Heuston Station granted permission

Yes, you are right. The other part of the site is still awaiting a DCC decision.

With the combined moral outrage of AT, IGS and FOK it would appear that this project is doomed. It really is very frustrating. At the moment architects approached for schemes anywhere outside of the docklands are left with a hit and hope approach. There is no way to advise a client as, even if the Planners are in favour in principle (and approve it, as happened here) ABP will be ganged up on and inevitably overturn the decision. A cynic (which I very much am) might think that the Planners pass a scheme in order to let ABP do their dirty work for them. Dublin needs landmark buildings to break the general monotony of its skyline, but no-one bloody well knows where they can site them!.

I’m not championing Mr. Keogh ( who obviously has a Squires and Partners book in his library). The site may very well be of high historic significance. The point is that, if it is so damn special, why has Keogh’s time and money been allowed to be wasted for so long? Give me guidelines or give me death

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2005/0615/breaking43.htm

State’s tallest building gets planning go-ahead
Luke Cassidy

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.

© 2005 ireland.com

Well that’s that. It’s going to be built now.
Do people think it’s right for a 32 storey building to be built here?

good to see it get planning, but think I would prefer to see a cluster of highrises in the docklands rather than a standalone one that far out from the core city centre. Looks very like the 17 storey Eglington St development in Cork! Hopefully that one will get the go ahead as well.

WTF?!?

Amazed to see this clear planning.

Interestingly enough second time AnBP overrode their own inspectors recommendations for development in this area.

Is Dublin going to go a similar way to London, with its random dispersal of medium to high rise buildings around the city and suburbs?* I suppose it is a very difficult one in that we have no real experience of building high so the natural reaction might be scepticism. Also, it is hard to select sites in that areas free from a higher density of develpment might be deemed unsuitable because there is no precedence in the area for High-Rise, whilst in city centre locations there are issues relating to the established community and the historic fabric of the city.

*Apart from Canary Wharf, which is basically a citidel separated from the rest of the city.

i’d be concerned over the visual impact on the royal hospital and the memorial gardens. This could dominate bothif it is as near to them as the picture seems to suggest.

It’s as good a location as any. It will act as a beacon marking the start of the city centre on the main roads in from Cork and Galway.
Chopping it to twenty stories (which is what would have happened) would leave us with neither one thing or the other, which is the big problem with the Smithfield Market development.
The views from the public viewing platform should be absolutely incredible, four counties at once on a good clear day.

While I’m generally against these lonely “landmark” tall buildings out on their own, this one doesn’t really get my blood boiling. This is one of the few approaches to Dublin with any semblence of a feeling of crossing a boundary into the city, so, as Kefu says, emphasising this boundary with a tall building mightn’t be an altogether bad thing.

It’s hard to judge the design from the images here but from what I can see, it doesn’t really excite me.

In terms of dominating the hospital and even Heuston station, it’s strange but the complete contrast in terms of height will, I feel, work to lessen this. They aren’t “competing” at all, so one doesn’t really “dominate” the other. The hospital and Heuston offer a complete contrast in that they are very horizontal structures while the tower is very vertical.

My one worry, shared with other posters, is that it will set a precedent for randomly scattering tall buildings around Dublin.

The precedent could be for a cluster to develop in that location as more CIE land is made available (as opposed to scattering)….

this highlights what a stumpy mess the docklands is.

I think the scattered tall building syndrome is here and an unfortunate side effect of the DDDA’s utter failing in planning the north docklands. The logical places for them have already been gobbled up. Any further tall buildings in the docklands will be a matter of tokenism – highlighted by Treasury’s recent failure to get DDDA to agree a proper tall building in the new and improved spencer dock.

Scattered tall building syndrome is primarily a London issue where there are a bunch of horrible breeze block style towers around the city. But it stemmed from the very real issue of having to non-voluntarily rebuild huge chunks of the city because of bombing and lack of housing. What’s beginning to happen in Dublin is very different and nowhere near as arbitrary as what happened in the UK.

I think a poll on this building is needed. It is a landmark development for the capital in more than just the usual ‘status’ stakes.

If this building sets a precedent for scattered development in the city, we can say goodbye to Dublin as we know it. However if it remains as a single ‘iconic’ entrance point to the city from the west, and is protected as such in successive development plans and by the CC, it could have a role to play in both marking the beginning of the city coming from the west, as well as defining the extent of the existing low-rise city by denoting its western boundary from the east.

But of course key is the impact on the setting of the Royal Hospital, Dr Steven’s Hospital and Heuston. I don’t know the area well enough to comment, indeed even if one does it’s still difficult to make out where it’s going to rise out of the landscape and the impact, if any, it will have.
Personally I would object hugely to the concept of a 15 or 20 storey building here – how horrendous would a squat deleopment like that be in the context of the low-rise nature of the area.
But a 30+ storey building completely detaches itself from the surrounding space in a way that may allow it to sit quite well within that historic setting – provided it complements rather than intimidates the existing context.

As for the design, think it’s just pretty mundane all in all – not bad, not fantastic, just pretty average, bit boring even. Difficult to make out the finish in the renderings.

Maybe this juxtaposing of new and old is just a passing fad, and we’ll all be utterly incredulous in 20 years time of the ignorance of this generation, or perhaps it’s here to stay…

I’m sorry but this project completely washes over me. I’ve read the reports and the applications thoroughly – I keep hearing about the magnificent architecture but I just can’t see it.

Landmark entrances are one thing, but I fear that this will signal encouragement of ‘scattered highrise’ culture in Dublin – already the projects proposed or under development at Cherrywood, Sandyford and Ballymun seem to demonstrate this. It is generally recognised that the resultant of such culture has negatively affected the skylines of such city’s as London and Paris etc. I would like to see a more centralised development of highrise in Irish cities. It offers continuity and substance. Paul Keogh’s Tall Building really isn’t my idea of magnificent architecture – and although I’m all for high-rise in the right location, I don’t think this project fits the bill. I actually feel myself getting sleepy looking at it.

It is, dare I say it, even a little ugly and I fear that Dublin will be looking at the building in another 30 years and sigh – before Treasury come along and propose a new revitalisation plan for the area, while former residents stand around the tower and cheer as its demolished. Hmmm – wait, didn’t that happen already???

@lexington wrote:

Landmark entrances are one thing, but I fear that this will signal encouragement of ‘scattered highrise’ culture in Dublin – already the projects proposed or under development at Cherrywood, Sandyford and Ballymun seem to demonstrate this. It is generally recognised that the resultant of such culture has negatively affected the skylines of such city’s as London and Paris etc. I would like to see a more centralised development of highrise in Irish cities. It offers continuity and substance. Paul Keogh’s Tall Building really isn’t my idea of magnificent architecture – and although I’m all for high-rise in the right location, I don’t think this project fits the bill. I actually feel myself getting sleepy looking at it.

Does anyone else agree that this scattered approach to high-rise may be a result (amongst other things) of the division of the wider city into different County and City Councils combined with the competitive nature of develpment?

Yes, I was never in favour of splitting the administration of the city up into areas that are essentially now in competition with each other..

well as a paddy living abroad i am delighted to see this building get the nod….. as for the site and context, i think it is outstanding.
a cluster of towers in the docklands is eventually inevitable but i hope dublin avoids canary wharfitis!!! if the tara st redevelopment gets the go ahead and liberty hall is replaced with a better building then dublin has a chance at achieving a balanced and unique tall building approach and appearance.
a stand alone tower like the hueston project is great and i would have loved to have seen more of the denis o brien proposal on morehampton rd. i am all for a very new approach to the layout and fabric of the city. another great place for a standalone landmark tower would be on the north circular road, near the phoenix park end. there is an office block there from the 70’s /80’s that could be torn down and replaced given the cash!!!
the heuston tower gives definition and weight to this end of dublin and more power to inchicore and beyond. maybe this will help the opw proposal and if all goes well this end of dublin will become, as i believe someone already mentioned, the western garteway to the capital.
a city with tall, hopefully attractive and innovative towers spread around in suitable areas would be a great achievement and we might have a stab at a great international standing regarding urban management. a pipe dream more than a tangible or probable reality but ye gotta dream!!!
dublin until relatively recently has suffered from under investment and a lack of intelligent and coherent urban planning and more importantly execution of said plans. one can only mourn the failure of the widestreets commision to implement abercrombies ideas such as the phoenix mall for instance (reaching from the park to o’conell st) and his plans for a central square in and around what is now the corpo hq with 10 -12 avenues/ boulevards ending there much like the area of the arc de triomphe in paris!!!
coulda woulda shoulda…..

@T.G. Scott wrote:

dublin until relatively recently has suffered from under investment and a lack of intelligent and coherent urban planning and more importantly execution of said plans. one can only mourn the failure of the widestreets commision to implement abercrombies ideas such as the phoenix mall for instance (reaching from the park to o’conell st) and his plans for a central square in and around what is now the corpo hq with 10 -12 avenues/ boulevards ending there much like the area of the arc de triomphe in paris!!!
coulda woulda shoulda…..

The Wide Streets Commissioners (1758 – 1851) and Abercrombie plan (1916 and again in 1941) were not the same thing.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/city_development/index.html

What did the Phoenix mall involve?

it was on the news lastnight, 2 years before any work will start on the site!

Phoenix mall? probably the wsc proposal for an avenue radiating from the crecent at the custom house to collins barracks?

look here , it a nice slender tall landmark building, GET OVER it, its a perfect gateway entrance to the city coming from the west side n nothing wrong with that……
FORGET the dockalnads its not happining there!!!!
let’s see a bit of common sense here ,
there is not much chance of a cluster of high buildings going ahead if they keep getting the thumbs down , right? ,plus there is potential for the Hueston area to become a cluster of high rises!!
my opinon its a nice building, it always looks better than on paper ,people?

that really needed to be expressed!!!!!

i’m pleased this got planning permission but i’ll believe it when i see it. when it is fully completed and standing erect i’ll be happy. look at what happened to the southbank tower.

The decision by An Board Pleanála has to be broadly welcomed, common sense finally prevails, its just a pity the same choice wasn’t taken on Spencer Dock, the Sir John Rogerson Quay development etc. The docklands should have been our version of Canary Wharf, its a pity a few of the members of the DDDA don’t have the same courage as those individuals in An Board Pleanála who overturned the rejection.

@alpha wrote:

i’m pleased this got planning permission but i’ll believe it when i see it. when it is fully completed and standing erect i’ll be happy. look at what happened to the southbank tower.

In the days of proper planning it would never have happened, but I’m here now

Christopher Cox

The article in the Indo said

“the high quality of the design involved was a factor in the decision”.

Is this a precedent? I normally see submissions made on design dismissed as irrelevant/subjective and that submissions need to be based on planning regulations rather than any aesthetic consideration.

In any case what makes this a high quality design? The pictures I’ve seen are of a very ordinary looking design. Dated rather than timeless. Nothing I see in it suggests that the height was an intrinsic element fo design. Looks almost like it was an adjustable plan and you could add of subtract 20 stories at a time without needing too much work!
Has anyone read the full report – did anBP elaborate on the role design played on the decision?

Interesting too that the height of the spire has been greatly superceded. I had been worried that the spire would form an artificial planning ceiling on dublin.

If you look at Toronto, apart from the downtown, there are scattered pockets of high rise. In the main, they correlate to public transit intersections. That’s how it should be – high density transit = high density development AND the converse should also be true – no metros in suburbia and no docklands without LUAS 😀

not meaning to debate your actually point dowlingm but it always amazes me when toronto is quoted as a good example of urban anything; i have spent a bit of time there, wandering through the city centre surface carparks, along the underdeveloped downtown streets, stared at the lake across the road and urban wasteland driven along the 4 lane highways through 200 km of sprawl etc etc etc . . .

notjim

the “problem” with Toronto is that it has limited control over development sometimes because it gets appealed to OMB (a developer friendly An Bord Pleanala). Also, the city now known as Toronto was six different cities until recent unification and its powers are circumscribed pretty heavily. A lot of pretty dreadful mistakes were made such as the Gardiner Expressway as you mention – however, the *current* city plan does take account of this stuff, and most of the recent high rise development has been along the various subway and streetcar lines, especially in North York.

As for sprawl – the cities/regions outside Toronto (especially Mississauga) wouldn’t know transit if it bit them in the ass.

If you want a really good example of a Canadian city with heavy control over development and forcing developers to build what’s good for the city as well as the bottom line, I give you Vancouver 😀

now the problem with Vancouver is the drugs and the awful ersatz gastown; the big plus is the pile of sulphur, the white whales and that nudist beach.