Dublin skyline
- This topic has 644 replies, 86 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
- Posts
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.
@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 daysWhile 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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
