Heheh - thanks for those Paddy
Well from what I've gathered from this saga from the start is that Siptu simply will not countenance a non-impacting structure on this site. Their ego if anything is greater now than it was in 1965; the driving force behind this proposal is 'a building for the 21st century' (yawn), as much as it is the commercial benefits. They want a tower at all costs.
As such, it seems likely that a similarly-scaled tower will be proposed, maybe a couple of storeys taller and slightly wider that the current arrangement. The crucial point is the reference to 'tower' in the article; it's hard to know if the accommodation of the stated floorspace in a tower rather than a tower plus other buildings was just an interpretation on the part of the journalist.
There's no way that a Central Bank-like structure will get approval, nor should it. Similarly a substantially taller tower on the site will not pass either. It seems a high density of maybe seven storeys across the rest of the site is being depended on to justify a barely-larger tower. Which if the case, would make justification for the current tower's demolition all the more dubious.
A couple of shots of how lovely it looked a few hours ago in the soft evening sun.
It always makes for a charmingly whimsical point of interest on the skyline - I don't understand how someone could be offended by it, even if just not a fan. But offensive it is not.
So what's the likelihood of a quiet little listing proposal being slipped into City Hall? I don't think this should be allowed go without at least a public debate on the matter. Frankly it's not Siptu's decision to pull the building down. It belongs to the city.