Dublin skyline

@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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

@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!

Hope so… its pure muck.

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]

@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…