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