32-floor building planned for Dublin
- This topic has 257 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Someone here has never lived in an apartment building:
– You are not allowed place advertising boards on the building. This is why for sale boards are all clustered together around the entrance to the development. You aren’t allowed repaint the exterior or hang washing on it either.
– An apartment needs a few things that an office doesn’t necessarily; namely windows that open and let in as much light as possible – most apartments only have windows on one of four sides. Balconies are also very desirable. Therefore, it is not possible to build a practical apartment building without visible floors. The Hancock Tower in NYC is not a practical apartment building.
Finally, damning an unbuilt modern building by suggesting it will have the same build quality and suffer from the same lack of maintenance as a 1960s system-built social flat complex is pathetic. Ballymun is not the definition of high-rise architecture; its buildings are not even tall, and the design is certainly never going to be repeated.
This isn’t high definition either. And what is to stop people hanging equally colourful clothes from the balconies?
Can you not sell the design?
I couldn’t it’s bland but bland on a grossly inappropriate scale.
Andrew the Hancock Tower is in Chicago,
you are right it would be a long commute to Midtown MannhattenComparison to Ballymun is justified on two grounds
Firstly it is a public project and it will contain social housing,
Secondly it has a stone or rendered finish.
Steel and glass or at least a little thought in selecting innovative cladding into the design would have helped.
Bland Bland Bland
steel and glass on an apartment building…. exposed internally i presume!!!! would an taisce not have a problem with that..seeing as u r champions of quality of life
There is greater problem with 32 storeys of non-descipt render or stone. Enough negativity though
Why don’t you try a detailed desciption of the building and sell its positive design qualities
Because it I can’t see any, it is a mishmash of inappropriate design cliches in my opinion.
so what are the design cliches? and as i have said before i haven’t seen the thing. all i have seen is that pic of a model you gave a link to. it may be inapprociate but i don’t know yet.
The broken form at the top is a direct rip off from the Millenium tower which is less than half it’s height.
The glazed circular section towads the back of the model is a complete cliche.
There is nothing original in this
that’s true. but i was once told that there is never anything original in architecture as it’s all been done before. now i don’t particularly believe that but it makes one think.
Mixed up Hankcock Center and Trump Tower, but both are fine examples of the hermetically sealed skyscraper apartment (or mixed-use) building – and of how money doesn’t necessarily buy a good quality of life.
Firstly it is a public project and it will contain social housing
My oh my, you are a snob.
Not a snob, it was an utter disgrace the treatment the people of Ballymun were subjected to. Lifts not working facilities not put in etc etc etc
I am sure that if you were around in the late 60’s you would have been talking about a new and exciting form of urban development.
Originally posted by Diaspora
Not a snob, it was an utter disgrace the treatment the people of Ballymun were subjected to. Lifts not working facilities not put in etc etc etcthe lifts not working is not the buildings fault..rather the council as while not knowing much about ballymun i believe they were council owned.
facilities not put in??? which ones?
it is very easy to blame the architecture and architects but upkeep has a lot to do with the sucess of a building. of course if necessary facilities aren’t put in then u look at the architect’s but then again back in that time it might not have been part and parcel of the norm to put these facilities in and could have been up to the council to provide elsewhere. i am not going to defend them as i believe i have only seen them once and that ws from a distance and so know nothing about the problems.I agree on the lifts Fin but in the context of the accusations of snobbery it needed to be raised.
In the context of the facilities many integrated developments are commenced. Many of these developments historically did not have the ‘social benefit’ elements completed leaving the residents with little or none of the elements that make communities livable.
It is not the architects fault if the site managers fail to maintain facilities down the line. But it is a wise move for architects to conduct consultations with prospective site managers. Or be aware of all the things that can go wrong. I think open balconies at this height could present problems.
I am still of the opinion that on design grounds this is a poor submission.
That it is not the correct site for a 32 or similarly tall building.
I prefer the idea of tall office buildings located at integrated transport hubs.
oh! right.
in regards to interviewing prespective site managers..that is not up to the architect either. that is the client and therefore the council in this case. architect’s never do that. the site manager is always appointed by the client. the management company’s name is given as part of the planning process, usually part of the conditions. i don’t know if it would help anyway if we did interview them as the manager could change in 6 months so it would be pointless.unfortunately balconies are seen as a necessary evil in regards to defensible space. i agree with u that a building so high nobody is going to use them as it would literally blow ur head off but then again maybe i’m wrong.
i thought this was an intregrated transport hub. or will be soon. around busaras and connolly would also be a location for high rises…not apartments though!!!!
With developments on a similar scale it is not uncommon to see multi-disciplinary teams working together such as, planning consultants, architects, Valuers and more latterly the larger property mgt agencies.
It is only in the strictest sense that architects don’t have responsibility, in terms of ensuring a development is approved developerslike muti-disciplinary consultations.
I entirely agree Tara St- Busaras- Connolly presents a much better transportation infrastructure. Spencer Dock as a Metro terminus would provide a new dimension to transportation capacity.
fair point but i have never personally worked with a management company but it may happen.
and would not trying to develop two such hubs not be in the best interests of the city.
I am sure that as the new management company input develops we’ll all be working on this basis. Which can only be a good thing as they bring great experience to projects.
As for developing a second viable hub it has to be a good thing, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The last thing anyone wants to do is exacerbate the mess at Hueston.
Public transport in Dublin couldn’t be worse considering how much money was spent.
Can you imagine if Tom Parlons long distance commuting constituents were gridlocked out of getting back on time to vote for him?
u could be right. i would like to hear from anyone who has been in this position to see how much interference happened in the design and how they got on with this consultant….
as i believe we are in a transitional period from a 2nd rated country to a top rated i believe that we in this generation just have to live with the disruption caused during our “growing up”. it will prove a sucess in a few years time and everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about and of course everyone is going to say they were behind the ideas all the time.lol…..disapora u didn’t take to kindly to my joke the first time i decided not to mention it again but i can see she must feel the same!!!! ha,ha…
Point taken on the joke,
but I hate politically motivated bad planning
What do you will work well in time the infrastructure?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
