Hadid v Foster on the docks
- This topic has 42 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
(Originally planned for U2 tower) Been looking at a few forums and they are really impressed with this and so am I!
Deserves it’s own thread. Leaves U2 tower in the shade on that image. Most impressive modern building proposed right now.:)
Designed by Pritzker prize winning architect, Zaha Hadid, this will be an inspiring third generation office building located at the North Wall Quay Dublin 1, adjacent to The O2 and the East Link Bridge. This property comprises over 50,000 sq.m of accommodation.
The design seems not to have changed from the U2 competition (image 5)
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=2033
Treasury Holdings pulls a rabbit out of the hat.
This building is amazing… i really like the cantilevered part over the water.
So the previous thread even has almost the same title.
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=6463
“Whilst Foster’s might not be great I do like its slenderness ratio. The other proposal looks odd (in a good way) but a little bulky for my liking.” is what Darkman thought then.
I always hugely prefered the Hadid design; it seems more eloquent than the Foster proposal.
It looked much bulkier on the old images. But now it’s in colour with a different perspective I think it looks great! It’s only one view of course.
Where’s the Dubai thread gone?
Not Hadid… no that’s awful.
Wow, that would be rather striking in the Dublin docks.
Looks interesting but will either be chopped in half by the planners/DDDA are never get planing at all.
We live in a small minded country!Really lovin it. hope it gets planning permission. Is it a treasury holdings project? Those guys just don’t quit, do they. Have they applied for anything formal or are they just putting it out there to guage a response?
What a gateway to dublin it would be!!!!!Hopefully both are built. The watchtower would only be an addition……compared to the new proposed hadid highrise.:D:cool:
I always love the way they talk about a gateway to Dublin. How many of us have actually come into the Liffey by boat?
Well either looking down the liffey to the city centre or looking up the liffey to the sea from the city centre, it would look great!!!!!!NO?
How strangely brilliant it would be if the recession meant that all the dross, cheap and bland architectural proposals got abandoned, and we were left with a smaller number of higher quality builds. An unexpected triumph of quality over quality. After all, there was never a need to have the entire city centre rebuilt overnight – one stylish building per year for the next ten years would do it for me.
Suddenly, the prospect of losing my job at least has a silver lining….
Not going to happen –
In fairness folks, this is never going to be built and we know it.
Worse actually than realising it’s not going to be built would be to grant it permission knowing this, which would up the speculation value of the land – and nothing at all would get built, as an unrealisable price gets fixed to the site.
Still, the drawings looked nice!
PS It might be worth merging this into North Lotts thread as this is being discussed there, and as it is unlikely to be built does not merit a thread of its own imo 🙂
A remarkably ugly structure.
Is it designed as such because it is structurally feasible to make a building so ugly, or on aesthetic grounds?
If you think that proposal is “ugly” by Dublin’s standards I think your crazy. I think it looks brilliant. I am also delighted it’s Treasury Holdings who, unlike lesser developers, are actually still building esspecially for the commercial sector (Montevetro started in the recession, Aqua Vetro about to be unveiled). The DDDA already allows up to 100m on this site in it’s revised plan for the North Lotts. That’s why this scheme was changed. I also don’t think they have paid for hadids design for the craic either (assuming she is not a charity worker!). I think this is a serious scheme that will go ahead. DDDA will fast track it. They are in no posistion to turn anything down right now frankly.
@darkman wrote:
If you think that proposal is “ugly” by Dublin’s standards I think your crazy. I think it looks brilliant. I am also delighted it’s Treasury Holdings who, unlike lesser developers, are actually still building esspecially for the commercial sector (Montevetro started in the recession, Aqua Vetro about to be unveiled). The DDDA already allows up to 100m on this site in it’s revised plan for the North Lotts. That’s why this scheme was changed. I also don’t think they have paid for hadids design for the craic either. I think this is a serious scheme that will go ahead. DDDA will fast track it. They are in no posistion to turn anything down right now frankly.
Can someone explain this anomaly to me please. Think it is great they are marching on or whatever, but what are the economics behind their attitude? Are they really such a huge firm that they can take advantage of the low construction costs atm while not making an immediate return? Would the cost of lending not prohibit this, or have they substantial capital?
@ihateawake wrote:
Can someone explain this anomaly to me please. Think it is great they are marching on or whatever, but what are the economics behind their attitude? Are they really such a huge firm that they can take advantage of the low construction costs atm while not making an immediate return? Would the cost of lending not prohibit this, or have they substantial capital?
€3.4 billion in Irish Assets – oh wait;) Well something must be driving them to build Montevetro atm because they would not be doing it if it was not viable surely? My guess is they are going on sheer speculation and may be anticipating an upturn in 2011, taking a gamble basically, but that is what business is all about – 2011 which id assume is the completion date for the two Vetro buildings? Even Crosbie is still insisting his tower is going ahead if the DDDA gives him permision for office space.
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
I always love the way they talk about a gateway to Dublin. How many of us have actually come into the Liffey by boat?
hahahaha, that’s comedy gold!
Thanks for that you made me forget about the recession for about a minute:D:D
@darkman wrote:
(Originally planned for U2 tower) Been looking at a few forums and they are really impressed with this and so am I!
Deserves it’s own thread. Leaves U2 tower in the shade on that image. Most impressive modern building proposed right now.:)
The design seems not to have changed from the U2 competition (image 5)
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=2033
Treasury Holdings pulls a rabbit out of the hat.
What in the name of jaysus – how are people advocating this?
Its a bloody cut and paste! Thats unreal – Can’t believe they’ve done that so blatantly. I’m all for showstopping, spectacular architecture but this basically reduces architecture to wallpaper – just a nice pattern slapped on to make something look well but with no consequence or deference to the structure beneath. This is the same work practice which has afforded bad architects to slap up pattern book, horrible apartment buildings across the country.
Complete shite.:mad:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
