included reduced passing trade, parking issues, and delivery challenges. Engagement with businesses was mentioned.
Planned Grafton Street to Dawson St Revamp: This project focuses on public realm improvements with some pedestrianisation. The anticipated timeline is up to 2 years. The potential business impact includes disruption during works with potential long-term benefits. Key concerns include reduced footfall during works and access limitations. The Council plans phased works to minimise disruption.
This comparison highlights the diverse impacts that different types of urban redevelopment projects can have on businesses. The Temple Bar roadworks, characterised by significant disruption and timeline overruns, led to the closure of an established business. In contrast, the Capel Street pedestrianisation resulted in a more varied impact, with benefits for some sectors and challenges for others, and in the closure of at least one business. The planned Grafton Street to Dawson Street revamp, with its focus on public realm improvements and a longer duration, presents its own set of potential challenges related to sustained disruption and access. These past experiences underscore the importance of careful planning, effective communication, and tailored support for businesses during such projects.

  1. Potential Implications for Businesses in the Grafton Street to Dawson Street Area

Anticipated Disruptions:

Despite Dublin City Council’s intention to minimise disruption through phased works and the maintenance of pedestrian access, businesses in the Grafton Street to Dawson Street area should anticipate potential challenges during the estimated two-year construction period. Reduced footfall is a significant concern, as even with pedestrian access maintained, the presence of ongoing construction, noise, and visual clutter may deter shoppers and visitors. Businesses that rely on deliveries outside the 6 am to 11 am window, particularly those requiring larger or more frequent shipments, could face logistical difficulties due to the restricted access for delivery trucks. The noise and visual impact of construction activities could also negatively affect the ambiance of the area, potentially impacting customer experience and willingness to linger. While the phased approach to the works is intended to limit disruption, specific streets or sections within the project area may still experience extended periods of construction activity, directly impacting the businesses located there.

Mitigation Strategies Proposed by Dublin City Council:

Dublin City Council has outlined several strategies aimed at mitigating the potential negative impacts of the regeneration project. A key element of their plan is to complete the work in phases, which is intended to ensure that disruption is localised and not felt across the entire area simultaneously. The Council has also stated that pedestrian access will be maintained at all times throughout the duration of the project, which is crucial for ensuring that customers can still reach businesses. Furthermore, the decision to keep the Dawson Street end of Duke Street open to traffic was made following consultation with organisations representing disabled people, indicating an awareness of the need to maintain accessibility for all. While these proposed mitigation strategies are positive initial steps, the experiences of Luigi Malones and some businesses on Capel Street suggest that their effectiveness in fully offsetting business disruption may be limited. The prolonged duration of the project, even with phased works, could still lead to significant challenges for businesses.

Business Sentiment:

Currently, there is no specific feedback available from businesses located within the Grafton Street to Dawson Street area regarding their sentiments towards the upcoming regeneration project. However, considering the concerns expressed by businesses during the Capel Street pedestrianisation and the unfortunate experience of Luigi Malones in Temple Bar, it is reasonable to anticipate that businesses in the Grafton Street area are likely to harbour similar anxieties. These anxieties would likely centre on the potential for reduced footfall, difficulties with customer and delivery access, the duration of the works, and the overall impact on their trade and viability. The history of business apprehension surrounding similar urban development projects in Dublin City Centre suggests that proactive engagement and clear communication from Dublin City Council will be crucial in addressing these likely concerns and fostering a more collaborative environment.

  1. Dublin City Council’s Approach to Supporting Businesses During Roadworks

Review of Publicly Available Information:

Dublin City Council has established administrative structures for managing roadworks within its jurisdiction, primarily through its Roadworks Control Unit, which is responsible for issuing necessary licenses and overseeing the execution of such projects. In the context of public realm improvement works, such as the upcoming Grafton Street to Dawson Street revamp, the Council has publicly stated its aim to minimise disruption to both local businesses and the general public. This commitment was evident, for example, during the Liffey Street Public Realm Works. For the Liffey Street project, the appointed contractor was specifically tasked with maintaining close communication with affected businesses to mitigate any potential disruptions and ensure continued access to their premises. To facilitate this, a dedicated public liaison officer was assigned to the Liffey Street works, and regular newsletters were distributed to keep stakeholders informed about the project’s progress. Additionally, in recognition of the importance of the Christmas trading period for businesses, the Council made provisions to suspend works on Liffey Street over the festive season. The overarching framework for these public realm initiatives is provided by Dublin City Council’s Public Realm Strategy, which guides the planning and execution of projects aimed at enhancing public spaces. The Grafton Street Quarter Public Realm Improvement Plan, published in 2013 and 2014, provides the specific strategic context for the upcoming revamp. While these established procedures and past efforts demonstrate a level of consideration for businesses during roadworks, the varying outcomes of different projects, as highlighted by the Luigi Malones case, suggest that the effectiveness of these measures can be inconsistent and may require further refinement to adequately address the diverse needs of the business community.

Analysis of Communication and Engagement Strategies:

The pedestrianisation of Capel Street provides an example of Dublin City Council’s communication and engagement efforts for significant urban development projects. This initiative involved a public consultation process, indicating an attempt to gather feedback and incorporate community views into the decision-making process. However, despite this consultation, some business owners on Capel Street reported feeling that their specific concerns and needs were not adequately addressed. For the upcoming Grafton Street revamp, the Council has mentioned conducting consultations with organisations representing disabled people regarding traffic flow on Duke Street. While engaging with specific stakeholder groups is important, the experience of some Capel Street businesses suggests that a more comprehensive and tailored approach to engaging with the business community may be necessary for the Grafton Street project. There appears to be a need for communication and engagement strategies that go beyond general public consultations and proactively seek to understand and address the specific operational challenges that businesses anticipate facing during the construction period.

  1. Recommendations

To mitigate the potential negative impacts and foster a more supportive environment for businesses during the Grafton Street to Dawson Street revamp, the following recommendations are proposed:

Enhanced Communication and Engagement with Businesses: Dublin City Council should implement a proactive and comprehensive communication and engagement strategy specifically targeted at businesses within the affected area. This should include individual meetings, workshops, surveys, a dedicated point of contact within the Council, and regular, detailed updates on the project’s progress.

Transparent communication regarding delivery restrictions – alternative access arrangements, and any other relevant logistical information is crucial. Learning from the complaints about inadequate consultation during the Capel Street pedestrianisation, a tailored and proactive approach to business engagement can build trust and facilitate a more cooperative partnership throughout the project.

Financial and Logistical Support for Affected Businesses: Dublin City Council should actively explore the implementation of financial and logistical support measures to assist businesses directly impacted by the prolonged construction period. This could include investigating the possibility of providing business support schemes such as rates relief or grants to help offset potential losses in revenue due to the disruption. The Council should also work closely with businesses to identify and implement logistical solutions for deliveries that fall outside the restricted 6 am to 11 am window, where feasible, while also considering the needs of residents. Exploring the provision of temporary loading and unloading zones in nearby areas not directly affected by the construction could also help alleviate delivery challenges. Additionally, the Council should investigate options for potentially reducing the overall duration of the works, such as exploring the feasibility of extended working hours or alternative construction methodologies, while carefully considering the potential impact of increased noise levels on residents in the area. Providing such financial and logistical support can offer a vital lifeline for businesses that may experience reduced turnover as a direct result of the construction works, drawing a parallel with the financial struggles faced by Luigi Malones.

Learning from Past Experiences: Dublin City Council should undertake a thorough and systematic review of the lessons learned from the Capel Street pedestrianisation project, as well as other comparable urban redevelopment initiatives within Dublin City Centre. This review should aim to identify both the best practices that led to positive outcomes and the potential pitfalls that resulted in negative impacts for businesses. The insights gained from this analysis should then be directly applied to the planning and execution of the Grafton Street to Dawson Street revamp. By proactively learning from past experiences, the Council can avoid repeating previous mistakes and implement more effective strategies for communication, disruption management, and business support for the current project.

Contingency Planning and Flexibility: Given the estimated two-year duration of the Grafton Street to Dawson Street regeneration project, Dublin City Council should develop comprehensive contingency plans to address any unforeseen delays or significant negative impacts on businesses that may arise during the construction. It is crucial that the Council demonstrates a willingness to be flexible and adapt the project plan based on ongoing feedback received from businesses and through continuous monitoring of the situation on the ground. The experience of the roadworks in the Temple Bar area, which significantly overran their initial timeline and contributed to the closure of Luigi Malones, underscores the importance of having robust contingency measures in place to mitigate the risks associated with such long-term infrastructure projects. This proactive approach will help to ensure that the Council is prepared to respond effectively to any unexpected challenges and minimise their impact on the local business community.

  1. Conclusion

The upcoming €6 million regeneration of the streets between Grafton Street and Dawson Street holds significant potential for the long-term enhancement of Dublin City Centre’s public realm. However, it is imperative that Dublin City Council proactively addresses the genuine concerns of local businesses regarding potential disruptions during the anticipated two-year construction period. Learning from the experiences of previous redevelopments, particularly the closure of Luigi Malones and the mixed impacts of the Capel Street pedestrianisation, is crucial. Effective mitigation and comprehensive support measures are essential to minimise negative consequences for the businesses operating within this vital area of the city. The Council’s commitment to phased works and maintaining pedestrian access are positive steps, but further proactive engagement, tailored financial and logistical support, and a flexible approach to contingency planning will be key to ensuring the project’s success for both the public realm and the local economy. By fostering a collaborative partnership with the business community and demonstrating a genuine commitment to addressing their needs, Dublin City Council can maximise the benefits of this regeneration project while safeguarding the livelihoods of the businesses that contribute to the unique character and vibrancy of the Grafton Street to Dawson Street quarter.

THE WORKING FROM HOME IDEA DID NOT GO WELL – HOW DISAPPOINTING BUT YOU CAN HAVE WHAT IS LEFT

by

PHOTOGRAPHED BY WILLIAM MURPHY FOR PHOTONIQUE

The Issue of Abandoned Furniture on Footpaths: Prevalence, Legality, and its Classification as Fly-tipping

The sight of discarded furniture left on a footpath, often accompanied by a handwritten note offering it for free, appears to be a common enough occurrence in Ireland. This practice, seemingly a way for people to get rid of unwanted items whilst potentially avoiding disposal charges, gives rise to several questions. This discussion will examine this trend, looking at how widespread it is not only in Ireland but also in other countries.

Furthermore, we’ll delve into the legal implications of this practice, both here in Ireland and internationally, and critically assess whether it constitutes fly-tipping, identifying similar terms used in other regions. By analysing the available information, this report aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon and its impact on waste management and public spaces.

How Common is Leaving Free Furniture on Footpaths in Ireland?

My own experience suggests that leaving furniture on footpaths with a “free to take” note is a noticeable trend across Ireland. While hard statistical data on how often this happens might be scarce, anecdotal evidence and comments within online communities give us an idea of its commonality.

For instance, a comment on a news article from 2014 mentions that in Ballymun, Dublin, some people simply leave unwanted furniture outside their homes, seemingly hoping the council will collect it. While their intention might not be to explicitly offer the items for free to passers-by, the act of placing bulky furniture on a public thoroughfare indicates a recognised way of trying to remove it from one’s property. This suggests that using public spaces for getting rid of or exchanging unwanted furniture isn’t a completely new idea.

Moreover, a discussion on an Irish subreddit about street furniture and pedestrian access implicitly acknowledges the presence of objects, potentially including discarded household furniture, on footpaths. The very nature of the query, focusing on how these items affect pedestrian flow and safety, suggests that furniture and other bits and pieces appearing on footpaths are common enough to cause concern and discussion amongst residents. This indicates that the phenomenon isn’t just isolated incidents but is seen as a recurring feature of the urban landscape in Ireland.

Adding another layer to this is a comment in an online forum where a user describes Irish footpaths as a “free for all.” While this comment relates to general footpath etiquette, it could be interpreted as reflecting a potentially less regulated or more informal environment where practices like leaving furniture out for collection or free taking might be more common or at least less strictly challenged compared to places with tighter rules and enforcement regarding public space. Therefore, while precise figures might be hard to come by, the available anecdotal evidence points towards the practice of leaving unwanted furniture on footpaths being a recognised and relatively common occurrence in Ireland, particularly in urban centres like Dublin, where, where I live, this has become an issue compounded by the fact that the abandoned furniture is vandalised or set on fire by local youths.

An International Look: Occurrence in Other Countries

The practice of leaving unwanted items, including furniture, on public pathways with the hope that someone will take them for free isn’t unique to Ireland and crops up in various forms around the world.

In the United Kingdom, online discussions reveal a strikingly similar trend. Users on platforms like Reddit frequently mention the act of placing furniture, mattresses, and sofas on pavements with notes saying they are “free to take,” particularly in areas of London like West London and New Cross. This is often seen as a handy way to get rid of unwanted items and a form of informal recycling, although some commentators view it as lazy or even a form of fly-tipping. Similar to Ireland, the social acceptance of this practice in the UK seems to vary, with some embracing it as community sharing while others criticise it as irresponsible disposal.

In contrast, Canada has adopted a more structured approach to facilitating the reuse of unwanted household goods. Numerous cities, including Vaughan, Niagara Falls, York Region, Newmarket, Bethlehem, and Halifax, organise “Curbside Giveaway Days.” These are scheduled events where residents can place used items in good condition at the kerb for others to take for free on specific weekends. These events often come with detailed guidelines regarding what items are acceptable, when to put them out and when they should be gone by, and general etiquette to ensure safety and minimise disruption. This formalised system indicates a societal recognition of the value of reuse and a proactive effort by local authorities to manage and encourage it.

Australia presents yet another context with its “verge collection” services. These are council-organised bulk waste collection services that happen periodically in different areas. In this context, residents might place unwanted furniture and other large items on the verge (the strip of land between a property and the road) hoping that others will take them before the scheduled council collection. This suggests that the informal practice of leaving furniture out can sometimes be intertwined with formal waste management systems, with an element of community scavenging and reuse occurring alongside the planned council removal.

The United States offers a slightly different perspective, with the legality and social acceptance often depending on whether the items are left on private or public property. Leaving items on one’s own lawn with a “free” sign is generally considered legal and acceptable in many areas. However, the practice of leaving furniture on public footpaths is viewed with more caution and is often subject to local regulations. Online discussions reveal similar debates about the etiquette and potential risks (like bed bugs) associated with taking free furniture from the kerb.

Overall, the trend of leaving unwanted furniture out for free is a global phenomenon, but how common it is, how socially acceptable it is, and how the law treats it varies significantly across countries. While the UK mirrors Ireland’s more informal approach with similar debates, Canada has embraced a structured, community-oriented model, and Australia sees it linked to formal waste collection schedules. The US context emphasises property rights, with private property being a more accepted space for such exchanges.

The Legal Standpoint: Leaving Furniture on Footpaths

The legality of leaving furniture on footpaths, even with a friendly “free to take” note, is a key consideration and one that varies depending on where you are in the world. Here in Ireland, the legal framework strongly suggests this isn’t on. Our Citizens Information website clearly states that “unwanted furniture” falls under the broad definition of litter. And as we all know, leaving litter in a public place is an offence, potentially leading to fines issued by the local council and the Gardaí. These on-the-spot fines can be up to €150, and if it goes to court, you could be looking at a bill of up to €4,000. So, placing that old sofa on the pavement, no matter how good your intentions, is likely to be seen as breaking our litter pollution laws.

Furthermore, Dublin City Council, like many other local authorities, offers a bulky household waste collection service, though often for a fee. The very existence of this service implies that they expect us to use these official channels for getting rid of larger items like furniture, rather than simply leaving them on public footpaths. Private waste collection services operating in Dublin also emphasise the regulated nature of waste management here, pointing out that it’s illegal to give your waste, furniture included, to unauthorised collectors. While this specifically refers to formal waste disposal, it highlights the general legal expectation that waste should be managed through proper channels, suggesting that informal disposal on our footpaths isn’t within the rules.

Beyond just littering, leaving furniture on footpaths can also cause problems by blocking public pathways. As we’ve seen in online discussions, these items can impact how easily and safely people can walk. Dublin City Council has even run campaigns in the past against obstructing footpaths, showing a clear policy against anything that blocks pedestrian access – and that would certainly include abandoned furniture. So, in Ireland, leaving that armchair on the pavement is likely to be considered illegal, both as littering and potentially as an obstruction.

The legal situation in other countries echoes this sentiment. Across the Irish Sea in the UK, leaving furniture on the street is considered fly-tipping and is against the law. Similarly, in the USA, many local areas have specific rules against leaving furniture on sidewalks unless it’s part of a scheduled collection. Even in Australia, where those verge collections are common, there are strict rules about not blocking footpaths and not putting items out too early.

To give you a clearer picture without a table, here’s a quick rundown of the likely legal situation in these places:

Ireland: Likely illegal under the Litter Pollution Act, with potential fines reaching €4,000.
UK: Likely illegal as fly-tipping under the Environmental Protection Act, with potential fines and even imprisonment.
Canada: Likely illegal (except during organised Curbside Giveaway Days) under Street and Traffic Bylaws, with fines potentially up to $10,000.
USA: Likely illegal, varying by state and city, often under ordinances against sidewalk obstruction, with potential fines and even jail time.
Australia: Likely illegal under Environmental Protection Acts or Litter Acts, with significant fines possible, even up to $62,500 for individuals in some cases.
So, while the idea of giving away your old furniture might seem harmless, the law in many places, including Ireland, tends to see it differently.

Is it Fly-tipping? Defining and Classifying the Practice

To determine if leaving furniture on a footpath with a “free to take” note constitutes fly-tipping, it’s important to understand what this term means and what similar terms are used elsewhere. Fly-tipping, according to the House of Commons Library, is the “illegal dumping of household, industrial, commercial or other ‘controlled’ waste.” This definition covers a wide range of materials, including household items like furniture.

Wikipedia further clarifies that illegal dumping, also known as fly-tipping, involves getting rid of waste illegally instead of using authorised methods. In the United States, the term “illegal dumping” is more commonly used, with North Carolina DEQ defining it as “depositing solid waste at a location other than a legally accepted facility.” In Ireland, Longford County Council uses “illegal dumping” and “fly-tipping” interchangeably to describe the unauthorised disposal of waste.

Applying these definitions to the practice in question, leaving furniture on a footpath with a “free” note likely fits the bill for fly-tipping or illegal dumping. The act involves leaving an unwanted item, which, in the context of waste management, is considered waste, in a public place without explicit permission from the local authority. While the intention behind leaving the furniture might be for someone else to reuse it, the way it’s being disposed of doesn’t typically follow authorised waste management channels, such as council collections, recycling centres, or donation programs.

The main difference between this practice and typical fly-tipping might be the intention. People leaving furniture for free often hope it will be taken and reused, driven by a desire to avoid landfill or disposal fees, or simply to get rid of the item conveniently. This is different from the intent of those who more obviously fly-tip, which is often to irresponsibly discard waste in an effort to avoid proper disposal procedures and costs, sometimes including hazardous materials.

However, from a legal and waste management point of view, the focus is often on the act of unauthorised disposal and the potential consequences for public space and the environment, rather than solely on the disposer’s intent. Regardless of whether the furniture is left with a “free” note, it remains an unmanaged item in a public area until it’s taken, potentially causing obstruction, looking unsightly, and if left for too long or in poor condition, environmental concerns. Therefore, while social perceptions might differ, legally, this practice is likely to be classified as a form of fly-tipping or illegal dumping.

Why People Do It and What the Alternatives Are for Furniture Disposal

Several factors might motivate people to leave unwanted furniture on footpaths with a “free to take” note. A significant one is likely the desire to avoid the costs associated with formal waste disposal. Many local authorities and private waste management companies charge for collecting and disposing of bulky items like furniture. By leaving it out for free, people may hope to avoid these charges. Convenience also plays a part; simply putting the furniture on the footpath requires less effort than arranging a special collection or taking it to a recycling centre. Additionally, there’s often a genuine hope that the furniture will be reused by someone who needs or wants it, extending its life and keeping it out of landfill.

Despite these motivations, Ireland offers numerous legally compliant and environmentally responsible alternatives for getting rid of unwanted furniture:

Donation to Charities: Many charities across Ireland, such as Oxfam Ireland, St. Vincent de Paul, Enable Ireland, Habitat for Humanity ReStore, and Vision Ireland, accept donations of furniture in good nick. Many even offer free collection services for bulky items.
Selling or Giving Away Online: Platforms like eBay, Gumtree, Facebook Marketplace, Freecycle, and Trash Nothing provide effective ways to find new homes for unwanted furniture, either for a price or for free.
Utilising Council Bulky Waste Collection Services: Dublin City Council and other local authorities offer bulky waste collection services. While these services often involve a fee, they ensure responsible disposal through authorised channels.
Bringing to Recycling Centres or Civic Amenity Sites: These facilities accept a wide range of household waste, including furniture, although there might be charges for certain items.
Engaging with Reuse Networks: Organisations like Community Reuse Network Ireland (CRNI) can connect individuals with local initiatives focused on furniture reuse, repair, and upcycling.
Upcycling or Repurposing: People can explore creative ways to upcycle or repurpose old furniture, giving it a new lease of life and avoiding disposal altogether.
Similar alternatives exist in other countries. The UK has a strong charity shop culture and numerous online platforms. Canada has formalised reuse through Curbside Giveaway Days and also has donation options. Australia offers charity shops, online marketplaces, and council verge collections. The US has a well-established network of donation centres and online selling platforms.

The Role of Reuse Networks and Community Initiatives in Dublin and Ireland

Ireland benefits from a dedicated network of organisations and initiatives that focus on furniture reuse, repair, and recycling. Community Reuse Network Ireland (CRNI) serves as the national representative body for these community-based efforts. Their 2021 impact report highlights the significant contribution of their members, generating over €52 million in turnover, saving substantial amounts of carbon emissions, and providing employment and training opportunities for over a thousand people. CRNI’s work underscores the environmental, social, and economic benefits of supporting a circular economy through reuse.

Within Dublin and across Ireland, numerous local initiatives are actively involved in furniture reuse. BusyBee’s Furniture Recycle in Dublin operates by taking in unwanted furniture, refurbishing it, and selling it on, giving these items a second life.

Age Action runs a large second-hand furniture warehouse in Cherry Orchard, Dublin, offering affordable furniture options to the community and diverting items from landfill. Habitat for Humanity Ireland, through their ReStore locations in various regions including Lisburn and Drogheda, accepts donations of furniture and building materials, selling them to fund their housing projects. The Rediscovery Centre in Dublin runs the Rediscover Furniture program, which focuses on repairing, restoring, and upcycling furniture, also providing valuable training and skill-building opportunities for individuals interested in reuse and repair.

Similar networks and initiatives exist in other countries, demonstrating a global trend towards recognising and supporting reuse. In the UK, Freegle facilitates the free exchange of unwanted items, and the Reuse Network acts as an umbrella organisation for charitable reuse efforts. Canada has platforms like Trash Nothing for giving and receiving free items. Australia sees community-based reuse facilitated through Buy Nothing groups and online marketplaces like Gumtree. These international examples highlight a shared commitment to promoting reuse as a vital component of sustainable waste management.

Conclusion

To sum up, the practice of leaving unwanted furniture on footpaths with a “free to take” note, while seemingly common in Ireland and other countries like the UK, is likely to be considered illegal. In Ireland, this act probably constitutes littering under the Litter Pollution Act, potentially leading to fines. Similar regulations exist in the UK (fly-tipping), the USA (illegal dumping, sidewalk obstruction), and Australia (illegal dumping, obstruction).

While the intention behind leaving furniture for free often involves a hope for reuse and the avoidance of disposal costs, legally, it aligns with the definition of fly-tipping as it represents an unauthorised method of waste disposal in a public space. The term “illegal dumping” serves as a common equivalent to fly-tipping in many other regions.

For individuals in Ireland seeking to dispose of unwanted furniture responsibly, numerous alternatives exist. Prioritising donation to charity shops or reuse organisations, utilising online platforms for selling or giving away, considering council bulky waste collection services, bringing items to recycling centres, and exploring upcycling or repair options are all viable and legally compliant choices. Raising public awareness about the legal implications of leaving furniture on footpaths and promoting these responsible alternatives is crucial. Furthermore, exploring the potential for implementing formalised “Curbside Giveaway Day” initiatives in Ireland, inspired by the Canadian model, could provide a structured and community-oriented approach to facilitate furniture reuse while adhering to regulations and promoting environmental sustainability.

THE WRIGHT CYCLE CENTRE IS GONE AND DUNCAN AGE 51 AND THREE QUARTERS WAS HERE

by

USHER’S ISLAND ON THE LIFFEY

Recently, a photograph of mine prompted some comments regarding the recurring appearance of seemingly childlike graffiti around Dublin City that reads “Duncan Age 51 3/4”. The commenters, along with myself, had noticed this peculiar inscription with great frequency.

Before delving into potential interpretations of this “Duncan” graffiti, it’s worth providing some context about Usher’s Island, as it is the location that is featured in this series of photographs.

Usher’s Island: A Historical Overview

Usher’s Island is a section of the Dublin Quays situated between Mellows Bridge and the James Joyce Bridge. For many years, a bicycle shop, the Wright Cycle Centre, operated here. However, as you noted, this premises is now occupied by Mr Gearbox Mr Clutch.

The name “Usher” has deep roots in Dublin, associated with a prominent family involved in the city’s commerce and civic life for centuries. In the late 16th century, John Ussher built a significant residence called Bridgefoot House in this area. The gardens of this former house now lie beneath Usher’s Island and Usher’s Quay.

Interestingly, this location is linked to the early history of printing in the Irish language. While some accounts suggest the very first book printed in Irish was produced on this property in 1571 – an alphabet and Christian catechism financed by John Ussher – other sources indicate the first such book was printed later, in Louvain, Belgium in 1611. Furthermore, it was John Ussher’s son, Sir William Usher, who funded the first printing of the New Testament in Irish. The precise details of this early printing remain somewhat unclear and would require further historical investigation to confirm definitively.

Over time, the Usher family’s focus shifted away from direct trade as they became more gentrified.

Usher’s Island Today

Today, Usher’s Island forms part of the bustling Dublin Quays, characterised by a mix of commercial and residential properties.

Notable Buildings: Number 15 Usher’s Island

The most significant building on Usher’s Island is undoubtedly Number 15. This late 18th-century Georgian townhouse, built around 1775 for a grain merchant named Joshua Pim, holds considerable cultural importance. It served as the home of James Joyce’s grand-aunts in the 1890s and is famously the setting for his short story “The Dead”, featured in his 1914 collection Dubliners.

Recognised for its architectural, artistic, and cultural significance, Number 15 is a protected structure. It has previously functioned as a museum or gallery. Recent proposals to convert the building into apartments have faced objections from heritage organisations like An Taisce, underscoring its national cultural value as a well-preserved example of a Dublin Georgian townhouse that significantly contributes to the historic character of the South Quays.

The Former Wright Cycle Centre

As you correctly mentioned, the Wright Cycle Centre was indeed located on Usher’s Island, specifically at Units B & C, Pier 19. Online information confirms that it offered bicycle and e-scooter sales and repairs. However, it appears to have ceased trading at this location, as observed.

Recent Closures of Bicycle Shops in Dublin

It is worth noting a recent trend of bicycle shop closures in Dublin, including the Wright Cycle Centre. Several factors may contribute to this:

Difficult Trading Conditions: Reports cite “difficult trading conditions” as a key factor, exemplified by the recent closure of ThinkBike after 26 years of business.
Changing Work Patterns Post-COVID: The increase in remote working may have reduced demand for commuter bikes and related services from physical shops.
Increased Competition: Online retailers and larger stores often offer more competitive pricing, impacting independent bicycle shops.
Rising Costs: Increased costs for rent, utilities, and stock can pose significant challenges to the profitability of smaller businesses.
E-bike Specialisation: The growing popularity of e-bikes requires specialised servicing knowledge and equipment, which some traditional bike shops may lack.
While cycling’s overall popularity and infrastructure have improved, these broader economic and retail trends can still significantly affect individual businesses.

The Enigma of “Duncan Age 51 3/4” Graffiti

The recurring graffiti “Duncan Age 51 3/4” presents an intriguing puzzle within Dublin’s urban landscape. Its seemingly amateurish style, described as if done by a child, and its unusual message set it apart from typical street art.

Unlike much graffiti, which often involves stylised tags or pseudonyms, this inscription includes a full name and a precise age. To understand this phenomenon, it’s helpful to consider the broader context of street art in Dublin.

The Spectrum of Street Art in Dublin: From Murals to Tags

Dublin’s streets showcase a diverse range of artistic expressions. Officially sanctioned murals by celebrated artists like James Earley (known for his work on the Blooms Hotel), the distinctive and often politically charged pieces by Maser (including the well-known “U Are Alive*”), and the holographic style of Aches (exemplified by “Horseboy”) enrich the city’s visual appeal.

Community-driven initiatives like Dublin Canvas further enhance the urban environment by transforming everyday objects like traffic light boxes into miniature artworks, showcasing the creativity of various artists.

Beyond these formal projects lies informal graffiti, ranging from simple tags to stickers with personal or social messages. Even historical inscriptions, such as those in Kilmainham Gaol or remnants of medieval graffiti, contribute to the city’s layered narrative. The motivations behind these diverse forms of urban art are varied, including artistic expression, community engagement, personal statements, acts of rebellion, and the fundamental desire for visibility.

Against this backdrop, the recurring “Duncan Age 51 3/4” graffiti poses a unique question: what is the nature and motivation behind this specific inscription? Is it a form of personal expression, an unconventional art project, or something else entirely?

The specificity of the message is immediately striking. While most tags use pseudonyms or cryptic phrases, the inclusion of a full name and a precise age suggests a highly personal and potentially unconventional motivation. The user’s description of the graffiti’s “poor quality” might indicate that the creator is not part of the established graffiti scene, where skill is generally valued. This suggests the driving force behind this graffiti is likely more personal than artistic or territorial.

Analysing the “Duncan Age 51 3/4” Tag: Form, Content, and Context

The message “Duncan Age 51 3/4” comprises three elements, each potentially significant. “Duncan” is a relatively common name with historical links to Scotland and Ireland, derived from the Gaelic “Donnchadh,” meaning “dark warrior” or “brown-haired warrior.” While the literal meaning may not be relevant, the use of a recognisable name deviates from typical graffiti anonymity.

The word “Age” explicitly clarifies the following number. However, it is the precise age “51 3/4” that is most unusual. The fraction of a year suggests this is not a general identifier but might relate to a specific point in time or a personal milestone deemed important by the creator.

Considering other non-traditional public inscriptions in Dublin offers context. Examples like “Jesus Merrion Joseph” on Merrion Road signs and the altered Canal Road sign reading “anal Toad” illustrate that unconventional public markings are not unprecedented. Similarly, the repetitive “stealth” graffiti in Wexford demonstrates the phenomenon of enigmatic graffiti with unclear motivations.

The constant sightings of the graffiti suggests a deliberate effort to disseminate this message across various locations, a characteristic of tagging aimed at visibility. However, the personal content distinguishes it from typical tags. The unusual precision of the age moves beyond a simple declaration, strongly hinting at a specific personal context or a recurring event tied to this precise age for the individual named Duncan. It is unlikely such detail would be in a traditional tag aimed at recognition within the graffiti subculture or a piece of street art with a broader message. This specificity points to a personal significance connected to this exact age.

Who is Duncan? Exploring the Name and Age in Relation to Graffiti Culture

A key aspect of much graffiti culture is the preference for anonymity or pseudonyms, often to avoid legal consequences for unauthorised public markings and to cultivate a distinct public persona.

The “Duncan” graffiti stands out by explicitly revealing a name and age, prompting questions about the creator’s intentions. Given the precise age, it is more probable that “Duncan” is the individual’s real name and the age is accurate, making the lack of anonymity even more notable.

Graffiti writing is often associated with younger individuals. While older people can participate in street art, someone in their early fifties consistently creating what is described as “poor quality” graffiti is less common within established graffiti circles, where skill and artistic development are typically valued.

The age “51 3/4” may be crucial to understanding the motivation. If the graffiti’s appearance coincided with this age, it could signify a life transition or the start of a personal project. Alternatively, it could be an ongoing way for “Duncan” to mark the passage of time and their presence in the urban environment during this specific life phase. The repeated sightings suggest the graffiti has been present for some time. If “Duncan” began this around their 51st birthday, the “3/4” could represent their progression through the subsequent three-quarters of a year, a personal way of documenting their age or marking a milestone publicly.

Motivations Behind Graffiti: Personal Expression and Beyond

Motivations for graffiti and street art are varied, often including establishing identity (“getting up”), artistic expression, social or political commentary, belonging to a subculture, and rebellion against norms.

Given the unusual nature of the “Duncan” graffiti, less conventional motivations should be considered. The precise age could signify a personal event, a significant life stage, or a period of introspection expressed publicly. The repetition and potential evolution of the age suggest a unique form of public diary or a way for “Duncan” to document their existence in the city over time. It’s also possible this is a subtle social experiment or performance art, introducing an unexpected element into the urban fabric. While the “poor quality” might seem to contradict this, repeatedly writing one’s name and age could be a way to feel seen in a large city. The simple message with the precise age might also aim to inject whimsy into the routines of city dwellers.

The “poor quality” of the graffiti might be a significant clue. If artistic recognition or a complex message were the primary goal, more attention would likely be paid to execution. The “poor quality” suggests the focus is on the message itself – the name and age – rather than artistic skill. This combination strongly indicates that the motivation behind the “Duncan Age 51 3/4” graffiti is likely rooted in personal expression, a unique form of public interaction, or perhaps an idiosyncratic way of marking time, rather than a desire for recognition within the traditional graffiti art scene.

Conclusion: Tentative Interpretations and the Ongoing Narrative of Urban Art

Based on the available information, several interpretations of the “Duncan Age 51 3/4” graffiti in Dublin City can be offered. It may be a personal marker for an individual named Duncan, possibly related to turning 51 and documenting their age as the year progresses. It could be an unconventional public diary, a way for Duncan to assert their presence in the urban environment.

Alternatively, it might represent a subtle social experiment, a quiet attempt to gain attention in an anonymous city, or even a touch of urban whimsy. Without direct insight from the creator, the precise motivation remains speculative.

The broader context of urban art reveals diverse expressions, and not all public inscriptions fit neatly into categories of art or vandalism. The “Duncan” graffiti, with its peculiar characteristics, reminds us of this inherent diversity.

Even seemingly “poor quality” or unconventional graffiti contributes to a city’s evolving visual narrative, reflecting individual stories and the human desire to communicate publicly. The ongoing discussion about the role and perception of graffiti highlights the complex relationship between individuals, their urban surroundings, and their chosen methods of interaction. Ultimately, the “Duncan Age 51 3/4” graffiti remains an intriguing enigma within Dublin’s urban landscape. Continued observation might reveal further patterns or changes in the message, potentially offering more clues to its underlying meaning and purpose. The existence of such unique personal expressions underscores the unpredictable and often mysterious nature of urban art, reminding us that even simple markings can offer glimpses into individual narratives and the human impulse to leave a mark on the world.

It’s entirely plausible that the “Duncan Age 51 3/4” graffiti is, in its creator’s mind, something quite simple or even meaningless in a conventional sense. Just like the lyrics of “I Am The Walrus,” which John Lennon himself described as deliberately nonsensical and a bit of a joke, the graffiti could be:

A purely personal act: Perhaps “Duncan” is simply marking their presence, processing a personal milestone in a non-communicative way, or even just experimenting without any intention of conveying a deeper message to others.

A fleeting impulse: It could have started as one instance and then, for reasons only Duncan knows, became a recurring habit without any grand design.

A form of private humour or in-joke: It might have significance only to Duncan or a very small circle of people, and the public observation is an unintended consequence.

An act of rebellion against the norm: Perhaps the very lack of obvious meaning is the point – a small act of disruption in the urban landscape.

Our human tendency is often to seek patterns and meaning, to try and decode the world around us. When confronted with something unusual like this graffiti, our minds naturally try to find a narrative, a reason for its existence and repetition. This is where the risk of over-analysis comes in. We might be projecting our own desire for coherence onto something that is fundamentally random or driven by motivations we can’t possibly fathom.

The comparison to “I Am The Walrus” is particularly apt because that song actively plays with language and imagery in a way that resists easy interpretation. It became a source of endless speculation for listeners trying to find hidden meanings, even though the creator’s intent was partly to create something deliberately confusing.

So, yes, it’s definitely possible – and perhaps even likely – that we, as observers, are indeed over-analysing the “Duncan Age 51 3/4” graffiti. It could be a simple, personal, or even nonsensical act that has inadvertently caught our attention, prompting a search for meaning where none was intended for a wider audience.

This doesn’t necessarily diminish our curiosity, but it’s a good reminder to consider the possibility that sometimes, things simply are, without a hidden code waiting to be cracked. The mystery might be more about the act itself and our reaction to it than any profound message from “Duncan.”

MARY LAVIN PLACE IS A NEW PUBLIC SPACE BETWEEN LAD LANE AND WILTON PLACE

by

PHOTOGRAPHED BY INFOMATIQUE IN APRIL 2025

Mary Lavin Place: A Landmark Commemoration in Dublin’s Literary Landscape

Mary Lavin (1912-1996) stands as a distinguished figure in Irish literature, celebrated for her profound contributions to the short story genre and her insightful exploration of human emotions and experiences within the Irish context.

Her work, often focusing on the nuances of family life and the inner lives of women, has earned her recognition as a pioneer in women’s writing. A significant moment in Irish cultural history occurred with the naming of Mary Lavin Place, the first public space in Ireland dedicated to an Irish female writer.

This newly established square is situated within the recently completed Wilton Park development, an area overlooking Dublin’s picturesque Grand Canal, nestled between the Leeson Street and Baggot Street bridges in Dublin 2.

This dedication marks a notable shift towards a more inclusive commemoration of the diverse figures who have shaped Ireland’s cultural heritage, as the historical record of public honours has predominantly featured men. Furthermore, the decision to honour a writer in this manner underscores the enduring importance of literature within the cultural fabric of Dublin and the nation.  

The official unveiling of Mary Lavin Place took place on Friday, the 18th of October 2024. The launch was officiated by Colm Tóibín, the esteemed Laureate for Irish Fiction (2022-2025). Tóibín’s involvement lent considerable cultural significance to the event, highlighting the national importance of recognising Lavin’s literary achievements. His connection to Mary Lavin extends back to his time at University College Dublin (UCD), where he met her through her daughter, Caroline Walsh. During the launch, Tóibín paid a heartfelt tribute to Lavin’s exceptional talent as a short story writer and her profound influence on Irish culture and society, describing her as a “pioneering figure” and a “genius who walked among us”.

The ceremony was also attended by members of Mary Lavin’s family, including her grandchildren, who expressed their profound gratitude and support for this public acknowledgement of her significant contribution to literature. The fact that the Laureate for Irish Fiction, a prominent contemporary writer, presided over the opening underscores the continuity and enduring relevance of Ireland’s rich literary tradition and Mary Lavin’s esteemed place within it. It is worth noting that the launch date in October 2024 differs from the user’s initial query which suggested a date in April 2025, indicating the importance of consulting multiple sources for accurate information.  

The act of naming a public space after Mary Lavin holds significant cultural and historical weight, particularly in Ireland where public commemorations have historically favoured male figures. This gesture serves as a vital step towards redressing this imbalance and celebrating the substantial contributions of women to Irish society.

Mary Lavin was indeed a pioneering force in literature, renowned for her insightful exploration of themes pertinent to women’s lives and her mastery of the short story form. Her notable works include her debut collection, Tales from Bective Bridge, published in 1942, which garnered the prestigious James Tait Black Memorial Prize. Other acclaimed works include Happiness and In the Middle of the Fields.

Lavin’s literary talent earned her international recognition, including prestigious Guggenheim Fellowships in 1959 and 1961, as well as the Katherine Mansfield Prize in 1961. Furthermore, she was honoured with the distinction of Saoi of Aosdána in 1992, the highest accolade in Irish culture.

Niall Gaffney, Chief Executive of IPUT Real Estate Dublin, aptly highlighted the significance of this placemaking initiative, emphasising the desire to create a lasting tribute to Lavin’s life and her groundbreaking role as a female author. This commemoration can be viewed as part of a broader societal movement aimed at achieving greater gender balance in public recognition and celebrating the diverse achievements of women within Irish culture. The specific choice to honour Mary Lavin underscores the high value placed on literary accomplishments within the Irish national identity.  

Mary Lavin maintained a significant connection to Dublin, particularly through her residence at The Mews, located at 11 Lad Lane, from 1958 to 1981. Notably, Mary Lavin Place serves as a direct link between Lad Lane and Wilton Park. During her time at 11 Lad Lane, Lavin’s home became a vibrant literary hub, where she frequently hosted gatherings for fellow writers, including prominent figures such as Frank O’Connor, Seán O’Faoláin, John McGahern, Brian Friel, and Tom Kilroy. She also extended her support to emerging writers like Nuala O’Faolain and Colm Tóibín. This physical connection between Mary Lavin Place and her former Dublin residence on Lad Lane forges a tangible bond between the writer and the commemorated space, thereby amplifying its significance. Moreover, the description of Lad Lane as a literary hub during Lavin’s residency reveals her crucial role not only as a writer but also as a central figure in the Irish literary community of her era. This suggests that the commemoration also acknowledges her contribution to nurturing and fostering Irish literature beyond her own considerable body of work.  

The Wilton Park development, recently completed by IPUT Real Estate, has transformed a significant area within Dublin 2. The development overlooks the Grand Canal, situated between the Leeson Street and Baggot Street bridges.

A key feature of this development is the restoration of a one-acre Victorian park. The area surrounding Wilton Park, historically known as “Baggotonia,” boasts strong literary associations, having been home to numerous celebrated Irish writers such as Patrick Kavanagh, Brendan Behan, Eavan Boland, and Brian O’Nolan. The Wilton Park development seamlessly integrates modern elements, including new headquarters for prominent companies like LinkedIn, Stripe, and EY, alongside new restaurants and artist studios at street level.

Furthermore, a public-private partnership between IPUT Real Estate and Waterways Ireland is underway to enhance the public spaces along the Grand Canal at Wilton Terrace, with work commencing in January 2025 and anticipated completion by early summer. The Wilton Park development’s thoughtful combination of respecting the area’s rich literary heritage while embracing contemporary urban design makes it a particularly fitting location for a tribute to a writer of Mary Lavin’s stature. IPUT Real Estate’s significant investment in this area and their initiative in naming the square after Mary Lavin demonstrate a growing appreciation among developers for the importance of incorporating cultural elements into urban spaces, enriching the environment beyond purely commercial interests.  

Mary Lavin Place serves as the central point of the Wilton Park development, effectively connecting Lad Lane with the newly restored park. A notable feature is the commissioning of a commemorative sculpture by the acclaimed artist Eilis O’Connell, titled ‘Tipping the Wing,’ which draws inspiration from Lavin’s short story ‘One Evening’. Plans are also in place to reimagine Parsons Bookshop, a beloved former social hub for Irish writers located on Baggot Street bridge, as a new bookshop and cultural destination that will open onto Mary Lavin Place.

A striking new 7-metre covered street, featuring a coloured glass ceiling created by Irish artist James Earley, links Lad Lane to Mary Lavin Place. The restored Wilton Park offers additional amenities, including the original Victorian fountain, new seating areas, revitalised lawns and pathways, diverse planting to promote biodiversity, a designated dog park, and a secure play area for young children.

The intention is for both Wilton Park and Mary Lavin Place to function as vibrant public spaces hosting exhibitions, musical performances, and various arts events. The integration of public art, a bookshop, and community-oriented spaces within the Wilton Park development, with Mary Lavin Place at its core, strongly suggests a deliberate effort to cultivate a dynamic cultural hub that honours the area’s deep literary roots. The commissioning of a sculpture directly inspired by Lavin’s literary work exemplifies a thoughtful and artistic approach to this commemoration, elevating it beyond a mere symbolic gesture.  

In conclusion, the establishment of Mary Lavin Place represents a significant milestone as the first public space in Ireland named after a female writer, marking a crucial step towards a more equitable recognition of women’s profound impact on Irish culture. This commemoration not only honours the enduring legacy of Mary Lavin as a pioneering figure in Irish literature but also enriches Dublin’s cultural landscape by introducing a new space dedicated to community engagement and artistic expression. The deliberate connection between Mary Lavin Place, her former residence on Lad Lane, and the historically significant literary locale of Wilton Park creates a meaningful and lasting tribute to her remarkable life and her substantial body of work.

WHY SHOULD ONE CONTINUE TO USE LIGHTROOM RATHER THAN THE MANY OTHER OPTIONS

by

DISCUSSION ABOUT SOFTWARE THAT I USE

This discussion was triggered by a comment/query that I received a few weeks ago via my website.

A Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Costs: Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop and Alternative Photo Editing Software

  1. Executive Summary:

The landscape of photo editing software offers photographers a range of choices, from subscription-based models to perpetual licenses. A common narrative suggests that opting for alternatives to Adobe’s subscription-based Lightroom and Photoshop can lead to significant cost savings over time.

However, this analysis, conducted from the perspective of a software cost and feature comparison analyst, reveals a more nuanced picture. While the initial purchase price of some alternative photo editing software might appear lower, a comprehensive evaluation of the long-term cost of ownership, particularly when considering the necessity of upgrades to maintain current features and compatibility, often demonstrates that the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan can be a more financially prudent option for many users.

This is especially pertinent for photographers who require the advanced image manipulation capabilities of Photoshop, which is included within the Adobe subscription. Certain perpetual license options might present potential savings for users who upgrade infrequently or have highly specific editing requirements. Nevertheless, these scenarios often involve compromises in feature breadth, integration with other tools, or increased effort in managing updates. Ultimately, the optimal choice of photo editing software is a subjective one, contingent upon the photographer’s individual workflow, budgetary constraints, technical expertise, and specific feature needs. This report aims to provide a detailed investigation to empower the user to make an informed decision tailored to their unique circumstances.

  1. Introduction:

This discussion addresses a user query regarding the long-term cost-effectiveness of Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop’s subscription model in comparison to purchasing perpetual licenses or subscriptions for alternative photo editing software such as Luminar, ON1 Photo RAW, Capture One, and DXO PhotoLab.

The user, a long-time Adobe Lightroom user within the Apple ecosystem, has encountered claims of significant cost savings by switching to these alternatives but suspects that the reality of keeping them updated might prove more expensive than the Adobe subscription.

This observation aligns with the broader debate within the photography community concerning the financial implications of choosing between software subscription models and the traditional perpetual license model. While a prevailing sentiment often favours perpetual licenses for their perceived long-term cost benefits, this analysis seeks to conduct a thorough and objective investigation into the actual long-term cost of ownership for both Adobe’s offering and the mentioned alternatives.

The key factors under consideration will include the initial purchase price (where applicable), recurring subscription fees, the cost and frequency of software upgrades (both major and minor), any supplementary expenses for plugins or extensions, and the overall value proposition presented by each software in terms of its features, performance, and user experience. By examining these elements, this report aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the financial landscape of photo editing software and assist the user in making an informed decision that aligns with their needs and budget.

  1. The Adobe Ecosystem: Cost and Considerations:

3.1 Current Pricing of the Adobe Photography Plan:

The Adobe Creative Cloud Photography plan in the United States is currently priced at US$19.99 per month with an annual commitment, billed monthly, which totals approximately US$239.88 per year.

An alternative option is an annual prepaid plan, also priced at US$239.88 per year. This plan provides access to a comprehensive suite of photo editing tools, including Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Lightroom Classic, Adobe Photoshop (for both desktop and iPad), and a substantial 1 terabyte (TB) of cloud storage dedicated to photographs.

It is worth noting that Adobe previously offered a Creative Cloud Photography plan with 20GB of storage, which recently saw a price increase to US$14.99 per month (annual, billed monthly) before it was discontinued for new subscribers on January 15, 2025.

This evolution in Adobe’s plan offerings underscores the importance of considering the specific plan and its features when making cost comparisons. A significant aspect of the Adobe Photography Plan is the inclusion of Photoshop. This powerful image manipulation tool extends far beyond the basic RAW processing capabilities of Lightroom and provides users with advanced features for retouching, compositing, and graphic design. Many of the alternative software options discussed in this report might necessitate separate purchases or subscriptions to achieve similar levels of advanced functionality, making the bundled offering of Lightroom and Photoshop a crucial factor in any cost comparison.  

3.2 Historical Pricing Trends:

Examining the historical pricing of Adobe’s offerings provides valuable context for understanding potential long-term cost implications. Records indicate that the “Adobe Creative Cloud Photography plan + 20GB storage” was available on Amazon for as low as $88.99 in November 2016 , suggesting that promotional pricing and discounts have played a role in the past. Similarly, the broader “Adobe Creative Cloud” suite was priced at a historical low of $39.99 in November 2016. More recently, Adobe implemented price increases in November 2023 and April 2024 for various Creative Cloud plans, including individual single app plans and the All Apps plan. For instance, the monthly cost (annual billing) for single apps increased from $20.99 to $22.99, and the All Apps plan saw a rise from $54.99 to $59.99 per month (annual billing). However, it is important to note that the pricing for the core Photography Plan with 1TB of storage has remained relatively stable in recent years, as evidenced by the consistent current pricing detailed in multiple sources. This relative stability in the Photography Plan’s pricing over the recent period offers a degree of predictability for users considering its long-term cost. Nevertheless, as with any subscription service, users should remain mindful of the potential for future price adjustments.  

3.3 Value Proposition and Lock-in:

For a user with extensive experience in the Adobe ecosystem, particularly with Lightroom, the Adobe Photography Plan offers several inherent advantages. The seamless integration between Lightroom and Photoshop streamlines workflows and allows for a smooth transition between RAW processing and more advanced image manipulation. Furthermore, the inclusion of Lightroom mobile and Photoshop on iPad extends the user’s editing capabilities across different devices within the Apple ecosystem, providing flexibility and convenience. Adobe also provides a vast library of tutorials, comprehensive documentation, and a large and active user community, offering ample resources for learning, troubleshooting, and inspiration.

This established ecosystem can be a significant benefit for users already familiar with Adobe’s interface and workflows. However, a key consideration with subscription models is the potential for “lock-in”. Continued access to the software and the 1TB of cloud storage is contingent upon maintaining the subscription. If the user decides to discontinue their subscription, they will lose access to the software, although they will likely retain their original image files. This dependency on an ongoing subscription is a fundamental difference compared to purchasing a perpetual license, where the software can typically be used indefinitely after the initial purchase. For a long-time Apple user, the cross-platform integration offered by Adobe’s mobile applications within the Photography Plan provides a significant advantage, enabling a consistent editing experience across their various devices. This level of integration and workflow continuity is a valuable aspect to consider when comparing against alternative software that might have limited or no support for mobile platforms.  

  1. Exploring the Alternatives: Pricing and Upgrade Policies:

4.1 Luminar:

4.1.1 Pricing Models:

Skylum’s Luminar Neo offers photographers two primary ways to access its photo editing capabilities: through a subscription plan and via a lifetime perpetual license. The subscription plan is typically billed annually, with promotional pricing often available.

For example, it can be found for around £55 per year (approximately $69 USD), a discount from the standard £79 annual fee (approximately $99 USD). The lifetime perpetual license is presented as a one-time purchase, with a typical price of £95 (approximately $119 USD), although this is also frequently offered at a discount from a higher listed price, such as £159 (approximately $199 USD) or even £302 (approximately $377 USD).

It is important to note the consistent presence of discounts and special offers for both subscription and perpetual licenses across various sources. This suggests that the full listed prices might not accurately reflect the typical cost at which users acquire the software. The initial appeal of Luminar’s perpetual license, particularly with these frequent discounts, lies in the prospect of a one-time payment, which can be attractive to users seeking to avoid the recurring costs associated with subscription models. However, a thorough understanding of the upgrade policies and their associated costs is essential to accurately assess the true long-term financial implications of choosing this option.  

4.1.2 Upgrade Policies and Costs:

For users who opt for the Luminar Neo subscription plan, Skylum provides access to all software upgrades as part of their subscription. This ensures that subscribers always have the most current version of the software, including all new features and improvements, without incurring any additional charges beyond their annual subscription fee. In contrast, the upgrade policy for the lifetime perpetual license is more nuanced.

While lifetime license holders do receive updates that include bug fixes, general improvements, and some new features, Skylum explicitly states that major upgrades, which introduce significant new functionalities to the software, may require separate, additional payments. This has manifested in the form of “Upgrade Passes,” which Skylum has introduced for lifetime license owners. These passes, available for an additional cost (e.g., £47 on sale, with a regular price of £79 – approximately $59 and $99 USD respectively), provide access to major feature updates released over a specific period, such as the Fall 2024 and Spring 2025 updates.

User feedback and online discussions reveal concerns and frustrations regarding the frequency and cost of these upgrade passes. Some users feel that the term “lifetime” license is misleading, as it does not guarantee access to all new features without further expenditure, effectively turning it into a series of purchases over time for those who wish to remain current with the software’s evolving capabilities.

Additionally, access to Luminar Neo’s Generative AI tools is limited to one year from the purchase date for lifetime license holders. This upgrade policy suggests that while the initial cost of the perpetual license might be lower, the long-term cost for users who desire to stay up-to-date with major feature additions could potentially become comparable to or even exceed the cost of a subscription over several years.  

4.1.3 Feature Highlights and User Experience:

Luminar Neo distinguishes itself with its strong emphasis on innovative AI-powered tools designed to streamline and enhance photo editing workflows. Notable AI features include Sky AI for seamless sky replacement, AI Portrait Tools for quick and effective portrait enhancements, and generative AI functionalities like GenErase for content removal and GenExpand for extending image boundaries. Many users praise Luminar Neo for its generally user-friendly and intuitive interface, which makes it accessible to both beginners and more experienced photographers. The interface is often described as modern and less overwhelming compared to some other professional editing software.

However, some user reports and reviews indicate that Luminar Neo can experience slower performance, particularly when dealing with large batches of images or when utilising its more computationally intensive AI features.

Additionally, Luminar Neo’s photo library management capabilities are generally considered to be less robust and feature-rich when compared to the sophisticated catalog system offered by Adobe Lightroom. While Luminar Neo does offer basic cataloging functionalities, it may lack the advanced organizational tools and metadata management options that long-time Lightroom users have come to rely on. Overall, Luminar Neo presents itself as a creatively focused editing platform with a strong suite of AI tools and an approachable user interface. However, potential users, especially those with extensive Lightroom experience, should carefully consider its limitations in catalog management and the long-term cost implications associated with its upgrade policy for perpetual licenses.  

4.2 ON1 Photo RAW:

4.2.1 Pricing Models:

ON1 Photo RAW offers photographers a choice between purchasing a perpetual license with a one-time payment and opting for a subscription plan with recurring fees.

The standard perpetual license for the latest version, ON1 Photo RAW 2025, is typically priced around £80 (approximately $99.99 USD) for new customers, with discounted upgrade pricing available for users who own previous versions (often around £64 – approximately $79.99 USD). ON1 also offers various subscription plans, such as their “Everything” subscriptions, which include the core Photo RAW software alongside other ON1 creative applications and cloud storage.

These subscription plans typically start at around £6.40 per month or £40 per year (approximately $7.99 and $49.99 USD respectively), with potential first-year discounts for new subscribers. For users who require plugin compatibility with other editing software like Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom, ON1 offers a “MAX” version of Photo RAW. This version is available under both perpetual license and subscription models, generally at a higher price point than the standard version. Similar to Luminar, ON1 frequently provides discounts and promotional pricing on its software, making it worthwhile for potential buyers to check for ongoing deals. The availability of both perpetual and subscription options provides users with flexibility in choosing a payment model that best suits their preferences and budget.  

4.2.2 Upgrade Policies and Costs:
For users who choose to subscribe to one of ON1’s “Everything” plans, all future major upgrades to ON1 Photo RAW and the other applications included in their subscription are provided at no additional cost. This ensures that subscribers always have access to the latest features and improvements as long as their subscription remains active. In contrast, users who purchase a perpetual license for ON1 Photo RAW typically receive free minor updates within their purchased version. However, major software updates, which introduce significant new features and functionalities, are usually released on an annual cycle and require a paid upgrade for perpetual license holders to obtain them.

ON1 generally offers upgrade pricing for existing users at a reduced cost compared to the full purchase price for new users. For example, the upgrade to the standard version of ON1 Photo RAW is often priced around £64 (approximately $79.99 USD). Users who hold a perpetual license have the option to purchase these upgrades annually to stay current with the software’s capabilities, or they can choose to skip upgrades and continue using their existing version indefinitely. This model provides a degree of flexibility, allowing users to decide when and if they want to invest in the latest features. However, for users who desire to always have the newest tools and functionalities, the annual upgrade cost for the perpetual license effectively functions similarly to a yearly subscription fee.  

4.2.3 Feature Highlights and User Experience:
ON1 Photo RAW is marketed as a feature-rich alternative to Adobe Lightroom, aiming to provide an all-in-one solution for photographers by combining photo organisation, RAW processing, layered editing, and a wide range of creative effects within a single application. This integrated approach seeks to eliminate the need for users to switch between multiple programs for different tasks, potentially streamlining their workflow. ON1 Photo RAW boasts advanced layer functionality, which extends beyond the masking tools available in Lightroom, offering greater flexibility for complex image manipulation and compositing.

The software also incorporates a suite of AI-powered tools designed to enhance various aspects of the editing process, including AI Masking for automated selections, AI Sky Swap for replacing skies, and AI NoNoise for noise reduction. While ON1 Photo RAW does offer photo management capabilities, its reliance on a browser-based approach for organising images might feel less advanced or intuitive to some users who are accustomed to Lightroom’s more robust cataloging system. Additionally, some user reviews suggest that ON1 Photo RAW can experience slower performance, particularly when loading and processing large batches of high-resolution images. However, ON1 does offer a free trial of its software, allowing potential users to test its features and performance before committing to a purchase. Overall, ON1 Photo RAW presents itself as a comprehensive editing platform with a strong emphasis on integrating features found in both Lightroom and Photoshop into a single application, offering users the choice of both perpetual licenses and subscription plans.  

4.3 Capture One:

4.3.1 Pricing Models:

Capture One is generally positioned as a professional-grade photo editing software and is typically priced at the higher end of the spectrum compared to other alternatives, including Adobe Lightroom.

Capture One offers both perpetual licenses and subscription options. A perpetual license for Capture One Pro, which provides access to the current version of the software, typically costs around £238 or £254 (approximately $299 or $317 USD).

Subscription plans are available at various tiers, including “Pro” (which is primarily for desktop use), “All in One” (which includes mobile app access), and “Studio” (designed for collaborative, multi-user workflows). Annual subscriptions for Capture One Pro generally start at around £143 (approximately $179 USD), while monthly subscription options are also available but usually at a higher per-month cost. The “All in One” and “Studio” subscription plans, which offer a broader range of features and capabilities, are priced even higher. The premium pricing of Capture One reflects its focus on providing high-quality RAW processing and advanced features that cater to the needs of professional photographers, particularly those working in studio and commercial settings.  

4.3.2 Upgrade Policies and Costs:

Users who opt for a Capture One subscription, regardless of the tier (Pro, All in One, or Studio), benefit from having all software updates and upgrades included as part of their subscription. This ensures that subscribers consistently have access to the latest features and improvements without any additional costs beyond their regular subscription fees. However, the upgrade policy for Capture One’s perpetual licenses is more restrictive.

Typically, a perpetual license grants the user the right to use the specific major version of the software that they purchased. Upgrading to a new major version, which Capture One typically releases on an annual basis, requires purchasing either a new perpetual license or an upgrade license. The cost of these upgrades can be significant; for example, upgrading an existing license to Capture One Pro 23 was priced around £159 (approximately $199 USD).

Many users have expressed dissatisfaction with the high cost of these upgrades for perpetual licenses, particularly when considering the annual release cycle. Some perceive that the “perpetual” license has a limited lifespan in terms of accessing new features and that the cost of staying current through upgrades can quickly become very expensive, potentially surpassing the annual cost of an Adobe Photography Plan, which includes both Lightroom and Photoshop. Recent price increases, especially for multi-user plans aimed at professional studios, have further amplified concerns about the overall cost of ownership for Capture One.  

4.3.3 Feature Highlights and User Experience:

Capture One has established a strong reputation among professional photographers for its exceptional image quality, particularly in its handling of RAW files, colour rendering, and the availability of highly accurate camera-specific profiles. Its advanced editing tools, including a sophisticated layer-based editing system and industry-leading tethered shooting capabilities, make it a preferred choice for studio and commercial photographers who demand precision and control over their workflow.

While Capture One offers a powerful and customisable interface, it is often noted that it can have a steeper learning curve compared to Adobe Lightroom, and its interface might feel more complex to users who are new to professional-level photo editing software. The software’s focus on catering to professional workflows and its premium pricing suggest that it is best suited for users who have specific needs for high-end image quality and advanced features, such as those found in studio and commercial photography. For users who also require the broader functionalities of Adobe Photoshop, the higher cost of Capture One, coupled with its upgrade frequency for perpetual licenses, might not be justifiable when compared to the more comprehensive and often more cost-effective Adobe Photography Plan.  

4.4 DXO PhotoLab:

4.4.1 Pricing Models:

DXO PhotoLab is primarily offered as a perpetual license software, with two distinct editions available for purchase: the Essential edition and the more feature-rich Elite edition. The initial purchase cost for the Elite edition of DXO PhotoLab 8, which includes the full suite of features, is typically around £183 (approximately $229 USD).

The Essential edition, which offers a more limited set of tools, is priced lower at approximately £111 (approximately $139 USD). In addition to PhotoLab, DXO also offers other software applications, such as DXO FilmPack (for film simulation effects) and DXO ViewPoint (for perspective and geometry corrections).

These applications often integrate seamlessly with PhotoLab and extend its capabilities but typically require separate purchases, adding to the overall cost if a user desires these functionalities. DXO’s primary focus on a perpetual license model can be appealing to photographers who prefer a one-time purchase over an ongoing subscription. However, the potential need to purchase additional software for a complete set of features needs to be considered when evaluating the overall cost.  

4.4.2 Upgrade Policies and Costs:

While DXO PhotoLab is sold with a perpetual license, DXO typically releases new major versions of the software on an annual basis. Users who wish to upgrade to these new versions and benefit from the latest features and improvements are required to purchase a paid upgrade. The cost of these upgrades usually falls in the range of £60 to £87 (approximately $75 to $109 USD), depending on the specific edition (Essential or Elite) and the version of PhotoLab that the user is upgrading from. DXO has, over time, adjusted its upgrade pricing policy, often providing more favourable upgrade prices to customers who upgrade to the latest version more regularly. Users who choose to skip several major versions before upgrading might find that they are no longer eligible for discounted upgrade pricing and may have to pay the full price for the latest version. This annual cycle of major releases and the associated upgrade costs mean that while the initial purchase of DXO PhotoLab is perpetual, users who want to stay current with the software’s capabilities will likely incur ongoing expenses that are similar to those of a subscription model. This is particularly true if the user also invests in DXO FilmPack and ViewPoint to gain access to a more comprehensive set of editing tools.  

4.4.3 Feature Highlights and User Experience:

DXO PhotoLab has garnered a strong reputation for its exceptional image quality, particularly in its advanced lens correction capabilities and its powerful noise reduction technology, known as DeepPRIME. Many users praise its ability to significantly improve the quality of RAW files, especially those shot at higher ISOs or with older lenses. PhotoLab utilises a folder-based system for organizing photographs, which some users may find more straightforward and preferable to the catalog-based systems used by Lightroom and Capture One. While DXO PhotoLab offers a robust set of editing tools, it is often noted that some advanced features, such as extensive layer editing and highly refined masking capabilities, might not be as prominent or comprehensive as in Adobe Photoshop or some other alternatives, especially without the additional purchase of DXO FilmPack. Some user reviews also suggest that DXO PhotoLab can have a steeper learning curve for new users compared to the more familiar interface of Adobe Lightroom. Additionally, DXO PhotoLab does not offer built-in cloud storage or mobile editing capabilities, which might be a consideration for users who value these features. Overall, DXO PhotoLab excels in delivering high image quality through its sophisticated processing algorithms, making it a compelling option for photographers who prioritise this aspect. However, potential users should carefully consider the cost of upgrades and the potential need for additional software to achieve a feature set comparable to that of the Adobe Photography Plan.  

  1. Long-Term Cost Comparison:

Here’s an estimated comparison of the long-term costs (in British Pounds, GBP) of the Adobe Photography Plan and the alternative software options discussed in this report over a period of 3 and 5 years. These estimates are based on approximate conversions from US Dollar prices using an exchange rate of £1 = $1.25 and assume typical upgrade patterns for perpetual licenses (upgrading every 1-2 years to stay reasonably current). Please note that currency exchange rates are subject to fluctuation, and actual costs may vary.

Adobe Photography Plan (Subscription): The estimated cost is approximately £192 for Year 1, £576 for Year 3, and £960 for Year 5. This includes Lightroom, Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, and 1TB cloud storage. These estimates assume no significant price increases.
Luminar Neo (Subscription): The estimated cost is approximately £55 for Year 1, £165 for Year 3, and £275 for Year 5. This assumes a consistent yearly subscription cost (after potential initial discounts).

Luminar Neo (Perpetual): The estimated cost is approximately £95 for Year 1, £285 for Year 3, and £475 for Year 5. This includes the initial purchase and an upgrade pass cost every 2 years. Actual costs can vary significantly based on upgrade frequency and available discounts. Note that access to Generative AI tools is limited to 1 year from the purchase date.
ON1 Photo RAW (Subscription): The estimated cost is approximately £72 for Year 1, £216 for Year 3, and £360 for Year 5. This assumes a consistent yearly subscription cost (after potential initial discounts).

ON1 Photo RAW (Perpetual): The estimated cost is approximately £80 for Year 1, £240 for Year 3, and £400 for Year 5. This includes the initial purchase and an upgrade cost every 2 years. Actual costs can vary based on upgrade frequency and discounts.
Capture One Pro (Subscription): The estimated cost is approximately £143 for Year 1, £429 for Year 3, and £715 for Year 5. This assumes a yearly subscription for the Pro version. The “All in One” subscription will be more expensive.

Capture One Pro (Perpetual): The estimated cost is approximately £254 for Year 1, £652 for Year 3, and £1050 for Year 5. This includes the initial purchase and an upgrade cost every 2 years. Costs can be high due to the expensive initial license and upgrade fees.
DXO PhotoLab 8 Elite (Perpetual): The estimated cost is approximately £183 for Year 1, £366 for Year 3, and £549 for Year 5. This includes the initial purchase and an upgrade every 2 years. It assumes an upgrade to the Elite version. Additional costs for FilmPack and ViewPoint are not included but can significantly increase the price.

This breakdown illustrates that while the initial cost of some perpetual licenses might be lower than an annual subscription to the Adobe Photography Plan, the cumulative cost over a 3 to 5-year period, especially when factoring in the need for upgrades to stay reasonably current with software features and compatibility, often brings the total expenditure close to or even above the cost of the Adobe subscription. It is particularly important to remember that the Adobe Photography Plan includes both Lightroom and Photoshop. Users who opt for perpetual license alternatives and require the advanced image manipulation capabilities of Photoshop would likely need to incur additional costs for separate software or plugins, further impacting the overall long-term cost comparison. This analysis underscores that the perceived cost savings of perpetual licenses can be significantly reduced or even eliminated by the necessity of regular upgrades.

  1. Feature and User Experience Highlights:

A summary of the key strengths and weaknesses of each software option, relevant to a long-time Adobe Lightroom user accustomed to the Apple ecosystem, is provided below:

Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop: Strengths include seamless integration within the Adobe ecosystem and with Apple products, a comprehensive feature set covering both RAW processing and advanced image manipulation, a vast library of learning resources and community support, and mobile app accessibility. The primary weakness is the subscription-only model, which requires ongoing payments for continued access.

Luminar Neo: Strengths include innovative and user-friendly AI-powered creative tools for tasks like sky replacement and portrait enhancement. Weaknesses include less robust catalog management compared to Lightroom, potential performance issues with large image libraries or intensive AI tasks, and a potentially expensive and somewhat unclear upgrade policy for perpetual license holders, where significant new features often require additional payments.

ON1 Photo RAW: Strengths lie in its ambition to be an all-in-one solution, integrating features found in both Lightroom and Photoshop, strong masking and layering capabilities, and the availability of both subscription and perpetual license options. Weaknesses include a browser-based photo management system that some users might find less advanced, potential performance issues, and a user interface that can feel less refined than Lightroom’s to some users.
Capture One Pro: Strengths are its superior RAW processing quality, highly accurate colour rendering, advanced and customisable editing features, and excellent tethered shooting capabilities, making it a favourite among professional studio and commercial photographers. Weaknesses include a significantly higher cost compared to the Adobe Photography Plan, expensive upgrades for perpetual licenses, and a steeper learning curve that might not be suitable for all users.

DXO PhotoLab: Strengths include exceptional image quality, particularly in noise reduction and lens corrections, and a folder-based organisation system that some users prefer. Weaknesses include a less comprehensive feature set in the base application, with functionalities like film simulation and perspective correction often requiring additional paid software (FilmPack and ViewPoint), paid annual upgrades for perpetual licenses, and a learning curve that some users find challenging.

The “best” software choice is highly dependent on the individual photographer’s priorities and workflow. For a user who frequently relies on the advanced editing capabilities of Photoshop, the Adobe Photography Plan offers a compelling and potentially cost-effective solution by bundling both Lightroom and Photoshop. Users who prioritise specific aspects, such as ultimate image quality (Capture One or DXO) or the desire for a one-time purchase (Luminar or ON1), might find these alternatives appealing but should carefully consider the trade-offs in other areas and the potential for similar or higher long-term costs due to upgrade requirements.

  1. Conclusion and Recommendations:

Based on the detailed analysis of pricing models, upgrade policies, and the inclusion of Photoshop in the Adobe Photography Plan, the user’s initial suspicion that the alternatives might be more expensive to keep up to date than the Adobe subscription appears to be valid for many users, particularly those who require the functionality of both Lightroom and Photoshop and desire regular software updates.

The analysis indicates that while perpetual licenses might offer a lower initial cost, the necessity of purchasing upgrades to access new features and maintain compatibility over the long term can significantly reduce or even eliminate these initial savings. In some cases, the total cost of ownership for alternatives, especially when factoring in the cost of upgrades, can become comparable to or even higher than that of the Adobe subscription over a period of several years. The complexity and cost associated with the upgrade paths for certain perpetual license options, such as those offered by Luminar and Capture One, are particularly noteworthy.

Considering the user’s long-standing experience with Adobe Lightroom and their preference for the Apple ecosystem, the following recommendations are provided:

Evaluate Photoshop Usage: If the user frequently utilises Adobe Photoshop or anticipates needing its advanced image manipulation features in their workflow, the Adobe Photography Plan likely remains the most cost-effective and seamlessly integrated solution. It provides both Lightroom and Photoshop for a consistent subscription fee, along with valuable cloud storage.

Consider Upgrade Habits: If the user primarily uses Lightroom for RAW processing and basic editing and tends to upgrade software infrequently, exploring perpetual license options such as ON1 Photo RAW or DXO PhotoLab might offer potential long-term savings. However, the user must be comfortable with potentially missing out on the latest features if they choose to skip upgrades and should be fully aware of the cost of upgrading when they eventually decide to do so.

Trial Alternatives: It is strongly recommended that the user take advantage of the free trial periods offered by each of the alternative software options that pique their interest. Hands-on experience will allow the user to thoroughly evaluate the software’s interface, workflow, performance on their specific Apple system, and feature set to determine which best aligns with their individual needs and preferences before making a financial commitment.

Long-Term Perspective: When considering the long-term cost, it is crucial to look beyond the initial purchase price of perpetual licenses and factor in the recurring expenses associated with upgrades that are often necessary to maintain current functionality and compatibility with new operating systems and camera models.

In conclusion, while the appeal of a one-time perpetual license purchase is understandable, especially for users who are hesitant about subscription models, this analysis suggests that the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan often provides a compelling combination of value, comprehensive features (including both Lightroom and Photoshop), and a relatively predictable long-term cost for users who require a full suite of editing tools and regular software updates. The user’s initial suspicion regarding the potential for higher long-term costs with alternatives appears to be a valid concern that warrants careful consideration and a thorough evaluation of individual needs and usage patterns.

You will find links to buy products from Amazon, Google and other partners. If you click on these links, you’ll find that the URL includes a small extra piece of text which identifies that the click came from my websites. This text is an affiliate code, and it means that I get a small payment if you choose to buy that product. These affiliate links help pay the costs of producing my websites and ensure that the content is free to you.