Dublin skyline
- This topic has 644 replies, 86 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’m new here but I believe that living higher than, say 6 stories is not particularly desirable from a family point of view.
(I have a family and I live on the 5th floor of an apartment development.) Any higher and it becomes difficult to relate to the surrounding gardens/ to monitor and communicate with kids on the ground, to visually identify ‘your’ home from the ground etc. – all points made by others before me.
I have no objection to high rise office buildings – provided they are located in accordance with a plan. The DEGW Skyline Study is the start of a plan but needs much more detail. We need also to bear in mind that the predominent feature of the Irish weather is the wind velocity – not the rain – and that high rise and high wind are bad neighbours.
High rise (over 50m) will change the skyline so we must justify it – it should be in the right location and it should be a piece of art – (or perhaps in the opposite order?) otherwise what is the point?
@alpha wrote:
were there any objections lodged when dundrum’s luas bridge was first announced?
Interesting question. It would have been given permission under the Railway Order, so I’d asume that it went ahead regardless of public opposition. At a guess..
i know it probably sounds silly but i have often wondered did people object to the building of huge churches too? some of our churches are a massive height. i wonder what our ancestors thought about say the maynooth college spire when that went up? i am not insulting churches mind as i do respect them. it is just a thought.
@alpha wrote:
i know it probably sounds silly but i have often wondered did people object to the building of huge churches too? some of our churches are a massive height. i wonder what our ancestors thought about say the maynooth college spire when that went up? i am not insulting churches mind as i do respect them. it is just a thought.
Another interesting question.
Perhaps people weren’t too bothered about it’s height or what it looked like. The standard of architecture back then was very high, IMO. Perhaps the main concern was if it was a Protestant church or Catholic.
Of course, I haven’t a clue what I’m talking about. I’d be interested in a proper answer though.
thanks for the response Morlan. they were just some thoughts that came to mind. it does make you wonder though.
It is a fair point. I feel though that it has a few complicating ideological factors which distinguish it from the issue of high-rises in contemporary Dublin. In essence, the issue of oppressive Catholic theology in the first 80 years of the 20th century probably cut the wind out of the sails of any opposition. The Catholic church was busily thowing up a number of infinitely more offensive erections around the country during that time and although they penetrated more than the skyline, people did not complain. Why then would they take issue with a few church spires that stole the light from their back gardens? Perhaps we will soon be flooded with planning appeals from the 1950s and 1960s from people who are now just coming to terms with the apostolic architecture that cast a never-ending shadow over their lives.
Frequently the church also owned many of the houses in the surrounding streets and would, therefore, have bypassed any possible complaints from those living in the shadow of such structures (this was the case in Sligo, for example). Church spires also tend to be much narrower than a high-rise building, so they do not have the same aesthetic and environmental effect.
i agree that the standard of architecture back then was very high. some of our historical buildings in this country today are simply magnificent. 🙂
there’s a big difference between a church spire and a high rise office or apartment block. Church spires punctuated the sky line and usually taper as they get taller. They are not generally oppresive but give visual interest to a skyline. Look at how St John’s Cathedral in Limerick soars from the flat plane of county limerick. It doesn’t dominate though even though it’s nearly 300 feet. Another difference is that these high rises didn’t establish any kind of presedent for a neighbourhood, nobody was going to build as high as the neogothic spire, but people fear (for good or bad) that if high rises are built that a precedent is set for all future building. So the comparison with church building isn’t really valid.
One could argue though that as we’re not building churches any more to pierce the skyline that we need to get our cotemporay buildings to do this. Compare the skyline of Dun Laoighre with its spires with the flat docklands which needs a few “spires” to break it up.
High rise (over 50m) will change the skyline so we must justify it – it should be in the right location and it should be a piece of art – (or perhaps in the opposite order?) otherwise what is the point?
For me, covering more of Leinster in unsustainable car-bound suburban semi-detached housing or building city centre apartment blocks which will be impossible to replace for hundreds of years should require far more justification than the building of a tall office building which will change the skyline. The former will be with us for 10 generations or more while the latter can be corrected within one.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Don’t be so disgusting PDLL.
Disgusting? Just stating a sad and unfortunate fact of life in twentieth century Ireland.
i think the “should we , shouldnt we” agrument for highrise is completely missing the point. Some people want high rise for no other reason than its high, some people object for no reason other than its high. The point is if its a quality design built well of quality materials , suited to its location the height is irrlevant.
@Devin wrote:
Indeed. 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!
I would suggest that they have been sold to some elements of the public (I cannot hazard a gues in terms of the percentage). Some elements of the public have not yet bought the idea, but it is a generalisation to suggest that the ‘have not been sold to the public yet’.
People in Ireland have had a bad experience with high-rises partly due to the flats in Ballymun and other hilarious examples such as Rahoon in Galway (all four storeys of them – yes – they were called high-rise on a few occasions 😀 ). Ok – – then time to get over that. What I think would be useful for this debate is to stop talking about high-rises in general and to define what we mean when we talk about high rises for the docklands. Are we talking about residential or office space? (the latter usual being more ‘landmark’ in nature and more aesthetic in comparison). Personally, I would love to see three or four landmark office space high-rises in the Docklands. Why? To my mind they would be as important in shaping the identity of modern post-colonial Dublin as Georgian and neo-classical buildings have been in shaping its earlier identity. They would help attract international company headquarters and could generate employment as a result. They would define the rebirth of a long decaying part of the city. They could prove extremely attractive aesthetically (high rise does not always have to equal ugliness). I could go on, but I have said much of this before.
What I laugh at about this debate is that the debate is even happening at all. It is classic Ireland. Other countries have gotten over this relatively minor issue and have gone on to produce some fantastic and occasionally experimental high-rise buildings. What do we do – sit around mulling over it and showing that we are still not capable of making a mature national decision. Does this debate remind you of the debates over contraception, abortion, recycling, transport infrastructure etc? – all issues that many other EU countries simply dealt with and moved on. Jesus, bring back the Brits for ten years and we might actually stop talking and do something constructive.
I agree completely! This nation is incapable of making decisions.
In my opinion the Liffey is so wide down by the docklands that tall buildings will look very good down there, what with the added space to absorb them.
But the NIMBYs rule the roost, never forget that.Not wishing to revitalise a much worn debate, I thought some contributors would have an interest in the following link:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=100659It is worth looking at the list of ‘high rises’ registered for Dublin – mostly churches. Have a quick look then at the Vienna page (a city with a population of about 1.5 million people and an extremely precious low-lying architectural heritage). Interesting, I think you will agree. It seems that high-rises and a low-lying city centre of great architectural merit are compatable,or at least the conservative Austrians think so. Umm – what does this say about development in Dublin?
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2005/1215/breaking39.htm
PDs unveil regeneration plan for Dublin port
Last updated: 15-12-05, 12:25Dublin Bay would be transformed into a Manhattan-style skyline under redevelopment plans unveiled today by the Progressive Democrats.
Senator Tom Morrissey said he wanted to see the industrial activity of Dublin Port gradually moved to Bremore, north of Balbriggan, enabling massive urban regeneration of the bay area.
The plan envisages housing, offices, shops, waterfront promenades and parks being built on more than 600 acres of land freed up by the move. The port would be redeveloped for cruise liners.
“This has the potential to create a spectacular Manhattan-style approach to Dublin by sea,” Mr Morrissey said. “The plan draws on international experience in cities like Helsinki and Barcelona where run-down port areas have been transformed beyond recognition.
“It would breath life into Dublin Bay, which is currently an under-used asset.”
The proposals unveiled by the PDs at the International Financial Services Centre today also aim to deliver a truck-free city.
“The ideas we are putting forward would solve Dublin Port’s capacity problem while allowing for the development of `A New Heart for Dublin’ in the future,” Mr Morrissey said.
Mr Morrissey said his party’s proposal was intended to spark debate on how best to develop Dublin Bay, which he described as a unique asset in the heart of the capital. He said he welcomed submissions and suggestions from the public and interested parties on the best way to utilise the bay.
PA
© 2005 ireland.com
We already blew it with the docklands.. what makes this any different? It will just be another IFSC-type business park!
Re above thread “Jesus, bring back the Brits for ten years and we might actually stop talking and do something constructive ?”
I take it you`re a Brit yourself then?
As an Irishman living in `Britland` for the past 10 years I fail to see what they can offer the country regarding social progress , unless you consider the abnormally high rate of divorce, family breakdown, abortions
( on average 170,000 annually) racism and secarianism (Scotland) as progress.
We can bulid all the skyscrapers, roads and bridges we want but the day we lose the social fabric of our country to British influences is a prospect too horrific to consider in my opinion.
I unfortunately left Ireland in 1996 but am filled with pride everytime I return to notice how much the countly has developed and evolved in every respect since then. Personally, I cant wait to get back.@johnfp wrote:
Re above thread “Jesus, bring back the Brits for ten years and we might actually stop talking and do something constructive ?”
I take it you`re a Brit yourself then?
.No – I am not British. Just an Irishperson so driven by frustration at the incompetence everywhere evident in my own country that I have come to the point where I believe that even returning to colonial rule might be a better alternative than what we now have. After 80 odd years of ‘independence’, it has become obvious to me that we lack the skills of self-governance. Don’t be fooled by our recent economic growth – we are simply catching up with other countries and we wouldn’t even have been able to do that without the masses of cash and regulations coming from Brussels and the commercial investment from the US. Take away both and what would we have? A country that would be no better off than it was the day the English set sail for home.
As regards social values in Ireland and England. Perhaps this isn’t the place to discuss those, but just one point – don’t forget the thousands of Irish people who contribute to the UK’s abortion statistics. Other than that, I thought we were doing quite well in the collapse of social standards – huge increase in the number of murders and violent deaths since the 1980s, huge drugs problems in many towns and cities, common occurances of street violence, enormous alcohol problem, largest percentage of young people under the poverty line in the EU area…… I am not defending the British or colonial rule (indeed, I have been accused of being a bigotted cross between a me feiner and a sinn feiner on Archiseek!), rather was mounting a critique of development and governance in contemporary Ireland.
This is only a ”carrot” as there is an election probably next year. This is hypocrtical of the PDs/Fianna Fail advocating high rises for the docks and all sorts of other much needed developments, when McDowell hindered the Natioanl Stadium calling it a Ceascescu stlye complex and Bertie calling Spencer Dock a monstrosity. They are a long time in government and its a last minute rush promising all these things as there is fuck all to show bar roads and houses.
And pleeze we don’t need the Brits to run our country again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
