Alto Vetro, grand canal docks, dublin
- This topic has 358 replies, 87 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
The 76m high lift shafts are in place (put up in just 18 days) – it looks like this will be a big structure.
The building is, apparently, six weeks ahead of schedule. They have a web cam on the website but I don’t think the image has changed for a few weeks. Any chance of some picture updates on a high rise that is actually going ahead?;)
Treasury Holdings still have no prospective tenants for the building but are going to finish this and then bring two more large high rise shemes to the market in 2010/2011. The can do attitude is refreshing.
Can a mod change the title of this thread to this development:confused:
I was under the impression google were gonna take the whole thing. Can’t remember where I read it. Their current offices are in 2 buildings across the street and are a bit squashed in apparently
Yeah I also heard that Google were planning to take over the entire building, but agh can’t remember where I heard it either!
Is the building getting any taller than the pictures shown above?The steel is going up according to the webcam
i noticed that today too, should be visible above ground from the DART stop now
@Keen wrote:
i noticed that today too, should be visible above ground from the DART stop now
the steel is very visible from the dart. its only to be a pretty impressive fram when its up!
@aj wrote:
the steel is very visible from the dart. its only to be a pretty impressive fram when its up!
The bulk of this thing will be massive, and not in a good way. Leaving dublin port on a ferry during the week, the lift shaft alone is already the most significant structure visible when looking back towards the city.
I wonder were people this excited when Hawkin’s House was being built?
@gunter wrote:
I wonder were people this excited when Hawkin’s House was being built?
Come on….it’s hardly Hawkins House:rolleyes:
I’m interested to know if you can see Monte from most parts of Dublin or do you actualy have to go out of your way to see it?
Id love if it was just visible from liberty hall, then you would have liberty hall, The ulster bank buildings, hopefully soon tara street tower, and then monte vetro, all of similar height streching across Dublin. Forgive me for getting aroused right now:D:D:D
Aroused? Is that literally or figuratively? (Big phallic structures and all that…)
@johnglas wrote:
Aroused? Is that literally or figuratively? (Big phallic structures and all that…)
Well seeing that Ireland is a highrise virgin i’m getting pretty damn aroused right now:D
It’s 4 metres taller than liberty hall man, a WHOLE 4 METRES!!!!
@rob mc wrote:
Well seeing that Ireland is a highrise virgin i’m getting pretty damn aroused right now:D
It’s 4 metres taller than liberty hall man, a WHOLE 4 METRES!!!!
That such interest is even possible for a relatively small structure shows you how FUCKING NUTS Dublin City Council is. The whole of the docklands area should have been this height, for both aesthetic and economic reasons.
@rumpelstiltskin wrote:
That such interest is even possible for a relatively small structure shows you how FUCKING NUTS Dublin City Council is. The whole of the docklands area should have been this height, for both aesthetic and economic reasons.
You are spot on as regards the economic reasons. As Walter Chrysler said “Skyscrapers are a way of making the land pay”…its that simple. However, I think there was huge arrogance which crept into pampered planning authorities during the boom years. They seemed to think that we Irish could do things our own way and were exempt from the normal and natural laws of economics. Put simply if land costs 50 million per acre only allowing 6 stories is going to limit the returns and push up rents, land values and demand!
C
@thebig C wrote:
You are spot on as regards the economic reasons. As Walter Chrysler said “Skyscrapers are a way of making the land pay”…its that simple. However, I think there was huge arrogance which crept into pampered planning authorities during the boom years. They seemed to think that we Irish could do things our own way and were exempt from the normal and natural laws of economics. Put simply if land costs 50 million per acre only allowing 6 stories is going to limit the returns and push up rents, land values and demand!
C
That’s not at all true. The evolution of the skyscraper lies in a distinct lack of space, ie being forced upwards due to the constrictions on Manhattan island or the loop in Chicago.
Demand here never outstripped supply. Land only cost 50 million per acre due to a flawed planning system which allowed a small number of individuals to horde land and drive up costs by rezoning on a wholesale rather than case by case basis. Rampant speculation was the only thing which underpinned Irish land prices, not demand.
Your logic suggests that just because Sean Dunne paid a ridiculous sum of money for land which any sane business person would have known was an incredible risk, he should be allowed plonk a 30 story skyscraper regardless of the effects. (incidentally I thought the skyscraper was beautiful – the rest of the scheme was trash and would have significantly harmed the city centre).
There is definitely a case to be made for some tall buildings which provide the large floor space demanded by the worlds largest companies. We need to provide the infrastructure necessary to attract these companies to Ireland.
Their location is crucial. The docklands in Dublin were intended to be a residential quarter and as they stand they are beginning to achieve a density which matches best practice models across Europe. Go any taller and you begin to alienate families, exacerbating and justifying the exodus to placeless suburbs.
We could definitely build a couple of beautiful tall buildings in the locations that have been identified – The U2 tower site, Heuston etc but they are not the be all and end all of a city’s ambition or a natural and inevitable result of ‘the market’.
Amen to all that, reddy, but we’ve had this particular debate before…
http://www.kgi.ie/index.php?p=projects&id=1072
It’s fairly prominent but definately not overbearing, yet. Have to wait till the steel core is erected to get a true sense of it’s bulk. I agree it’s bulkiness could be a slight issue.
@reddy wrote:
That’s not at all true. The evolution of the skyscraper lies in a distinct lack of space, ie being forced upwards due to the constrictions on Manhattan island or the loop in Chicago.
Demand here never outstripped supply. Land only cost 50 million per acre due to a flawed planning system which allowed a small number of individuals to horde land and drive up costs by rezoning on a wholesale rather than case by case basis. Rampant speculation was the only thing which underpinned Irish land prices, not demand.
Your logic suggests that just because Sean Dunne paid a ridiculous sum of money for land which any sane business person would have known was an incredible risk, he should be allowed plonk a 30 story skyscraper regardless of the effects. (incidentally I thought the skyscraper was beautiful – the rest of the scheme was trash and would have significantly harmed the city centre).
There is definitely a case to be made for some tall buildings which provide the large floor space demanded by the worlds largest companies. We need to provide the infrastructure necessary to attract these companies to Ireland.
Their location is crucial. The docklands in Dublin were intended to be a residential quarter and as they stand they are beginning to achieve a density which matches best practice models across Europe. Go any taller and you begin to alienate families, exacerbating and justifying the exodus to placeless suburbs.
We could definitely build a couple of beautiful tall buildings in the locations that have been identified – The U2 tower site, Heuston etc but they are not the be all and end all of a city’s ambition or a natural and inevitable result of ‘the market’.
Reddy….granted the confines of Manhatten and the Loop played a part, however, alot of cities worldwide have issues of space, not all have skyscrapers. Building heights would still not have soared if it wasn’t for the Economics of demand. You are in danger of kind of endorsing the “build out not up” arguement……..but don’t get me started:)
Pretty much agree with you on the Jurys hotel site though!:D
C
@thebig C wrote:
Reddy….granted the confines of Manhatten and the Loop played a part, however, alot of cities worldwide have issues of space, not all have skyscrapers. Building heights would still not have soared if it wasn’t for the Economics of demand. You are in danger of kind of endorsing the “build out not up” arguement……..but don’t get me started:)
Pretty much agree with you on the Jurys hotel site though!:D
C
Its the law of SUPPLY and demand – Its an intimate and inverse relationship between the two and only when low supply and high demand coincide are buildings forced upwards. But like I said – Rampant speculation was the only thing which underpinned Irish land prices, not demand so you can probably scratch ‘natural’ economics in this argument.
I’m not at all endorsing the build out argument – I’m completely against it. What I’m saying is that if we don’t achieve densities which are tolerable to family living we will continue to drive people back out of the city to find their little patch of suburban lawn.
However I think like Johnglas said we’ve had this debate before and it could run on and on.
I’ve been checking into the live coverage of the building of Montevetro and the steel frame is becoming extensive at this stage. We should get some idea of how bulky it’s going to be when this covers the central lift-shafts.
It certainly is piercing the canopy of existing buildings around the the docklands area.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
