Developers threaten ‘black fortress’ – Time to stand up and be counted again
August 18, 1999 at 8:31 am #704635MGParticipant
Dubliners were given a stark choice yesterday. If a giant skyscraper plan in the city centre is shot down, say the developers, they will go ahead with a high `fortress’ office block instead.
A Bord Pleanala planning appeal heard that Borg Developments of the Cosgrave Property Group will build the 66 metretall black glass tower blocks at George’s Quay, Dublin if its latest controversial scheme for the site is shot down.
Bernard McHugh for Borg Developments told the hearing if the current high-rise plan does not succeed, the company will build the office blocks, for which lanning permission was given eight years ago
August 18, 1999 at 10:24 am #712226
This makes me &^%*($%^^& sick.
We’re all being abused like morons again.
Looks like they’ll get their way
August 18, 1999 at 1:33 pm #712227AnonymousParticipant
They will get their way again as usual, but the black box devlopment would be worse on the site. You know the way everyone on Archeire gives out about the Ulster Bank building on George’s Quay. Well, This is a 66 METRE HIGH VERSION OF IT. The clear glass one doesn’t sound as bad now.
Isn’t it ironic that the development is being proposed by BORG developments (Star Trek catchphrase “Resistance is Futile”).
I have a picture of the ‘Black Box’ at home somewhere (From the original prospectus) If I find it I will put it up on the site.
Read it and weep.
August 18, 1999 at 5:51 pm #712228
I vaguely remember seeing a copy of that but I dont have it so Rory if you could oblige and post the image up, it would be great.
August 24, 1999 at 10:06 am #712229Paul_9000Participant
The developers threat to go ahead with the even worse plans approved years ago could be a mistake for them considering that all future developments by them can be frustrated by the state boards and the general public making infinite appeals.
Though in my opinion the layout of the development is good if the building were a lot closer to their surroundings.
August 30, 1999 at 1:28 pm #712230
Thanks to RoryW for forwarding this to me.
August 30, 1999 at 1:33 pm #712231
Boy, when I look at it, its really “Las Vegas” – much more so than the Spencer Dock Development and its not a patch on the SOM design either.
August 30, 1999 at 4:49 pm #712232
It’s quite natural looking in a strange crystalline way. Unfortunately it ‘s also heavy and bloated looking too. You’re right – Las Vegas. The other design is far more beautiful and will look really bizarre and kitsch in a couple of decades.
It’s funny though – models and conceptual artwork can be so misleading can’t they? Something about the lightness of a sketch or watercolour. The Woodquay buildings looked lovely in the original drawings too. Really transparent, light and airy looking. I suppose that’s the danger when it comes to the untrained eye – like my own. They create a gossamer illusion; unless you keep reminding yourself that it’s mostly concrete and stone.
August 30, 1999 at 5:15 pm #712233JasParticipant
Just so we can see what we’re comparing, here is the SOM proposal
Artists impressions can indeed be misleading – buildings never look so clean or have such idyllic lighting in reality. In reality public plazas are normally windswept and littered spaces where no-one want to hang around, in renderings they’re bathed in a mystical halflight with groups of people hanging around having a great time. There is a knack in seeing past all the hype in proposals.
August 30, 1999 at 5:37 pm #712234
Yes, I well believe it Jason. How many clients and town planners have the knack I wonder?
Do you think Computer 3d rendered images are less flattering in general? I imagine there’s more scope for capturing the buildings warts n’all there!
August 30, 1999 at 6:42 pm #712235
Only with an awful lot of work do they contain warts and all…. look at this proposal for Dun Laoghaire which was rejected…. there was actually a huge amount of modelling on this but it doesnt look like it…. getting a cg image to look perfect with all the authenticity is very hard unless your do a photomontage – like the model above.
[This message has been edited by Paul Clerkin (edited 30 August 1999).]
August 31, 1999 at 9:57 am #712236
Actually I really mean that cgi/3d doesn’t capture reality more effectively at all but it does have an increased capability for ugliness [a common characteristic of many buildings]- there’s a tendency to try to capture as much detail as possible and simulate the materials in hideous surface rendering. I usually find 3d not to be an art in itself but merely a means of demonstration. It’s terific when used for Scientific means such as in TV programmes like horizon etc but it’s capacity for conveying beauty except when in the hands of a master are I reckon very limited.
But that’s just my opinion.
I can’t remember my point now…
[Shut up and get back to work John]
September 1, 1999 at 10:01 am #712237AnonymousParticipant
Ah yes the CGI of this does look unflattering, but the “artist’s impressions” and colour photos etc inside the prospectus (Too big to scan unfortunately) makes the blackbox look equally bad.
Just one thing about the SOM proposal from the picture above, would anyone agree that the main block (on left)looks like Ardoyne House (That apartment block that overlooks Herbert Park out in Ballsbridge)? Especially when seen from Morehampton Road/Clyde Road Junction.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.