Dublin skyline

So between that new hotel and “The Darndale Hilton” down the road at Clare Hall, they’ll pretty much have that area covered. We could be due a visit from Paris.

Maskhadov-
As Devin said, this has been covered extensively elsewhere. But to rehearse briefly the arguments put forward in previous threads:
Tall buildings would not “give a major boost to boosting the dublin population, decreasing property rents and taking up the least amount of space”, for the reason that there is an optimal height above which gains in height must be offset by increases in open space, amenity land, parking etc. In other words, we would be left with a landscape of towers dotted around among the fields, akin to Corbusier’s Plan Voisin.
I read an interesting quote not so long ago that I can’t lay my hands on now along the lines that tall buildings don’t provide more accommodation, only different accommodation.
Further, tall buildings aren’t the only way of creating a modern looking capital. Quality contemorary architecture is the way to go, if such a capital is desired, though whether a sleek modern image is appropriate for Dublin is another point entirely (again addressed on one of the previous threads). Tall buildings only give that image from a distance, such as from, say, an airplane or the Dublin mountains.

That’s why everybody can’t accept these points; because they are not facts but opinions. I agree that the low-rise suburban model is not the future, but neither is height for height’s sake. In fact, the low-rise model has been declining in Dublin for a while now, the preference being for densification up to a certain level. That is the debate we should be having about the future of our capital city, in which tall buildings might conceivably play a role as landmarks. But they are categorically not the answer to the problem of urban sprawl.

“Dublin will not become a high-rise city, even though higher building clusters or a limited number of landmark towers at strategic locations have become an accepted part of the planning process, according to the city manager.”

could anyone tell me where these “higher building clusters” and landmark towers would be placed?

on the topic of this thread, it seems obvious to me, evidently not to everyone here, that high rise does provide signifigent density. i recently returned from new york and was impressed by what i saw, yes becuase the buldings are “tall and shiny!” but also be becuase of the huge amount of space inside. these towers through the argument that ‘high rises need more land area and therefore negate the amount of space they save’ right out the window. the buildings i saw were wall to wall. i realise dublin has heritage to protect, and i love the current character of our city, but this does not mean that other parts of the city cant change. the orbital metro is a great oppertunity… clusters of high rise around the city would solve problems of congestion and sprwal, provide the modern city some are looking for and protect the historical center. i cant see problems with this, please point any out, it seem very practical, sensible, almost “german”

also, could someone tell me why the AT&T building in new york has no windows? :confused:

A pertinent point, though it depends where you’re talking about – the inner city, the Docklands, the outer city (beyond the canals, Huestonish etc) or right out to the M50 – all have different factors to take into consideration.
Specifically on the two-storey development you mention jimg – it is a pathectically relevant point you make, in that it is absolutely correct. There is two-storey suburban housing on St. Stephen’s Green for crying out loud – to the rear of the Ardilaun Centre! There is two-storey housing from the 1980s almost across the road between Harcourt St and Cuffe St!
There is two-storey housing on Clanbrassil St, and similar stuff all over the northside, indeed all over the city, right in the very very heart of the capital.

Likewise all around Liffey St, Capel St, going west along the north quays; again vast tracts of land of two, if not single storey housing, commercial buildings and shops just in off the Liffey, and hundreds of garages and warehouses and stores and all the rest of it – all sprawling about the inner city in the most astonishing waste of space.

Personally I wouldn’t like to see anything over 7/8 storeys in the immediate city centre, with an even lower 5/6 level being maintained along the quays to Heuston – though there is probably room for additional setbacks. Further away from the river and principal streets is largely capable of absorbing 8/9 storeys, but wouldn’t like to see any higher. If this is conservative, so be it.
Dublin’s very appeal is its low-rise character.

The Docklands really is the place for height, and even then anything above 9/10 stoerys as a stanadard level I find unpleasant – probably tainted by the initial Spencer Dock scheme. The way buildings mass together and loom heavily over the ground below when above 10ish stories on a large scale just isn’t appealling at all – again admittedly probably an opinion formed by SD1. Any pictorial examples of where this works?
The 8-10 storey carpet with skyline-forming 20-30 storey taller buildings seems more in tune with a ‘human scale’ city, and more in tune with the modest size of Dublin (the city, not the ancillary county or two).

What I am centrally saying is that the various people pressing for high-rise buildings are doing so because they are hungry to see high-rise and not because they think it would solve sprawl (though they may believe it might) or for other the reasons they cite.

High-rise and high-density are being confused by the high-rise proponents. The Victorian/Edwardian Dublin suburbs of Drumcondra and Rathmines are high-density and they are of predominantly two/three-storey height. Density is about how you use the land rather than how tall you build.

With regard to height in the city centre, I would be for more height and diversity in new developments in the city centre (up to about 10 storeys) provided it is well planned and coordinated and not just trying to stuff as much as possible onto a given site as so often happens. And that if there is a taller building(s) within a development, it is well-designed and proportioned and doesn’t challenge or emasculate a nearby historic landmark (it is a historic city centre after all).

With regard to ‘proper’ high-rise – I thought there was consensus over this earlier in the thread: they shouldn’t be in the city centre but outside of it, preferably in the Docklands.
The issue for me then is quality not height …. I happen not to think the ‘U2 tower’ is a good enough 100-metre landmark for the city, but I’m not against the height.

I’d largely go along with Graham’s position here (8/9 stories max for the center subject to street scape context). However I’d disagree with your position regarding the Docklands. In fact I’d like to see a minimum height of 10 stories here instead of the max 6/7 which is current DDDA policy. Punctuating a featureless landscape of 6 story buildings with isolated “landmark” towers does not do it for me at all. If the DDDA could take off their blinkers they could statisfy the desire (of many people) to see tall buildings built in the capital, concentrate such buildings in a cluster in a reasonably central, urban and accessible (using public transport) location which wouldn’t compromise the historic building stock.

I used to dislike high rise but to be honest that was before I’d visited cities which have beautiful tall street scapes. I’m talking about tall relative to Dublin – i.e. over 8 or 10 stories.

Regarding some of the other points made. While building taller doesn’t automatically increase density, increasing density requires taller buildings. Secondly not all the two story stuff is 80’s vintage – nearly every decade of the last 100 years is represented by two story housing estates/developments. You should really check out Google Earth and do a few “fly-overs” of Dublin – it’s an awsome program.

that google map is a fooking disgcrace. it just highlights the paddy planning that is still in operation in this island. Low dentisty houses should be outlawed. They should re develop areas like that into medium dentisty at least.

There was a program about high rise on RTE this morning and there were many cities that have done high rise properly and may only have a few high rises but they really fit in well with the city.

The tallest structure is the former Radio Tara / Atlantic 252 mast in Summerhill, at 245m. The tallest unstayed structures are the chimney stacks of Moneypoint power station at 225m, taller than those of Poolbeg power station at 207m.

@alpha wrote:

wow that is tall. belfast has a tower at 60 meters and it has 20 storeys. you could fit roughly an 80 storey building into 245 meters so.

The building in Belfast is called Windsor house and is hideous… I was lucky enough to get to the 19th floor a few years back. the views over Belfast lough are incredible

Cork City has the tallest building in Ireland. The County Hall building, which is currently undergoing a development. It’s 16 storeys and I think another floor is being added, but I’ll have to confirm that.