Dublin skyline

Hi kaz,

What sort of time-scale are you looking at (ie: Dublin since 1800 or just late 20th century etc?) and what Cities are you comparing it to? Also, are you looking at possible future developments, or is it just an examination of how it actually looks now? Sounds interesting anyway.

what skyline? lol. we need a good few high rise buildings to give dublin city a proper skyline. when i say high rise i mean 30-40 storeys. for example the eire tower. anyway to answer your question kaz… i quite like one georges quay plaza. i dislike millennium tower.

🙂

Watch the birdies. Duck for cranes.

You could also include the Shay Cleary ‘Santry Cross’ scheme that I think is about 16-17 Storeys. Sadly most tall proposals in Ireland have been kicked to touch by Board Planala for example Spencer Dock, the modernised Georges Quay by american crowd and Smithfield complete with the big glass viking boat.

Also the Omuire Smyth scheme for the docks that got dropped after it was given planning.

Pretty depressing really

hey kaz, im in the same boat as you as i am doing my dissertation on skyscrapers, and a shorter version concentration on dublin. the problem with dublin is it doesnt have a skyline to be proud of. may i suggest you take a walk along the river liffy down towards the docklands. and even get in touch with the dublin docklands authority as they want a limit of five to six story buildings which face directley onto the liffy.

Personally, I find that quite reasonable, If a large amount of High RIse buildings were aloud alongside the Liffey, they would only serve to separate the quays and campshires from the rest of the City. Such a state of affairs would limit the growth of the Docklands as a living city quarter, rather than a showpiece of architecture. The current approach of allowing a few landmark buildings is recommended.

II’m currently doing my thesis on Imperial monuments in Belfast and Dublin, looking specifcally at how the Spire has replaced Nelson’s pillar. When DublinCorporation relaunched the competion, the pillar project ,one of the top requirements for entries was that they had to have a strong vertical axis. This is because Dublin Corp. are attempting to piece a skyline skyline together for us!!

Here’s one I took a few weeks ago. Stitched them together quickly for the thread.

Dublin’s skyline.

I’ve been looking at some of Dan Heller’s skyline pictures. They’re quite impressive compared to my dismal picture.

Anyone recognise that building in the bottom right of the last of Dan Heller’s photos? The photo only includes a bit of it. I think that photo was taken from the Sky bar or whatever it is bar at the top of the Guiness museum. I was up there with a few friends about five years ago and one of them pointed out that building as a “disgrace” (being modern) while I thought it was quite nice. Maybe the one in the photo is not the building we were arguing about. I don’t have the architectural language to describe it but I’d have guessed it was built in the 50’s or 60’s in a “modern” style – maybe 3 stories?

Looks interesting alright – is it an office or residential, or something else?

Where was your picture taken from Morlan? I’m guessing the Stephen’s Green Centre mutli-storey….
Other nice pics there too – we’ve seen the original and best here before from the Gasometer thread 🙂

Interesting to note how the view has changed, not least with the addition of that heap of junk in the middle…

It is part of the Digital Hub site and is an office block. You will be happy to hear that it will be retained although its interior will be upgraded, it is early 1970’s or late 1960’s if memory serves.

Here’s the city centre from the Storehouse:

That’s much better 😎

I once, remember a story of a boy who grew up with one of the finest stretches of Trout Fishing River, in all of Great Britain, at the end of his back garden,… who later in life, having not expressed any interest in fishing whatsoever, at any stage,… developed a very keen interest in Train Spotting. So I guess, it shows how little your upbringing, surroundings and background sometimes have to do with how you grow up and develop. Yeah, I reckon, there is someone for just about every hobby under the sun,… and I think this website here, proves that point, yet again.

http://users.breathe.com/yorick/potspot/rules.htm

BTW, I notice every one of the above posts/skyline pictures has focussed on the macro scale, whereas, the scale that people are most likely to experience, in the scale described by the skill of the ‘Pot-Spotter’. I mean, the Chimney Pot is more a development of the Classical Orders,… if you were to look at Le Corbusier’s Ver Une Architecture,… he does a quite nice study of the Parthenon, and goes into much detail of how the Parthenon is still one of the most beautiful buildings on the planet. I mean, even if it is things like cantilevered lamp posts, and street lights nowadays, it is still about skylines. One of the Architects, who deserve the utmost credit in recent times, for repairing, or ‘adding’ to urban skylines, have been Coop Himmelblau.

http://www.coop-himmelblau.at/index_frames.htm

They have managed to build in some of the oldest and most conservation oriented urban centres in Europe and the world, and most of their architecture speaks about this notion of the urban skyline. Carme Pinos spoke widely about the urban skyline, in relation to her tall buildings, during her recent lecture here in Dublin this year, at the AAI. I think she has got something to say about that,… as does the architecture of Enric Miralles, who has done a lot for streets in Spain and elsewhere, through his spatial constructions, all of which deal with the notion of silouhette and meeting with the sky also. The Architects who deal with the opposite to skyline, are Architects like Thom Mayne of Morphosis, and when you put Coop Himmelblau and Thom Mayne together, as they did, to do a project for Los Angeles, in an urban park, to build a Concert Hall, sunken into the ground,… you got a building which dealt with the earth, and being ‘in’ the ground, which also having a building, that was exurberant and danced ontop of the ground, playing with the light and the sky and the ambiance,… that was Coop’s contribution to that project. If you look at any Morphosis books, you will see the project I am talking about. Niemeyer, is an Architect who I think has done quite interesting things for the skyline too, in his own South American native part of the world. Even an Architect such as Mies van der Rohe should not be left out, given the contribution he made to cities in North America, surely a Mies building is a lot to do with the skyline, the sense of place, of a city like New York or Chicago.

Architects like Kahn, and even James Stirling tend to be good at working on the ground, as part of the ground and in the ground, giving their buildings that sense of rootedness, in the place, the earth itself,… which is a feeling that I really am drawn to. Though on the other hand, Coop Himmelblau’s stuff has done so much for old cities too, creating what they describe as ‘cats walking on the roof’,…. you get the feeling that if the cat jumped, the whole roof top installation, would respond by quivering, and shaking in response. I was drawn by these nightime, urban, skyline kinds of Architects for a while. I think looking at the recent works of Zaha Hadid is worth while, who is influenced by Mies and Niemeyer. Or even looking at the contributions by people like Piano and Grimshaw, urban projects, or even Santiago Calatrava. Who have all introduced dynamic and spectacular forms in the urban fabric. Gehry, Koolhaas and Libeskind most certainly. . . Depends on how much you want to get into it, but certainly many, many architects have responded to this aspect of cities and architecture,… as much as they have to the more ground level stuff, the boardwalks, the pavements, the streets,… it is good to work the two together, to think of the two together I feel. Getting back to the more ordinary level stuff though, even in suburbia, there seems to be a lot of stuff, on roofs, and people interested in roofs, on the web,… but any of the above mentioned famous architects, would bring you close to an understanding, of skylines, and the contribution of buildings and new architecture in that respect,… certainly Coop Himmelblau, should be a port of call for you. The images I attached are typical of Blau, and what they aspire to achieve I think. More banal but,…

http://www.roofersreview.com/gallery2/main.php/v/Oneofakind/

Can you imagine how important a ‘landmark’ this building’s roof would be for a cold, grey, car-dominated suburban kind of city in the US…. I mean, the Future Systems stuff, or the Libeskind stuff is trying to make a bigger statement, because the site demands it, or the building type demands it, or the City’s major demands a bigger statement, or whatever, but the same effect, should also work in Suburbia, albeit on a smaller level. It is something that has yet to be fully exploited in Dublin’s suburbs,.. In the suburbs, even small landmarks can become ‘big’ landmarks over time. Venturi’s book Learning from Las Vegas would be worth a look at too. Fine collection of roof top objects here,…

http://www.roofersreview.com/gallery2/main.php/v/copperbydesign/

what this does highlight, just like Le Corbusier’s description of the Parthenon, is the scale at which you need to increase things, to actually make an impact, when ‘to be viewed’ on top of a building,… you really do have to supersize things, or they get lost,… that added considerable cost too, when you are talking about materials which are durable like copper especially, which is I presume, why one sees fewer rooftop objects anymore,.. that is why I suggest Coop Himmelblau,… they manage to divert money back into building budgets for skyline aspects of the architectural impact, statement and design. Mies really was the Daddy though, he could manage to divert all efforts in a building design,… to just making some of the most beautiful silouhettes and exterior skins, ever since the Parthenon.

Enjoy,
Brian O’ Hanlon.

I said I would attach a couple of more, to save you digging through their site,… but what always appealed to me about Blau, was they didn’t skirt around the issue of designing for a skyline,… they tackle the issue head on, and sometimes, when that is demanded of a site/brief,… Coop Himmelblau just product the goods better than anyone.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Thanks for those Brian – some very striking images.

Also for the chimney pot website – that has to be the most extraordinary site I’ve yet come across!
Notably the concept of Caminotherapy, it apparently being “the use of chimney pot spotting to demonstrate that an individual has scope to make life meaningful in his or her own terms.” 😀

As bizarre as it may sound – it is nonetheless interesting if you have a read. At least Freud has been kept out of it, given the topic…;)

I am only speculating here, but I suggest the predominance in other posters’ images of ‘global perspectives’ of the Dublin city skyline, has got something to do with people not wanting to express an individual opinion, of what the Dublin city skyline is, or is not, or could be. That is quite problematic, when dealing with environments, if people are taught somehow, not to put mass in their own personal interpretation of their immediate conditions, but instead are forced to stay out there in some safe zone,… where you merely look at the global perspective, rather than risk embarassment from looking any closer than that. The Pot Spotters I think are people who like to view things that pertain to their own lives,… people who have their eyes open.

The quoted piece below is written by John Allen Paulos, and tells you something about games, in which people vote on what they think the group would like. Eventually, if you play this game for long enough, things reach what is termed the ‘Nash state of Equilibrium’. That is, when individuals modify their actions until they can no longer benefit from changing them given what the others’ actions are. I think the above series of posts on the skyline, represent quite a difficult problem in terms of the planning of our cities and built environments,… the planning game plays itself again, and again, and again.

Eventually it reachs a point at which it can’t budge anymore, and that situation is usually the ‘safe zone’ of perception of what is a skyline, imagined in so many of the previous posts. I would have been much, much happier if people had posted one or two shots of Chimney Pots,… at least then it would ensure to me that people were actively aware of the skyline conditions that pertain to their own lives, in an everyday context. The fact that noone showed a picture of their favourite chimney pot, and instead chose to highlight the global panoramic view of Dublin’s skyline, suggests people here, don’t feel too engaged with a skyline, at the ‘everyday’ scale. Noone on this message board, wakes up in the morning and sees the broad panormaic images of Dublin shown in the posts on this thread – Noone.

The Coop Himmelblau architecture can indeed by very useful in a lot of cases in old European urban cores, where the ‘Nash state’ of things, comes to weigh much too heavily upon decisions regarding skyline and aesthetic expression. The Coop Himmelblau work, focussed peoples’ attention back on the everyday, the skyline that was a part of their own lives – the kind of descriptions of skylines, that remain in novels and paintings years and years after they might have vanished.

John Maynard Keynes, arguably the greatest economist of the twentieth century, likened the position of short-term investors in a stock market to that of readers in a newspaper beauty contest (popular in his day). The ostensible task of the readers is to pick the five prettiest out of, say, one hundred contestants, but their real job is more complicated. The reason is that the newspaper rewards them with small prizes only if they pick the five contestants who receive the most votes from readers. That is, they must pick the contestants that they think are most likely to be picked by the other readers, and the other readers must do the same. They’re not to become enamored of any of the contestants or otherwise give undue weight to their own taste. Rather they must, in Keynes’ words, anticipate “what average opinion expects the average opinion to be” (or worse, anticipate what the average opinion expects the average opinion expects the average opinion to be).

What I am saying really, is that most of the images presented above, try to anticipate what the average opinion expects the average opinion expects the average opinion to be. 🙂

Brian O’ Hanlon.

does anyone know when construction on the heuston gate building is due to start? that building was approved months ago.

@alpha wrote:

does anyone know when construction on the heuston gate building is due to start? that building was approved months ago.

The whole site has just gone up for sale by tender so it’ll be a while before anything is built there. Good to see the state (and eircom boo) actually getting the planning done prior to selling to a developer at least the state is then maximising the value of the land for a change

The approved scheme, and what is currently up for sale is not the “tall building” phase of the development. That part is on land owned exclusively by the state and is currently with ABP. I imagine subject to a separate sale due to it’s different ownership and planning status.

Anyone watch the program about tall buildings on BBC1 last night? There was a strong focus on London which isn’t too surprising but what struck me is how we seem to be about 20 years behind London in terms of thinking about the issues surrounding tall buildings. It seems current fashion is that we should have “landmark” tall buildings dotted seemingly at random around the city – at least this is the impression I get. This is a model of development that London has belatedly realised causes damage to existing historic skyline. I’ve always felt we should concentrate ALL tall buildings in one part of Dublin, protecting existing skyline as well as ensuring that any individual tall building only becomes a “landmark” if it deserves it architecturally and not simply because it dwarfs all surrounding buildings.

Anyway, what most impressed me was Renzo Piano’s “Shard of Glass” which absolutely amazing. I really hope that this gets built. The depressing aspect of this is how, despite our new-found prosperity, new buildings in Dublin and Ireland in general contrast poorly in terms of boldness and design with what they are building and considering in London.

Yep…….saw that programme too. It all seems to be happening in London and Britain in general. Even their provencial cities are getting stylish makeovers. ie Gatehead Newcastle, Birmingham, etc…..Thought the same as well that we are lagging way, way behind here in Ireland in shaping the look of our towns and cities for the future. In all fairness London is emerging as the great European city with stylish new 21st landmark trappings too. Illustrious native architects such as Norman Foster, Richard Rogers etc…..leading the way. London has it all; despite the Nazi air raids which obiterated some parts of the city and most of Wren’s Cathedrals, it still has a plethora of old stock buildings and famous landmarks unique to London. Added to this today, the Gherkin, the Lord Mayor’s Office, The Eye, etc. etc…and with the new Wembley Stadium due for completion next year we are left here in Ireland truely in the shade. All we are getting with our building boom are houses and standard appartment blocks. Dublin as capital city should be leading the way for the rest of the country. New emerging Dublin is kinda basic in essence. The promise of a twisted tower in Dublin and a Leibeskind art centre or whatever, we really dont have much to look forward to. Sure is it any wonder that Cork, Galway, Limerick etc… won’t be any better as they normally follow and don’t lead. We really and truely lack ”style” when it comes to architecture!

Check out next Wednesdays programme on BBC1 ”A Short History of Skyscrapers” ….Its gonna deal with the new buildings of Asia.

(Last Wednesday’s programme aptly ending with the eerie tune of Roxy Music’s ”In each Home a Heartache” with Brian Eno on the keyboards)

Any comments?
No prize for guessing the location.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Is that view taken from the second turn off after the canal on the Ranelagh Road?

There’s some great views of the dome to be had about the south city, including from Camden St and various glimpses along the canal.
Always remember Frank McDonald’s mourning of the loss of the view from as far away as Earlsort terrace until that brown brick office building went up.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Is that view taken from the second turn off after the canal on the Ranelagh Road?

Slight correction,

It is taken from the first left turn namely Dartmouth road looking up the second right turn Mountpleasant Tarrace, for the full history of the dome the late Deirdre Kelly’s book on the villages of Ranelagh & Rathmines is recommended. It was errected in 1922 following the fire at Rathmines Parish Church in 1920 & was originally destined for St Petersburg and bought for a song.

@jimg wrote:

It seems current fashion is that we should have “landmark” tall buildings dotted seemingly at random around the city – at least this is the impression I get. This is a model of development that London has belatedly realised causes damage to existing historic skyline. I’ve always felt we should concentrate ALL tall buildings in one part of Dublin, protecting existing skyline as well as ensuring that any individual tall building only becomes a “landmark” if it deserves it architecturally and not simply because it dwarfs all surrounding buildings.

I absolutely agree. As well as landmarks, developers are now automatically presuming they can go for 7, 8 or 9 stories in a 4 to 5 storey area. And they’re often granted by DCC, even though there’s any number of objectives and policies in the Development Plan that protect the historic scale of the inner city.

And they’re granting towers in historic areas as well in breach of their own Development Plan – a 32 storey tower in a very sensitive area at Heuston (currently with ABP), and an 11 storey tower beside the landmark church on Thomas Street (refused by ABP).

The developers redeveloping that group of ‘60s office blocks at the southeast corner of Stephen’s Gn. were all going for heights like 9 stories – and probably would have been granted by DCC only for objections by An T and others.

You’d wanna see what is currently being sought for the vacant site on Upper Ormond Quay very close to the Four Courts – a 7 storey building 😮 , seriously damaging the famous image of the Four Courts dome rising above the Georgian-scale terraces on the quays. It’s on further information at the moment.

Agree also about the lack of ‘wow’ for the stuff we are to be getting. That Libeskind hotel is uninspiring.

you are so negative!!!! , its the 21st century , we can’t suit everyone ? most buildings in Dublin, and most ,7 and 9 storeys dont go ahead ? 11 storeys is not even considered a tower .
we can’t live in cocooon for ever…………
they wont even build proper High rises in the Docklands , so i thinks it some sort of Phobia

Although some high rises can have a negative effect, in most cases it enhanses the area .
Paris can build 7 and 9 stoeys in , most are even built before the 19th century
rvery largw city in Europe have high rises that Dublin would never dream of !
face your fear of Height!!!!!

, i don’t think a 9 storey would have a major effect on the four courts as its higher anyway , unless there was a plan for an awful building. there are some old high , so as Guiness Brewery , poolbeg , buildinjg near ringsend, and some waerehouse
and buildings etc….
i can’t think of the names , they ARE AN EYESORE……..
now i expressed what i had to say….
buildings in Dublin that are so AWful, you really wonder what the hell is wrong with building a 10 storey building {if it fits in well ) in the inner city…. some of us should see the real world.

I’m not against high rise – it’s the way so many developments now are sneakily going for 2 or 3 more stories than the established street scale.
Some inner city parts can take a tower – like Smithfield west side – but mostly tall buildings should be in the one place (docklands)

lol if they could bild them there , with the liffy there its the perfect opportunity to have high rises there , people say that its to high to build high ries in the docklands , 16 to 20 storys is not montrous, Europeans would laugh at us for thinkig that.
we will never get anywhere until there are few decent high rises for a certain area (or planned) of Dublin, for it to be acceptable to build without so much baloney! id say we have common 30 stoey buildings in Sandyford by 2070 when we all have high space apartements on the moon!

Ah now Dave – I’m sure you wouldn’t like to see a 10 storey building, regardless of the design, competing with the Four Courts as you suggest.
Think of the cold hard reality of that, impinging on the classic views of the capital’s signature building. You wouldn’t have any objection to that?
The drum of the Four Courts has, an admittedly advantageous, dominant position on the riverscape of the city – this ought to be respected, as should the height of the immediate area of the historic core of the city. Just as any ‘landmark’ buildings of the 21st century ought to be respected by a subservient lower-rise backdrop, so should this 18th century ‘landmark’ building.
The concept is no different.

As for ‘not getting anywhere’ unless we have tall buildings – should cities be rated simply on the height of their buildings?
Should Dublin be littered with tall buildings purely to keep up with other cities, and in the process become just that – ‘any other city’?

Much of Dublin’s identity stems from being low-rise – this should be protected in the immediate city centre, with ‘landmark’ developments pushed over to the Docklands, which by all accounts is the perfect setting as you describe.

i agree totally with you that building towers everywhere is bad planning and i would’t like to see a ten storey building beside the four courts…..
what my point is that this there is a lot of negative attitudes to high rise in Dublin
its is the future of architecture and buildings.
if Dublin is going to expand we will have two choices
create los angleles or build properly with high density and a with high rise areas in parts of Dublin other than the Doclands,
REALITY there are no real tall buildings for the docklands there are all medium height with a least 5 storeys and occaisional 11/12 storeys buildings.
these are Not near high rise or skyscrapers
i wonder what the city’s skyline will be like in 2050
we can’t depend on 4 storey height in the city . its bloody boring
i would argue having a high rise building in the city that looks horrible or badly planned , having it in a low rise residential area.
We can’t live in the past
I would rather proper high rise in Dublin than having a sprawling blancherstown which is already in meath!!!!!
it could solve a lot of the waiting list and prices and even traffic as
high density living works well for public transport.

There’s no doubt that higher densities are desirable and I’m strongly in favour of tall buildings in Dublin. High density development is required to make public transport viable and creates a counterbalance the strong economic forces which support sprawl and the destruction of the countryside and structure of traditional villages and towns in the vicinity of Dublin and to a lesser extent the other cities. These forces are caused by the fact that most of the costs associated with sprawling development are not externalised (i.e. borne by those who benefit – the developers, residents and to some extent the local councils).

Unfortunately, I feel that the popular sentiment against taller buildings in Dublin has been replaced by what people imagine to be a more sophisticated attitude which is that we should dot very tall buildings randomly around the city. This is a failed model which has damaged many UK cities but is one which our city planners seem intent on replicating in Dublin. Instead, I believe a Parisian (La Defense) model for high-rise development would be far superior. It would mean that all high-rise buildings are concentrated in a particular area or maybe in two areas. These areas would be identifiably modern in the same way that parts of the current city are identifiably Georgian, Victorian or even medieval (at least in terms of street patterns). The docklands would have been absolutely perfect for this. It was a huge central brownfield area containing little of architectural merit within walking distance of the traditional centre of the city and it’s near public transport hubs. Unfortunately the DDDA insisted on using City West as it’s “inspiration” for what a low-rise docklands should look like instead of trying to create a living urban centre with proper street scapes and incorporating high rise buildings to increase density.

Dublin doesn’t have a skyline, all attempts to build highrise or semi highrise buildings are quashed at planning stage, the skyline is permanently dominated by cranes building 5 storey apartment and office blocks.

[img]sir%20john%20rogersons%20quay[/img]

@Highrise wrote:

all attempts to build highrise buildings are quashed at planning stage

And rightly so…Local Authorities are great for breaching their own Development Plans – they do it all the time in the country… you find loads of guff about protecting the landscape & reducing the need for car journeys in county Development Plans, but they just grant permission for hundreds of bungalows every year…it’s fucking hilarious
Only when you go to An Bord Pleanala is a local Development Plan abided by…..and so a high building that Dublin City Council have granted permission for in the inner city is refused….

they should be in the one place, like La Defense in Paris

i wonder really what the prob in building a tall building that just might be amaazing , just might not effet the city , i;m sure it would add more office space than a boring 4 storey buildings that dominate the skyline , that height was for builders in nthe18th century , there is no reason why we shouldnt build decent high rises, there is no real explanation for been against high rises that don;t effect the skyline, when we don;t really have one………..

The problem is using appropriate locations for tall buildings. Would you be in favour of building a 15 story office building in the grounds of St. Mary’s Cathedral in Limerick?

The unfortunate situation regarding tall buildings in Dublin is that the people who control development in the part of the city which is perfectly suited to tall buildings, the DDDA, are venemently opposed to anything taller that suburban office park style six story buildings. This means Dublin will probably end up with tall buildings in other areas which are less suitable and will end up with the most boring and inappropriate dockland redevelopment in Ireland (or Britain for that matter).

Sadly how true the docklands represents the biggest lost opportunity ever

@JPD wrote:

Sadly how true the docklands represents the biggest lost opportunity ever

Its strange that Belfast has no problem building high e.g Lanyon place and now the Titanic quarter but Dublin does…it does not make a lot of sense

@jimg wrote:

the DDDA are venemently opposed to anything taller that suburban office park style six story buildings.

This has been (rightly so I think) pointed out so many times, but you tend to gloss over the central point at this stage – is it actually DDDA policy to keep to 5/6 storeys, with ‘landmarks’ shooting up from that backdrop, or is a higher 10ish storey carpet going to be built in these newer phases, for the ‘landmarks’ to stand against?

I found this http://www.merchantsgate.ie , what do people think? There appears to be one landmark tower of 19 storeys. Anything is bound to be better than the bog standard stuff going up these days. Every time i look out at the docks from the train going into Connolly it always depresses me. It looks like there’s nothing there. Even with all those cranes on the opposite side of the river, there seems to be nothing going up higher than a few floors. So much lost potential as far as i’m concerned, but i know other people feel differently.

A 29 storey building called Obel seems to be planned for the quays in Belfast. It looks impresssive. It’s a pity there nothing similar under construction in Dublin. Does anyone know when work is due to start on Alto Vetro or Montevetro, or the ‘The Park’ in Carrickmines? Thanks

Graham, the reason this has been overlooked is simply because this talk from the DDDA about tall “landmarks” is a relatively recent change of tune probably in response to the rising criticism of their model of development. In the fifteen or so years they’ve been in charge, they’ve managed to cover the most of the prime development locations in the docklands with suburban office park style blocks and boring monolithic appartment blocks none of which rise above six stories. It’s bit of a cop out to now claim that this horrible pattern of development was part of a grand plan. Their earlier documents made it explicit that they would not tolerate tall buildings. It’s an dreadful wasted opportunity. Their neanderthal planning model has created the economic conditions which encourages sprawling development (City West, Park West, et. al were all started after the DDDA were handed responsibility for the docks) and is also now putting pressure on the rest of Dublin to accomodate high buildings in inappropriate areas. They have singularly failed to create an URBAN area when a cursory look at other cities that have developed new self sustaining urban areas whould have shown them how to do this. They deserve all the criticism they get. No-one will ever again have the opportunity to implement a grand plan in Dublin unless they reclaim huge chunks of Dublin bay and even then it will be like some American city where the new “downtown” is five miles away from the traditional centre. They’ve blown it big time.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the DDDA may be realising it too with what was to be a flagship in contemporary architecture and modern city life for Dublin and Ireland is turning out to be a non event. There’s kinda an air of desperation when ye see the posters that they have up on hoardings promising the proposed twisting U2 tower and the Daniel Leibeskind centre for something or other. Wow! The Dublin Docks is one big joke of a development, almost painting by numbers for very slow learners. One of Its so called focal point s, Custom House Square and it’s environs etc… is really fucking awful. So much money invested and spent and with so little to be excited about. (Custom House Square will look like Dorset Street in 20 years time)

Maybe Peter Coyne and Co should take a little trip back home to Britain and get a little bit of inspiration, flair and vision. Britain is a shining light at the mo with it’s exciting new architecture popping up throughout it’s land.

The Dublin docklands redevelopment is undoubtedly a shameful waste of what was once a sparkling opportunity, but what interests me greatly is that even the most conservative voices on this board agree that taller buildings are acceptable, even desireable, in the docklands yet the DDDA in their supposed wisdom have taken the opposite view. Why is this? How have we managed to put the most conservative people in the country in charge of one of the most important developments in our capitals history?

What I’d really like to know is who are these architectural Puritans? And most importantly what is their reasoning behind the barrack-like developments that they’re foisting upon the docks? I have yet to hear a good argument from them as to why taller buildings are unacceptable in the docklands. Has anyone had any correspondence or read any literature from the DDDA about this matter?

For what it is worth, Leon Krier spoke last year in the DDDA. Krier is an advocate of a city of between 4 and 5 storey buildings. It does appear, however, as stated above, that they are starting to move away from this model on the south of the quays. I also think that in the early days of development local communities lived in fear and dread of a Canary Wharf type of development.

DDDA think they will have the most stunning waterfronts in the world,

they should start a comedy show ! in the middle of grand canal dock,
THe most stunning flat building you will ever see,
tourist look up at the skylline ??

the developers say ,there it is! not up there down there at sea level?
anyway,
point is flat flat flat square , reectangler whatever boring!

away from the docks , i found a pic of a bid project on james joyce dtreet , near conolly station i think?

@dave123 wrote:

DDDA think they will have the most stunning waterfronts in the world,

they should start a comedy show ! in the middle of grand canal dock,
THe most stunning flat building you will ever see,
tourist look up at the skylline ??

the developers say ,there it is! not up there down there at sea level?
anyway,
point is flat flat flat square , reectangler whatever boring!

Dave, this is actually where buildings of various heights exist and are proposed. You would have a point with regards the north Docks, but there actually does seem to be an attempt being made here to vary what is happening.

Dave James Joyce St was once known as Corporation St and is the continuation of Store St where Busaras is, this area has been redeveloped very successfully between buildings completed and others under construction or planned.

Re The docklands I really think that John Rogersons Quay was the perfect spot for taller buildings as virtaully no-one lived there thus eliminating most potential objections, there is a stretch on the opposite bank on North Wall Quay that should be looked at in terms of taller buildings.

What may happen as time goes on is that existing buildings may at the end of there leases be re-developed as taller stand-alone towers, the presence of a residential element in mixed use development s does however make this more difficult but take for instance AIG House just at Spencer Dock (the one that looks like a giant Pvc conservatory), it is a small site with a floor plate of say 1,500 sq m. At some stage land values will have risen to the point where a taller office building will no longer be marginal.

Sadly I don’t think Dublin will ever get a decent skyline, we are stuck with the IFSC type development pattern becuase no-one had the vision to develop them and those that proposed them were shot down.

Did you see the last of the tall buildings series on the BBC the other week TP? In Hong Kong they featured what must be the most extraordinary property market in the world via the case of a development of what I think was two 80 storey residential towers at the shoreline. They were are just nearing completion after a few years of building, but are already set for demolition as the value of the site has gone up so much that new even taller buildings are more profitable!
From a distance at least it seemed almost the equivalant of demolishing the Petrona Towers!

Yes it does seem as if things are changing with the DDDA on the south bank (as usual the northside left with the worst development :)). Certainly the likes of AIG House are dismal in height terms by anyone’s standards – sure they’re lower than lots of the existing city!

Some elements of and off Mayor St have proved to be a pleasing standard height I think, such as Excise Walk, and that rubix cube of apartments opposite the NUI.
The 8/9-storey level I think provides the best of both worlds – the opportunity for high density as well as powerful tall(ish) architecture, whilst also retaining a human scale.
There’s no little reason why this level could not be achieved as the minimum height for the majority of the Docklands, with ‘landmark’ developments puncturing this.

No I missed the HK skyscraper programme, my loss by the sounds of things, that would never happen here because the initial schemes proponents wouldn’t have the ability to admit they were wrong.

The Rubix-cubed blocks are called Clarion Quay and are very well designed the way they created the plaza for the College and the wide passage to the side of the hotel really provided very high quality amenity space with the minimum of land used. The biggest pity is that very little of what will go into the South docklands will be as high a standard despite having had the opportunity to learn from this development.

Regarding scale I couldn’t agree more.

i find it odd that erection work hasn’t begun on either tara street, montevetro or quay lodge. i know it’s not called quay lodge anymore but i call it that as it’s easier to remember. according to some websites these buildings should be well under construction.

is there any tall buildings going ahead apart from the bloody boring 5 to 9 storey buildings that have been built already , anyway i garentee you that those building will be knocked in 20 years time if other real developers got their way to build higher buildings as the land values go up, and when there is know room in Dublin city centre , we will build in laois as the salution to our overcrowding, a never ending irish problem when it comes to anything they build!!!!! build first plan later , im sure blancherstown can have more sprawling estates
“when we get more money from developers building huge office park we will get money to spend building are infastructure with a few pot holes filled in” …………..

@alpha wrote:

i find it odd that erection work hasn’t begun on either tara street, montevetro or quay lodge. i know it’s not called quay lodge anymore but i call it that as it’s easier to remember. according to some websites these buildings should be well under construction.

does anyone actaully know what the story is with Tara St I assummed it was the dart upgrade which was stalling that building

Well considering Tara St has recently been upgraded from cattle shed to hay barn, whatever happens it seems unlikely the station itself will get much treatment as part of the grander office scheme 🙁

😀 well thats is very irish is’nt it, im sure they will develop it when we have the altalntic tunnel is built and it will problay connect to Dublins grand intergrated public transport by then

@dave123 wrote:

😀 well thats is very irish is’nt it, im sure they will develop it when we have the altalntic tunnel is built and it will problay connect to Dublins grand intergrated public transport by then

an atlantic tunnel maybe…but a working public transport system in dublin would be pushing it way too far 😀

😀 lol……. when our public transport is finsihed , we should all organaise a bunngee jump off the dart bridge over the liffey, anyone interested?? dis date will be sometime in the next century ! 😀 to celebrate

Planning permission has been granted for a 32-storey building in Dublin.

The building, which will be the State’s tallest, is part of a development planned by the Office of Public Works near Heuston Station at Kilmainham in Dublin.

An Board Pleanála gave the go-ahead for the developement this morning.

The proposed development includes 197 residential units, offices, a museum building, a health club, restaurants, a pub, a childcare facility, an educational facility and an observation desk.

The lowest three floors of the 32-storey building will be used as a restaurant while 28 floors are for residential use. There will also be a public observation desk on the top floor.

At its highest point the building will be 140.55m above sea-level.

The board ruled against its own inspector and passed the development by 5 votes to 2. It said the high quality of the design involved was a factor in the decision.

ireland.com 15062005

@ewanduffy wrote:

Planning permission has been granted for a 32-storey building in Dublin.

The building, which will be the State’s tallest, is part of a development planned by the Office of Public Works near Heuston Station at Kilmainham in Dublin.

An Board Pleanála gave the go-ahead for the developement this morning.

The proposed development includes 197 residential units, offices, a museum building, a health club, restaurants, a pub, a childcare facility, an educational facility and an observation desk.

The lowest three floors of the 32-storey building will be used as a restaurant while 28 floors are for residential use. There will also be a public observation desk on the top floor.

At its highest point the building will be 140.55m above sea-level.

The board ruled against its own inspector and passed the development by 5 votes to 2. It said the high quality of the design involved was a factor in the decision.

ireland.com 15062005

has the tide turned…finally??

has work started on the spencer dock development yet? also… i see from a picture of this development that there will be a couple of taller buildings in it. how tall will the tallest one be? any detailed pictures?

11 storeys

thanks for the info. somehow i thought one of them would be at least be 16 storeys. it is hard to tell though from the pictures i’ve seen.

I think one 60m is mooted, but generally the plan is higher than IFSC 2 but not on the “tower” front

indicative images:

http://www.stw.ie/Projects/Project.asp?id=4

just got an email from treasury holdings. according to the email construction work on alto vetro is due to start in september/october 2005.

I can’t give a link to it because http://www.ddda.ie is down at the moment but there’s a PDF document on the site somewhere which outlines the plans for Spencer Dock.

The document is a witness to the DDDA’s inexplicable fixation with limiting building height. Most of the Spencer Dock development will comprise of five or six story buildings according to their plans. For no good reason that I can see, a residential block is allowed to be one story higher than an commercial block in the development. These 5/6 story blocks will be allowed an extra story if it is set back from the parapet (i.e. hidden). I presume this is to protect the public; someone could easily have a heart attack if confronted by the sight of a building overtly over five stories tall. There is a suggestion that in cases of “outstanding architectural design” they may allow one or two extra stories; if the current state of the north docklands reflects their taste in architecture, then this doesn’t promise much for me. I’m sure a fortune will be spent on high quality fitting of the public areas in this new development only to extend the lifeless, soulless IFSC eastwards. It’s odd if you go past George’s Dock; the buildings are both too big (squat, bulky and blocky) so they lack any feeling of human scale while simultaneously are boringly low rise and monotonous so they create no visual interest.

I would have hoped that the DDDA might have learned some lessons from the obvious failures of the western section and changed tack for the rest of it but instead they offer minor tweeks and refinements to their retarded model for urban development and regeneration. A great opportunity to create a vibrant modern city quarter has been squandered. A great setting for an area of modern taller buildings in Dublin has wasted; it now looks like Dublin will end up with oddball tall buildings dotted at random around the city. The initial mistake with the IFSC was almost understandable; the boom hadn’t really sunk in at that stage and getting anything at all built down there must have seemed like a “win”; compounding the mistake is unforgivable.

I think the DDDA might be realizing how shite and unimpressive the overall impact of the Dublin docks is. In the Irish Times this morning there is a report saying that they intend to raise the height of a proposed tower to 100 metres down nearby the Point Depot. This is to give a gateway effect with the proposed U2 tower across the way at Britain quay which has been raised in height to 100 metres as well. Exciting stuff!

Who set the standard of 6 floors for all blocks in IFSC 2 and the docklands? ABP, DDDA?

btw jimg – i’m guessing the reason residental is allowed a floor more is that the floor heights are the smaller, 7 stories of residental and 6 of offices are roughly the same height.

It really boils my blood. I would have been happy with a floor height of at least 8/9. That should be the absolute minimum.

Spencer Dock is a suburban business park, it wouldn’t look out of place on the outskirts of some provincial US city. It’s a pure waste.
The DDA has destroyed this opportunity to redefine the city for the 21st Century. What I don’t understand is why this was not greeted with the outcry and horror and dark mutterings from the Taoiseach that Kevin Roche’s scheme was.
I do think the docklands needs to be much higher density if it’s to create the critical mass of population needed to support the kind of shops, restaurants etc that would turn it into a lively urban quarter. I think the area would have to generate its own activity and buzz before you get people venturing what is a fair distance outside the established city centre.The low-rise extended IFSC is a bleak, soulless case in point.
Two towers plonked on the waterfront is lip-service to providing some skyline interest for this terrible scheme.

I diasgree I think that the present plan for Spencer Dock is a lot better than 90% of the other schemes proposed for the area the 02 building almost directly opposite is real suburban office park territory.

What do you all think of the Montevetro block? Not sure I like the top two floors much, a bit boring. I don’t know if this is even going ahead. They haven’t even gotten rid of the burnout warehouse on the site there.

And what about the Alto Vetro building. I see they have boared off that whole site, wonder if they’re going ahead with it,

Have to say I agree with your observations on Montevetro. Its very clumsy looking. In fact I think the whole building itself is terrible…anywhere architecture strikes again. Alto Vetro (whats with all these Italian names) is much better. I think its holarious that it will occupy such a small site. I would imagine this is going ahead as the original buildingon the site was demolished last year. Perhaps they are waiting for more details on the new MacMahon Bridge before they start construction.

Yeah I think its a bit dissapointing how uninspiring the whole Docklands scheme is although it is quite a pleasant area from ground level. There are plenty of good elements in the completed schemes but a bit more height and variety of would have been welcome. The diagram with the IT article highlights this very starkly I thought.. I think the new tower at the Point Village (note to architects: can we please move away from these dreadful generic names for schemes) should go higher. Interesting that the original height was set by the then Minister of Environment (Dempsey). Might answer your question Morlan. Its astounding how much intereference from national politicians there is in the planning process. Like he had nothing better to be getting on with!

i think montevetro is a bit ugly and boring. as for quay lodge it is meant to be going ahead in september/october according to an email i received from treasury holdings.

An email from the DDDA regarding Spencer Dock density (or lack thereof).

It is the Authority’s objective to secure a high density of development on the Spencer Dock site in line with Government guidelines and the Docklands Area Master Plan. The development is up to 9 storeys of residential along the quayside and 10 storeys towers along the canal, with a 44m high (12 storeys) landmark building in the centre of the site. The National Conference Centre will also be 42m in height fronting onto the quays.

Hmm, nothing I didn’t know already. 12 stories is hardly a landmark tower either. They should double the height.

The following diagram gives us a good idea of building height for Spencer Dock and Point Village. A depressing 4/5 floors for the majority.

“In promoting the central spine on Major Street, it is recognised that buildings should be of particular urban scale which give importance to the street and clearly enlose the major spaces at Station Square and Point Square.”

I don’t get it. In promoting the central spine (Major St.) surely the buildings should be generaly higher than 5 floors. :confused:

Spencer dock will work well most of the buildings will feature setbacks bringing the height up, critically it will be a pleasant user environment where all the buildings have unshadowed natural light. There is no question in my mind that this development is a lot better than the application that was refused in 2000.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Spencer dock will work well most of the buildings will feature setbacks bringing the height up, critically it will be a pleasant user environment where all the buildings have unshadowed natural light. There is no question in my mind that this development is a lot better than the application that was refused in 2000.

What was refused, Thomond? I’m not saying that the development is all bad, of course not. Most of the developments of of very high quality and I like them.. just wished it was a tad denser.

how can 10 storeys be considered a tower? it makes me laugh. i agree. they really do need to go higher in that area. at present it is so flat.

@Morlan wrote:

What do you all think of the Montevetro block? Not sure I like the top two floors much, a bit boring. I don’t know if this is even going ahead. They haven’t even gotten rid of the burnout warehouse on the site there.

And what about the Alto Vetro building. I see they have boared off that whole site, wonder if they’re going ahead with it,

what is that tallish brown building to the left of alto vetro?

@alpha wrote:

what is that tallish brown building to the left of alto vetro?

I’m not sure. It looks like an early 20th century industrial block. I quite like it.

It’s simply known as “The tower” and yes it was/is an industrial building but is mainly used for crafts/restaurants now. The Trinity (formerly IDA) Enterprise Centre was built around it. I work about 50m from it, so i can let yee know when work on nearby towers begins and post some photos.
I’ll be very interested to see how they actually construct alto vetro. The site is incredibly small – footprint is about that of a 3bed semi, and there isn’t anywhere for them to put stores/machinery. I imagine given this fact it will probably need to be substantially prefabricated and just hoisted/assembled on site… we will see!

thanks for the info. i like it too. as for alto vetro, i’m looking forward to construction starting soon. let’s hope the info i got about it is true and that construction starts then.

@CiaranMurphy wrote:

It’s simply known as “The tower” and yes it was/is an industrial building but is mainly used for crafts/restaurants now. The Trinity (formerly IDA) Enterprise Centre was built around it. I work about 50m from it, so i can let yee know when work on nearby towers begins and post some photos.
I’ll be very interested to see how they actually construct alto vetro. The site is incredibly small – footprint is about that of a 3bed semi, and there isn’t anywhere for them to put stores/machinery. I imagine given this fact it will probably need to be substantially prefabricated and just hoisted/assembled on site… we will see!

I was just going to ask what those red brick buildings were. They take up a massive amount of space there, an absolute goldmine. I’m sure in the next 5 years they will be flattened and swallowed by luxery apartments.

You’re right about the Vetro footprint. I was inspecting it the other day and it I find it hard to believe a tower could fit there.

Ever since that rendering of the Alto Vetro was first posted months ago, no matter what way it is viewed I have found it equally as poor as the other one: it looks like a Benidorm apartment block – with net curtains.

Does anyone have a better image that proves just how wonderful it really is?!

@alpha wrote:

how can 10 storeys be considered a tower? it makes me laugh. i agree. they really do need to go higher in that area. at present it is so flat.

Equally a wall of tall bland structures would fail; in three words selective design quality

😡 Its bloody awful, aaaagggghhhhaa! 😡

Its gaudy, rigid, square, monolithic, industrial and bland, for god’s sake, DDDA say they are designing one of the best waterfronts in the world, the actions don’t prove the words :rolleyes:

If they are going to put up a building that high, then it should dress to the nines! 😡

Even something like colour a bit of boldness??

The only tower I like on the entire DDDA plans is the U2twisting tower, and the tower is increased from the current proposal of 60 metres to a mere 100metres, which is good, as its a well designed and designed by a famous architects, in that case in can be as high, as it pleases

When your putting a high rise up, good or ugly it WILL BE SEEN, so I cannot understand there are making the same mistakes again, I-e Hawkins house 😡 they look like cousins as the new one proposed – Alto vetro and the other one

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Alto Vetro

I disagree AltoV is perfect for both its relationship with Zoe’s first architect designed building and its ability to use site constraints as an advantage. For me it is the bland use of portland in Montevetro that fails terribly it is Shay Cleary’s Santry Cross without the redemtive quality of the podium that gave the Santry Cross scheme a certain ‘Man from Uncle’ charm.

I have found all the Treasury Holdings & Anthony Reddy high-rise plans for Dublin to be utterly disappointing. They baste in banality and look like the left-overs from a Benidorm developer’s wet-dream. I’m sorry but Dublin deserves better! It’s not as though Treasury don’t have the money to back up a quality design – nor Mr. Reddy lacking in talent to produce one.

In my mind the Craig Henry-design (U2 Tower) remains the best proposal so far – now that SJR by OMS and Dunloe Ewart is out the window.

Heuston Gate, Santry Cross and the rejected proposal for the Players-site were also let downs. That’s my opinion, but it’s because I know the Irish architectural community is brimming with talent and imagination – and if Dublin is going to embrace high-rise it should do it with a little style.

Yes but it was designed by Shay Cleary and not Toni Ready

http://www.homanobrien.ie/housing02.html

Click the next icon to get toni in full flight

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Does anyone have a better image that proves just how wonderful it really is?!

Here’s a slightly enhanced version.

I’m not entirely sure about this tower either. Actually it looks like Liberty Hall in disguise – all it needs is the Chineseish roof. Ah it’s not that bad really, it doesn’t scream awful to me just yet.

Wonder what they’ll do to that white floating box. I don’t like it, terribley bland. They should paint each square a different colour of the spectrum.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Yes but it was designed by Shay Cleary and not Toni Ready

http://www.homanobrien.ie/housing02.html

Click the next icon to get toni in full flight

Thanks Thomond Park 🙂 – know about SCA and Alto, but had the 32-storey Treasury disaster in the back of my mind when thinking about that post. Shudder! 🙁

There was an image of that up in one these threads not so long ago – what an awful proposal. Must seek out that image again to remind myself of how a building shouldn’t look.

the amazing thing about this building is the footprint, it was a single house before! they can’t be getting much more than a unit a floor. tcd must be thrilled to have that height established so close to the innovation centre.

What’s happening with 35/35a Barrow St. ?

I did a search and found two developments under the same address. I don’t know what the status is of either.

The 7 story office block is incredibly boring. The highrise is over the top and I can’t see it ever being built here. I’d have to say though, I’m so anxious for anything skyscraperish they should go ahead with it!

They all are like cousins to the Liberty hall and Hawkins house ! 20 / 30 years span it took to start the whle idae of high rises , yet most are still dreary and drabby. sorry, they really look boring for this day and age,

the one above looks way out of proportion, and reminds me of something in Hong Kong !
Whats going on wth architecture? these propasals are really nasty.

Morlan, it grey and bland,not something i’d show to anybody in a hurry, c’mon its terrible

@Thomond Park wrote:

Yes but it was designed by Shay Cleary and not Toni Ready

http://www.homanobrien.ie/housing02.html

Click the next icon to get toni in full flight

This is a terrible concoction…….if it looks as bad as that in the render it would really look awful if it were built.

Is it Alto Vetro or Ardmore that you consider to be a terrible concoction?

Both concoctions in the photo……the tower on th right and the cube on the left.

Lets say when the Custom House was first built in an empty environment it had a good aesthetic impact . These newer buildings don’t have that certain appeal…..given too that the tower has height.

@GregF wrote:

Both concoctions in the photo……the tower on th right and the cube on the left.

Lets say when the Custom House was first built in an empty environment it had a good aesthetic impact . These newer buildings don’t have that certain appeal…..given too that the tower has height.

The “cube on the left” is already there as the waterways interpretive centre – I believe it won awards when constructed during the 1990s. The tower is the proposed treasury project – I don’t think it’s that bad at all

I’m not quick enough at all these days

Here is an image of the cube:
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/grand_canal_docks/waterways_lge.html

It really does go to show just how distorted renderings can make images, this cube does I think everyone will agree look better in the flesh than the render and I’m sure if the tower existed and the cube was proposed that this relationship would be reversed.

I like Alto Vetro because it is not trying anything complicated and due to its extremely slender profile will constitute a landmark without having the bulk to dominate the surrounding skyline. The two tall buildings at 35 Barrow St will I imagine face extreme difficulty in planning and this is I think more on the basis of fenestration than scale. It will be interesting to see what Dunne comes up with for the former Bolands site.

@Morlan wrote:

What’s happening with 35/35a Barrow St. ?

The highrise is over the top and I can’t see it ever being built here. I’d have to say though, I’m so anxious for anything skyscraperish they should go ahead with it!

There’s the ugly bugger! This is Candourity Ltd (Treasury Holdings) 32-storey plan for Barrow Street design by Reddy Associates. It’s a hideous scheme – the worst of Benidorm!

Morlan – I can’t understand that logic, are you so anxious for a ‘skyscraperish’ structure, as you put it, that you’d be willing to compromise the long-term quality of the city’s skyline??? :confused:

This is the sort of building people will look back on and say “What were we thinking?” I get anxious myself regarding developments in Cork, and am fully supportive and enthusiastic for high-rise plans there – but were this proposed for the city, irrespective of its height, location, usage etc – I would not be happy about seeing this one get the go-ahead. The location in this instance is good, and I don’t have a problem with it’s scale – but look at it! As I’ve said before, Dublin can do better. Are Treasury hoping the current enthusiasm for high-rise will sweep away the sense of planners and aid them in greenlighting this 2nd rate scheme???

(No offence meant either Morlan – just curious. 😮 )

I agree Morlan…the arguement that ‘I dont care what they build a long as its highrise’ is nonsensical. You are also contradicting your apparent desire for good quality architecture. A similar arguement led to the development of all the ugly 60s and 70s additions to the city that so many people decry such as Hawkins House, College House and the ESB offices on Fitzwilliam St – I dont care what they build (or replace in these cases) as long as it looks ‘modrin’.

The Barrow St scheme is truly awful and a testament to the fact that so much new building in the city is developer-led rather than part of a controlled planning framework. Linking to other arguements, would the developer come back in 10 years time to assess how the building has fared and whether in hindsight it was the best design he could have promoted for this site. I dont think so!

Yes the enterprise centre is an absolute goldmine.
Trinity bought it from the IDA in 1999 at a price well below market value… they want it for incubation units/campus companies… but as far as I know there was a stipulation on the sale that any preexisting companies could not not be thrown out (we’re still here anyway).
Dunno if they can change its usage – might have to be rezoned, but yes its a goldmine.

It would only have to be rezoned if a change of use was sought from Z6 enterprise i.e. offices to residential; it should be redeveloped as part of an integrated plan on a phased basis as leases run out; given its proximity to the transport nodes at Pearse and Barrow St. Most of it is two storeys which isn’t sustainable given its location and there is virtually 50% of the site in surface parking.

I suspect developmental pressure will force a redevelopment soon enough. Doesn’t Z6 allow a certain percentage of residential?

Id like to see that Altovetro scheme updated to include the new Grand Canal develpments across the street. It would give it a better context.

A certain number of Z6 plots were rezoned Z10 to permit a wider range of mixed use development, making it important that the remaining Z6 lands are available to service the employment requirements of the City.

Residential is open for consideration but is seen as ancillary to their primary use as employment zones.

the one above looks way out of proportion, and reminds me of something in Hong Kong !

I have to agree, that 35 A barrrow street thing, reminds me of Hong Kong infill. Though I’d like to see something tall built on this site, the current proposal just isn’t up to scratch. Its an infill design masquerading as a landmark. 🙁

Anyway, below is one of my Hong Kong holiday snaps for comparison. I think it would look right at home here 😀

@lexington wrote:

There’s the ugly bugger! This is Candourity Ltd (Treasury Holdings) 32-storey plan for Barrow Street design by Reddy Associates. It’s a hideous scheme – the worst of Benidorm!

Morlan – I can’t understand that logic, are you so anxious for a ‘skyscraperish’ structure, as you put it, that you’d be willing to compromise the long-term quality of the city’s skyline??? :confused:

(No offence meant either Morlan – just curious. 😮 )

🙂 Yeah, I wasn’t be serious. That Hong Kong tower will never be built but I hope something just as tall goes in it’s place. I’m getting extremely impatient!

Has the application for the tower on Barrow St. been withdrawn? Click on “Decision”:

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=5752/04

Hope so… its pure muck.

according to a skyscraper database, skyscrapernews.com the tara street station tower is due to be finished in 2009. does this mean that they will be starting construction soon? i wonder. that particular building was approved years ago.

35/35a Barrow Street

WOW that thing’s terrible! It just looks like a big erect penis!
The Paul Keogh tower for Heuston (below), whatever about its controversial location, at least has some sculpting about it. But this one above just looks like the architect designed a floor and pressed copy 32 times 🙁 .

[align=center:jmpeawt7]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:jmpeawt7]

Okay Devin, these durty analogies have got to stop – I think a cold shower is in order for you young man 🙂

Agreed though that it is unbelievably bad – it’s not Dublin, it’s not European, it’s not anything!
The copy button sums it up well – nothing but a structure that houses as many units as possible, just like Jacks Hong Kong towers.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

I think a cold shower is in order for you young man 🙂

I’m not of that sexual persuasion as it happens.

But I think the phallic comparison is relevant ; the tall buildings existing & planned so far in the Docklands are seriously lacking in visual interest & imagination. As said before on the forum the stuff that’s appearing up and down the UK shows what can be done. I am hoping that things like Tara Street have been delayed so long they’ll be subject to a redesign.
And the the U2 tower…..boring!…it absolutely does not warrant a 40% increase in size. What is needed here is something that picks up on the distinctiveness of Dublin that is also distinctive itself – not that crappy boring twisted pointy hat…

A little off topic, but I was on the DART a few days ago and noticed a new office building of about 10 storeys being completed in the Grand Canal Dock area. Although it is a glass box, it looks particularly good – somewhat reminiscent of the much larger glass box that is the HSBC tower in Canary Wharf.

Is it perhaps the building in the lower righthand corner of the above picture?

Maybe the one just below the big tower. I think it might be this:

http://www.treasuryholdings.ie/development/project_detail.asp?id=123&category=Office&cat=3

Nope.. it’s neither of those he’s talking about.

The only one that springs to mind is Google Headquarters, right beside the DART station there.
Is it this one? It’s only 4 floors high on this side but the other side is twice that.

God no! That god awful Gasworks!!!

@d_d_dallas wrote:

God no! That god awful Gasworks!!!

It’s bizzare isn’t it? That plonked right beside a bungalow 😀

I am curious. Can anyone tell me what the new highrise development is to the east of Millennium Tower? It is a good bit away from Millennium Tower and is on the same side of the quays. I can see it in the distance from the Maynooth train. It looks to be 13 storeys or so. I have never been in that part of the city so I am unable to give it’s exact location. It is red and grey in colour and seems to be an appartment complex. It is higher than a lot af buildings in that area. I don’t think it has been mentioned here before. Well not as far as I can tell anyway.

here is a link that i found amusing. check out http://www.scs.ie/general/Char.Surv.A5.pdf to see what i am talking about. it is funny though. can you imagine??? lol. 🙂

Hi everybody. Linda here. Can anybody tell me why Ireland will not embrace skyscrapers? For crying out loud it is 2005. I know Heuston Gate was approved but they won’t go to construction for another 2 years! That is long enough for it to be cancelled in my opinion. This country is far too slow at building highrises. Why can’t they build highrises as fast as they build other buildings here? It is so depressing. I am not saying build them all over the place but do build several. We have no skyline to be proud of. I have visited many countries and I must say I find Skyscrapers very appealing. Alto Vetro has delays. Montevetro has delays. Tara Street has delays. U2 Tower has delays. Merchants Gate has delays. Plus several other buildings have been approved yet we are still waiting for them to be built. What is the problem with building them here? Is it that the majority don’t want them. I am so envious of London. They have their historical building too yet they seem to be able to incorporate both. Ugly urban sprawl is right. Comments?

My thread was removed and synopsis repositioned??? I am new to this site so I am still finding my feet. Anyway, what skyline? 🙂 Our skyline is a spike and 2 chimneys. Something has got to change.

YES! The stance on building high rise in this country is SHOCKING. You would swear it was a criminal act or something! Dublin’s skyline is pretty much two chimneys (which were they buildings would be huge!) a spike and loads and loads of steeples!

Admittedly, there are very few (if any) cities in Europe of similar size to Dublin (Stockholm, Helsinki, Copenhagen…) who have impressive modern skylines….and like us, their skylines are noted more for, shorter, historic buildings and structures. And I’m all for the preservation of old stuff….but seriously, the Docklands (north and south) and perhaps the Hueston area should be developed in a way that maximises the true potential of the land space AND that adds to the aesthetics of a world renowned historic, yet modern city in the 21st century!

One thing that really annoys me is the “no, that will spoil the view when you look down Fitzwilliam Street” or “that will cast a huge big shadow over me all day, every day” mentality that seems to be preventing Dublin’s development upwards. So what, are we not to build of this age where builds can be seen alongside buildings of old? Should we build old style so they compliment the numerous old buildings??? and forget about optimum land usage and era? And should I ask the council to knock down the houses and shops across the street from me, coz they cast a fierce shadow over me sitting room and i get no sunlight after 4 every day….???? Its all a tad silly.

I really struggle with the problem with high rise! Will the stance ever change? Linda has pointed out all the proposals that are on hold – why are they on hold??

I think its slighty ironic that an Irish tourist on a first time visit to,say,New York or indeed London, will gaze in amazemant and wonderment at the tall buildings there, yet when it comes to building them on their home turf, they jump on the opposition band wagon….I dont get the mentality! And its obvious that that mentality is rampant amongst those who decide what to allow and not to allow.

Has Dublin a sufficiently large economic base to warrant a large scale outcrop of high rise buildings. By this I don’t mean one off stand alone apartment buildings like Millenium Tower, but a reasonable cluster of high quality high rise office buildings (in the range of 10-15 buildings within a confined area – 1-2sq.km). Ireland’s economy is probably not big enough to maintain such a development. Indeed, even London, with an infinitely larger and historically more robust economy has a relatively confined cluster of high-quality high rise buildings located within the City and another cluster in the docklands. While building building like these would help attract foreign investors, the relatively modest size of Ireland, Dublin and the Irish economy are factors which must be taken into account. Of course, this is not to excuse or explain away the lack of vision of the planning authorities.

Come to Dublin 15 for some high rise :D. Seriously though, it seems FCC have a half an idea about densification, certainly in D15. They seem to have grasped it about 2 or 3 years ago and hardly any units being built in D15 as a proportion of total units aren’t in medium-high (Irish high!) density. The apartments are all pretty decent to me as a layman, at least they’re interesting to look at compared to the likes of what’s on the quays near Heuston and people get some green space right outside their doors while still living in a reasonably dense development.

Interesting that Dublin 15 link to the Quinn ‘skyscraper’. It seems that due to the perpetually low cloud level in Ireland any building over three storeys can and is considered a skyscraper in the fullest sense of the word. In which case, Dublin probably has more skyscrapers per sq.km than any other city in the world. This might give comfort to Linda.

I’d like to see buildings of 30-50 storeys going up in some patrs. Why not? If London can do it so can we. Ireland is a wealthy country now. We should show off that wealth like the British are doing. In my opinion anything under 20 storeys is not a skyscraper. I am in no way saying other countries are better than us. I am proud to be Irish. 😉

my house would be 3 storeys in height but i must say i have never considered it a skyscraper. 🙂

This thread and this one:
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3251
and all threads relating to proposed tall buildings seems to follow a familiar pattern.

Most people state that they would like to see more tall buildings because

• they look impressive
• they are good for increasing density
• other countries have them and we have none.

These points are weak:
Things don’t have to be large to be impressive, unless you’re trying to impress an idiot.
High density can be achieved with low-rise buildings and low density with high-rise (as in Ballymun).
Paris has countless impressive buildings, a population density 10 times that of suburban Dublin and hardly anything over 9 floors, bar church spires.

I’ve previously posted a list of social, environmental and practical reasons not to build tall buildings for office or residential use.

Do any of you have any further arguments in favour of tall buildings apart from the three above?

@linda wrote:

If London can do it so can we. Ireland is a wealthy country now. We should show off that wealth like the British are doing

Don’t believe the hype. Yes, according to some statistical research we are wealthier than the british now, but it is like comparing Westlife to U2. We have gotten ‘wealthy’ (or some have gotten wealthy overnight), but will it last. The British economy, while it has taken some bashes over the years has an extremely strong historical foundation – it developed over hundreds of years and will probably last the course. Lets hope ours can to. If you don’t believe this, then look for pictures of the Irish stock exchange trading floor and compare them with those of the British stock exchange. You will see the difference between the two economies quite quickly.

Differences between London and Dublin: about 7-8,000,000 people. No contest.

A number of comments have referred to the low skyline of Paris. Eh – have we forgotten about La Defense, Paris’s high rise business district? Eh, have we forgotten about the hundreds of tower blocks that make up Paris’s suburbs???

Reasons for high buildings:

Aesthetic: allow different forms of architectural-cultural expression (they don’t necessarily have to be ugly just because they are high);
Symbolic: huge prestige value and important for defining a city’s image and a nation’s image;
Economic: useful barometer of an economy’s success – also tend to attract high profile international companies and organizations that seek out prestige buildings;
Geographic: can provide a georgraphical and developmental focal point in a flat urban landscape.

@PDLL wrote:

A number of comments have referred to the low skyline of Paris. Eh – have we forgotten about La Defense, Paris’s high rise business district?

La Defense is a single district outside the city centre. There is a difference between building a bunch of high rise together in a planned layout and dotting them throughout the city. It looks fantastic like a Flash Gordon backdrop come to life. It’s good for the image of France. However it has proved to be a dysfunctional style of building. I’ve worked in La Defense and I soon missed my previous office with its tall oak doors, in a Haussmann building in the 9th. My colleagues agreed and we were paid a premium to city centre rates to work in what we called the ‘Frigo’.

How cool is that?

La Defense is utterly lifeless and tedious. Once you get over the initial awe of seeing these giant buildings laid out like like the playthings of the Gods, there is nothing left. Just huge voids between the buildings. Walking for 800m across bare paving stones to get from one office to another is lonely. Sitting 40 floors up separates you from society. There was no comparison with an office on a Parisian avenue, where I could see and hear the life on the street, pop down for breakfast in a boulangerie have lunch in a Park or get a beer after work in a Zinc.

Happy days

While I don’t have figures to hand, I doubt that La defense had a higher floor area ratio than an inner city district. Huge open spaces are used to frame the buildings, negating the densifying effect of the height.

Eh, have we forgotten about the hundreds of tower blocks that make up Paris’s suburbs???

Nobody in their right mind would want to use the Paris Banlieue as a model for human habitation. Miles and miles of Shitsville. Try getting off the RER halfway from CDG to the city centre and taste the despair.

Reasons for high buildings:

Aesthetic: allow different forms of architectural-cultural expression (they don’t necessarily have to be ugly just because they are high)]The problem with allowing tall buildings on grounds of freedom of expression is that they have a fascist tendency to dwarf evrything else. Very few skyscrapers deviate from the formula of take one shiny glass floor and multiply by X. Hey Presto! A shadow-casting, environmentally damaging, anonymous glass box making a landmark for a shared office building with no significance.

Symbolic: huge prestige value and important for defining a city’s image and a nation’s image;

How are you defining a city’s image if the result is an image that’s the same as every other city – a cluster of shiny cuboids?

Economic: useful barometer of an economy’s success – also tend to attract high profile international companies and organizations that seek out prestige buildings;

Reminds me of the argument that we should promote car ownership because this is used to measure economic success. Average income or GDP/capita are more accurate measures of an economy. Plenty of countries have high-rise buildings with a view of the shanty towns.

Geographic: can provide a georgraphical and developmental focal point in a flat urban landscape.

This is a good point. Tall buildings should be used in this way – the modern equivalent of a church spire. I don’t think anyone should have to live or work in them.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

La Defense is a single district outside the city centre. There is a difference between building a bunch of high rise together in a planned layout and dotting them throughout the city. It looks fantastic like a Flash Gordon backdrop come to life. It’s good for the image of France. However it has proved to be a dysfunctional style of building. I’ve worked in La Defense and I soon missed my previous office with its tall oak doors, in a Haussmann building in the 9th. My colleagues agreed and we were paid a premium to city centre rates to work in what we called the ‘Frigo’

Ask anyone who has worked in a low rise spaced out business campus type environment and they will have the same perspective as what you have just outlined. Lifeless and without any sense of centre or heart. This is not a problem with height, it is also a problem of spatial layout and the socio-cultural infrastructure that is put in place to hold the whole development together. What you describe is not an inherent problem of high-rise development, rather of spatial layout and architectural aesthetics. Like you I also prefer older city streetscape (they are more homely, interesting and human), but Ireland has more than its fair share of low-lying social cemetries with about as much atmosphere as outer space, whether they be business parks, retail parks, or university campuses.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would want to use the Paris Banlieue as a model for human habitation. Miles and miles of Shitsville

I didn’t say that the suburban tower blocks of Paris were utopian models of human habitation – just pointed out that Paris does have its fair share of high rise buildings. I could be mistaken, but the miles and miles of council house suburbia that surrounds Dublin and other irish towns is not my dream of urban paradise either.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

The problem with allowing tall buildings on grounds of freedom of expression is that they have a fascist tendency to dwarf evrything else

Fascism is a matter of perspective. It could be argued that those who favour a 4 storey high Dublin and who block any development that raises its nose above that are also fascist in that they are denying those who might want an alternative vision for the capital city from expressing that vision.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

How are you defining a city’s image if the result is an image that’s the same as every other city – a cluster of shiny cuboids?

One could argue the same about Georgian and Neoclassical architecture (the latter being very much driven by the principle of creating an international impression of prestige and wealth – look at London’s finest Neoclassical buildings which were very much interlinked with the early imperial concept of British order and splendour spreading its prowess over the globe). If a city with skyscrapers is merely replicating the image of other cities (and is therefore not a unique ‘signature’ at all) then surely the same applies with regard to Georgian and Neoclassical architecture – how many cities in Britain have a fair share of both styles. In this regard, the image of Georgian Dublin is an image of a city thats the same as many other British cities. Why then privilege low-lying Dublin (and, by extension, I presume Georgian Dublin) over a Dublin that has both an historic core and a vibrant high-rise cluster in the docklands, for example?

@PDLL wrote:

Ask anyone who has worked in a low rise spaced out business campus type environment and they will have the same perspective as what you have just outlined. Lifeless and without any sense of centre or heart.

agreed. I see no problem with building anything in a field outside a city. 50 storeys, 100 storeys, who cares? Good place to experiment. And you’re unlikely to get much worse than Citywest.

This is not a problem with height, it is also a problem of spatial layout and the socio-cultural infrastructure that is put in place to hold the whole development together.

I think height plays a part. It darkens streets and it isolates and belittles people.

One could argue the same about Georgian and Neoclassical architecture…

We are straying off the subject of the functionality of buildings into aesthetics. Should the style of a building not always be of secondary importance to its function and its utility as a component in the city system? I’d like to live in a well connected, low-rise dense city with high quality public spaces. I couldn’t care less if it were heritage, modern, post modern or pastiche.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Should the style of a building not always be of secondary importance to its function and its utility as a component in the city system? I’d like to live in a well connected, low-rise dense city with high quality public spaces. I couldn’t care less if it were heritage, modern, post modern or pastiche.

Agreed – high quality public spaces are crucial to making urban life liveable. In my opinion, this is what Ireland’s towns and cities need most. I am not necessarily a blind advocate of high rise buildings, but I do feel that they also have a place in the modern cityscape. I am surprised to hear you argue about style being secondary to function and utility (I am so surprised, I hope you have interpreted you correctly). If style is to play second fiddle to function and if we want to keep our cities low-lying with lost of public spaces, I am beginning to have awful visions of an endless Ballyfermot floating before my eyes. I truly hope this is not what you had in mind. Style does not have to be sacrificed in favour of function – a good architect will bring both happily together. If, however, you propose an urban concept driven by functionality alone, then I am worried, so worried that I am sure I must have misinterpreted you somewhere along the line.

@alpha wrote:

my house would be 3 storeys in height but i must say i have never considered it a skyscraper. 🙂

this whole idea of building high rise in dublin is wrong, dublin is one of the only european captals that doesnt contain any real highrise buildings, why would people want to ruin dublins unique skyline, just so it could follow other major cities, what happened to originallity.

@PDLL wrote:

I am surprised to hear you argue about style being secondary to function and utility

I just think any style is OK if doesn’t disturb the function of the structure. Buildings must interact with humans, so if the buildings are so ugly or intimidating or isolating that they make people depressed, then they have become dysfunctional. Any style that has this effect through tediously repeated artless patterns (Ballyfermot), or inhuman scale (La Defense) has reduced the utility of its buildings. Conversely, a style that delights people adds to the utility of the buildings.

If you look at the style of an individual building in a terraced street in a medieval city like Florence, many are merely blank rendered and painted facade walls with holes cut for doors and windows. They are unnoticed and inoffensive. Most importantly, they don’t harm what is a very effective spatial planning arrangement.

The concept of a skyline is American and based on the fact that their cities have little else going for them apart from height. As you drive to Columbus, Ohio, for instance, you see some tall buildings on the horizon. The centre consists of a grid of motorways with a good proportion of the remaining space given over to surface and multi-storey carparking.

You make some interesting points and have obviosuly given the concept of a liveable city some thought. I probably wouldn’t agree with some of the ideas you express, but it seems that you rank the liveability factor of a city higher than the architectural styles that might comprise the ‘image’ of that city. That is fair enough. I have to admit though, that I find some gaps in your argument. You say that if the size of a building belittles or negatively impacts upon an individual, then it is undesireable (e.g. La Defense). Many have argued (since the early nineteenth century), however, that the size of a structure can in itself be a source of inspiration – a physical embodiment of wo/man’s technological, scientific, and cultural prowess. This was very much an element of nineteenth century British architectural theory in which buildings were considered a physical manaifestation of man’s prowess during the Romantic period. More modern day examples would be the former Twin Towers in New York, the Sydney Opera House, the Pentagon, and so on. In short, immensity was often considered to be soul-lifting and therefore desireable. To my understanding, this remains one of the primary attractions that we have towards immense physical structures – whether they be bridges, ships, buildings, and so on. The very fact that so many contributors to this thread have shown a strong desire to have Dublin adorned with 40 – 60 storey buildings suggests that there is some desire within us to build big. Call that desire what you like, but it appears to exist (ask anyone on the balcony of the Empire State building what has dragged them up there). If this is an innate human desire and buidling big is an expression of that desire, then it is a justifiable expression of being human. Why she would suppress it. Nineteenth century literature is full of examples of people celebrating the awe of man’s built environment, particularly so in London. Indeed, you mentioned that the concept of the skyline comes from America – most probably not. Londoners have been climbing to the top of St. Pauls since it was built so as to peer out from what was then one of the highest buildings in London over the rooftops of the city. Virtually ever great cultural commentator who has written on London has mentioned the experience (from Joseph Addison to Dickens). The concept and grandeur of the cityscape have always being topics of intense human interest, that is why I would argue that big buildings are a legitimate expression of what it is to be human. They may overpower, they may depress, but they are an integral element of the human experience. To stifle that form of expression may lead to cosier cities, but it will also stifle a human desire that has been with us since the Pyramids and Newgrange.

@PDLL wrote:

…the size of a structure can in itself be a source of inspiration – a physical embodiment of wo/man’s technological, scientific, and cultural prowess. This was very much an element of nineteenth century British architectural theory in which buildings were considered a physical manaifestation of man’s prowess during the Romantic period. More modern day examples would be the former Twin Towers in New York, the Sydney Opera House, the Pentagon, and so on.

Agreed and hence cathedrals and their modern day equivalents. I expect that the WTC was an unpleasant and inhuman place to work in exactly the same way as any other tall building. The opera house is only about 65m and performs a civic function rather than being lived in or worked in. The pentagon is only 25m and most impressive from the air.

If this is an innate human desire and buidling big is an expression of that desire, then it is a justifiable expression of being human. Why she would suppress it.

Many innate human desires are contrary to the good of society when taken to extremes and suppressed by laws.

Indeed, you mentioned that the concept of the skyline comes from America – most probably not. Londoners have been climbing to the top of St. Pauls since it was built so as to peer out from what was then one of the highest buildings in London over the rooftops of the city.

I meant to say highrise skyline. By the london defintion of skyline, every city has a skyline of spires and rooves.

the Pyramids and Newgrange.

more civic structures neither used for living or working. Pyramids were not the normal type of housing for Egyptians.

Any feedback from other contributors who have worked in very tall buildings? Positive/negative experience? This will obviosuly be only limited to people who have worked outside of Ireland 🙂

Some very interesting points and comparisons raised. The greatest ‘fear’ that there seems to be about building tall in Dublin is that you are automatically stripping the city of its identity rather than adding to it, as high-rise buildings are an international phenomenon; by definition you are globalising, internationalising Dublin.

Frankly Dublin city does not have much to play on as a collective whole – it has neither an impressive semi-universal style of architecture nor a distinctive layout. But what it DOES have is a low-rise urban form. This above all is the strongest element (if not the only element) that holds the city together, that makes it distinctive, both for us living here, and on an international level.
One may argue that this makes the city nondescript – it doesn’t, it makes it unique, and increasingly more so with the ever-growing development pressures on Eastern European cities in particular.

It is a great shame that not even the low-rise character of the immediate city centre is being protected, with George’s Quay having gone up, and Tara St proposed (even if now dead). The fact that not even the Custom House/Matt Talbot Bridge line can be respected by planning authorities in what is a crucial area, whilst scandalously low-rise development is promoted for an area entirely suited to high density and in the process endangering the social and aesthetic heath of the city at large into the future is deeply unsettling and unfortunate.

As for the workability of tall buildings as a concept, I have no experience of them so cannot comment, with the exception of London which on an aesthetic level is most certainly not a route to be taken.

I’m new here so hope you don’t mind me joining in.

I personally wouldn’t like to see 60 storey skyscrapers in Dublin, it’s too extreme compared with the rest of the city. I think it would be great however, if a nice cluster of 15 to 20 floor buildings were built at the docks. These are just mid-rises for most cities and I don’t see the problem with buildings this height.

i think 25-30ish storeys for dublin would suffice. i’d be chuffed with that. yes, in context and in the proper area…

‘But what it DOES have is a low-rise urban form. This above all is the strongest element (if not the only element) that holds the city together, that makes it distinctive, both for us living here, and on an international level
One may argue that this makes the city nondescript – it doesn’t, it makes it unique, and increasingly more so with the ever-growing development pressures on Eastern European cities in particular.’ 🙁

Graham I think you are greatly over rating the sky line of Dublin (or lack of). Although GCD give us a glimpse into what could have been a very dynamic looking modern centre, it is a half baked and monotoumous due to this Dublin obsession with maintaining the ‘sky line’.

What progressive Ireland is offering, is another dimension to Dublin made up of a cluster of high rises whilst maintaining the skylines ‘uniqueness’ else where.

What we are facing now is high rise buildings dispersed through out our city, re Hueston Gate; Jury’s and even Dun Loaghaire for heaven’s sakes.

This is perfect example of compromise (a lose lose situation).

I’ve just cleaned up this thread as it was descending into complete and utter rubbish and slanging.

i was wondering if bord planala has complete control on what goes up in our city or if the government has any part in it? and why are the approved buildings getting delayed? – like linda said… “Alto Vetro has delays. Montevetro has delays. Tara Street has delays. U2 Tower has delays. Merchants Gate has delays. Plus several other buildings have been approved yet we are still waiting for them to be built.” why not quit the trend and build em now?

I know all this talk of highrises is probably getting a bit tiresome but can anybody tell me just how many highrises there are under construction in Dublin City/County at the moment. When I say highrises I mean over 13 storeys. I know about Santry Hall and Belgard Square West but are there any others? I only need info on ones that are actually under construction and any info would be much appreciated. Thanks.

paul, i was browsing the net today and came across a building under construction in dublin city. according to the information i received a 20ish storey building is under construction at 28-29 sir john rogersons quay! it will house the o2 head office. i must say i am flabbergasted. check out http://www.cityoffices.net to see what i am talking about. you might have to register though. it only takes a minute. click on dublin to begin. i must say i find this very hard to believe. i could never miss something like that… could i? does anyone have any more info on this one? 😮

The articles on that site is mostly based on archived IT articles and some of it is very very old; a good research resource all the same even if Jack Fagan plucks figures from the air from Time to Time when confronted by confidentiality

The site has also nicked the http://www.ida.ie logo

i see what you mean thomond park. i was just thinking how could anybody miss a proposal like that anyway. it certainly made me curious though. lol.

Anyone see the proposal for the Point Depot area which includes a tower. Although I am in favour of this proposal, the higher the tower the better too , but it looks like something they built in 1960’s England. We are about 50 years behind in architecture. We are getting rudimentary office appartment blocks now while the rest of the world get gherkin shaped buildings and all sorts of organic forms.

(I think the scheme is designed by that fine bunch of accountants Scott Tallon Walker, hence the lack of style and flair.)

Any chance of a rendering or a link Greg? Cheers.

here ya go…………..http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2005/000163.html

(Think of the scheme we have in phibsboro folks and all those 1960’s inner city developments in Britain.)

@GregF wrote:

(Think of the scheme we have in phibsboro folks and all those 1960’s inner city developments in Britain.)

David Keane’s worst moment

It looks ok I guess. It’s actually a bit bigger than Heuston Gate. What is it with 32 floors? The whole docklands was a wasted opportunity for high density so they should be making up for it with 40/60 story buildings where ever they can 🙂

Has a certain Birminghamesque look about. Not really the way to go in terms of high-rise building. Agree with the commentator who said we are about 50 years behind in this area. It will look like another LIberty Hall in 20 years time. Scary.

I think it was Frank Taylor who said in a previous contribution that many high rises are just one floor multiplied by X. This building is a classis example of that type of building. If we are going to build high-rises, we should strive for better than this. With proposals like this is it any wonder that Ireland’s flat earth society gets so hot under the collar when they hear the word high-rise.

In a previous contribution on the issue of high-rises, I asked were there any people out there who had worked or lived in high-rise buildings (by this I mean anything over 15 floors) so as to comment on the human experience of high-rise living/working. Oddly enough, only one contributor responded with some anecdotal experiences. Maybe I should rephrase the question – how many Irish architects currently working on/planning high-rise buildings have actually lived/worked in one for a substantial period of time. Maybe – in the interests of our architectural future – all architects and planners who propose/develop such buildings should be made work/live in one for a period of a year so that they can fully understand how best to design them.

Yep …I worked on Madison Avenue in NY in the 80s and on the building of Canada House in London around the same time. The panoramic views of the cities and surrounding landscapes were great and I realised there and then that we Irish come from a land of leprecauns with vertigo.

are there images for the buidling supposed to replace hawkins house? has any step been taken in its planning? when will hawkins house be demolished?

i’d like to know that too. the sooner they knock that one the better. when they knock that they should move on to apollo and college house. i have never seen any images of it’s replacement although i did see images of the redevelopment that was meant to happen to it. i guess it was the department’s plans to relocate that quashed that one. oh well.

@ihateawake wrote:

are there images for the buidling supposed to replace hawkins house? has any step been taken in its planning? when will hawkins house be demolished?

Oh I doubt it. AFAIK they only put the building up for slaughter last January. Now, if only An Post would resign their ugly sister building to the bulldozer, we could see one massive development on these two plots.

Does anybody want to see another 15 floor block here or would you prefer something more like 6 floors?

Personally, I’d like to see something of a similar height or taller in it’s place. To be honest , I’ll be sorry to see it go. We don’t have enough Stalinist landmarks in Dublin as it is!

6 floors would be the best option for this enclosed claustrophobic location.

i think it should be replaced with something of the same height or taller. either would do.

It is not the place for tall buildings. Something 6-8 stories. In any case there is no certainty that it is being replaced.

they could put a small park area in there if they wanted to but it would be very over shadowed due to all the tall buildings around it. it is a dark area plus it is very built up. is there talk of opening up an area near there anyway?

I have to say I agree with alpha’s first remark. Keep that area tall. We don’t need another 6 storey building. Dublin has too many of those already and not enough highrises. That area has been tall for nearly 40 years.

I had a good look at this quay the other day from the Matt Talbot and really and truly it is the most horrendous, mediocre, incoherent pile of rubbish in Dublin city centre. You tend to aviod looking at it at the best of times, so it was quite an effort to observe it for more than a few seconds!

With the exception of the Corn Exchange. the Georgians next to O’Connell Bridge House and the Dutch-style Victorian on the corner, I’d like to see all of Burgh Quay completely flattened, including Poolbeg St as far back as Pearse St.
This entire city block is filled with the greatest collection of rubbish that it is nothing short of an architectural landfill.
Likewise George’s Quay out to be levelled.

Not that any of this is remotely possible to achieve, but it would be great to be able to redefine the centre of Dublin with some decent architecture lining this important stretch of the Liffey – linking the old city with the new city as it does.
It is difficult alright on density grounds to knock a tall building and replace it with a lower one, but I think that Hawkins ought not be rebuilt to that height – rather a six-storey structure ought to go back in here to restore the height of this area and reflect that of the inner city at large.

It is not pleasant to see tall buildings rising out from behind the traditional height of Burgh Quay – it is this more than anything that causes the present mess I think, whatever about the design of the crap that’s there like Hawkins or the Irish Press.

Burgh and George’s Quays are a disaster at present with all the rubbish that’s there, the mixture of ‘styles’, the gaping wound of the Loop Line smashing through the terrace, the Loop Line bridge itself cutting the view of the old city off from the IFSC & Docklands, and of course the dross that is the Ulster Bank flanking the Liffey – definitely a contender for the Ugliest title on the other thread.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

I had a good look at this quay the other day from the Matt Talbot and really and truly it is the most horrendous, mediocre, incoherent pile of rubbish in Dublin city centre. You tend to aviod looking at it at the best of times, so it was quite an effort to observe it for more than a few seconds!

With the exception of the Corn Exchange. the Georgians next to O’Connell Bridge House and the Dutch-style Victorian on the corner, I’d like to see all of Burgh Quay completely flattened, including Poolbeg St as far back as Pearse St.
This entire city block is filled with the greatest collection of rubbish that it is nothing short of an architectural landfill.

You philistine – the second best pub in the world is in that block and you want it demolished?

I just knew someone would reply with that!! 😀

I’m going to preserve it in a glass case in the marble-lined foyer I have planned 🙂

Yes, jest away, but I have now lost all respect for you.

Well at least I had some originally 😀

Obviously I refer to the other rubbish on this street – as if I could bring myself to hack down that gem of a place (though have never been inside admittedly 😮 ). Anywhere that has sashes surviving that long in this country is worthy of a blue plaque.

Sweet jesus. You’re just digging a bigger and better hole – how can you not ever been in Mulligans? 🙂

anyways back on topic, I don’t think any concrete proposals re Hawkins House have been made – purely aspirational on the part of the OPW with the exception of a makeover suggested some years back.

If Mulligans is the second best pub in the world … what’s the best?

Are we to come up with a punchline or an answer? 🙂

Has Hawkins even been sold yet, with the last press release just expressing the intention of a sale? – can’t remember…

As for Poolbeg St, to dig an even deeper hole, looking at pictures it isn’t nearly the dump I thought it was – lots of lovely stuff there! 😮
Don’t know where I got the impression of it being lined with rubbish from, must be the Hawkins Effect. Only been on it a handful of times as Burgh Quay or the other mainstream streets feel a lot safer in the evenings when I pass through that area.

As for Mulligans – not being mad into the alchól, frankly I’ve never been into most of Dublin’s venerable institutions! 😮
Somehow I’m guessing interior photographs don’t quite equate to the real thing…

i just received a brochure on the spencer dock development through my letterbox. the brochure talks all about kilmore house but it doesn’t really say anything about the rest of this massive development. we have all seen pictures of the proposal so i was just wondering is that “whole” proposal going ahead or are just bits of it going ahead? from what i can see the proposal goes from the waterfront right back to some railway lines. it certainly is huge.

The lack of height in the Grand Canal docks, or Spencer Dock is what makes them boring. no-one cares one way or the other what goes on there, it seems. No thread has been posted here on the on-going developements. Unlike the spire thread which went to a thousand posts

i have tried to count the number of floors in one of the buildings proposed. i must say it is very difficult as the pictures are so small. i would estimate that the tallest is 13 storeys. it seems to be a commercial building of some sort and it is in the western part of the development just behind the proposed national conference centre. i would love to see a larger picture so i can see everthing in that bit more detail. anyway when is it all due to be completed?

@asdasd wrote:

The lack of height in the Grand Canal docks, or Spencer Dock is what makes them boring. no-one cares one way or the other what goes on there, it seems. No thread has been posted here on the on-going developements. Unlike the spire thread which went to a thousand posts

conclusion: tall and interesting are the same thing.

Here’s an image of the buildings on North Wall Quay, next door to Spencer Dock:

Here are some problems that I see:
The streets are arranged in an orthogonal pattern, all streets intersecting at right angles. So streetscapes resemble lessons in perspective. Tedious
All floors in the buildings are of the same regular height. Monotony.
All building surfaces are unadorned and textureless. Artless
Most buildings are made of concrete and then coated with a thin tile-like layer of stone. This becomes obvious at the corners of the buildings and the windowframes, where you can see the joins in the massive tiles. Cheap.
Many large buildings in the block have been built very close to each other but don’t actually join. Result: tall thin gaps for no reason, Incohesive.
No uniformity of building materials or colour: Looks like a kid’s lego town.
The buildings will age badly. the outer tiles chip and break off, the smooth clean lines look dreadful as soon as they start to weather. I wouldn’t give these structures more than fifty years. Would you?

On the plus side;
It has a sense of place.
It has a pedestrianised wide street and square that is well used as a common gathering area by office workers and students.
It gets no tourists, shoppers or passing trade but it’s busy enough during the day.
It’s bright.
It’s denser than previous building patterns.
It’s still better than the National Wax Monstronsity and the Abbey Brick Wall

@Frank Taylor wrote:

@asdasd wrote:

The lack of height in the Grand Canal docks, or Spencer Dock is what makes them boring. no-one cares one way or the other what goes on there, it seems. No thread has been posted here on the on-going developements. Unlike the spire thread which went to a thousand posts

conclusion: tall and interesting are the same thing.

Yes that’s the logical conclusion but there is some truth is asdasd’s claims. Developments directed by the DDDA are about as interesting to the public as extensions to City West or Parkwest; i.e. not very. For the general populous of the city, what is happening down the docks is of little interest (the development of Dundrum shopping centre was far more interesting, it seems, both to the public and even on this messageboard). This is shocking given the proximity of the docks to the city centre and the strategic nature of the redevelopment. There are many reasons for this disinterest but the low-rise business park style of architecture is probably one. Even if the place were mid-rise (10-15 stories), I think there would be far more interest in the proposals down there. We know at this stage what we’re going to get while the DDDA are in charge and so far it’s been mind-numbingly boring.

Agreed. Likewise I think you have summed up the IFSC Phase 2 perfectly Frank – an excellent post.
Though I would say that somewhat ironically, the architecture, or at least the materials used do tend to improve the further back from the Liffey you go – bizarrely the worst of this phase faces the river!

Just on that image posted above, I walked along the street at the extreme left of the picture running alongside Jury’s the other day and could not get over what a depressing, dull, drab, ancillary entrance-dominated space it is, what ought to be a major street linking to the river. It sems Jury’s is the cause of most of it with its dirty cheap brickwork, horrible aggregate concrete and the entrance to a mulitstorey car park.
Quite a few of the facades are blind, the cheap granite tiles and PVCesque features of Citibank across the road are equally depressing, and nobody uses the street except smokers nipping out from offices – a sad and deserted wasted space.

why don’t people contact the ddda and say all this?

Here’s another aerial image, this time from Google Maps
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=53.348585,-6.242831&spn=0.002854,0.007308&t=k&hl=en
You can see the street Graham is referring to (Commons Street I think) on the left. On the West side of the street is the blank wall of Jury’s cheap hotel, then a multistorey carpark and the rest of the street on both sides is taken up with the the ground floor windows of office blocks. Maybe planning rules should ensure that buildings are not constructed without openings onto the streets they border.

It is quite shaded even though, from the direction of the shadows, it’s only about 3pm. Most structures around there are about 6 floors, so imagine them with another 6 floors. Just double the area the shadows cast. Would this make the streets more or less attractive?

The quays are very noisy and dangerous with heavy traffic in both directions. This spoils what should be an enjoyable walk or cycle. Mayor Street is the main cross street in the photo parallel and to the north of the quays. It’s a pleasant place to walk along, full of life with many shops and other businesses opening onto it. Traffic is light along here. Mid way along Mayor Street and to the North and South is a large paved Piazza type area. A 3rd level college opens onto this area and it works well, although it might do with some greenery or a fountain or something.

Going South from this Piazza is the wide pedestrian street leading to the quays. This is paved in pale stone and frequently cleaned. Few children use this space so there is little gum damage. There’s a hotel bar and a couple of cafes lining this street and again it works well.

To the left and right of this pedestrian street, you can see the patterns made by the disconnected office blocks and apartment buildings. The only green space is a small private enclosed garden for use by the residents of the Clarion apartments (on the left of the image). I think I’ve heard that the apartment block rules bar children from playing in the garden! Correct me if you know better.

Also, amid these disconnected blocks, you can see streets that are used solely for access to the undergound carparks of the Commerz Bank and Citigroup buildings. Only a tiny number of executive have access to these car parks and the land used by these access roads is roughly equivalent to the area used by parked cars under the buildings. Citigroup execs of Vice President grade have the privilege of not having to cross the road from a multistorey carpark to get to their offices, The price of this privilege is the waste of precious space in a densely populated area that could otherwise have been used by the pedestrian public. As they stand these streets have zero amenity value.

I wouldn’t damn the DDDA. Every other office park in the city is a million times worse.

@alpha wrote:

why don’t people contact the ddda and say all this?

Lol. Good idea. Perhaps if loads of people said they are unhappy with the DDDA’s dealings they’d change their ways, that’s if people haven’t contacted them already. I wouldn’t know. Does anyone know when Merchants Gate is due to start? What about the U2 Tower, Montevetro and Alto Vetro? Also can anybody tell me how many highrise buildings over 13 storeys are actually under construction in Dublin? I know about Santry Hall and Belgard Square West. I hope you don’t find these questions difficult. I am just wondering. Cheers.

yep, Frank please forward your post on to the DDDA, along with the image, it says a lot – wasted opportunity.

Yes that’s the logical conclusion but there is some truth is asdasd’s claims. Developments directed by the DDDA are about as interesting to the public as extensions to City West or Parkwest; i.e. not very

Not just the general public, but the interested parties who also post here. The provincial guys have all kinds of photos of new developments in their two enormous threads – state of Cork, and Shannonside – sometimes the stuff is good, sometimes terrible. The new tall buildings along the Shannon in bishops quay, turn up all the time. Nobody has bothered in this forum to go down to photograph anything in Spencer Dock (mostly uncomplete) or the Grand Canal ( heading towards completion). I was down in the Grand Canal area recently and was neither annoyed nor impressed by anything much, so I wont be back with a camera.

If there was anything of interest it would have a thread with detractors, and apologists, but nothing, nada, no interest.

I think the new stuff is probably going to be better looking than the original IFSC development, though, but that is not saying much.

the picture of kilmore house pictured in the brochure i got today looks alright (ish). then again it could be the fact that things are dressed up when going on display in such a manner. 😀 it’s the use of lots of glass that does that for me. i like the look of glass as i quite like one georges quay plaza. it could end up looking a bit bland and boring in reality though. i guess we will just have to wait and see. to be honest… it is an awful pitty they aren’t building taller in that area.

Vicar Street II, perhaps, dunno, I kinda like it,… even though ‘bandstands’ are not well liked amongst the architectural elite nowadays.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Image courtesy of this web site:

http://archinect.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=7&page=4

It’s been well aired on this site and elsewhere in the media for a few years now that the river frontage of the ‘IFSC extension’ – particularly Jury’s and Citibank – is flat looking and could have been a bit taller. But what about the stuff that’s being built at the moment on the other side of the river? (above) It looks like docklands architecture anywhere, but the average heights are a bit taller than the older stuff on the other side.

I presume the stuff being built above is on the Southside? The max pictured seems to be 10 storeys or so. Agian, does anybody know how many highrises are under construction in Dublin at the moment? I know about Santry Hall and Belgard Square West. My son keeps asking me as he is doing a project for school. Any info would be helpful. Cheers.

i have seen you ask that question a few times paul. i can’t understand why people are not being of help there. i wouldn’t know the answer to that myself but maybe some others do. it is an interesting question and i would be very keen to hear the answer.

Paul/ Alpha,

That looks familiar. If I think that’s on the Northside of the river a little bit down from the Financial services centre.

Santry Hall and Belgard Square West are the only (vaguely) tall buildings under construction as far as I know. The 12-storey “Tower Central” in Smithfield was recently completed.

@deza wrote:

Paul/ Alpha,

That looks familiar. If I think that’s on the Northside of the river a little bit down from the Financial services centre.

it’s the southside, between grand canal dock and the river
just saw this link when i was making sure it is called grand canal dock
http://gtx2.net/archives/2004_05_01_ those buildings look like they’re in the spot where that highrise block of flats was proposed!

i had a feeling myself that those two (santry hall and belgard square west) were the only ones under construction. i wish they’d get a move on with alto vetro. it is taking such a long time to go to construction there.

The development in the photo above (http://gtx2.net/archives/2004_05_01_) is called “Dock Mill”; it’s designed by BKD (http://www.bkd.ie/ – click on Projects – Commercial – Barrow St.) and developed by Ashdew Ltd.and is the result of planning application 2409/00. The Montevetro tower will go on the small empty site between there and the train station; this is clear(ish) from the rendering: http://www.treasuryholdings.ie/development/project_detail.asp?id=37&category=Residential&cat=1

Arrived into Dun Laoghaire on the HSS on Friday, a trip I had not done for years. Amazing skyline, nothing but cranes from Sandyford to City Centre. Sandyford and Merrion Gates developments particularly apparent.

sandyford and merrion gate? what are they building there? is it something tall? 🙂

@alpha wrote:

sandyford and merrion gate? what are they building there? is it something tall? 🙂

Perhaps these:

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2004/000274.html

http://www.unison.ie/classifieds/property/planning/stories.php?ca=280&si=1058602&printer=1

are both of these proposals actually under construction right now though? i am very interested in the first link you mention… (the 23 storey tower). if they are under construction, i didn’t know that.

The one at Merrion has been underway for about a year now

“Elm Park” I believe it’s being marketed as…

it’s a pitty the 23 storey sandyford tower isn’t the one under construction right now. i quite like it.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

Sandyford and Merrion Gates developments particularly apparent.

This would suggest it is!!

@Mob79 wrote:

This would suggest it is!!

i haven’t been in that area in years so i wouldn’t know. if the 23 storey tower is under construction as we speak i am shocked. 😮

@Mob79 wrote:

This would suggest it is!!

I asked the question a couple of weeks ago… “how many highrise buildings are under construction in Dublin at present?” I was told none except for the ones I mentioned… Santry Hall and Belgard Square West. Now it appears that a 23 storey tower is presently under construction in Sandyford. Am I right? I can see why alpha is confussed. I am confussed myself. :confused:

I’m not sure if construction on the Sandyford Tower has started yet; I’d be suprised if it has.

Other developments in Sandyford include 140 new apartments on the 7.7 acre site beside the Luas station with plans to build 600 more apartments on the site in the future. The height of the new development will range from six to 15 storeys.

That could be it, i don’t know. I thought KerryBog2 said it was visible on the ferry in! Haven’t seen anything myself.

Don’t get carried away folks, I commented on the number of cranes visible from the sea coming in from the Kish Lighthouse, not any high buildings. Is there a definition of “high” i.e. storeys for a building in Ireland? I spent 5 years living on the 26th flooor in NYC, so anything less would be a come-down (sorry)

I’m not sure if construction on the Sandyford Tower has started yet; I’d be suprised if it has.

I work in the sandyford industrial estate and pass by the site every day. The clearing of the old office block hasn’t started yet, never mind construction of the 23 storey tower.

it did seem to good to be true.

i heard that there is a highrise building going into royal canal park dublin! i saw a picture of it in todays sunday independant! is this true? it is not much to look at. it has no style. check out http://www.royalcanalpark.com for details. follow the explore link and then click on town square.

There isn’t even a functioning e-mail tab let alone a link on that site

just to let you know… i am able to access both plus i was able to send them an email through the contact link! i don’t know what you are talking about. anyway i was just trying tell others about this development.

I think I know where you are talking about alpha. I pass that area on the train from time to time. Those buildings certainly don’t have any style. I haven’t heard anything on the highrise. I wonder though. I am able to access the site no probs. “I” appreciate the info.

@paul lite wrote:

I think I know where you are talking about alpha. I pass that area on the train from time to time. Those buildings certainly don’t have any style. I haven’t heard anything on the highrise. I wonder though. I am able to access the site no probs. “I” appreciate the info.

thank you.

@Thomond Park wrote:

There isn’t even a functioning e-mail tab let alone a link on that site

I’ve just checked a copy of The Sunday Independant and there is a massive reference to this highrise building on the back page of the property section. It is clearly shown. Perhaps this might alleviate your concerns.

Not a sausage out of it

What do you mean Thomond? I too am able to access the link. It is interesting. I would love to see another highrise go up. It would bring a bit of life to a once dead area. The stuff that has gone up so far at Royal Canal Park is terrible though. The highrise “seems” to be a little bit better. 😉

@Thomond Park wrote:

There isn’t even a functioning e-mail tab let alone a link on that site

That’s not nice.

thanks lads. i got a bit of a shock when i saw the paper today. i thought i was looking at a development in another country. i am a bit sceptical about the highrise. i can’t see this being built here. too many houses in the distance to go on about overshadowing and so on. i am confused and as a result was looking for some info on it. is it proposed? is it approved? is it cancelled? is it under construction? comments? 😮

Looks great!! You’re right, it does look like a development in another country, possibly Mediterranean region?

What exactly looks great? The bland IFSC type stuff at the Royal Canal Park website, or the stuff in the Independent – or are both the same issue?

( The website is good, though. Kudos to the web designer. You need flash which may be the problem some people are having).

they are both the same issue. the picture in the indo referred me to the royal canal park website. the website shows the same picture that is shown in the paper and so on. i never heard anything about this highrise being built before so i was just looking for some input. it is a shame not everyone can see it.

Thomand, you need Flash to view the website.

It’s not much of a highrise. It’s shorter than the millenium tower in Grand Canal Dock.

what stage is this building at though? it is news to me. i have never seen a reference to it anywhere else. i agree it is not much to look at. it reminds me of santry cross slightly. i don’t understand why highrises have to be so plain looking here.

I pass that area from time to time yet I haven’t seen any highrise. I haven’t even seen one under construction. That won’t be built. If it isn’t built in the future it is obviously criminal to build tall in ireland. It is obvious that there is something wrong. Why are all the approved highrises unbuilt? It is so frustrating.

Here is a highrise that has never been mentioned before yet nobody will really pass any comments on it or answer the questions put to them! I am surprised. My own opinion is that it should be built. Ireland could do with a few more highrises. That area seems ok for a highrise to me. Is it being built or what???

i sent an email to royal canal park’s website in relation to this highrise yet all i got was a response asking if i were interested in purchasing an appartment. they are saying nothing. surprise, surprise.

This image seems to be the standard for new apartment developments in Dublin- 13-ish-storey ‘landmark’ block, surrounded by mediocre fiveish-storey ones. Santry Cross, Belgard Square, even Charlotte Quay.
My problem with these is that they do nothing to address the higher densities we need. After all, a slender 14-storey building is just two small seven storey blocks on top of each other. Adding an extra floor or two over the low-rise element of all these would achieve higher densities than the inclusion of the towers, at a much cheaper cost I’m sure.

AndrewP – Your comment that the addition of one extra floor rather to the standard 4-6 story block would have a vastly more signmificant impact than peppering of isolated point blocks across the city is right on the money.

The development looks interesting. Certainly of more considerable density and retaining a more traditional street scape that is normally found this far from ‘town’ (certainly on that side). The landscaping on the canal ceratinly looks promising and starts to further bring together a linear park of considerable quality strectching from Spencer Dock West. I am a little concerned at the anoubt of open / plaza space. Generally to be supported of course but I would wonder does the street layout and density support such a large space. Look Smithfiled for example.

Anyway, must walk the Canal next time I’m home.

i was out in tallaght the other day. i got the luas for a change. i was shocked at the amount of cranes in the belgard square area. that area is really coming along with the 13 storey tower already up. it seems to be a very large development. very handy for those that will live there with the luas and the square only a stone throw away. the last time i was out there was last year.

Any news on Alto Vetro and Montevetro? Has construction started yet?

i wouldn’t know. what do others think? by the way, has anyone seen montevetro in london? it looks much better than the one proposed for dublin. our one will look like a poor copy. it is slanted in “almost” the same way!

Work hasn’t started yet on either.

AFAIK the burntout warehouse on the Montevetro site is still there.

has constuction started on tara street? i recall someone here saying it has, and it ihas “approved” status on skyscrapernews.com, is it the same proposal or have a few floors been chopped off for the sake of sunlight? :rolleyes:

Quite the opposite ihateawake – it seems to be dead in the Liffey’s water.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Quite the opposite ihateawake – it seems to be dead in the Liffey’s water.

it a real pity that corner is such a mess at the minute and that proposla looked really well

Any news on Alto Vetro and Montevetro? Has construction started yet?

No.

AFAIK the burntout warehouse on the Montevetro site is still there.

Correct. It is a very small site, isn’t it? The site for the other one is even smaller though – I don’t see how you could get the equipment for a 16 storey building on it.

has constuction started on tara street?

Tara St. Station has been a construction site for about four years, but there’s no movement on the new building. The recent upswing in the Dublin office market might change that.

i hope so. the tara street proposal is very very nice. i love the proposed shape. it should be well under construction by now but we are still waiting. that area is very bulit up anyway. i don’t see what the problem is. it would complement one george’s quay plaza very well.

@ihateawake wrote:

has constuction started on tara street? i recall someone here saying it has, and it ihas “approved” status on skyscrapernews.com, is it the same proposal or have a few floors been chopped off for the sake of sunlight? :rolleyes:

I wouldn’t pay any attention to that website. Several proposals that have been made for Dublin/Ireland don’t even get a mention there. For example, the 41 storey building proposal in South County Dublin along with a few others.

agreed. they don’t even mention royal canal park. i had to do some surfing to find out about that one.

Is the highrise at Royal Canal Park really going up? If so, when is it due to start? The cranes in that area at the moment are far to small to build such a tall building.

No signs of any highrise construction in Ireland yet.

Meanwhile, Manchester’s ‘Beetham Tower’, which was reduced from 60 floors to a ‘moderate’ 50, will be finished in a few months.

In London, about twenty 40+ story buildings approved in the past year or so. A few 70+ story towers approved. Have a look here:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17479978&highlight=london+projects

I’ve actually given up on the whole highrise Dublin thing at this stage. NOTHING is happening. Heuston Gate is a relatively low density building compared to other European capitals, and tucked away in the back arse of the west city centre – I’m not too excitied about it. There’s absolutley no chance of a proper skyscraper in Dublin for at least another 40 years by which time I’ll be probably be a corpse.

@naz78 wrote:

I wouldn’t pay any attention to that website. Several proposals that have been made for Dublin/Ireland don’t even get a mention there. For example, the 41 storey building proposal in South County Dublin along with a few others.

What’s this?

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

What’s this?

The building proposed is over 40 storeys in height and is to be built in the Inchicore/Ballyfermot/Cherryorchard area. There was some talk about it a few months back. I don’t have any pictures though and I don’t know whether it is still going ahead or not. Sorry for not being able to mention the exact area for the proposal. Maybe someone else can explain better. It does seem like a funny area to place such a tall building.

i’m not fully convinced about heuston gate anyway. i don’t believe that this will be built. if we can’t build the likes of the southbank tower/merchants gate/tara street/sir john rogersons quay/alto vetro/montevetro and numerous others how can anyone be expected to believe they will put up a 32 storey building at heuston station? i’ll believe it when i see it. it will be the year 2015 and we still won’t have heuston gate. all the issues surrounding highrise construction in ireland has led me to think this way. i’m sure i’m not alone. that 40 storey proposal makes me laugh.

Architectural conservatism in Dublin??? Just a couple of images which might be of interest. All of the talk about how modern/high-rise buildings fit in with the Dublin skyline, reminded me of an art musuem built in Graz, Austria for when it was European capital of culture in 2003. If conservative southern Austrians can build and accept this amidst an absolute architectural paradise, why cannot Dublin manage a few nicely designed high-rises. Are we that conservative????

@PDLL wrote:

Architectural conservatism in Dublin??? Just a couple of images which might be of interest. All of the talk about how modern/high-rise buildings fit in with the Dublin skyline, reminded me of an art musuem built in Graz, Austria for when it was European capital of culture in 2003. If conservative southern Austrians can build and accept this amidst an absolute architectural paradise, why cannot Dublin manage a few nicely designed high-rises. Are we that conservative????

That building is whacky. But I agree Ireland has to be one of the most tight arsed, reserved, conservative, humourless, sexless places when it comes to contemporary architecture. Look at the new emerging Dublin docks, my favourite example. So much for Dublin been the parteeee city, looks morelike a tea party in a methodist churchyard.

Hopefully the likes of the new U2 tower, Calatrava’s 2nd bridge and the Lansdowne Road proposals, etc… will help to shed this image and fire the imaginations to produce more exciting architecture for Ireland.

Whacky it is and it lights up at night!!!! I am serious. Would this have received planning permission in any part of inner city Georgian Dublin?????????? This is made all the more remarkable given the seriously pernickedy nature of the civic authorities in Austria – this is a society where the chimney sweep has the legal right to enter your home and where the police can reprimand/charge you for using your lawn mower on a Sunday. What does this say about the architectural party poopers in Dublin!

The real point I think that you are making is that regardless of the height of the structure proposed contemporary architecture in Ireland is beyond a few Civic buildings of excellent virtually non-existent. It is not about height it is about measured imagination and this is sorely lacking at present. What sums it up for me is BKDs O2 building nearing completion at Sir John Rogersons Quay the DDDA have a lot to answer for on many counts not least the complete absence of cultural facilities. It remains a sad fact that the best buildings in the Docklands i.e. Busaras and Customs House Docks Phase One were built before this city had any cash. It is further amazing that BKD could design a decent building in 1988 but appear unable to deliver anything decent at a similar waterfront location in 2004.

Exactly, Thomand Park. I am not specifically commenting on issues related to height, but on how far we are willing to accept a changing cityscape that does not have to be eternally and solely defined by one period in its history (ie red-brick three/four storeys over basement monotony). There are new building technologies, new materials available, new design strategies – why not use them to the full. Why should the limits of how far we can go be defined by the type of apartment buildings that were built along the length of the Liffey in the 90s. Is this what architecture boils down to in Ireland? If the Graz civic authorities could allow such a building in the middle of a remarkably coherent and intact historical streetscape that has barely changed for 500 years (with the exception of some WWII damage), why cannot Dublin imagine new approaches for the city and believe me for anyone who has travelled to Graz it is a city with a much more delicate and precious architectural streetscape that much of inner city Dublin.

This is the Bullring in Birmingham, like it or love it, it is equally whacky too. And we go on about the reserved protestant conservative English. They are years ahead of us when it comes to the visual arts and comtemporary architecture.

What I find interesting is that a number of contributors are currently commenting on the ‘largeness’ of Dublin on another thread at this time. If Dublin is so bloody metropolitan and so bloody big, then its cityscape can take a few experimental buildings. If it cannot take a few new approaches, then it is a small town in both size and mentality.

dublin is a european capital and obviousily not one of the larger population centres but nevertheless an important city. and what appears to me to be one of the major stumbling blocks towards more bold, advanced and imaginative architecture is the lack of resources currently attributed to ABP. this has led to a backlog of work etc and perhaps one or two senior staff can pick and chose what they want to examine and if they decide yey or nay, thats it. complete conjecture obviousily but just like a lot of other areas in irish public life, such as health and transport, years of underfunding and bad management have resulted in resources being pushed to breaking point by the amazing increase in capital and success etc of recent years.
a great pity that cities like dublin, limerick and cork are not able to rely on their own ability to decide what does and does not get built within their jurisdiction. i am not sure but i believe that is the case in london and i assume other british cities. i know that dublin city has granted outline planning permission to areas like the north docklands to generate interest but like a lot of things ireland needs to bring herself up to speed.
one good side to all of this is at least the city has’nt been innundated with bollocks no-one wants to see built just so we can have a few monuments to money!!!

@Morlan wrote:

I’ve actually given up on the whole highrise Dublin thing at this stage. NOTHING is happening….There’s absolutley no chance of a proper skyscraper in Dublin for at least another 40 years….

A bit of discrimination please, Morlan.

I think the highrise debate shows the extent of Dublin’s identity crisis. Nearly 200 years of economic stagnation froze the city in the Georgian era until we kicked the brits out and started knocking down most of that. Then we got a bit of sense and filled in the gaps that were left the best we could. Then, a few years ago, we got rich, but were too scared/ unimaginative to do anything except continue filling in the gaps, this time with a bit more taste.
As far as I can see, that’s it. With the odd exception, we’ve no grand Victorian flourishes, no great deco buildings – modernism and much of the 20th century passed us by…
I think it’s understandable that people are getting impatient with Dublin’s failure to assert its new reality visually, and highrise is the quick, easy way for a generation to put its stamp on the look of a city.
With an almost totally flat skyline, obviously we have to be careful what we put up, but we’ve nearly 10 years of a boom behind us and nothing special to show for it besides an increasingly-filthy spike. I don’t know where the problem is, but we seem incapable of taking risks and making bold statements. I don’t necessarily want skyscrapers everywhere but we need to start building to reflect the fact that we’re a dynamic, European capital…

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

agreed…the last thing we need in dublin is a rash of ill thought out badly situated and bullshit buildings popping up but i think the future is not all doom and gloom. the u2 tower will hopefully happen and there are other plans too that aren’t beyond the realms of possibility such as the tower opposite the u2 tower. and i think between these and westgate nerves might be calmed a little when people realise not all tall buildings are harbingers of dublins doom.
and while wer’e at it knock liberty hall and build something modern and aesthetically suitable to spar with the custom house!!!

@PDLL wrote:

Architectural conservatism in Dublin??? Just a couple of images which might be of interest. All of the talk about how modern/high-rise buildings fit in with the Dublin skyline, reminded me of an art musuem built in Graz, Austria for when it was European capital of culture in 2003. If conservative southern Austrians can build and accept this amidst an absolute architectural paradise, why cannot Dublin manage a few nicely designed high-rises. Are we that conservative????

I’ve long been deeply suspicious of people in grey suits with Looney Tunes ties or deliberately non-matching socks.

@t.scott wrote:

one good side to all of this is at least the city has’nt been innundated with bollocks no-one wants to see built just so we can have a few monuments to money!!!

This of course is quite subjective. What is one man’s ‘bollocks’ might be another man’s groundbreaking erection, structurally speaking that is. Sometimes it is good to press the boundaries of the permissable and the acceptable – this is what gives the human race its momentum.

granted PDLL but i was making the point that despite obvious flaws, a planning process and governing board is essential to the fabric of any city or town. i am just a little disapointed that ABP seem a little too cautious with regard to high rise and high density developments.
i thought that the denis o’brien & co. proposal for morehampton road looked great from the one image we saw and would have liked to see more detailed images but a politician and local residentts objected and it is no more. masybe it was too high but i get the impression that ABP tend s to react with a knee jerk rather than face the hassle of proving to opponents and detractors of schemes, the merits and benefits of such projects.
as we have seen by the short sighted and unfortunate decision made by cork county council, planning and politicians dont always mix. i still think each major city should have a say in what gets built and where but the 3 storey rule could have disastrous effects on growth. for this reason and the fact that a lot of money, and the people behind said cash, is invested in development this will probably be fought tooth and nail.
and by the way is there any sign of any movement on the u2 site!!?!!

one other thing, i love the richard rogers tower for leadenhall street in london. i always thought something like that would have looked great in the ifsc by the water!!! could have set a great precedent…..

and finally for now, 32 storeys is still quite tall and i guess we have to keep that in perspective when we talk about dublin. a fella i once worked with told me if they keep building in dublin the country will tip over!!?!!

@t.scott wrote:

i get the impression that ABP tend s to react with a knee jerk rather than face the hassle of proving to opponents and detractors of schemes, the merits and benefits of such projects.

It’s the job of a developer, or his planning consultant, to make the case for a project. ABP won’t do it for you. It’s ABP’s job to adjudicate on matters where there’s disagreement between the two opposing sides and, though this is my subjective view, to represent the interests of the entire country rather than just a particular area.
In the case of Morehampton Road, while the locals may have been well organised, I’d be of the opinion that the building was very wrong in that situation- totally out of keeping with the character of the area, the preservation of which is a stated objective in the DCC Dev Plan.
Another reason for sending the tall ones (if we decide they are needed) to a more ‘blank slate’ area such as the docklands.

I agree that there is a major problem with speed and competence in dublin when it comes to getting something done. I mean consider the ridiculous amount of time spent on building a modest tram system which is broken in two or a train station extension, Or consider the customs house, It’s an absolute jewel of architecture in the isles, even in europe, yet everytime I look at it I’m horrified when my eyes gaze upwards at the dome. It completely ruins the building. How could a world famous tiger economy leave it’s customs house- customs house of all things!- looking like this?! As if there was some shortage of portland to face the dome in- the whole bloody facade of that monstrosity of a new entrance to the gallery is made out of it! There are some nice contemporary buildings in dublin though you have to admit: the tall buildings are not all that bad. I rather like liberty hall or at least I appreciate that it could be alot worse. And what about the Ulster bank buidling- there’s no modern building in europe which surpasses it. The IFSC buildings across the river are nice too though I would have loved to see them sychronized better with the ulster bank- the pyramid’s should be more evident. In fact a pyramid would really look great on liberty hall too. Plus the millenium tower is rather nice. The biggest blotch on dublin must be the corporation bunkers- which are in fact a crime although not as bad as the irish life buildings on abbey street- the architect should lose his irish life for that one. from what I’ve seen of the models the U2 tower looks like an utter abomination to me – how nice one of those elliptic buildings like in london and barcelona would have been there. The Heuston Gate is uninspiring. Sigh- it’s really not that difficult to create a nice modern building. Just copy what already worked. it’s all about galss- concrete is bad bad. Poor, forever ugly dublin.

i dislike millunnium tower. it could do with a fresh coat of paint. i find it rather boring. i do accept that others might like it but it gets a thumbs down from me.

I like the Millenium Tower. It should have been a few floors higher considering its fine location.

Looks better like that 🙂

I’ve never quite seen what people find so wonderful about this building: pleasant yes, but outstanding – not quite…
It seems it was the best of a bad bunch that was going up 5/6 years ago (though miles ahead by all accounts); just the fact that so much developer dross was going up seemed to have made what is quite an average building stand out as something extraordinary. But certainly it’s much more attractive than some of the stuff being proposed at the minute.

It’s always funny so see people’s opinions of the Ulster Bank/One George’s Quay. So many utterly loathe it, while others think it’s the most beautiful building in the city – a glittering crystal palace of sorts. Not sure I’d quite go along with your “there’s no modern building in Europe which surpasses it” ake :eek:, but would agree that the glazing, initially the worst aspect of the building is now the finest element – really quite striking.

Though as one commentator noted upon its completion, the contrast with the Custom House across the river is incredibly cruel. Tall buildings don’t have to be within sightlines of other buildings to have a negative impact – George’s Quay’s massing across the river is quite horrible when one stands in front of the Custom House; it boths steals attention from Gandon’s building and casts a nasty shadow over the Liffey, not to mention over the Custom House itself during the winter when the sun is lower – something that’s never been mentioned.
As for the ubiquitous pyramids…..think the seven on the Ulster Bank is quite enough without Liberty Hall being subjected to one too! 😮

I was wondering about the Custom House drum only yesterday on that very point. How much would it cost to rebuild it in Portland stone today? Why wasn’t this done in the 80s considering how expertly it was conserved that time round? Even then vast quantities of Portland were imported to reconstruct the balustrade from scratch in place of the concrete put there post-1921, so why not the drum too?
Would it be possible to do a job similar to the National Museum restoration and literally render over the limestone with a Portland stone based render?
The dark limestone totally undermines the design of the building – indeed it could be argued the drum was detached enough already from the main body of the structure without being compounded with a rebuild in a different colour…
The fact that it’s an icky, dirty brown Ardbraccan rather than a neutral grey or blue variety adds insult to injury.

If you look at pictures of the customs house at night or in black and white you can see how well the dome really works on the building- and realise how plain the building would be otherwise- but this is actually impossible to appreciate in daylight as it is. What an awful awful state of affairs. On the subject of Gandon- his other beauty down the river – also ruined by the bolsheviks- is in my opinion in a very very poor state – the stone looks very dull grey in many places and around the back everything is just a mess. Also a very ironic misfortune- some of the most beautiful trees along the quays are exactly where they should’nt be – blocking the magnificent view of the four courts! Further east there are no trees blocking some horrible old worn out georgian factory flats! If only one could move a tree. In any case I’d like to see at least some of them removed from in front of the four courts.

VOTE- Which is the most magnificent classical building in Ireland – Belfast city Hall, Old Parliament Building (Bank of Ireland), Custom’s House, Four Courts, Trinity College ensemble or Dublin City Hall.

I think either the Bank of Ireland or Belfast City Hall. It should be in Dublin! 😡

…i have always liked one georges quay plaza. i especially like looking at it from amien street. it can’t be seen when looking east from the quays as hawkins house is in the way. pitty.

I have to say that I was amazed when I saw City Hall in Dublin a few months ago. When I saw the building in photos, I thought it looked a little squat. I was totally unprepared in how big and beautiful it is in real life. It’s definitely one of my favourite buildings now!

@Boyler wrote:

I have to say that I was amazed when I saw City Hall in Dublin a few months ago. When I saw the building in photos, I thought it looked a little squat. I was totally unprepared in how big and beautiful it is in real life. It’s definitely one of my favourite buildings now!

You get a lovely view of it from Parliament St – one of my favorite streets in Dublin.

(c) Richie Devane

There’s a good shot of it in the Michael Collins movie too 🙂

@ake wrote:

I

VOTE- Which is the most magnificent classical building in Ireland – Belfast city Hall, Old Parliament Building (Bank of Ireland), Custom’s House, Four Courts, Trinity College ensemble or Dublin City Hall.

I think either the Bank of Ireland or Belfast City Hall. It should be in Dublin! 😡

I think the Custom House is most spectacular. I don’t think many Dubliners notice it though because of the loop line.

Agreed the custom house is something special… i never fail to stop and look at it if I am on Geroges Quay its just stunning especially at night. As for the dome it would have been better if it was in Portland stone as well but i suppose the difference in colour is part of the buildings history.

that picture of the custom house is really nice. it looks good. i quite like the dome as it would look so different without it.

@alpha wrote:

that picture of the custom house is really nice. it looks good. i quite like the dome as it would look so different without it.

Thanks alpha 🙂

I have a picture taken in 1922 of the Custom House including the Dome with most of the structure (dome) and all of the copper gone I’ll post it some time next week when I have access to a scanner.

Dubin’s Custom House is far and away the best piece of Classical architecture in Ireland.

Belfast City Hall is by comparison a brute, over-scaled & bombastic, and like many a state capitol in the USA or City Hall in the UK,

i would prefer the custom house dublin to city hall belfast any day. i myself don’t dislike city hall belfast though.

@alpha wrote:

i would prefer the custom house dublin to city hall belfast any day. i myself don’t dislike city hall belfast though.

City hall in Belfast is a fine building , but not a patch on the Cutom House. the Custom house is such an elegant building despites it size …simply stunning

aj, i agree.

by the way, does anyone know what they are building across from liffey valley? is it a laboratory of some kind? the builders access the site form the small road leading to the king’s hospital.

Bombastic just abouts sums up Belfast City Hall alright – which is why we like it so much, Edwardian power-architecture at its best 🙂
The interior is equally vulgar – impressively so 😉

With the Custom House, the most impressive aspect to it is that which is perhaps least noticable – its simplicity.
The proportions of the river facade are quite staggering in their finesse, notably the pavilions that are by far my favourite part of the building; they’re stand-alone pieces of architecture in themselves. You could easily slice one off and plonk it down in an entirely new location – though I think it just might be missed 🙂
With the doorway in the centre and the steps also reinstated it could operate quite happily as a beautifully proportioned individual piece of architecture.

A bit of training in classical architecture would help, but the one element I’ve never quite ‘got’ as it were is the attic storey of the central block – does anyone else think that it stands out as a bit crude and unfinished, and undesirably prominant in contrast with the rest of the building?

Certainly the extra height on the central block is needed, just the fact that it protrudes above the cornice line almost like an afterthought extension to the main body of the block below makes it jarr somewhat with the collective whole…
The starkness of its almost bare elevation also contrasts starkly with the balustrading alongside and the impeccably adorned facades below…

Saying that, from up close it works almost seamlessly – the beautifully restrained ridged detailing along the top being another fine feature of the building:

@alpha wrote:

by the way, does anyone know what they are building across from liffey valley? is it a laboratory of some kind? the builders access the site form the small road leading to the king’s hospital.

Yeah, what’s this I wonder? So much building work going on in this area. The sign that’s up showing the end result doesn’t say what the building will be used as???? Any other comments please? It is a very large building.

@naz78 wrote:

Yeah, what’s this I wonder? So much building work going on in this area. The sign that’s up showing the end result doesn’t say what the building will be used as???? Other comments people?

Is this the site you’re talking about, lads?

Sorry but it is not shown there. Thanks all the same.

Sorry, thought you meant the shopping centre. I’m not familiar with Liffey valley at all. Interested to see a pic of the development though.

I’d be interested too.

i am so curious. it is a very large development. it doesn’t look like an appartment building. it’s more like offices or a factory.

I am fairly sure that there’s a private hospital going up there.

it could be a hospital yes as it has that kind of style about it. thanks.

Is the Custom House open to visitors? Is the interior worth seeing, was it all destroyed in ’22?

I’m often surprised at how many people, not least on this site think there is no public access to this, the most celebrated of Dublin’s buildings!
Whereas for the most part is just another prosaic government department, the Custom House Visitor’s Centre in the very heart of the building, accessed via the main Liffey entrance is very much so a public space.
It is also the only remnant of the original interior left (though there may be an odd corridor or two also).

Well worth a visit, it features an exhibition about the history of the building, mainly focused on its previous uses, but also the architecture and Gandon himself – all housed in austere stone-clad surroundings.
Esssentially it’s just the main vaulted corridors at the front of the building including the impressive lobby space in the centre – no grand 18th century rooms I’m afraid. Quite sad to realise this is all that remains.

Opening Times:

Mid March-November:
Monday-Friday: 10am-12.30pm
Saturday-Sunday: 2pm-5pm

November-Mid March:
Wednesday-Friday: 10am-12.30pm
Sunday: 2pm-5pm

Admission Prices:

Adults €1
Family €3
Students free

I wandered into the Custom House one day!
Not a lot to see but the fire damage is still visible and I thought that that this was the most facinating part of the visit.
A nice view of the quays out the windows too. I spent quite a lot of my time there watching the world go by. Very few visitors so if you want a bit of peace pay it a visit!

@emf wrote:

Very few visitors

Now there’s a surprise 😀

Yes a lovely quiet place, the only visitors being the odd Spanish couple that have wandered too far down the quays.
Great views from the windows underneath the portico alright, probably the best part – very strange feeling having seen only the other side of the wall all your life 🙂

When I look at pictures of Spencer Dock and IFSC 2, I think of “old computer heatsinks and capasitors”.

Anyone agree? :confused:

Yes…..it looks absolute shite (but its probably just a temporary mock up to see how buildings would look in this situation)

there are pages and pages on high rises on this board about the dublin skyline but what i want to know is , why dont we have a desginated high rise part of Dublin ala la defence (I think)in Paris. I know we cant really go high rise near O connell street because of all the old historical buildings but surely we can do it outside the city centre.

A highrise district out near the orbital metro line or maybe even M50 would be a fantastic idea for Dublin and Ireland. We could stop urban sprawl. We could fit more people in the city and also reduce property prices and open up other space to public amenities.

Ultra modern high rise buildings would be an excellent chance for Irish designers to show off to the rest of the world. It would provide an excellent prospect to show our new found confidence. So why doesnt the government give the green light to such a plan ?? Its always catch up with the government and never visonary.

This has already been covered on a multitude of threads. Do you use the ‘search’ at all? (on the top right)

Hi all, I’m a new contributor to this site although I have been reading the message board with interest for a couple of years now. I’m Irish by birth and currently live in Australia. I look forward to reading the threads each day and am pleased to see the development that has taken place and continues in Ireland. However, it is frustrating to read about high rise developments obtaining planning approval but then never proceed. I live in Melbourne and am currently working in Brisbane which is only slightly larger than Dublin in population terms and there are quality high rise developments appearing everywhere without any of the trivial debate that seems to go on endlessly in Ireland. Why is this?

I know that some will say that’s it’s all well and good for me living on the other side of the world to be critical but I take a great interest in things Irish and want to see it shake off its parochialness.

Get out of it!! 😀 That is the most pathetically see-through disguise I’ve yet seen.

Seriously, this business of regulars taking on new IDs to indulge their pet gripe will have to stop! (though it is only a small minority)

Whether your accusations are correct in this case or not, multiple identities are actually against the rules of these forums, as detailed in the vBulletin rules page. Possibly Paul doesn’t care or chooses not to enforce it. It should be easy enough to discover, I’d have thought.

The only way is up for high density

– 9th November 2005

The SCS annual conference in Dublin was told that it is time to look in new directions to find housing solutions for Dublin, CON POWER reports

DUBLIN cannot be allowed to continue to sprawl and colonise adjoining counties, the President of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Derry Scully told the SCS annual conference in Dublin. Instead we must turn to high densities through well-designed high rise developments.

“We must look at increasing development densities generally and look to high rise development in appropriate locations as one means of achieving higher densities,” Mr Scully said.

“Dublin suffers from serious problems of congestion with associated costs arising from delays in people getting to work and goods getting to market – these problems are set to escalate as the population increases.”

Referring to the CSO’s projections of the population of the Greater Dublin area growing to almost 2.1 million – as much as 41% of Ireland’s total – by the year 2021 he declared that “clearly, the city and its surrounding areas must plan to accommodate such an increase”.

‘Dublin the Next Phase – High Density, High Risk, High Rise?’ was the title of this year’s conference.

“In following a path of higher density development we must ensure that we provide attractive, well-designed and well-maintained developments that attract a mix of occupiers that fit in with existing communities”.

“It is essential to look for ‘Density by Design’, rather than ‘Density for Density’s Sake'”, he told his audience of over 250 delegates at the conference.

He added that “we cannot have landmark towers everywhere, but sited appropriately they can enhance the urban landscapes and skyline”.

The SCS Annual Conference was officially opened by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage & Local Government Mr Roche. The Minister spoke of the importance of Dublin and the Greater Dublin Area as a driver of national development and its pivotal role in the ongoing implementation of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS).

The Minister said: “We must support and enhance the competitiveness of the Greater Dublin Area so that it continues to perform at national and international levels as a driver of national development.” The SCS conference dealt with future options, the sort of high risks there may be in high rise and high density development, how city housing and transport will be affected in an already congested city, and how high rise design has developed.

Speakers included Dublin City Manager John Fitzgerald who spoke on ‘New Homes for a Growing Dublin – Problems and Potentials’ and chartered surveyor Dr. Brendan Williams, lecturer at the Department of Planning & Environmental Economics, UCD, who dealt with ‘The Emerging Greater Dublin Area: Urban Development Trends & Implications’.

From the UK were architect John Worthington, co-founder of the international workplace design consultancy DEGW and chairman of Dublin Corporation’s Architectural Advisory Panel, London architect Sir Richard MacCormac, chairman of MacCormac Jamieson Prichard and Liam Bailey, head of residential research at Knight Frank.

Paul can check the IP address of ‘Irishatheart’ and easily find out if it’s an Irish address or from Oz

Hello, there is actually a 16 storey hotel about to begin constuction in the vicinity of the Airport at the m50/m1 junction. Not much but its a start 🙂

@darkman wrote:

Hello, there is actually a 16 storey hotel about to begin constuction in the vicinity of the Airport at the m50/m1 junction. Not much but its a start 🙂

really? what’s this mate? you have gotten my attention. so is that going ahead for real? i guess that area would be ok for a highrise as it already has ballymun close by. i have only ever seen the new santry hall building from a distance. i would love to see it up close. maybe some day…

There’s been a crusade on the forum over the past few months – I don’t know if the people involved are aware how obvious it is – to ‘put pressure on’ for hi-rise, and try’n create the impression to those in influence who might be looking in that there is a large demand for high rise, and that we need to “catch up” with other international cities by pushing through any high building plans quickly. These sentiments have been made, in the large part, without any accompanying discrimination in regard to quality, appropriateness of location and response to the city’s existing structure and identity.

A small number of people, using multi-IDs (and perhaps organising others here or abroad to register and say the same thing) have been coming in and expressing essentially the same sentiment as ‘Irishatheart’ above.

None of these advocates have presented any rigorous arguments as to why all of the high-rise building proposals presented thus far should be given planning approval and built promptly, as they want. The standard flimsy argument is that ‘other cities have high buildings – why can’t we?’ and (fallaciously), that high rise would stop urban sprawl.

i myself would love to see a small number of big highrises being built in ireland… say 30/40 storeys. i would like to see these sprout up over the coming years. i am not for highrises in sensitive areas though. i truly believe in proper context and location. darkman mentions a highrise near the airport. if that is the truth, it seems ok in my view due to ballymun and the new airport plans. i see a highrise shown in the airport plans too. i have to say i am not happy with people using multi ids. how will one know when to believe the new people??? 😡

@alpha wrote:

i myself would love to see a small number of big highrises being built in ireland… say 30/40 storeys. i would like to see these sprout up over the coming years. i am not for highrises in sensitive areas though. i truly believe in proper context and location. darkman mentions a highrise near the airport. if that is the truth, it seems ok in my view due to ballymun and the new airport plans. i see a highrise shown in the airport plans too. i have to say i am not happy with people using multi ids. how will one know when to believe the new people??? 😡

I would love to see a few high rises.. i think the problem here is that most of the high rise we have had has been such crap. I am not for height for heights sake but I am for quality architecture whether that is 1 storey or 40. Surely a bigger building offers architects a bigger canvas to work on..maybe not thats for discussion

Ireland and Dublin in particular punches well above its weight, Ireland is a wealthy country and Dublin a wealthy city surely we should be reflecting this in our architecture the Georgians could do it so why cant we?

For the record, I am a genuine resident of Oz with no affiliations to anyone on this board. I’m also not an architect just an interest lay person. Anyhow, keep up the good work, I really do enjoy this site and the photos that are posted keep me right up to date with what is going on in Ireland.

@alpha wrote:

really? what’s this mate? you have gotten my attention. so is that going ahead for real? i guess that area would be ok for a highrise as it already has ballymun close by. i have only ever seen the new santry hall building from a distance. i would love to see it up close. maybe some day…

Its part of the ‘Airport City’ development. It got permission from Fingal Co Co but someone appealed it to board pleanala. I read the appeal was thrown out. The first part of this development (Bewleys hotel) is well underway and the firat block is almost finished and it is actually quite big. Anyone have images of this development by any chance?

@darkman wrote:

Anyone have images of this development by any chance?

Is it this? It isn’t 16 floors though :/

This new hotel which will open on 2 May, is just five minutes from Dublin Airport, close to where the M50 and M1 meet. €35 million has been invested in the hotel which is Irish owned and it will be run by a professional and experienced Hilton Management team.

The hotel is designed and built with the very purpose of providing an excellent destination for people on business or pleasure, arranging or attending a meeting, celebrating or preparing to fly from Dublin Airport.

The hotel will have 166 bedrooms, including four junior suites, a function room that caters for up to 450 people, nine purpose built Hilton meeting rooms with a business centre and Meeting Reception and a Livingwell fitness centre.

At the end of the day this is a discussion forum and were all here to talk about architecture.

You dont have to read this thread if you dont want to … the fact remainds that Dublin could well do with a high rise designated area of Dublin. Be it on the liffey or near the M50. It would give a major boost to boosting the dublin population, decreasing property rents and taking up the least amount of space. Plus on top of ALL that we have a modern looking capital.

Why cant everyone accept these points ? The planning procedure is all mickey mouse stuff here and I dont see any future in the low rise subburban american model

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.

I’ve always been in favour of building higher, but how high can Dublin sustain before it becomes uneconomic for the developer?

Also, if high rise was allowed overnight at any location, there would be little incentive to densify (from houses wth gardens!) to modest 3/4/5 storey apartment blocks, providing a city-wide critical mass for mass transit.

The developers would just build everything to c. 30 storeys and the city would continue to have difficulty creating a widespread critical mass for transit.

I’d like to see Dublin densify (especially areas like Drumcondra, Rathmines etc.) in a widespread manner so that houses with gardens are limited to the very outside suburbs where they belong.

I found a wonderful image of Cologne (pop c. 1m but much denser than Dublin with almost the entire population residing inside an area roughly the same size as that encompassed by our canal rings) and it shows how disciplined the germans have been wrt density as their cities have grown (you couldn’t call it sprawl). This image is from the furthest north westerly extent of the city taken in 1886 and you can see them building a new street from this point. None f these buildings exist today, well, none that I can recognse from Friesenplatz today;

Today, Cologne can easily support a comprehensive mass transit system, though I rarely use it because the city centre is rarely beyond walking distance!

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.

well ctesiphon thanks for replying and making use of a DISCUSSION FORUM.;)

I still think the future is for Ireland to follow the Paris model and designate a certain part of the city inside the M-50 as a high rise area. Nothing is cheap but high rises would be well worth the money.

I do agree with your analysis of what the rest of dublin should be like – medium dentisity. Semi detached housing should be outlawed in the dublin region.

The population of Dublin is going to go past the 2 million mark. I know its a bad example because someone may be a troll here but just look at Australia. It has high rise cities and is a modern country.

We can be practical till the cows come home but at the end of the day a lot of it is to do with image and how you want to protray your country and the mentality of irish people as well. A modern city with high rises would be very impressive for the ordinary joe in Dublin and the foreigner visiting.

Plus we need a major counter balance for Dublin (especaillly when it reaches 2 million) and maybe it should be given more freedom than the shackles that are on Dublin.

PS im not a architec

“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:

It’s obvious that old Ballymun/La Cobusier style high rise doesn’t necessarily provide density and probably doesn’t provide a desirable model for the development of the city but I think many of the antis in this debate tend to use a strawman argument by suggesting that everyone in favour of high rise is proposing this type of high rise. Try using google earth and look at the Dublin; in the context of this city, low-rise means two story semi-d and high rise is six or seven stories and the former dominates the landscape of Dublin; I’d be surprised if even 15% of the built up land of Dublin was over two stories. Ok, it doesn’t help that some of the proponents of high-rise here are, lets say, unsubtle in their arguments. But I get the feeling that most of the antis in this debate are not only against isolated 30 story brutalist towers (aren’t we all?) but are against anything over 8 or 10 stories being built in the city. If this is the case, then stating it might make the discussion interesting instead of over-simplifying it by trying to present it as a black or white choice.

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).

“I think many of the antis in this debate tend to use a strawman argument by suggesting that everyone in favour of high rise is proposing this type of high rise”
Most of the proponents are advocating tall buildings (which automatically require certain provisions such as increased space). I’m not mis-reading them I don’t think. But I think you’ve mis-read my interpretation, so… Straw man alert! 🙂

Couple of quick points (it’s late):
Most of the two-storey stuff in the city centre was built in the 1980s, at a time when there was virtually no residential accommodation being built in town at all. It is obviously wrong from our current perspective, but it must have seemed like a very real achievement in those days.
The reason for the Plan Voisin mention was that the post to which I was originally responding was in a different thread (they were subsequently combined) which was advocating tall buildings. Had a rational argument been put for increased height, as Graham has done above, I wouldn’t have been so ‘black and white’. But I do believe that there is little scope for serious height in the city centre which is what was being suggested. And I don’t agree that we need height to signify modernity.

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’m not sure the old ‘inner suburbs’ like Drumcondra and Rathmines would be considered high density by international standards. I was on a bus from the airport recently and overheard an ‘are we nearly there yet?’ conversation between two French visitors. No, said the other, they were still in ‘the suburbs’. This was past Drumcondra station and well onto Dorset Street. They seemed genuinely amazed to find themselves on the O’Connell Street two minutes later.
Our old terraced buildings have far fewer floors than those on the continent. I’m not sure what the historic reasons are for that, and there’s nothing we can do about it now, but I think it’s time MINIMUM heights and densities were introduced for new buildings.
Outside specifically sensitive areas, I don’t think building as low as four or five storeys in the centre is sustainable for a city that’s supposedly going to have two million people in it soon.
Do our planners ever go abroad? There is absolutely nothing wrong with an eight or nine storey terrace. If we had been building new streets like this for the last 10 years instead of acres of wasteful semi-ds, we wouldn’t have to bother ourselves with the high rise debate now.

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.

Drumcondra’s two up two downs are not high or even medium density. They are low density, especially for an area within walking distance on the city centre.

Look at the two large blocks just north west of Drumcondra railway station in the image linked. There’s roughly 48 dwellings in all that space. I calculate that to be no more than 200 people, and that’s assuming 2 occupants to each bedroom-very generous IMO.

The blocks comprise a narrow ring of dwellings around a large area of back gardens! This stuff has to go to make better use of the land. Pan slightly north to see apartments, does anyone know if these were built on infill or were houses demolished to make way for them?

Drumcondra

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.

Does anybody know what the tallest structure in Ireland is? How high is it in meters?

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.

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.

@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

@aj wrote:

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

Windsor House or House of Windsor.

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.

i wasn’t talking about windsor house. that is 80 meters. the building i mentioned is only 60 meters in height. it is the divis tower for those who are unsure. the tallest building on the island is in belfast.

@alpha wrote:

the tallest building on the island is in belfast.

I would imagine that there are very few who will be surprised by this, given the more ‘open’ attitude that exists in the UK to buildings above 3 storeys in height.

i don’t have a clue what is happening with the obel proposal. if this is built it will be the tallest building on the island at 81 meters. i read it on the net about it’s height. it will be only slightly taller than windsor house but with several more floors. that will change though when heuston gate is built. i am looking forward to the view from hueston gate’s observation platform.

Where is this Summerhill mast Andrew? It always mentioned (obviously :)) as the tallest structure in the country – just where is it?!

So much for “I’m not going to add any more to this thread”. Some people never stick to their word. Pitty.

The subject person was removed.

It is sad that all you can do is make jibes at people who disagree with you naz78. I explained that the wording used previously was not personal – I don’t see what you find so unreasonable.

Just saying what I see.

Delete…….

As long as we can’t see you – very big of you.

Nobody can see anyone here from what I can tell.

Can you both just stop. This is beginning to get tiresome. You are both as bad as each other.

i myself have never seen the atlantic 252 mast. does it still exist? having said that, i don’t be in that part of the city much.

I’ve heard of Dublin’s ridiculous sprawl, but really has Athlone been included within the citiy’s limits. (On a clear day………….

What?! Summerhill is nowhere near Athlone. It’s about 10 miles to the south of Trim, Co. Meath. And the mast is not near the village – it’s about 5 miles back towards Dublin (on the Dunboyne road).

…i thought you were all talking about summerhill in dublin city. it never crossed my mind that it was the one outside dublin.:)

Goes to show how retro I am. Now I realize that it’s not the Radio Eireann Athlone transmitter. Ah the days of Harry Thullier, Joe Linnane, and dancing on the pre-round the clock radio. Does anyone miss Brona Hollywood of the Bord Iascaigh Mhara sponsored programme?

santry cross seems to be coming along well. i was able to see it form the m50. at the moment it is grey. will it be changed to yellow at some stage or have they changed their minds about it’s colour? any proposals that i have seen of this building have been yellow. i like those red lights on top of it. they seem to be lit all day. i have also seen it in the distance from the maynooth train with the red lights very visible.

I find the light on top of One Georges Quay Plaza amusing. You’d swear it was massive. It is funny that they need such a light on such a such a building. It is only 13 storeys. I can’t see a plane flying so low.

didn’t they remove the aviation light from the spire? i don’t recall seeing it in a long time and that is way taller than georges quay plaza.

@alpha wrote:

didn’t they remove the aviation light from the spire? i don’t recall seeing it in a long time and that is way taller than georges quay plaza.

Yeah, that’s well gone. The several hundred LEDs at the top now act as an aviation beacon, as does that annoying strip of light half way up – it ruins the ‘linierness’ of the spire.

@Morlan wrote:

Yeah, that’s well gone. The several hundred LEDs at the top now act as an aviation beacon, as does that annoying strip of light half way up – it ruins the ‘linierness’ of the spire.

i think its a real pity the spire is not flood lite along its lenght.. it would look fantastic at night instead of a light in in the middle and those leds at the top.. what do you think?

It’s supposed to be done – it was intended from the very beginning.
Maybe the CC are just waiting for the rest of O’Connell St to be finished. Hopefully – it would look spectacular.

it would look spectacular. that sounds like a great idea.

Sorry for not following the tread but going back to the title – i work in Grand Canal Plaza (3rd floor) and have noticed a lot of contruction in the last 2 weeks – it seems to have sprung up above the 5 story barrier suddenly. The more interesting is a 10+ story block on the northside of the river between spencer dock and the point which i pass every day. This building is quite bulky and is gaining height rapidly, does anyone know what it is? I thought it might be Merchant’s gate but i thought that was set back further from the river…

it is probably the spencer dock development itself. check out http://www.spencerdock.ie for details. from what i can tell that particular development will only be 11 (ish) storeys in height. it’s a shame they didn’t decide to go higher there. 20 storeys would be nice.

Keen,
Totally true about the heights of current stuff. It’s fashionable around here to say ‘the docklands are a wasted opportunity’ and ‘the DDDA blew it’ etc. etc., and that’s in reference to the low heights of the IFSC extension, and while it’s true, it’s old hat now…all completed years ago. There’s a vast area under development at the moment in the south docks (and also Spencer Dock on the north), bigger than the whole of the north docks developed to date, and I think they have got the heights spot on here – 8 to 10 storeys. In fact I would go so far as to say I don’t think the biggest height fetishists on Archiseek could say these buildings (as a standard from where any taller buildings will spring) are too low. In any case you’re into problems with shadowing and plot ratio if you go any taller, as has been covered before.

Merchants Gate? That’ll be the day.

if built merchant’s gate would be quite tall. it would be taller than anything we have right now in dublin. i heard someone say 19 storeys at 64 meters… anything approved at that height or higher seems to be on hold. i don’t know why. why aren’t they built shortly after approval? why all the delays i wonder?

It’s certainly all go on the south bank:

So much so it’s difficult to make much out – just a morass of concrete at the minute.

Ah the Dublin Docks. Good photo of the new mundane developments……….it aint no Potsdamer Platz.

The more interesting is a 10+ story block on the northside of the river between spencer dock and the point which i pass every day.

Thats the first phase of the Treasury Holdings project. Its being built for PWC (although they won’t own it)

http://www.treasuryholdings.ie/development/project_detail.asp?id=35&category=Office&cat=3

@Graham Hickey wrote:

It’s certainly all go on the south bank:

So much so it’s difficult to make much out – just a morass of concrete at the minute.

seems like the cranes will be the highest structures Dublin will ever probably see, the way things are going

@Aidan wrote:

Thats the first phase of the Treasury Holdings project. Its being built for PWC (although they won’t own it)

http://www.treasuryholdings.ie/development/project_detail.asp?id=35&category=Office&cat=3

Going to that link has really depressed me – I’d forgotten just how abysmal the Spencer Dock development is going to be….

My god, those builds planned for Spencer Dock look atrocious in the image. That can hardly be how the finished scheme will look. It’s just more of the the same Scott Tallon Walker shit that blights the docks already. Surely the DDDA did’nt approve of this. Canary Wharf that was built in London in the 1980’s is a far superiour development! We are so behind in the times.

The large black phallic shape looking thing sticking its ugly head up in the right of the photo is a most singular erection. Between that and the Spike in O’Connell St., it seems that Dublin will be able to boast of a lot of undesireable pricks.

@Keen wrote:

Sorry for not following the tread but going back to the title – i work in Grand Canal Plaza (3rd floor) and have noticed a lot of contruction in the last 2 weeks – it seems to have sprung up above the 5 story barrier suddenly. The more interesting is a 10+ story block on the northside of the river between spencer dock and the point which i pass every day. This building is quite bulky and is gaining height rapidly, does anyone know what it is? I thought it might be Merchant’s gate but i thought that was set back further from the river…

The building between Spencer Dock and the Point is Castleforbes Square, mix of apartments and office space reaching about 14 floors at the castleforbes, sherrif st. entrance. Apt. went on sale a couple of weeks ago.

it is all go everywhere but the buildings pictured above are not really highrise. i have lost count at the amount of proper highrises that are approved yet where are they? i think that the cranes will be as close as we get. we have all heard about the u2 tower and heuston gate. they are meant to be starting construction on those in 2007 according to other people on this site. if everything was to go to plan we would have had several other highrises in dublin by now either under construction or in full use. they could have put up several but the chance of that seems to be running out now. i can’t help thinking that they will all go the way of the southbank tower. Montevetro and alto vetro should be well under construction by now but they aren’t and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

i contacted royal canal park through their werbsite to ask about the proposed highrise which is not under construction. i said that i would be very interested in living in such a tall building but they told me that they had no info on that one. i see that they have practically built everything else at royal canal park but not the highrise. it just goes to show that there is a delay with that highrise too.

Flat Earth Society…….. 🙂

@alpha wrote:

if built merchant’s gate would be quite tall. it would be taller than anything we have right now in dublin. i heard someone say 19 storeys at 64 meters… anything approved at that height or higher seems to be on hold. i don’t know why. why aren’t they built shortly after approval? why all the delays i wonder?

Merchant’s Gate is going on a site which was occupied by a Brickyard up until about a month ago, it’s also surrounded on two sides by road works which are widening East Wall road in preperation for the Port Tunnel. These works will take up two Q2 ’06 so I wouldn’t be expecting any movement on Merchants Gate before then.

It took 20 years of landbanking to acquire the whole site. With the movement in property prices in generally (and especially East Wall) I’m sure the developers are happy to take their time.

i checked out http://www.castleforbessquare.com to see if there is a 14 storey building going up on that site. it doesn’t have as many floors as that. it seems to have only 10 including the ground floor.

@alpha wrote:

i checked out http://www.castleforbessquare.com to see if there is a 14 storey building going up on that site. it doesn’t have as many floors as that. it seems to have only 10 including the ground floor.

MORE GENERIC YAWN…….

i don’t think much of castleforbes myself. it’s not terribly exciting.

No, it’s not.
But are we surprised really?
In all honestly like?

Can’t wait for the day I log on here and actually go “WOW” at a new project…pleh. 😡

i myself am not surprised along with several others i would imagine. there is far too much of the same stuff out there already. there is one almost identical on the southside. i don’t know the name of it though.

visited castleforbes myself over the weekend … the design of the internal spaces was horiffic, never mind the exterior. The top of its midget 8 story ‘tower’ did however offer a good view of the docklands area, particularly the south quays …

it really is a wasted opportunity, dreadful stuff – the whole south quay is filled at this stage (i was quite surprised things were that advanced) nothing even remotely interesting. Its clear architectural quality is not even a consideration of the DDDA, whether its five stories or more, they just don’t give a shite – surely there was scope to do something even semi-interesting along the liffey.

Go down yourselves and have a look at ‘Castleforbes’, or even more depressing, the view from its top floor.

Who are the DDDA fooling ….this looks so modest, so dismal! The 1980’s Canary Wharf leaves it in the shade.

http://www.castleforbessquare.com/location.htm

No mention of the ‘architects’ at all on their site.

Take a look at the floor plans – note the almost bedroom sized ‘store rooms’ in some cases – the internal layout really is dreadful.

Most balconies seem to be there purely to facilitate suicide, consisting of just 2 – 3 6″ decking boards, thats right, just 18″ in total.

i wonder do people write to/email the ddda and outline their concerns?

I just passed the new blocks on the north side of Pearse St running up to the canal dock and they’re horrible – particularly the balconies. A monotonous mass of lowish rise shite which reinforce the unappealing nature of that end of Pearse St (with the notable exception of Pearse Square). Given the great breadth of the Street there, the proximity to wide expanses of water, the existing tall buildings near by, this would have been a great place for taller and more distinctive SERIES of buildings. Instead we have the entire strech from Macken St to the basin lined with industrial looking 5 story crap.

A common criticism of high rise on this site is that some of the tall buildings being proposed are just “one story repeated 20 times”. There seems to be less ire directed towards developments which involve repeating the same pattern horizontally. I think the latter is much worse as it consumes far more of the finite resource, land. A building with an excessive footprint takes up land denying the opportunity for other buildings to be built.

Also I sustain no hope whatsoever that in twenty years time that these buildings will be replaced. It will be impossible given that the apartments will be individually owned by different people. On the other hand, I understand that TCD have plans to do something with the nasty redbrick innovation centre or whatever it is across the street. In this regard, the likes of Apollo house, Hawkins House or the ILAC centre represent far smaller threats to the quality of the built environment in Dublin. Yet people concerned with the built environment in Dublin seem to spend far more time anguishing over Hawkins House – a mistake which can (and will) be relatively easily corrected. A shitty block of apartments will be with us for ever and deserved far more critical attention, in my opinion.

I think one of the reasons people find the docklands uninspiring is that it looks like docklands regeneration anywhere … homogeneity … one city’s docks regeneration looks like the next’s … and if this is the case, could it have been any different?

A really good landmark building is sorely needed in the area (and the U2 tower is definitely not it), one that would be popular with families, tourists and all walks … like the Graz Art Museum or the Birmingham Bullring featured earlier in the thread, but obviously on a scale appropriate to the docklands.

[align=center:zgkgd7ir]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:zgkgd7ir]

On a related note can I make suggestion for this thread? – that people try to post pictures of what they are talking about. It would really help. Rather than just saying ‘this is shit’ & ‘that is shit’ we would all be able to analyise/criticise the relevant aspects of the docks development. There is a dearth of pictures on this thread for such a visually emotive topic.

jimg, where are the ‘5 story’ buildings in the area you talk about? – I haven’t seen any 5 story buildings there – all of the new stuff I have seen around the Grand Canal inner dock (between Pearse Street and the Liffey) is at 8-10 stories.

They are fronting onto Pearse Street itself past Macken Street. They may be 6 stories to be honest, I’m not sure. It’d be nice to attach photo’s but I just saw them from a taxi and I don’t have a digital camera anyway. It’s the balconies which I found particularly jarring. If it wasn’t so cold, I’d consider cycling down that way this evening to give myself a chance to develop a proper sense of indignation and dismissiveness.

I like the pictures that do be posted on this site. It is nice to see what people are talking about.

I think jimg is referring to “Gallery Quay”

With any composition, there is a balance between uniformity while avoiding tedium and contrast without creating a mess.

At one end of the spectrum is Dublin Airport, with disconnected buildings seemingly scattered at random across the site. The other extreme is somewhere like Darndale whose fundamental repeating unit is a very plain uninspiring house. These untis were then laid out in perpendicular geometric patterns like a circuit board. (image attached below)

This development doesn’t look so bad to me and is much better than the IDA young offenders prison across the road.

I would have to go down there and have a look again, but I would venture that for the sections of the Grand Canal Dock developments that interface with Pearse Street, it is perhaps best to avoid a sudden jump in scale, but go higher behind that. However, if the buildings are of a strongly horizontal emphasis, that is wrong. They should be broken up to respond to the fine grain of the city.

I might go down there and take some pictures if I get a chance at the weekend, so people can praise / lambaste as necessary.

Ok, a few pictures of stuff around the South Docks. 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!’ ( 🙂 )

This development on the north edge of the outer Grand Canal basin will actually be a jammy place to live – away from any noisy roads and with a south-facing aspect looking over the water and to the mountains beyond.
Don’t these apartments use some kind of newly-developed glassed-in balconies? It seems like something that should have been taken up before in our climate.

Fine, but will it all make a successful ‘place’ in the end?

Gallery Quay as you approach from Pearse Street, with Pearse Square in the foreground. No sense of progression from the urban grain of Pearse Street – just a sudden monolithic block. It could and should have been broken up and varied.

The public spaces around the outer basin are well-finished … but no people yet …

The north edge of the south docks.

The simple beauty of a canal-side warehouse.

Docklands regeneration – at times you could be in Belfast….or Cardiff…

QUESTION : –

Does anyone think that these ultra modern buildings are a bit “same same but different” to copy a phrase. There doesnt look like a whole pile of new thinking went into half of them and none of them have dublin characteritics.

ultra modern buildings ? steady on there …

well they are ultra modern compared to the stinkin minging canal-side warehouse. Will we regret all these buildings in a few year ?

Well at least they will be a darn sight better than the minging semi- d’s that plague our cities

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.

It astonishes me as to why we must build on such a rejectionist scale 😡

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.

Actually I take that back – I might if it continues 🙂 .

@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 can

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!

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.

@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. “Generalising”, 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?

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.

Don’t be so disgusting PDLL.

@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=100659

It 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, 12:25

Dublin 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.

Seriously, I am not advocating the Brits running Ireland – I was trying to use it as a benchmark of how deplorable things are in Ireland that we could not be any worse of under a colonial regime.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘carrot’, but if it is a suggestion that I am making a party political broadcast on behalf of anyone, then it is mis-directed. I genuinely could not care less who is in the driving seat provided they are able to get the country past the rut it is now stuck in where it does nothing but revel in its own self-indulgent propaganda about its celtic-tiger success. It is like a baby that has just learned to walk and spends the next 10 years pontificating about its ability to walk without actually walking. I am delighted that we have been an economic success, albeit much exaggerated – fine, now lets get down to reflecting that success in the country’s physical fabric so that at least in 200 years time people will be able to see the evidence of our alleged success rather than just read the conjecture in the national press.

I think you misunderstood my comments. I said that the proposed developments of the docks was only a carrot that was being used by the government to win over the electorate in a probable election next year. Ye have often heard of the saying of a donkey being led by a carrot and stick? I did’nt refer to yerself in any way other than saying that we don’t need the Brits or such archaic colonial powers to run our country again. God forbid. Improving the all round calibre and interests of our TD’s is the solution and that will happen with time with our new earned immense wealth. TD’s will develop an interest in the arts rather than just the pig stye!

Apologies, Greg F, for any misinterpretation. PDLL

No prob, Cheers PDLL

Apologies also from me to PDLL. I guess being stuck in Scotland and subject to spontanious bigoted remarks has made me realise how much I miss the old sod despite the understandable frustrations you are all encountering regarding planning issues / delays/ development of the physical landscape etc . I know there is still a long way to go but development s such as Docklands, Smithfield, O Connell St IAP ( painfully slow I know) and initiatives such as Transport 21 give me confidence for the future .It`s an incredible transformation from the country I left in 1996. Also, you`re right that this isn`t the forum for the social issues raised earlier.
I fully realise Ireland is not perfect and has it`s own issues but I do believe fundamentally we, as a people , are a more kind and considerate lot and that pretty much derives from the fabric of our society so I was just making the point it would be such a shame if we lost that in the face of so called economic development.
Anyway, apologies again and lets look forward some great architectural feats and sound infrastructural developments in the years to come which should put us right back on the map.
On Docklands, anybody know whats happening with the U2 Tower and Crosbies proposed Point Village?

@johnfp wrote:

Apologies also from me to PDLL. I guess being stuck in Scotland and subject to spontanious bigoted remarks has made me realise how much I miss the old sod despite the understandable frustrations you are all encountering regarding planning issues / delays/ development of the physical landscape etc . I know there is still a long way to go but development s such as Docklands, Smithfield, O Connell St IAP ( painfully slow I know) and initiatives such as Transport 21 give me confidence for the future .It`s an incredible transformation from the country I left in 1996. Also, you`re right that this isn`t the forum for the social issues raised earlier.
I fully realise Ireland is not perfect and has it`s own issues but I do believe fundamentally we, as a people , are a more kind and considerate lot and that pretty much derives from the fabric of our society so I was just making the point it would be such a shame if we lost that in the face of so called economic development.
Anyway, apologies again and lets look forward some great architectural feats and sound infrastructural developments in the years to come which should put us right back on the map.
On Docklands, anybody know whats happening with the U2 Tower and Crosbies proposed Point Village?

Point Village could/should start in the new year. U2 Tower will be ’07

@PVC King wrote:

You could also include the Shay Cleary ‘Santry Cross’ scheme that I think is about 16-17 Storeys.

Has anybody else seen the completed building? Absolutely awful.

I have seen it. I don’t know what to make of it though. Mind you, I would prefer Santry Hall to the old flats any day.

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

Point Village could/should start in the new year. U2 Tower will be ’07

Presumably the point village will be going ahead without the 32 storey landmark tower?

One must separate residential from commercial. There are two hindrances common to high-rise development, (a) the architects who want to build a high-rise regardless of its situation; (b) the nimbys because it never will harmonise with their concept of their area. To high-rise residential should be added a third, the do-gooders, because according to their creed Ballymun did not work. The first two are easier to change than the third. The real problem with Ballymun was a sizeable criminal element and an uneducated populace, but it is not PC to admit it and certainly it is not to be said! Similarly, look at the 3 story maisonettes in Ballybrack, supposedly a lesson in social inclusion by DLRCoCo – built at huge individual cost in the ‘70’s, by 2000 they resembled Beirut, complete with burnt-out window frames and cars; now they’ve been pulled down. Nobody but the inhabitants can be blamed for what happened to those buildings. Just as the bourgeois run riot with their faux Georgian and plastic strip windows, the vulgus have a different outlook (or lack of one!) My guess is that any future high-rise dwellings in Dublin will be confined to the educated classes.

I heard that they will start to build that awful Alto Vetro building next month. Is this true? I don’t like what I have seen of it. I just hope it looks better in reality.

I see that Kilmore House at Spenser Dock is starting to come along now. Does anyone know what the building is beside it? The building I am talking about has a circular roof at an angle. I haven’t seen it up close so I am a bit unsure.

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

Point Village could/should start in the new year. U2 Tower will be ’07

Does anyone think the U2 tower is over rated ?

Was down this way for a ramble over the Chrimbo period. While it was great to see the rejuvenation of the once derelict docks, the overall impression of the newer buildings was rather pitiful and unimpressive. Those stumpy office buildings, ie Citigroup look a joke. Spencer Dock doesn’t look anything special either. The emerging buildings on Sir John Rogerson’s look more of the same….however the view of the complexes at the Grand Canal Basin/ Charlotte Quay from the bridge at Ringsend looks quite good. The Jeany Johnson and a Viking Longboat moored at the DDA offices are a nice little feature and the new pedestrian bridge looks quite good as well.