Dublin skyline
- This topic has 644 replies, 86 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Well thank God for the ‘flat earth society’ then;
that tower was typical ARA muck and was always going to be struck down
Indeed, I won’t argue with you on the details of this particular development, Thomond Park. What is of interest, however, is that our aesthetic and planning standards seem to increase at a geometric rate according to the number of floors in a development. That is, from 1 to 5 floors, we are pretty much able to throw up any old shxxe, while fromj 5 to 32 floors, we become remarkably discerning about things, so much so that we still don’t have a builing over about 16 floors in the entire State. While our buildings may not reach for the skies, our aesthetic standards apparently do.
A good general rule of thumb to adopt is that the taller a building the more impact it will have on the City skyline; for that reason alone taller buildings need to be of a much higher standard to be acceptable.
The U2 tower whilst modest enough by International design standards will be a quantum leap in design quality for tall buildings in Dublin and the sooner it arrives the better.I personally can’t see the U2 Tower or Heuston Gate being built at all, not with the attitude that exists out there.
See edit time above my comment was stripped of its context by the delayed edit
They seem to be playing around with the height of the U2 Tower. As for Heuston Gate, I heard that it is currently under appeal and that is after it getting planning permission. Planning permission was given several months ago.
Tbh, I never understood quite why Heuston was being vaunted as a hub for tall buildings, though there is plenty of space around it, wide roads (road) and..a train station.
But it’s sort of in the middle of nowhere, as far as the direction the city generally faces. Maybe the plan is to anchor the western side of the city centre, as everything starts slipping further eastwards (into the sea if the PDs get their way with the port).
@Pepsi wrote:
They seem to be playing around with the height of the U2 Tower. As for Heuston Gate, I heard that it is currently under appeal and that is after it getting planning permission. Planning permission was given several months ago.
Full planning has been granted after an appeal to ABP. I presume the appeal relates to the first of a series of proposed changes to the scheme – I’d expect Rhatigan and Goodbody to got for change of use on a lot of the office blocks to ressie use. And Liam Carroll has planning for a 32 storey tower next to the U2 tower.
It’s just hard to see these high rise projects really happening when so many of them have been rejected in the past.
I thought I heard something about that but I am not sure. I haven’t a clue as to the height of it. I just know that it will be taller than what we already have.
The competition entry that won a couple of years ago was to be taller than 60m. That link says that it was to be 60m but now they want it to be 100m. It is very confusing. I know about all the other high rise buildings that are in the pipeline. Why have they changed this buildings height so much?
Maybe they thought the tower would get more approval if they designed it at 60 meters.. then they could sneakily raise the height a bit. *shrug*
It was designed at roughly 78.4m in the begining according to my research. When the entry won we were all told it would be roughly 78.4m high. The height has been changed three times so.
@Pepsi wrote:
It’s just hard to see these high rise projects really happening when so many of them have been rejected in the past.
They have planning already, therefore they will be built. There are some talks going on about the U2 tower. The below may be of interest:
DDDA accused of arrogance
Sunday, November 13, 2005 – By Neil Callanan
The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) has been accused of being “breathtaking in its arrogance” by assuming that its plans for the U2 tower in the docklands should take precedence over a higher tower planned by developer Liam Carroll, which already has planning permission.North Wall Community Association chairman Gerry Fay has written to the DDDA stating that it is “patently obvious that the DDDA completely underestimated the scale of development required at this location in 2000, when the original plans were drawn up’‘.
“The vision and initiative shown by Zoe [Developments] in fighting for and getting planning permission for a 100 metre tower has caused the DDDA to belatedly react,†he wrote.
“The DDDA were caught ball watching – rolled and mugged, once again they are now playing catch up.â€
The director of architecture at the DDDA has proposed two options that would allow a joint development between the DDDA and Carroll on the site, which was owned by Dunloe Ewart prior to Carroll’s takeover and delisting of the company.
Fay has submitted that both towers should instead be built and the money saved could “go towards the building of proper family orientated sustainable social housing on Spencer Dock’‘.
Minutes from a Dockland Council meeting in July 2005 show that the authority is in active negotiations with Carroll to seek a joint development of his property and the DDDA’s Britain Quay property “which will provide that there will be only the U2 Tower and in addition that the Dunloe Ewart property will be developed only in accordance with the planning scheme’‘.
In a separate letter to the DDDA, Fay has asked whether two towers will be built on Britain Quay or whether a joint development will be carried out.
He has also asked for the details of any agreement reached between the DDDA and Carroll including the price paid and the terms and conditions
@jdivision wrote:
Sunday, November 13, 2005 – By Neil Callanan
North Wall Community Association chairman Gerry Fay
“] in fighting for and getting planning permission for a 100 metre tower has caused the DDDA to belatedly react,” he wrote.
“Fay has submitted that both towers should instead be built and the money saved could “go towards the building of proper family orientated sustainable social housing on Spencer Dock’‘.
Not too much left to the imagination in terms of Fay’s motivation to get the booty in the form of houses into his own turf nor his accuracy in that Carroll has effectively killed what was a Dunloe scheme and very much a Noel Smyth play.
I’m not so sure that two towers should be built literally on top of each other as they would probably look jumbled in the context of such a low skyline elsewhere; however either would be a good addition I feel.
@GregF wrote:
Here’s another rendering of the proposed U2 tower.
That’s beautiful. The best rendering I’ve seen of it so far. Does any one have any idea when construction of these various approved landmark buildings will actually commence?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
