Dublin skyline
- This topic has 644 replies, 86 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
- Posts
yes, they are far better than semi d’s but they are still ugly, wasteful, and completey devoid of imagination – yes, they will be regreted. stronger protests should be mounted, what is needed is an architectural “platform 11” style campaign… I WANT A HIGHRISE AND I WANT ONE NOW! 😀
devin, i like that second picture you posted yesterday. the roof looks kinda nice. i wonder what it will look like when it is finished?
@Morlan wrote:
Is it this? It isn’t 16 floors though :/
No morlan that is not it. Its at the M1/M50 junction on the n32 side. You cant miss it, the large Bewleys hotel nearly finished there. Its a huge development which funny enough I cant find much info on.
Ye’d wanna be careful flashing that Nikon E8400 around town, Devin.
Good god, how did I miss that one. Is that a wood-dash effect running down the front? Nice fancy roof thing on it though, the rest of the developments are boooriiiing.
i too was thinking that it could be wood. it seems to give it a nice finish along with the roof.
it would be nice if they were to use that type of roof on taller buildings.
The pictures featured above are nice but they are so flat. Tell me more about this 16 storey building near the airport. Will it really be 16 storeys or is that just a guess? I would like to see some more highrises going up and that seems like a good spot.
There’s one (very persistent!) individual who’s been taking the piss out of this thread for far too long (since the very first page in fact) with a multitude of usernames to pursue a personal high buildings crusade … including using a female name at one point!
I know the ‘main’ username of this person and most of the others, though I’m not going to say who it is on the forum.
@Devin wrote:
There’s one (very persistent!) individual who’s been taking the piss out of this thread for far too long (since the very first page in fact) with a multitude of usernames to pursue a personal high buildings crusade … including using a female name at one point!
I know the ‘main’ username of this person and most of the others, though I’m not going to say who it is on the forum.
Gadzooks man – another multi-identity person. S/he should be strung from the highest building in Dublin. Mind you, that would probably only graze his/her kness, so the punishment would not fit the crime.
@Devin wrote:
Maybe we can get a decent discussion going on the Docklands and stave off the high-rise geeks with their Verucha-like cries of ‘DADDY, I WANT A HIGHRISE AND I WANT IT NOW!’ .
Why does a much supported desire to have some well designed landmark buildings in Dublin (docklands or other locations) = the irrational rantings of a spoilt teenager. Perhaps not the best way to inspire a decent discussion on the development of the docklands as it instantly undermines any contributions which people might want to make on mid/high-rise developments in the area (the arguments both for and against which have, to my mind, been fairly well elaborated and exhausted at this stage, unless new ideas can be suggested).
You know Devin the opposite could be argued too: I DON’T want a high-rise and I DON’T want it now!!!
Either way being 100% in favour or 100% against anything is hardly balanced.Dallas, I’ve outlined my views on high buildings more than once on the forum (see post 330 of this thread for example). The problem is, the crusade, or ‘higrise hard-on’ as Paul (administrator) has called it, prevents real debate on high buildings in this country, which would be very worthwhile.
The irony of all of this, is that I would guess that very many contributors would agree with Devin’s position, as outlined in post 330 on this thread. I personally have no problem with the points which he makes, namely:
– people confuse high-rise with high-density (although I would argue that yes, high-rose doesn’t necessarily mean high-density, it can if done correctly – Hong Kong is proof of that although I am not saying that Hong Kong is a model we should emulate);
– up to 10 storeys in the city centre (I agree that this is about right);
– need for well designed tall buildings (I agree);
– quality is more important that height (I agree – anyone who has seen Ballymun will agree with that);
– Docklands is best area for high-rises (I agree);
– a high-rise shouldn’t challenge or emasculate a nearby historic building (I agree).The question is, if most reasonable minded people would agree with these tenets, then why are we still waiting for good well designed high-rises to be built in the Docklands. The time is right (economic boom), the place is right (a range of brown field sites waiting for development in the Docklands).
Possible answers:
People do not want high-rises in the docklands or anywhere else for that matter and continue to put up opposition to such proposals on whatever spurious planning grounds that they can;
We are not capable of designing decent buildings (bad reflection on the architectural profession);
Incompetent planning;
A sense of vision for modern Ireland that fails to rise above self-centred greed and the trifling.Beyond that, after 15 years into the economic boom I cannot see why we seem to be stuck in this same stupid rut going around in circles. Tells me that there is something seriously rotten in this state of Ireland.
Possible answers:
People do not want high-rises in the docklands or anywhere else for that matter and continue to put up opposition to such proposals on whatever spurious planning grounds they canIndeed. They haven’t been sold to the public yet. And this is a major obstacle to be gotten over if you’re to get anything higher than three storeys built in residential areas!
The problem is, the crusade, or ‘higrise hard-on’ as Paul (administrator) has called it, prevents real debate on high buildings in this country, which would be very worthwhile.
Describing people who do not share your views on what heights are appropriate for development in the docklands in terms suggesting sexual perversion or religious fanaticism, hardly advances the debate on the subject, does it? The debate stops when people start generalising about the people they are arguing with or speculating about the motives and you’ve done this on a number of occasions in this thread. It goes nowhere. I could start a message starting with the claim “opponents of high-rise in Dublin want the city to continue to sprawl outwards” and continue in that vein but it wouldn’t do anything to improve the debate. Claiming that “proponents of tall buildings in Dublin don’t understand the difference between high-rise and high density” doesn’t do anything for the debate either.
PDLL wrote:People do not want high-rises in the docklands or anywhere else for that matter and continue to put up opposition to such proposals on whatever spurious planning grounds that they can. QUOTE]i would tend to agree with this one.
@jimg wrote:
Describing people who do not share your views on what heights are appropriate for development in the docklands in terms suggesting sexual perversion or religious fanaticism, hardly advances the debate on the subject, does it? The debate stops when people start generalising about the people they are arguing with or speculating about the motives …
We need a reality check here. “Generalisingâ€, as you say, about others on the forum is one thing. Using a complex construct of different ‘personalities’ as one person (not you) is doing to air a view is another altogether. The integrity of the forum is being undermined by this and it’s about time it stopped.
Devin, I wasn’t aiming particular comment on your views (sorry of it came across), just musing the Veruca Salt comment and how it can be applied to both sides.
were there any objections lodged when dundrum’s luas bridge was first announced?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
