Hadid v Foster on the docks

This building is amazing… i really like the cantilevered part over the water.

So the previous thread even has almost the same title.

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=6463

“Whilst Foster’s might not be great I do like its slenderness ratio. The other proposal looks odd (in a good way) but a little bulky for my liking.” is what Darkman thought then.

I always hugely prefered the Hadid design; it seems more eloquent than the Foster proposal.

It looked much bulkier on the old images. But now it’s in colour with a different perspective I think it looks great! It’s only one view of course.

Where’s the Dubai thread gone?

Not Hadid… no that’s awful.

Wow, that would be rather striking in the Dublin docks.

Looks interesting but will either be chopped in half by the planners/DDDA are never get planing at all.
We live in a small minded country!

Really lovin it. hope it gets planning permission. Is it a treasury holdings project? Those guys just don’t quit, do they. Have they applied for anything formal or are they just putting it out there to guage a response?

What a gateway to dublin it would be!!!!!Hopefully both are built. The watchtower would only be an addition……compared to the new proposed hadid highrise.:D:cool:

I always love the way they talk about a gateway to Dublin. How many of us have actually come into the Liffey by boat?

Well either looking down the liffey to the city centre or looking up the liffey to the sea from the city centre, it would look great!!!!!!NO?

How strangely brilliant it would be if the recession meant that all the dross, cheap and bland architectural proposals got abandoned, and we were left with a smaller number of higher quality builds. An unexpected triumph of quality over quality. After all, there was never a need to have the entire city centre rebuilt overnight – one stylish building per year for the next ten years would do it for me.

Suddenly, the prospect of losing my job at least has a silver lining….

Not going to happen –

In fairness folks, this is never going to be built and we know it.

Worse actually than realising it’s not going to be built would be to grant it permission knowing this, which would up the speculation value of the land – and nothing at all would get built, as an unrealisable price gets fixed to the site.

Still, the drawings looked nice!

PS It might be worth merging this into North Lotts thread as this is being discussed there, and as it is unlikely to be built does not merit a thread of its own imo 🙂

A remarkably ugly structure.

Is it designed as such because it is structurally feasible to make a building so ugly, or on aesthetic grounds?

If you think that proposal is “ugly” by Dublin’s standards I think your crazy. I think it looks brilliant. I am also delighted it’s Treasury Holdings who, unlike lesser developers, are actually still building esspecially for the commercial sector (Montevetro started in the recession, Aqua Vetro about to be unveiled). The DDDA already allows up to 100m on this site in it’s revised plan for the North Lotts. That’s why this scheme was changed. I also don’t think they have paid for hadids design for the craic either (assuming she is not a charity worker!). I think this is a serious scheme that will go ahead. DDDA will fast track it. They are in no posistion to turn anything down right now frankly.

@darkman wrote:

If you think that proposal is “ugly” by Dublin’s standards I think your crazy. I think it looks brilliant. I am also delighted it’s Treasury Holdings who, unlike lesser developers, are actually still building esspecially for the commercial sector (Montevetro started in the recession, Aqua Vetro about to be unveiled). The DDDA already allows up to 100m on this site in it’s revised plan for the North Lotts. That’s why this scheme was changed. I also don’t think they have paid for hadids design for the craic either. I think this is a serious scheme that will go ahead. DDDA will fast track it. They are in no posistion to turn anything down right now frankly.

Can someone explain this anomaly to me please. Think it is great they are marching on or whatever, but what are the economics behind their attitude? Are they really such a huge firm that they can take advantage of the low construction costs atm while not making an immediate return? Would the cost of lending not prohibit this, or have they substantial capital?

@ihateawake wrote:

Can someone explain this anomaly to me please. Think it is great they are marching on or whatever, but what are the economics behind their attitude? Are they really such a huge firm that they can take advantage of the low construction costs atm while not making an immediate return? Would the cost of lending not prohibit this, or have they substantial capital?

€3.4 billion in Irish Assets – oh wait;) Well something must be driving them to build Montevetro atm because they would not be doing it if it was not viable surely? My guess is they are going on sheer speculation and may be anticipating an upturn in 2011, taking a gamble basically, but that is what business is all about – 2011 which id assume is the completion date for the two Vetro buildings? Even Crosbie is still insisting his tower is going ahead if the DDDA gives him permision for office space.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

I always love the way they talk about a gateway to Dublin. How many of us have actually come into the Liffey by boat?

hahahaha, that’s comedy gold!

Thanks for that you made me forget about the recession for about a minute:D:D

@darkman wrote:

(Originally planned for U2 tower) Been looking at a few forums and they are really impressed with this and so am I!

Deserves it’s own thread. Leaves U2 tower in the shade on that image. Most impressive modern building proposed right now.:)

The design seems not to have changed from the U2 competition (image 5)

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=2033

Treasury Holdings pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

What in the name of jaysus – how are people advocating this?

Its a bloody cut and paste! Thats unreal – Can’t believe they’ve done that so blatantly. I’m all for showstopping, spectacular architecture but this basically reduces architecture to wallpaper – just a nice pattern slapped on to make something look well but with no consequence or deference to the structure beneath. This is the same work practice which has afforded bad architects to slap up pattern book, horrible apartment buildings across the country.

Complete shite.:mad:

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

I always love the way they talk about a gateway to Dublin. How many of us have actually come into the Liffey by boat?

Maybe the Germans, ECB and IMF are planning to come in that way?

@jdivision wrote:

Maybe the Germans, ECB and IMF are planning to come in that way?

Brilliant!:D

This a treadful project. Architecture without rhyme or reason.

Have to admit I’m with Darkman on this one. Let’s build it.

There’s a danger with a forum like this that most of the posts about a building (any building) are negative and that a consensus grows that we should do nothing/build nothing until an indisputably, undeniably brilliant design is proposed.

I’ve been on Archiseek for long enough to note that we haven’t once come across a design that we’ve all been in favour of. I don’t think that I’m the only one that has fallen into the trap of saying “if it’s not perfect, then we should hold off. Sooner or later something better will come along”. Maybe it’s that the ‘Build It Coz It’s Genius / Don’t Build It Coz It’s Disastrous’ choice is too black or white. Most proposals that I see on here lie somewhere in between.

The Hadid proposal wouldn’t be the greatest skyscraper ever built, nor would it be the worst. The question I believe we need to answer is whether it would add more to the city than it takes.

Pure chicanery!

http://www.tribune.ie/business/news/article/2009/mar/22/treasury-may-yet-bullet-the-blue-sky-with-u2-tower/

Could be nice.Hadid’s tower is around 38 floors, fosters 32 plus power unit brings it to 180m.
Im just guessing here with scales but think it could look really well.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

I always love the way they talk about a gateway to Dublin. How many of us have actually come into the Liffey by boat?

heard you paddled up only this morning

actually I have come in by boat – it’s pretty cool but rare

@massamann wrote:

Have to admit I’m with Darkman on this one. Let’s build it.

There’s a danger with a forum like this that most of the posts about a building (any building) are negative and that a consensus grows that we should do nothing/build nothing until an indisputably, undeniably brilliant design is proposed.

I’ve been on Archiseek for long enough to note that we haven’t once come across a design that we’ve all been in favour of. I don’t think that I’m the only one that has fallen into the trap of saying “if it’s not perfect, then we should hold off. Sooner or later something better will come along”. Maybe it’s that the ‘Build It Coz It’s Genius / Don’t Build It Coz It’s Disastrous’ choice is too black or white. Most proposals that I see on here lie somewhere in between.

The Hadid proposal wouldn’t be the greatest skyscraper ever built, nor would it be the worst. The question I believe we need to answer is whether it would add more to the city than it takes.

I second that, it would be impossible to create a skyscraper everybody would like.

But that seems to be the problem in this country, if one person appeals it it stalls the whole project.

Why not just build all of the (2nd) U2 competition entries around there 😉

@mud hut! wrote:

Could be nice.Hadid’s tower is around 38 floors, fosters 32 plus power unit brings it to 180m.
Im just guessing here with scales but think it could look really well.

you forgot Crosbie’s Watchtower though would be in front of the Hadid building

No, it would be behind the point which faces the waterfront with the hadid.

Are any of these projects actually going ahead?

About as much chance as satan’s snowball collection

@Rory W wrote:

About as much chance as satan’s snowball collection

Hmm I thought Treasury were just gonna plough on with Aqua..

They said a planning application for North Wall Quay would be lodged before the end of the year. Fingers crossed but im not overly hopeful.

If just one goes ahead let it be Aqua Vetro, that really is a showstopper, people all over the world would look in awe at that baby.

@Yixian wrote:

If just one goes ahead let it be Aqua Vetro, that really is a showstopper, people all over the world would look in awe at that baby.

Lol. Wtf!

If it looks anything like the bullshots it’s going to be seriously impressive.

@Yixian wrote:

If it looks anything like the bullshots it’s going to be seriously impressive.

I fear you may be mixing up Aqua Vetro with something else.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I fear you may be mixing up Aqua Vetro with something else.

Or else he/she/it is being sarcastic.

I once again propose the use of the Irony mark.

Now I just have to find out how to type it on my keyboard.

@Rory W wrote:

About as much chance as satan’s snowball collection

….umm, well… if he has a collection of em…..