High Rise Building

ah ah ah, so now you’re all for a Dublin metroplis..!!!!.

😉

Damn, a double post. not cool…

I suppose that in many cases, and particularly in more built up areas, people don’t want to have to put up with derecliction of buildings that are awaiting a developer to purchase nearby buildings so that redevelopment can go ahead. Other reasons that people don’t like them is that they often alter a place so much, due their scale, that peoples view of what they like about an area changes dramatically, and their sense of attachement to that place is eroded. Overshadowing and overlooking of surrounding smaller buildings is often another factor when people object to taller buildings.

There’s 3 main reasons in this country – the history of tallish buildings has been a nasty one, some buildings proposed are of poor design, and thirdly – are often inappropriately sited.

One of the most common reasons for building tall is due to the cost of land. There’s an optimum height beyond which it just doesn’t stay profitable to build above, unless you increase the floor plate, or can obtain ‘x’ amount in rental or sale value. I’m not a Q.S. but have been told that its beyond the 20 to 30 storey range for Dublin, buildings higher than this tend to be loss-making but act as a flagship while also divert attention away from much larger element which consists of relatively low-rise blocks but contain huge amounts of floor space.

I think its because land has become so expensive that these mid-rise schemes are being considered. Though I doubt land prices have hit the London CBD levels yet; where over the last couple of years there’s been a spate of proposed buildings that are high-rise in the proper sense.
http://www.hughpearman.com/articles5/skyscrapers.html

Although it seems over here proposals for anything beyond 4 storeys adjacent to semi-d housing estates are termed ‘high-rise’ by residents associations so as to well up local hysteria. Or anytime the national press get wind of a potential application which consists of a 10-storey + element they also label it high rise.

Sean, I have to say I think you’re wrong…high rise does NOT create any more ground space…ehhhhh?!…take a walk down by Tara St…Hawkins House, etc…now first up, let me beat you to it by acknowledging that yes they are all crappy buildings (barr the new Liffey House replacement), but I would feel that part of that comes from the fact that they ARE tall buildings…when designers are designing tall buildings, they seem to forget and neglect the ground floor…even Piano with his new Sydney skyscraper…ok it’s quite good…but not brilliant…at all…

Cities work best at 5-9 storeys, with the odd landmark, important building. That way the city is not removed from the people, the buildings are not removed from the city, and there is an increased sense of ownership I would feel. The high-rise, landmark buildings should have public functions, and so the skyline belongs to the people…this is how it has been traditionally in Dublin…Christ Church, Patricks, Wellington, Spire, Four Courts dome, Landsdowne, Crokers, Pigeon House, etc…in some ways it’s somewhat unfortunate that the skyline is being lessened by the modern apartment towers…for eg, the new planned tower at Heuston Station – the Guinnesses HQ…I agree wholeheartedly with the tower, but should that be some for other use???

Originally posted by Craig Davis

Although it seems over here proposals for anything beyond 4 storeys adjacent to semi-d housing estates are termed ‘high-rise’ by residents associations so as to well up local hysteria. Or anytime the national press get wind of a potential application which consists of a 10-storey + element they also label it high rise.

I don’t think it is hysteria. I find that normally it is actually genuine concern about the future of someones area. I don’t think it is a bad thing that people actually care about their surroundings at all. If you think of the examples of medium rise buildings in this country such as Cork County Hall, Liberty Hall, Hawkins House etc etc, it is not difficult to understand peoples fears of taller buildings. I personally think that Liberty Hall could actually look quite nice if its windows were sorted out and maybe public access was given back so as to give a feeling of public ownership to the building, but at present I can understand why most people hate it. Also, does anyone know what the state of play with Cork County Hall is at present? It was meant to get an overhaul a few years ago, but I was not sure if it ever happened or not.

Originally posted by yee haw

Cities work best at 5-9 storeys, ??

oh dear god no…. i hope u were jokin. 5-9. that’s the crap that has kept this country from proper development. i can take the argument that it’s unprofitable after 30 storeys but that is just pure nonsense. sorry.

well i think there should be a definition of what high rise is, and more importantly, what it is not. people who have a difficulty with taller (than 4 storeys) buildings may be genuinely concerned about physical and social impacts of taller buildings, but surely isnt there a responsibility on behalf of architects and planners to address these concerns in a realistic fashion – by demonstrating that taller buildings can have positive impacts and that they can be desirable if designed and located appropriately. And also it needs to be demonstrated that the often quoted examples of ‘bad’ high rises such as Ballymun did not fail as development models as a result of their height. Height had nothing to do with Ballymun’s ‘failure’ – the problems associated with Ballymun are the same as the problems associated with poor quality and under serviced local authority housing built after the 1960s in urban areas in ireland- whether they are 1,2,3 or 10 storey housing.

Furthermore, i really dont understand what is being referred to as a ‘fear of taller buildings’ in respect of Hawkins, Liberty and County Hall Cork. there are far scarier buildings than these in our cities that are two three and four storeys, and again, it is not their height that creates supposedly negative impacts, it is more to do with form, articulation, materials, lack of maintenance. Also, restricting building heights to 5 – 9 storeys will not do anything to ensure a human scale or provide people with a sense of ‘civic ownership’ – the ambition to retain and instill ‘civic ownership’ is extremely important and desirable – but will not succeed by a committment to the fallacy that height restrictions will guarantee this – there are many many factors that contribute to achieving a human scale and civic ownership within the built environment – simply focussing on height is a lazy response and needs to be tackled.

Good points Bunch. I genuinly think that Hawkins house is the worst building in Dublin (but I also agree that there are alot of terrrible smaller buildings aswell), and I also genuinly think that it is buildings such as this that make people fear taller buildings (I purposly use the term taller because it is relatively taller buildings that I am referring to). Taller buildings such as this one stand out in peoples minds alot more than the smaller ones for the very simple reason that they are bigger and therefore more visible.

Yeah – the height issue is a convenient excuse for the failure of Ballymun whenever the anti tall brigade are in town.
Yee Haw – on what basis are you saying that highrise does not equal more space? Yes – with more height comes the need for more services etc – but this is 2004 and these things can be designed for. I think we need to cop on with our attitude to taller structures unless we are happy to allow the average house price in Dublin to hit 400k and commute from Carlow to Baggot St.
Infrastructre such a the Luas is a joke when it runs through a route primarily of semidetached three beds.
It is true that high density does not necessarily equal high rise.
There is a mentality in this country that a building if deemed “tall” gets objected to purely on the basis of it being tall. I am certain that in any case that a “tall” building got proposed – it was objected to prior to any design even being seen! The argument that the designs proposed were not good is not a valid one – as there are some people who irrespective of the design would object no matter. They are happy with a 5+1 cereal box city.
Also when we go on about “tall” – we’re not really discussing tall or even high rise. The heuston gate building is probably the only building that would qualify as tall.

As for County Hall in Cork – the Shay Cleary renovations are at an advanced stage.

Originally posted by d_d_dallas

As for County Hall in Cork – the Shay Cleary renovations are at an advanced stage.

As in an advanced stage of planning or actually being put in place? If so how is it looking?

As in actually being deconstructed and rebuilt!
Haven’t actually been in that part of Cork in about six months – but last time I saw it all the concrete columns were removed and work was staring on the new base of the building.
That building has had zero maintenance performed on in it in 40 years, so to see it without all those grotty columns it looked eerily clean!

Originally posted by d_d_dallas
As in actually being deconstructed and rebuilt!
Haven’t actually been in that part of Cork in about six months – but last time I saw it all the concrete columns were removed and work was staring on the new base of the building.
That building has had zero maintenance performed on in it in 40 years, so to see it without all those grotty columns it looked eerily clean!

Lexington will know more than me, but the state of play is that an additional adjacent seven storey building is in construction which will link to the county hall and provide all interactive services.
In relation to the main building, the outer concrete shell has been removed and the interior is being completely gutted. The upper floors will be extended by a glass dome which will dramatically change the look of the building. I believe the construction time frame is two years.

An early image of Cork County Hall from the competition stage (although I believe the design has been substantially altered & improved since):

A description as given on the SCA website:

REFURBISHMENT AND EXTENSION TO CORK COUNTY HALL.
1999 –
The project involves the recladding and general fitting out of an existing 1960’s tower block along with the provision of further office accommodation in a five storey extension and a new concourse and council chamber.
The scheme proposes an L shaped arrangement of tower block and extension embracing a double height concourse containing the council chamber as a special element. This primary strategy brings the County Hall into a direct relationship with the street in that the main entrance now has a frontal relationship with it. This is further emphasised by the placing of a light steel and glass canopy at the pavement edge. The concourse can be accessed from three sides allowing easy movement to the building from the various carparking areas. The concourse is seen as mediating between the various elements of the composition. It is a rectilinear hall of slender steel columns supporting a glazed roof. It sits in the L shaped configuration established by the tower block and the new extension. It is 7.8m high and contains all of the more public functions at ground and first floor levels.
The extension forms the southern flank of the proposed L shaped configuration. It is five storeys in height and accommodates public counters and meeting rooms at ground floor, the members rooms and chairmans office at first floor and back up administration office space for the remaining floors. Its southern side is treated elementally with setbacks at ground and fourth floor and it employs the glass louvre shading device that is proposed for the tower block.
The existing building has many strong characteristics which the proposal enhances and highlights in a sympathetic way. Its relationship to the main road is powerful and elegant in that it presents a slender delicately proportioned form to the approach. The additions both in terms of scale and disposition are arranged to avoid compromising its form. Its general aesthetic of a layered façade comprising applied non structural frame and setback full height glazing is again endorsed and reinterpreted by the proposal.

I think the best place to start talking about high-rises is the US – the spiritual home of the skyscraper. The Skyscraper Museum – http://www.skyscraper.org – is an excellent resource (also has the fantastic Timeformations website project – well worth a look). The curator, Carol Willis, also wrote a book ‘Form Follows Finance’ about how the economics of property and construction influenced the design of early high rises in Chicago and New York.

Skyscrapers originated in New York and Chicago for specific reasons, but then spread throughout the US through the influence of these cities as gateways for immigrants.

Even now cities seem to build high rises as status symbols – aren’t all the tallest buildings happening in the tiger economies, eager to shake off developing world images?

why do high-rises still = progressive go-getters and low-rise = boring old conservatives? (or am I the only one who thinks this?)

5-9. that’s the crap that has kept this country from proper development

Look, that’s precisely it…that’s the attitude that I hate…that favouring a predominantly 9-storey city over a (say) predominantly 20-storey city is holding back ‘proper’ development. THAT’S crap! Fin, if Dublin was TRULY 9 storeys, there’d be no need for any 20-30 storeys, and so you’re then in a position to CHOOSE when you want them, when they’re suitable, when it’s for the people (ie for a civic reasons, and not for look-at-me architects or for commercial reasons).

on what basis are you saying that highrise does not equal more space? Yes – with more height comes the need for more services etc – but this is 2004 and these things can be designed for. I think we need to cop on with our attitude to taller structures unless we are happy to allow the average house price in Dublin to hit 400k and commute from Carlow to Baggot St.

What I’m saying is that of course highrise = more space on the ground, but I’d far rather have half as much space, and have quality, sun-drenched spaces rather than sit-under-the-concrete-overhang-of-some-tower-on-‘the-landscape-flows-through’-stilts…I have to say, I’m a bit flabbergasted…to think that in this day and age, no-one seems to be learning from our former ‘greats’ mistakes…Corb for one, realised that his acres-of-space-around-remote-towers idea just did not work…so who cares about quantity.

If Dublin actually was 5-9 storeys…I’m talking bulk here…I see no prob with a 9 storey building having an interesting roofline, jumping to 12-15 storeys for (say) 25% of the facade…this for me is one of my major gripes with the Docklands…all buildings are just boring parapets at a uniform height…no provision was allowed to break the skyline for the main conference room/canteen, etc…so if Dub actually was 5-9 storey rather than the 2-storey, 3-bed semi that d_d_dallas is talking about there’d be no problem with Luas’s or anything else!

One major gripe that I have with forming a city out of towers, is that each building just does its own thing…I know that many would say that this is simply a symptom of the increase of building at the urban block scale rather than urban plot of yesteryear, but you get a rather broken streetscape, and all those horrible ‘gaps’ between the blocks…look for eg at the Murray O’Laoire white office block in the northside docks at the Spencer Dock corner…a white, metal trellis was erected at the time, partly because of the gap…they were trying to do something with it…and that’s the prob that I have with building very tall…that automatically these gaps are generally created, whereas as at a lower storey, designers feel a greater need to actually examine the streetscape rather then standing over their 1:2000 model and patting themselves on the back.

How can Dublin become a predominantly 5-9 story City? It isn’t, and that is just that.

We are hardly going to replace the buildings on the Quays with taller builidings, even if they look better. Nor will residents accept even medium sized buliding in the waste lands of semi-detached suburbia.

So we need to find an area where we can build high density and tall buildings. Unfortunately it seems we have squandered some opportunities, and from what I see on the Docklands website, there are no real tall buildings going up in the Grand Canal area ( the buildings agreed there are interesting enough, just not very high)

Does anyone have a website, or picture, for the Heuston development?

There was a thread about this a while ago:

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2594&highlight=heuston+gate

There is more links about it there

Anyone hear the ‘high-rise debate’ with the booming Tom McGurk this morning? Bit of a scoop with Sam Stephenson being dragged out again from his holiday in Spain, Jim Barrett representing the City Fathers, and the Georgian Society’s planning officer who’s name escapes me despite meeting him recently – oops.

Bit scatty but interesting – should be on the RTE website by tomorrow morning or you might be able to catch a repeat if up at 2.00 in the morning 🙂

IGS Planning Office = Donough Cahill?

I heard that Graham…..and all seemed to advocate the need for high rise in the city. It was good to hear Tom McGuik highlighting the boring vast expanses of two storey dwellings and boxes.
The artist in the report beforehand Anne Madden I think was a bit barmy in that I don’t think she can cope with the concept of the city. She has an exhibition at the mo putting across her fears of urban change and the building boom in Dublin.

Speaking of ‘high’ rise, any news on Quay Lodge, Tara Street or Sir John Rogerson’s Quay?

Quay Lodge? Is that the one on Pearse St?
The house that it’s replacing is being demolished right now – so I guess that project is moving along.
Don’t know about the others (holding breath…)

Originally posted by d_d_dallas
Quay Lodge? Is that the one on Pearse St?
The house that it’s replacing is being demolished right now – so I guess that project is moving along.
Don’t know about the others (holding breath…)

In Ballymun? I didn’t know that Pearse Tower already had a “replacement” set up. Any info on Quay Lodge?

Wait…this is Quay Lodge. I was thinking its name was Wood Quay for some odd reason, but thats a development in London.

It looks like a standard London building anyway!

Yeah Greg, that artist made it a tad unclear as to what she was talking about to say the least – it was hilarious the way they talked for 5 minutes about towering high-rises in the city, blocking out light, the mass use of concrete etc and then gave an example of it – the Jervis St area, where the standard roof level is moving from 4 storeys to six! Perhaps the exhibition sheds a bit more light on what she has in mind.

I think an equally ludicrous comment was made by Sam Stephenson, suggesting that the Docklands should rise to the level of Manhattan, that it should reach for the skies etc – although perhaps it was said a bit tounge-in-cheek!
Interesting that when he said that the Georgian core is sacrosanct and should be fully protected, McGurk seemed to jarr at the idea, saying that marmalade is better suited to preservation than cities. Hmmm… (still funny though :))

That’s the name Paul, it was Donagh Cahill from the IGS featured. A nice guy, even though spoke to him for just a moment – certainly contradicts the usual stuff levelled at the organisation. Indeed overall the society is very welcoming and interested in what you’re at – the basement’s always very homely down there 🙂

Yes! Quay Lodge on Pearse St!!! (or if you want to be pedantic the merging of Pearse St and Ringsend Rd). There was a house (called funnily enough “Quay Lodge”) standing on that spot until a few days ago. It is now gone! Therefore construction must be commencing at some stage in the near future…

Originally posted by GregF
The artist in the report beforehand Anne Madden I think was a bit barmy in that I don’t think she can cope with the concept of the city. She has an exhibition at the mo putting across her fears of urban change and the building boom in Dublin.

Bernadette Madden – her exhibition “Vanishing Skies” will be on in the Hallward Gallery, 65 Merrion Square from 1 September. The ubiquitous Frank Mcdonald is doing the opening.

I thought she was quite good in an offbeat, arty type of way. She is not actually against tall buildings – she is concerned about thier locations and is rightly unimpressed by the tendency to pack entire sites with high buildings, no setting back, no open and public spaces…

Originally posted by d_d_dallas
Yes! Quay Lodge on Pearse St!!! (or if you want to be pedantic the merging of Pearse St and Ringsend Rd). There was a house (called funnily enough “Quay Lodge”) standing on that spot until a few days ago. It is now gone! Therefore construction must be commencing at some stage in the near future…

So now we’ll have 2 highrises under construction in Dublin, at Santry Cross and Quay Lodge. There was a bit of a “highrise lull” last year and no true highrises were built (by true highrise, I mean 12 stories and up).

Theres also that new tallest going up in Limerick and several proposals around the country. Looks like maybe Ireland is opening up more to highrise development…? 🙂

In a (pair of) word(s) – sort of. In Dublin at least, most of the bigger buildings are near transport nodes, which is why they are getting approved or are likely to be – there’s the apartment tower and hotel near the Luas in Belgard Square, Smithfield Market on the same line, Quay Lodge near Barrow St. DART, Heuston Gate, Tara St. Station, Merchant’s Gate near the Point Luas extension.

There are still inappropriate or poorly located proposals though – there is no tranport infrastucture in the area of the city where the U2 building and Sir John Rogerson’s Quay building will be, the perennially-awaiting-decision Southbank is even worse. The proposed tower in Donnybrook would need to be spectacular to avoid being terribly inappropriate (as good as the once-empty Centrepoint, for example), and I haven’t seen a model or rendering of it so I’ll withhold judgement. There’s also a proposed development in Carrickmines and one in Liffey Valley – I don’t think high large suburban developments with no rail access should be permitted.

These builings are not highrise! Quay Lodge will be lucky to graze 40m. Santry Cross ditto.

But ”at the end of the day” folks (to quote an old footballing cliche)…..this stuff that we are getting here that is being regarded as high-rise is really quite pitiful really, is’nt it. I mean big deal….Wow….20 storeys….ah Jesus ….It’s a laugh…..The Brits across the water are setting good examples with their new and ”dynamic” architecture in most of their major cities, ie London. As always we can learn from their examples and take a leaf outta their books….when they are producing good stuff. We copied their failures in the 60’s. Why does it take so loooong here for the penny to drop.
(ie…and way off the point, but it is a metaphor; In the Olympics our equestrian team were hot stuff for a medal before the start, we had just won the Aga Kahn and McCreevy spent millions and built a ghastly looking hotel for the gee gees down in Kildare……but at the end of the day we did fuck all and got no where in the Olympics for a country that prides itself in horse breeding, while our competitors, The Germans , the Brits , the USA did very well and all on horses that probably originated from an Irish stud. We did atrocious in the dressage as always and sure that was expected …Well why don’t they correct the fucking problem and get someone in with knowhow to train our horses to perform ….as they were saying last night on TV after the penny had dropped. The same can be applied to achitecture in Ireland. We supply the paddies to build the temples abroad, all over the world, but we are too scared to build them at home. Maybe, there is some truth in stereotypes and maybe a proportion of Irish people are generally stupid despite an education…ie politicians, beaureaucrats etc……. ..So come on people wake up, ah jesus, for god sake!

Originally posted by Irishtown

Theres also that new tallest going up in Limerick and several proposals around the country. Looks like maybe Ireland is opening up more to highrise development…? 🙂

where’s it being built in limerick, is it part of this whole riverside city thing?

Originally posted by Andrew Duffy
The proposed tower in Donnybrook would need to be spectacular to avoid being terribly inappropriate (as good as the once-empty Centrepoint, for example), and I haven’t seen a model or rendering of it so I’ll withhold judgement.

Heres the Donnybrook project:

Originally posted by d_d_dallas
These builings are not highrise! Quay Lodge will be lucky to graze 40m. Santry Cross ditto.

They are in no waay tall or skyscrapers, no. But the term highrise technically refers to buildings over 12 stories. At least thats the consensus.

Originally posted by Mob79

where’s it being built in limerick, is it part of this whole riverside city thing?

More info here:

Riverpoint Building
Newton House

^All of this info comes straight from the architects and Limerick city Planning records.

Poor Limerick…

Its not all bad…It will look better in reality than in renderings.

It was one rendering in particular that made me pity ole stab city (sic) the rendering Irishtown you put up of the view from Steamboat Qy is actually quite good – it was from the opposite side that caused me pain.

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/797/72bishopsquay4.jpg

Yeah it looks quite behemoth and plain for that angle. But from others it looks quite nice. Overall, I think it will be good for the area.

ok, im getting a bit confused now, those links above, are they for two different buildings, there’s one being built in behind the existing building at the roundabout, as seen in the construction photos but then the computer image has it on the other side of the road, there’s buildings jumping everywhere!

Both buildings are part of the project. Newton House is already completed. Riverpoint Building is under-construction.

Well done to Limerick for showing some ambition in building modern high rises. I have always been impressed with the architecture of Limerick City, above all there use of brick throughout the city which for me is the most attractive material along with glass.
It makes such a change from the architecture you see in most towns and cities throughout Ireland which to say the least is dull and shows no imagination or style whatsoever.
I have always thought as you drive into Limerick going to Cork, it is for me the most attractive looking city in Ireland with the river Shannon flowing along side it.
With these additional high rises it will look, i’m sure, great.
But what about Galway?
It has grown more than Limerick over the last decade, is a very young city, but still there is not a hint of any high rises, strange I think.
On Skyscraperpage.com it shows “Salthill Park, 30 floors” proposed and another high rise in Salthill at 18 floors, but in reality they don’t seem to exist and I very much doubt they will ever be built.
Come on Galway, pull up your socks, kop on and come and join the modern existing world of high rise architecture.

most architect’s and such here would welcome it but getting someone to pay is another thing. don’t mind that thing about salthill…load of bollox.

As far as i can remember,construction on the new Tara Street station was meant to start next month. Did i read somwhere that it might not be going ahead?

Yeah, the Salthill projects are pipe dreams. Actually proposed, but will never happen.

Originally posted by Gar
As far as i can remember,construction on the new Tara Street station was meant to start next month. Did i read somwhere that it might not be going ahead?

Good to hear something about that. I’ve not heard a thing either way. Do you have an article or anything?

read an article about a year ago which gave September 2004 as the commencement date, but haven’t heard anything definitive since.

Reckon that project is dead now

i was just wondering… what is happening with the 13 storey tower block for the tallaght area? have they started work on it yet? i passed through tallaght the other day in my car and noticed some building work going on close to the square’s luas station. i didn’t have the time to make a closer inspection.

yep building work is well underway … think there’s another 13 / 14 storey tower going up also …

thanks peter for the info. i appreciate it.

Peter- do you have mroe information on it? I don’t recall hearing about it.

now that i think of it… has anyone got any pictures on how these high rise buildings might look when they are completed in tallaght?

Here’s a bad render of the Belgard Square West development.

A quick roundup of the tallish buildings in the pipeline:

Belgard Square, Tallaght – Dez Developments has approval (SD03A/0421) for a 15 storey hotel, and Shelbourne Developments is building an approved (SD03A/0323, 06S204123) 13 storey apartment building. This can be seen at the architect’s web site: http://www.hjlyons.com/ProjectsFiles/Resident/Belgard/Belgard.htm

Sandyford Industrial Estate – Landmark Developments is proposing (D04A/0618) a 14 storey apartment building on the Microsoft site and Mark II Partnership is proposing (D04A/0200) an 11 storey tower on the Allegro site.

Glencairn Developments proposes (D04A/1115) a 17 storey apartment tower for a site on the Murpystown Road in Leopardstown.

Barkhill’s proposed (SD03A/0889) 18 storey apartment tower at Liffey Valley appears to have died, with South Dublin County Council having declared the application withdrawn due to a lack of response to a request for extra information.

Finally, Eltissey is proposing (D04A/0674) a 12 storey tower in Stillorgan, Pamarette Limited & U.C.D propose (D04A/0943) a 12 storey tower for the Jefferson Smurfit site in Clonskeagh, and Swampton Holdings is proposing (4554/04) an 11 storey OMP-designed tower in Ballyfermot.

I wonder does she read this board?

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1275295&issue_id=11594

Legoland suburbs stretch towards high-rise horror

PARTS of Dublin suburbia are in danger of being turned into a type of ‘Legoland’ because of the volume of planning applications for high-rise apartment blocks, Fine Gael warned last night.

Dublin South Deputy Olivia Mitchell said some of the applications in the south Dublin area were for buildings as high as 17 storeys.

“Disturbingly, planners are looking favourably on these applications. They seem to be beguiled by the notion of a ‘landmark building’ or ‘architectural statement’ – the proliferation of tower blocks, retro-fitted onto a low-rise suburban setting, makes a nonsense of the concept of a landmark and turns previously accepted norms of good planning on their head,” Ms Mitchell said.

She cited examples of applications for high rise apartment blocks in suburban locations such as Rathfarnham, Dundrum and Stillorgan.

Recently, planning permission was sought for a 17-storey development on the Murphystown Road, a 10-storey building in Ballinteer and apartment applications of 7,8,9,11,12,13 and 16 storeys in the Sandyford area.

“Bizarrely, high-rise apartment blocks are considered out of scale for Dublin’s city centre building profile, yet are regarded as an attractive option for low-rise suburbia,” she said.

Grainne Cunningham

What in God’s name is that womans problem,……… trying to preserve two-storey suburbia!!!!

Of couse!
Its the well healed denizens of the 2 story houses that bend her ear about their fears that they will no longer be able to go nudey sun bathing in their back gardens.:eek:

Originally posted by Mob79
What in God’s name is that womans problem,……… trying to preserve two-storey suburbia!!!!

I think one of the reasons that communities object to these sorts of developments is that the first they hear of them is by maybe one or two people in the area noticing an application for planning permission posted on the site. Therefore they are automatically on the offensive and see nothing but the negative effects of such structures. I also think that people have different spatial perspectives; ie we see space differently depending on our backgrounds. So the trained architect will obviously see a taller (please note I am not saying high-rise) building differently to how someone who is just living in an area that maybe has not changed in years. We all have an attachment to places. Some of us are trained to accept changes and therefore adjust to them faster. Others see changes in places as a shift in the way they have to look at the world, and therefore a change in their attachement to that place. Therefore, it is only natural for them to question possible changes.

This is a particularly interesting point she makes regardless of your opinions on the subject: – “Bizarrely, high-rise apartment blocks are considered out of scale for Dublin’s city centre building profile, yet are regarded as an attractive option for low-rise suburbia,” she said.
Why is a 15-storey tower acceptable in Tallaght but not the one proposed for Donnybrook?
In this country there is a gut instinct to use the defence of ‘historic’ when it comes to architecture and planning.
So you say it will affect historic Donnybrook or wherever, even though the guts have already been torn out of an area and large parts of the city centre.
The ‘historic’ argument is a bit like calling somebody a racist who is trying to make a point about asylum seekers.
It’s like a catch-all phrase of ‘so you must be against history’
And then once they make that statement, you’re not even entitled to a point of view.
So you say the ‘Alamo’ on Moore Street should be redeveloped because it’s a derelict shell – but in ‘anti-historic speak’ it means you want to whitewash over the Easter Rising.
You feel that the trees on O’Connell Street add nothing to the street and have in fact contributed to anti-social behaviour there and you’re told that they’re ‘witnesses to history’ and you’re trying to erase that.
Apologies for rambling.

They currently want to redevelop a former cinema, the Gala, in Ballyfermot. This will involve the building of appartments and shops on the site whilst keeping its current use as a bingo hall. An 11 storey tower is part of the scheme. Already the locals are objecting to the scheme wanting to get people to sign a petition and pay a 20 euro objection fee. Spearheading this campaign is the current Lord Mayor of Dublin who hails from Ballyfermot. All this, and I bet not one of them has even seen the proposed scheme, including meself. The general public are really lacking at times.

Originally posted by GregF

All this, and I bet not one of them has even seen the proposed scheme, including meself. The general public are really lacking at times.

I really think that you are jumping to conclusions there GregF. How do you know that the people objecting to the scheme have not seen the design?

I’m not opposed to high rise buildings when they have an important city function and are not used for compulsory housing of the poor but they do have drawbacks that have been well documented in countries with more experience of this style of building than Ireland.

loss of community:
above even 4 floors it’s not possible to shout out your window down to a friend in the street or to keep an eye on your kids out the window. Children tend to be kept indoors more often in the upper floors of high rise buildings
(admittedly, many low-rise suburban areas have little sense of community)

human scale:
when the buildings get to big, you get that feeling of being an ant scuttling around the deep, dark cracks between the god-like sky-scrapers. The 8-10 storey buildings that line Parisian Boulevards are still within a human scale but Manhattan is not.

going nuts:
The effect of living in the clouds is isolating and neurosis-inducing. As Christopher Alexander in his book ‘A Pattern Language’ says: “There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy” Ever wonder why shrinks do such good business in NY?

false landmarks:
(as the woman above points out) When you wander around suburban London you come across a big building every kilometre or so. These buildings are more likely to be a call centre or a council block than the town hall or courthouse.

fire hazards:
very tall buildings are difficult to safely evacuate in case of fire

not necessary for high density living:
very high densities can be achieved with 4 storey terraced buildings in small pedestrian districts, when the land normally required for road infrastructure and parking is returned to public space.

“The effect of living in the clouds is isolating and neurosis-inducing”… the same could be said about any three/four storey apartment/town house scheme in any part of the country. Just because people live closer to ground level doesn’t make them any better neighbours.

On a broader level for Dublin, what is becoming a big issue, I’d say problem, is that every developer coming along with a tall scheme lauds it as a landmark structure for the area its going up in.
Is there ever going to be a situation anywhere where a tall, attractive landmark building goes up, and nothing else thereafter?
Until the end of time there are going to be proposal after proposal for such schemes, regardless of what has already gone up.
If the Donnybrook tower was built, no way would that have been the end of it. Planning needs to take into account not only the nature of existing areas, but also protect ‘true’ landmark buildings that are built from visual erosion by mid-risers (Irish style)

Originally posted by d_d_dallas
Just because people live closer to ground level doesn’t make them any better neighbours.

For parents, it means they are more likely to allow their children to play together on the street. This leads to the parents being more likely to know one another.

Graham – you make an interesting point. Take the Chrysler building in New York, easily one it’s finest. Yet the building is obscured and greatly diminished by what came after it.

more info on the Belgard Square project @

http://www.belgardsquare.com

Does anyone know when construction work will start on the southbank tower on poolbeg? and also, whens the heuston gateway tower going to be built?

Belgard Square – how utterly dire is that?! Few high-rise structures proposed for Ireland have any imagination. They have nothing intriguing or distinct about them from every other high-rise in the world. Only a few proposals have caught my eye – I’m happy to say, 2 of which at least, are in Cork. Another one to catch my eye for Cork is at a pre-planning stage. However, one Dublin proposal I quite like was that proposed for Sir John Rogerson’s Quay by Dunloe Ewart PLC. Design is by OMS. However, it’s now understood, despite a grant by ABP, the building will not be realised. See image below.

lorcan, to be honest i can’t see either of those buildings being built. this is my just my opinion on it. the southbank tower was approved years ago as far as i know but no sign of it actually being built. the heuston tower at 32 storeys will either be dropped or else seriously reduced in height.

I agree with you on that one alpha. It just seems as if buildings as tall as that will never be built here. Not when there is such a negitive attitude toward them. 🙁

My god Lexington, I nearly fell off my chair when I saw that you had subscribed to another thread apart from ‘Look at the state of Cork like’ 🙂

Anyway, the real reason I am replying to you is that I thought the site that you showed on John Rogersons Quay is the U2 Tower Site, or is that actually it, because I thought it looked different?

Sorry, I don’t think that I am capable of making the photos come up directly. here is a direct link to the sites:

http://www.craighenry.com/u2.htm

http://www.irish-architecture.com/unbuilt_ireland/dublin/u2_tower/bdacha/view1_lge.html

I see from today’s Times that NABCo have a planning app in for a 28 Storey tower on the Players-Wills Tobbaco site on the SCR.

Anyone else think that planning apps are going in 1/3 higher than envisaged so that the planners lop 1/3 off to make it acceptable (i.e. developers get the building they want in the first place!!).

that is funny rory w because i was thinking the same thing. 🙂

Anyone see the scale of the new development on the west side Smithfield square. What a substantial mass,…..far more impressive than anything further down the docks. That Custom House Square is so banal, with nothing but suits. See that the architects who designed this got a bit of a ribbing for their proposal at Heuston Station. It’s more of the same banality.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the tallest functional structure in urban Ireland is the eircom mast on Dame Lane. It is visually obtrusive from a number of vantage points and it is above all ugly.

Going up is a beautiful thing when an aestetically pleasing structure is designed for the right spot. Smithfield works well because it is at a very low site, whilst quite tall by Dublin standards it is starting at about 5 metres above Quay level. A building half the height on an elevated site would have more impact on the skyline. Another quite tall one is the feature tower in the Quartier Bloom scheme it works very well for a similar reason, there are also apartments in it to rent on a short term basis.

What needs to be avoided are much taller buildings on elevated sites and in the City core, the docklands are dissapointingly lowrise in character.

I AM A HUGH FAN OF HIGH RISE BUILDING AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THEM IN IRELAND. AS A COUNTRY WE SEEM TO BE AFRAID OF MOVING WITH THE TIMES. HIGH RISE BUILDINGS WOULD BE A GREAT BENEFIT TO THE COUNTRY AS LONG WE AS WHEN DESIGNING THEM WE THINK AS THE ASETHETICS (SOMETHING TAHT MANY IRISH ARCHITECTS SEEM TO FORGET). HOWER I CANT HELP BUT QUESTION THE SAFETY OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS. FOLLOWING 9/11 IT BECAME CLEAR HOW HELPLESS THESE BUILDINGS ARE AGAINST TERRORIST ATTACKS.

???? an aeroplane could still crash into fitzwilliam square if it tried.

mob79, have you forgotten that the towers were still standing after the they were struck. it was the structure and material used that resulted in the towers collapseing in the way they did, the towers did not tilt at all but just fell straight. the fire proofing used on the steel structure was in terrible condition and in1995 an investgation began to research the durability of the substance. how can we be sure that if we do build high rise buildings in dublin the materials wont be shabby. we all know that irish builders cut corners where possible

@CLAIRE MURRAY wrote:

mob79, have you forgotten that the towers were still standing after the they were struck. it was the structure and material used that resulted in the towers collapseing in the way they did, the towers did not tilt at all but just fell straight. the fire proofing used on the steel structure was in terrible condition and in1995 an investgation began to research the durability of the substance. how can we be sure that if we do build high rise buildings in dublin the materials wont be shabby. we all know that irish builders cut corners where possible

The reasons for the collapse were many, all intrinsically linked but the fact of the matter is that, regardless of the state of the spray-on fireproofing, the force of the explosion blew it off, as it would have done to any fireproofing. The ironic thing is that the engineers DID design the building to withstand an impact from a plane. The difference was that they designed it for the largest plane around at the time, circling slowly in fog, waiting to land with a low fuel load. Architects will always be creative if allowed, construction techniques will always be innovative, builders may indeed be shoddy but the best will in the world cannot legisalte for clinical insanity.

@CLAIRE MURRAY wrote:

HOWER I CANT HELP BUT QUESTION THE SAFETY OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS. FOLLOWING 9/11 IT BECAME CLEAR HOW HELPLESS THESE BUILDINGS ARE AGAINST TERRORIST ATTACKS.

All i was saying was no matter what height it is, if someone wants to fly a plane into it they will. O connell street is as vulnerable as the twin towers.

highr-ise or Low-rise, the issue of terrorist attacking buildings is primarily related to the meaning of the building which is being attacked (World Trade Center and Pentegon), or the aims of the terrorists who attack them.

Do we finally have something being built that’s over 18 storeys in Dublin? ! Just discovered that an apartment block called Montevetro is being built beside Grand Canal Dock. It will be 18 storeys high. I’m still dumbstruck and apparently work is due to start early next year

how did we miss that one, im assuming it has approval, look simpressive, there are quite a few high rises going up in the area…

I don’t think it needed it. The already approved plan for the grand canal docks allowed for a 50 metre plus building beside the train station as far as i know. That must be it.

Jazus Gar & Stira in sequence, someone is taking the piss

Here it is:

http://www.treasuryholdings.ie/development/project_detail.asp?id=37&category=Residential&cat=1

… I can’t find a planning application.

Treasury has also renamed it’s aproved 16-storey “Quay Lodge” development nearby to “Alto Vetro”:

http://www.treasuryholdings.ie/development/project_detail.asp?id=118&category=Residential&cat=1

So we have a glass mountain and and some high glass. Interesting.

According to the Irish Times Property Supplement this morning the proposed 32 storey tower (117metres) for the Heuston Station area of the city has been granted planning permission. Could this be the mould breaker setting the precedent for the rest of the city and provincial towns throughout the country. It is the 21st century after all. Woo Hoo! …It will make it Irelands tallest building, but no doubt the objectionists will be out in force and a 2 storey inanity will be erected instead. Slumberland prevails!

See as well that a scheme has been given approval for one of the most unsightly parts of the city, Ushers Islands. It will involve the demolishion of the rubbish thats there and the construction of something more substantial.

@GregF wrote:

According to the Irish Times Property Supplement this morning the proposed 32 storey tower (117metres) for the Heuston Station area of the city has been granted planning permission. Could this be the mould breaker setting the precedent for the rest of the city and provincial towns throughout the country. It is the 21st century after all. Woo Hoo! …It will make it Irelands tallest building, but no doubt the objectionists will be out in force and a 2 storey inanity will be erected instead. Slumberland prevails!

See as well that a scheme has been given approval for one of the most unsightly parts of the city, Ushers Islands. It will involve the demolishion of the rubbish thats there and the construction of something more substantial.

Thr Rates Office has brought a ridiculous sense of any ‘any revenue is good revenue’ to bear, thanks be to An Bord Pleanala. It shall be thrown out, I’m all for high rise as the best solution to sprawl but this decision is the latest in a long line of DCC decisions not to stand up on realistic appraisal.

Just for clarity I want to see the montage from the centre of the centre of the Royal Hospital Courtyard,

Irelands premier 17th century setting,

Docklands needs to go higher

I don’t want to be argumentative Diaspora, I’ve said this before, but do you not think that it would be far more valuable to preserve the actual historic buildings themselves rather than the 17th or 18th century panoramic views. This is the 21st century after all and Dublin is not Venice or Florence, where much of the fabric of those cities from Renaissance times remains intact, so the Canaletto views are well worth preserving. Much of Dublins historic buildings are destroyed and gone and are replaced by 2/3 storey insignificant replacements. The Georgian Society and such, foolishly decry the ruination of archaic 17th/18th views of Dublin whilst the very fabric of 17th/18th Dublin fall to pieces under their noses. An example is the nearby courthouse at Kilmainham Gaol, a fine 17th/18th century building with stucco plasterwork etc…. yet it’s has remained semi derelict for years, exposed to the elements, pigeons nesting in it’s loft. Why even graffitti decorated its front door for many a year and it was minus a basic fitment of a letterbox. Not a bleat from An Taisce or the Irish Georgian Society etc…but yet when a development was proposed for across the road which was of 4 storeys, they were up in arms rousing the ignorant locals to sign a petition…..etc. Dublin should be viewed as a progressive modern 21st century city, It’s actual historical fabric should be preserved and conserved, but to halt develpment for the sake of idealist and whimsical views is nonsense for we’ll end up with a stunted insignificant city.

I think the news about Ushers Island is great…This was one of the most derelict and depressing stretches of the quays..any more details?

Sky scrapers are so frightfully symbolic of all the is nasty about the human race its frightening that somone would actually Want one in their city especially a big glass and steel M V Rohe composition! dublin should not bome toronto new york or london a sky scraper would just be wrong dublin is dublin, let it be a city of culture not blatant capitalism.

@Nick wrote:

Sky scrapers are so frightfully symbolic of all the is nasty about the human race its frightening that somone would actually Want one in their city especially a big glass and steel M V Rohe composition! dublin should not bome toronto new york or london a sky scraper would just be wrong dublin is dublin, let it be a city of culture not blatant capitalism.

Na,….but why not Paddy the Irishman have a city to equal London or Toronto. London has it’s intact historical parts, those that were’nt destroyed by Nazi bombings or great fires as well as the new exciiting and dyamic architecture thats springing up today. A 32 storey tower is hardly a skyscraper. What I want is new attractions and focal points for Dublin city. At the moment the skyline is bland, hardly an advert for all the money we have with our burgeoning economic Cetic Tiger and building boom. We need a burgeoning stylish capital city to match…..as those of Venice and Florence had in their time.

The usual moaners will be out in full force after this. Anti bloody everything it seems, with their heads buried in the past. but i want to live in a city of the 21st century. I really hope this one gets through, it looks fantastic.

Hardly fantastic…

i am open to thoughtfull clever ideas not blatant and hidous. Substance and thought over style and reaction. Surely we have a symbol (bit a it rediculus) in the Ian Ritchie Spire/Spike? surely the Milenium projects were proof enough of the Burgeoning Ecomomy?not to mention the Temple Bar a perfect symbol in itself . Sort out the traffic problem and the infrastructure and tidy up the liffy and everywhere that needs it ,then you’ll truely have city to be proud of! don’t kill it with a silly tower!

So we should be happy then with what we have got and don’t ask for more. A Liffey boardwalk, a pedestrian bridge and a Spire to mark the Millennium. Mind you all these projects faced objections too, from the so called experts in An Taisce etc…. to the general public. And all such projects have proved to be a success by adding to the city.
It’s not a case of Croppie lie down anymore.

(The Guinness warehouses seen in the photo along the quays should go too and be replaced with buildings that address the Liffey.)

its so easy for anyone including myself to mouth off recklessly about building design but to think that a new building will solve all your worries is wrong, fundamentally. Buldozing the guinesss warehouse would wrong, ever heard of restoration? some of dublins most beutifull areas are restored and cleverly rethought areas not selfishly buldozed and rebuilt in another guise only to last 20 years before it goes out of fashion again! savour what we have and dream what we can do with it, just think what could be done withe the warehouse with a little modifictaion? a truely amazing oportunity to turn an eye sore into a remarkable builing the possiblilites are endless! learn from the past!

@Gar wrote:

The usual moaners will be out in full force after this. Anti bloody everything it seems, with their heads buried in the past. but i want to live in a city of the 21st century.

Gar your fetish for tall buildings has entirely stripped your perspective on the context of this proposal, all property schemes are judged on the suitability of the scheme for the location proposed.

When heritage groups raise concerns it is usually because they have particular concerns on the visual impact of a specific proposal on a building of National significance.

This proposal would have my full support were it for the AIG site on Northwall Quay or in Grand Canal Dock, but it is not for there, it is proposed in a location that will obliterate the setting of the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham a 17th Century complex that is a ‘National Monument’

Why can’t any Irish architect put together a good tall building in an appropriate setting? (Excepting OMS for JR Quay that was never built or one or two others currently in for planning)

Greg,

I agree on the Kilmainham Gaol issue, it is something that heritage bodies should be more proactive on, in other Juristictions the National Trust would have the funds to acquire buildings of such importance. I would have no problem doing a building survey of it with you and putting some pressure on the authorities responsible for its custody.

what is the story with montevetro? is this 18 storey building going ahead for real?

Diaspora,
it hardly matters what goes in on Military Rd at this stage – the St John’s Rd pile of crap got ABP go-ahead…

Personally I don’t have a huge problem with a historical structure having a tall modern neighbour, but I haven’t seen a proper montage to decide if this should be the neightbour!

Though I’m glad to see Ireland taking a confident step in demostrating it’s new being – vis-a-vis – preparing to take on board high-rise development – I would concur the proposals for Dublin (like Heuston Gate and 28-storey residential at the South Circular Road Players Wills site) are hardly worth writing home about – although they could perhaps have been worse. Urban sprawl is unsightly and damaging to Ireland’s naturally beautiful environment – no more so is this evident than in Dublin. High-rise is a possible aid to such a problem. However, when dealing w/ such prominent structures – I believe it is vital to enforce strong, dynamic architecturally aesthetic value.

Furthermore, in assessing the list of current high-rise projects for Dublin, I worry that the country’s capital will suffer the same fate as cities such as Moscow and London – where (in London up until recently) there was no ‘cluster’ planning. High-rise were found in no particular group and spread distastefully across the city scape often ruining neighbourhood characters by bringing them to look the same as that other neighbourhood with a high-rise 2 miles away – such communities were diseased with half-assed monotonous blocks.

Dublin is a great city and I would hate to see it plough down that route. In an ideal world, it would be desirable to see high-rise perhaps more concentrated in the Dublin Docklands Area specifically. Creating an identifiable, unique and ‘tidy’ individual locale. By far the best high-rise proposal Dublin ever had, in my opinion, was the Dunloe Ewart development planned for SJR Quay, designed by OMS (see below)

-> Though the high-rise plans for Cork city – in my view – are hardly the most architecturally astounding, they are generally tasteful and concentrated in the docklands area (w/ the exception of Cork County Hall). City Planners have identified a specific locations where high-rise development is acceptable and focussed. A strong emphasis has being sought on design w/ each proposal required to submit a ‘Design Study & Assessment Report’ justifying the aesthetics. The city centre and its suburbs are generally height protected (w/ an allowance being made for the Victoria Cross area in light of the Cork County Hall’s presence). Projects for Eglinton Street (17-storeys), Water Street (19), Horgan’s Quay (possibly up to 14-storeys) and Kennedy Quay (possible capacity of between 15 and 20-storeys) – all reflect this.

Refurbished Cork County Hall.

Water Street Development

That Reddy scheme really is a pig I don’t know how anyone could ever let him near anything taller than the three bed room semi’s his firm are still churning out by the bucket load. I don’t like the Heuston gate scheme, either section the tower is as Paul Clerkin and Lexington have said really is nothing to write home about.

When you look at the Swiss Re tower in London or the Dunloe scheme posted above here you really have to wonder how anyone could get excited at all. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Diaspora,
it hardly matters what goes in on Military Rd at this stage – the St John’s Rd pile of crap got ABP go-ahead…

Personally I don’t have a huge problem with a historical structure having a tall modern neighbour, but I haven’t seen a proper montage to decide if this should be the neightbour!

I’m not so sure Dallas,

I am certainly no fan of the Military Rd scheme and definitely go along with the planning inspectors report on that one. I really agree with the point made by a lot of people on these two schemes that they should have been assessed as one scheme given the cross ownership and development timetables, as happened in the case of Smithfield. Which in my opinion is starting to look really well.

The Eircom scheme is certainly too close to the Royal Hospital and of poor design quality but as bad as it is it will not dominate the Royal Hospital as much as this proposal will.

In most cases I don’t have a problem with tall structures, particularly docklands warehouses being overshadowed by taller offices as I think both add a sence of quality to the other. I certainly have no problem with the Spire as it offers a pivotal landmark for the entire City and was easily the best option from a very mixed bag of entries.

But in this case the only images released have been unclear as to the materials being used and have been taken from the least helpful angles. The original model for this scheme displayed buildings at the top of Stephens Lane (The back of the Hospital) but critically none of the Royal Hospital, that is an admission in my opinion that it will have significant negative impacts.

The trick as Lexington has said is to choose locations where significant negative impacts are least likely on significant National Monuments such as the Royal Hospital, but rather to select areas with existing tall buildings such as the Western Road in Cork, or adjoining large 1920’s grain silo’s where the skyline could do with a little tweaking.

……………

@Nick wrote:

Buldozing the guinesss warehouse would wrong, ever heard of restoration?

No they should be knocked – they’re crap with 70s/80s brick – certainly not worth restoring. Something of high quality should be built on Victoria Quay instead of Guinness’long brick wall

As Rory said these warehoses and wall that stretch a fair distance along the quays are quite mundane and featureless. The wall as already stated is late 20th century and the warehouses are mere galvanised tin roofed sheds, probably from around the same time too. The only feature along here that may be worth preserving is an old Victorian or later styles house. Usher’s Island here could be better utilized. I don’t think you have seen this area Nick of late.

@GregF wrote:

As Rory said these warehoses and wall that stretch a fair distance along the quays are quite mundane and featureless. The wall as already stated is late 20th century and the warehouses are mere galvanised tin roofed sheds, probably from around the same time too. The only feature along here that may be worth preserving is an old Victorian or later styles house. Usher’s Island here could be better utilized. I don’t think you have seen this area Nick of late.

Unfortunately we are unlikely to see any redevelopment of this area as it is apparently required for operational use. When Diageo did their sums last year it was a case of focusing on Park Royal or James’ Gate, the land at Park Royal was worth more so Dublin retained the production process. It is only a pity that Guiness couldn’t have acquired more land on the Basin St side to expand production there when land prices were modest by todays standards and free up some river frontage for rejuvination.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Nick as a good general rule of thumb, but on closure examination there really is nothing that must be preserved at the expense of a regeneration. It really is a pity as the area South of the Liffey between Heuston and Merchants Quay needs work more than most.

In response to the Ushers Island thread, there is a major redevelopment planned on Bridgefoot St by the City Council the exact details are available from the Civic Offices on Wood Quay.

Talking about Guinness, isn’t the new ad fantastic I have never seen the Molly Malone statue even look ok before

The Provost’s House captured in ice behind looks even better.
What a lovely ad – anyone who manages to make the Custom House floodlighting look good is worthy of praise – dare I say the Loop Line looks rather good too…
Just highly jealous Belfast gets the big orchestral strike-up – that’s what Dublin gets for having no decent vistas 🙂
Cork is subtly included too if you look closely. The little swan-neck lampost to the side of the gates in the closing shots adds a charming touch to the closing shot too.
It is totally fantastical of course though – since when do rural Irish pubs have original sash windows? 😀

is there just one tall building going up in ballymun or are several tall buildings going up? i am talking about the likes of the santry cross signature building.

Just one so far. The gateway buildings are eight stories, but that doesn’t really count. Since the office park seems to have gone belly-up, there may be some new designs in the future. I hope it’s not just residential though, otherwise all we’re doing is making the same mistakes again.

i wonder has the erection work on the 16 storey quay lodge and the 18 storey montevetro started yet?

@alpha wrote:

i wonder has the erection work on the 16 storey quay lodge and the 18 storey montevetro started yet?

Thats a good question, I’d check out http://www.ddda.ie there will probably be details there or you could ring them?

I remember when that building (the lodge) was sold about 2-3 years ago; it was guided at 650,000

The shorter one is called “Alto Vetro” now. Does anyone know how to get hold of any more info about section 25 planning applications than the paltry amount here:

http://www.ddda.ie/cold_fusion/planning/sec25andplan/25cert.cfm

… I’m pretty sure that the 18 storey tower is application DD269.

There’s been little movement construction-wise on Alto Vetro other than the house is demolished and hoardings are up announcing the scheme – been like that for a while now.

Just on high-rise in Ireland & Dublin, there’s to be a discussion of the issue in the second half of ‘The Big Bite’ with David McWilliams today, on RTE One at around 3 o’clock – for anyone near a telly.
No doubt the usual suspects will be wheeled out 🙂

Yeah if you were busy you missed nothing. I missed it anyway – only from falling asleep watching though.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

more info on the Belgard Square project @

http://www.belgardsquare.com

This scheme worked out fairly well

yeah its not bad tp, the tower seems a small bit stubby for its width, probably got the usual treatment from the planners –

I remember claims from springfield residents of an impending ‘Permafrost ‘ & ‘Seasonal Depression’ resulting from the tower, wouldn’t mind hearing their comments now 😉

the whole scheme is definitely a step above a lot of other stuff in the area, whitestown way is the next big local development – http://www.murray-associates.com/portfolio_whitestown.htm

I see that the foundations of a tower are going up across the road from Heuston Station at the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. There’s a picture of it on the hoarding, looks good too….kinda like the tower out in Blanchardstown ….stylish shiney glass etc.

The Kilmainham chocolate factory scheme is coming on fine too.

This whole area will be totally changed give it a few years.

however, I hope they reinstate some sort of a proper entrance to the Memorial Gardens at on St. John’s Road however and give Lutyen’s park the respect it deserves. As I’ve said before, an archway like at Stephen’s Green would be ideal here, and put one at the Garden of Rememberance at Parnell Square too.

@GregF wrote:

I see that the foundations of a tower are going up across the road from Heuston Station at the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. There’s a picture of it on the hoarding, looks good too….kinda like the tower out in Blanchardstown ….stylish shiney glass etc.

The Kilmainham chocolate factory scheme is coming on fine too.

This whole area will be totally changed give it a few years.

however, I hope they reinstate some sort of a proper entrance to the Memorial Gardens at on St. John’s Road however and give Lutyen’s park the respect it deserves. As I’ve said before, an archway like at Stephen’s Green would be ideal here, and put one at the Garden of Rememberance at Parnell Square too.

sounds good, is this a 9 story tower i think? woud like to see the hoarding….

and has anyone been to the point village site recently?

@GregF wrote:

I see that the foundations of a tower are going up across the road from Heuston Station at the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. There’s a picture of it on the hoarding, looks good too….kinda like the tower out in Blanchardstown ….stylish shiney glass etc.

The Kilmainham chocolate factory scheme is coming on fine too.

This whole area will be totally changed give it a few years.

however, I hope they reinstate some sort of a proper entrance to the Memorial Gardens at on St. John’s Road however and give Lutyen’s park the respect it deserves. As I’ve said before, an archway like at Stephen’s Green would be ideal here, and put one at the Garden of Rememberance at Parnell Square too.

Thats the new Eircom headquarters, westgate I think its called. It looks good:) This is the only info I can see at first glance, if anyone can get the plans please let us know, cheers:

http://www.opw.ie/whatsnew/pr2003/11jun03.htm

Greg see link for plan of new entrance to war memorial gardens …

http://www.mitchell.ie/site/memorial_gardens.asp

I wonder if these 47 storey towers proposed for the Liberties will get the go ahead? 47 storeys! 51 if you include the 4 storey podium. Wow!

what towers are these pepsi? i’ve been not keeping up

@paul h wrote:

what towers are these pepsi? i’ve been not keeping up

they are in this thread

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4964

its going to be torpedoed! not in my back yard………..

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2006/000137.html also has details.

They are wasting their time. That will be shot down.

I agree with you there.

Does anyone have information regarding the redevelopment of Frascati shopping centre? All i know is that there are plans for a high rise element (presumably residential), which the locals are up in arms about. Does anyone know how tall? or the number of floors? Thanks.

Is this it (currently under appeal after refusal):

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/planlist/2006/APES12.htm

… a six storey residential building would be substantially shorter than the buildings the on the other side of the road.

any news from U2 tower or heuston gate?

@paul h wrote:

any news from U2 tower or heuston gate?

U2 tower got ministerial approval last week, heuston gate has already been approved and construction on the overall scheme in underway.

i thought that ministerial involvement in planning matters had been largely removed. It would seem the worst excesses of our patronage governance is still with us.

@a boyle wrote:

i thought that ministerial involvement in planning matters had been largely removed. It would seem the worst excesses of our patronage governance is still with us.

Because docklands stuff doesn’t go through normal planning process, ministerial approval is still required,

@jdivision wrote:

Because docklands stuff doesn’t go through normal planning process, ministerial approval is still required,

isn’t that a bad thing ?

@a boyle wrote:

isn’t that a bad thing ?

Not necessarily, standard practice in Britain.

does that mean it is a good idea.
i thought that a large part of the problem with our planning procedure was that they were too democratic , being decided on by hackneyed councillers and ministers, with little regard for sense and far too much attention to Nimbyism?

wee brennan re-engineered the law to build the south eastern motorway . that didn’t strike me as a good way of doing things .

so what was the approved final height?

some hundred odd metres – — around about the height of the spire. not very high , not small either.

it would be nice to have some pictures chart the construction etc! (when they actuallly start)
any volunteers? i would, but few thosand miles commute would be a killler!

Just to clarify, ministerial approval is required for the overall Docklands masterplan. The revised heights for these towers meant a material contravention of the masterplan, hence they were referred back to the DoEHLG. In the event Roche made minor adjustments such as a larger public space at the foot of the U2 tower and a greater focus on family sized apartments in the schemes. I understand the rubbish STW tower for the Point Village is to be revised as it was deemed to be too bland (surely an unfair criticism of STW!).

Good to see some movment here and a much needed roofscape started for the Docklands.

No work yet on Monte Vetro or Alto Vetro on Grand Canal Dock…… (one is to be built the otehr withdrawn if I recall)

the Irish Independent has quoted last week’s decision on the U2 tower today in an article regarding tall skyscrapers. It quotes the height at 100m. I really hope this goes ahead soon!

@Keen wrote:

the Irish Independent has quoted last week’s decision on the U2 tower today in an article regarding tall skyscrapers. It quotes the height at 100m. I really hope this goes ahead soon!

They lifted the story from The Sunday Times and one other newspaper, The Sunday Tribune I think. Indo on a Monday is always a rehash of old stories. Most embarressing of all both the Indo and Times have a story today about Readymix selling a site in the docklands – that sale was announced to the stock exchange on friday and was on rte online that day.

Just back from Chicago – High Rise Building eh? 😀

Navy Pier:

The lovely John Hancock tower (I was on the 94th floor – amazing views):

Sears Tower:

This middle building overlooking Millennium Park is probably about the same height as the U2 Tower:

Imagine these down the docks! 🙂

Interesting article in the Indo about tall buildings. Sorry for the attachment- we get sent press clippings in work and it’s the best I can do.
Might be better/more legible if someone posted a link or a copy of the article, but this’ll have to do until then.

@jdivision wrote:

U2 tower got ministerial approval last week, heuston gate has already been approved and construction on the overall scheme in underway.

i don’t think they have started on the heuston gate tower yet though.

i had a look at the heuston gate area yesterday and saw a few buildings under construction. is the 32 tower itself under construction right now though? the cranes on site don’t look high enough to accommodate a 32 storey building.

Tower cranes tend to be used only until their height limit is reached, at which point building-mounted cranes are called in. This is how One George’s Quay was done as I recall…

Not quite the Petronas Towers, but you get the idea 🙂

@Pepsi wrote:

i had a look at the heuston gate area yesterday and saw a few buildings under construction. is the 32 tower itself under construction right now though? the cranes on site don’t look high enough to accommodate a 32 storey building.

There is an image mounted on a hoarding of what they are building here at the mo. It will not be the 32 storey tower.
Instead, the 32 storey tower will be placed a bit further up nearer the former Dr. Steven’s Hospital.

State-owned Dublin site could sell for over €100m
Liam Reid, Political Reporter

The Government will later this year consider the sale of a Dublin site with planning permission for Ireland’s tallest building.

The site, Heuston Gate near Heuston Station, includes plans for a 32-storey block containing 197 apartments, a fifth of which would be social and affordable housing. At more than 120 metres, the building would be the tallest in Ireland when completed, and it has received full planning approval from An Bord Plean

Came across this by accident today:

http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Products/MicroStation/Gallery/Building/HKR_dublindocklands.htm

Anybody know anything about it? Is this being proposed instead of what they came up with recently?

That looks cool.

A long way from the original proposal for the site

@GregF wrote:

That looks cool.

Looks like New York’s Freedom Tower.

Was that the Anthony Reddy design, TP?

That would have the kind of impact on dublin that torre agabar has on barcelona. You would have the u2 tower and the grand canal square in that area, very nice. Much of the oportunitys for the docks are lost, but theres still hope.

It is the only site that it could possibly be from that angle unless it is 1 upper Grand Canal St which lacks both the footprint and the owner with the ambition to see a project of this size through

It’s nice to see all these chopped virtual images “See the future of Dublin!” they cry out..seeing the finished article would be even better.

It looks more like the site beside the train station (based on the Treasury Building behind and to the right, which is on Grand Canal St.) – the one that has full approval for this bland tower. It looks too far South to be the other Treasury site, the one with the withdrawn proposal for an even blander 32 storey tower.

I think you must be right Andrew. You can just about see a little bit of those Pembroke Square apartments sticking out the right of the proposed structure.

I don’t see how they could fit that beside Grand Canal Dock train station! At the moment there is a ruined warehouse there opposite Google.

I believe that they are/were going to incorporate the train station & plaza into the site

WOW i am quite impressed with the designers vision here, looks like a lot of scrapers going up in NYC at the moment. 48 storeys plus spire? Must be around 200 metres? Is that not a huge increase in height from anything proposed in the area…I wonder does anyone have any specifics for it? Residential or office? It would also look very nice across from Liebeskind public space…Fantastic

OK I’ve seen a lot of CGI pics like this and nothing in the flesh – What’s the tallest building that got the go-ahead, and will be built before the end of this decade? I want to see a building as tall as a minor building on the Chicago skyline that was built 100 years ago!

Bolands Mill application going in tomorrow, looks spectacularly boring. Wanted to post it but image too large and there’s no resizing software on my temporary computer:(
See Bolands Mill thread for more details

i too like the building in the image above. it’s different.

Looks nice, different and very eye catching
whats the status? just a vision i suppose?
is this the roughly the location we’re talkin about?
[ATTACH]2486[/ATTACH]
morlan it does looks very similar to new york ft – old design, new design is somewhat different

what’s going on with alto vetro? is that being built or what?

Digger on site today which would indicate something is starting…

Something green has appeared on Bolands silos..a crane bridge?

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Hardly fantastic…

Certainly better than anything your likely to see in Monaghan in the next 200 years!!

Has anyone seen the proposal to build a 25 storey tower on the site of the tara towers hotel on the coast road out of Dublin? I’m all for building higher in the city, but I have mixed feelings about this one. Basically, it’s not really in the city. It’s literally yards from a large estate of three-bed semis in Booterstown. (Due diligence: I live in Booterstown.)

The tower will be right beside the elmpark development on the coast road (it’s basically phase 2 of the elmpark development). Even if it is a great building, it threatens to turn the stretch of merrion road from St Vincents Hospital to the booterstown marsh into one giant junction. I really don’t want to be nimby-ish about this, but I wonder what the overall effect of the elmpark development will be on the rock road, particularly if a QBC is introduced along that stretch of merrion road. Also, there are wind turbines planned for the roof of the tower! Seems mad to me, ted…

@tundish wrote:

Has anyone seen the proposal to build a 25 storey tower on the site of the tara towers hotel on the coast road out of Dublin? I’m all for building higher in the city, but I have mixed feelings about this one. Basically, it’s not really in the city. It’s literally yards from a large estate of three-bed semis in Booterstown. (Due diligence: I live in Booterstown.)

The tower will be right beside the elmpark development on the coast road (it’s basically phase 2 of the elmpark development). Even if it is a great building, it threatens to turn the stretch of merrion road from St Vincents Hospital to the booterstown marsh into one giant junction. I really don’t want to be nimby-ish about this, but I wonder what the overall effect of the elmpark development will be on the rock road, particularly if a QBC is introduced along that stretch of merrion road. Also, there are wind turbines planned for the roof of the tower! Seems mad to me, ted…

have you any more info or a link to this new proposal? Thanks

@Keen wrote:

have you any more info or a link to this new proposal? Thanks

From the Irish Times property supplement last Thursday. I can’t scan the pic. It’s in the planning and development section. As I said on another thread It looks to me like a bus station with a tower stuck on. And I hope the colours aren’t what they’re actually planning.

Tara Towers Hotel to make way for skyscraper
Edel Morgan

The Tara Towers hotel on the Merrion Road, Dublin 4 will be demolished to make way for another landmark building if a planning application for a 25-storey office and residential building by developers Bernard McNamara and Jerry O’Reilly is successful.

The two developers are planning to build the scheme under the name Radora as part of the second phase of their Elm Park development.

They are also looking to demolish nine buildings on Merrion Road, including Llandaff Terrace and Llandaff House, and St Columcille’s House.

The 25-storey over double basement block would reach a height of 100.16 metres (331ft), making it almost twice the height of Liberty Hall in Dublin city centre.

The first nine floors would contain a 156-bedroom hotel with meeting and conference rooms and a restaurant.

The 10th to 25th floors would be residential comprising a range of one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments with winter gardens. It is also planned to put a roof garden on the top floor.

This tower element would be interlinked with a landmark building with a sloping roof which would contain a conference centre.

There would also be 918sq m (9,881sq ft) of retail floor space at the ground floor level of the hotel and conference centre.

The overall scheme has been designed by architects Bucholz McEvoy.

Architect Merritt Bucholz says it will be a zero energy building that is designed to generate the energy that it will use.

This will be achieved through the use of wind turbines on the roof, photovoltaic cells in the glass facade (which make electricity from the sun), a combined heat and power unit and grey water recycling technology.

“This is essentially a new quarter of the city and it is very important that the energy demands that it will have are balanced,” says Bucholz.

The Elm Park development is being built on a 14.5-acre site acquired by McNamara and O’Reilly from the Sisters of Charity in 2001 for just under €46 million.

McNamara and O’Reilly also bought the Tara Towers Hotel in 2003 from Jurys Doyle for €14.2 million

Was just posting that Irish Times article, but jdivision beat me to it.
The url is:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2006/0831/1156791287122.html

how far have they come with alto vetro? have they started to constuct a concrete pile yet?

Edit: post re 9/11 already appears

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=56315&postcount=197
.

I like the ideas of building tall buildings, away from the city centre, rather, then risking changing the character of the city centre.

No one has mentioned much about the height of any proposed skyscrapers in the port area.

What is everyone’s opinion about the height ?

I think we should be thinking about 350 meters for the higher ones like the bank of china tower seen here

Are you talking about that loony PD plan? It will never happen.

High buildings are very energy-inefficient. The cost of servicing lifts etc. above a certain floor – about 6 floors – is very high. You’ll be lucky if one high building is built in the docklands, let alone an area of high buildings.

just as well you having nothing to do with developing the nation, otherwise it would be paddy fields and thatched roofs.

350 is a good height i think. Of course with some smaller buildings around them.

what make s you think we need buildings of that height? will we have an economy that will require such buildings? anyway, of course we’ll have high buildings down there, it’s already happening with the POint and 2 towers. But the sort of skyline you and Tom Morrisey envision just won’t happen

@Maskhadov wrote:

No one has mentioned much about the height of any proposed skyscrapers in the port area.

What is everyone’s opinion about the height ?

I think we should be thinking about 350 meters for the higher ones like the bank of china tower seen here

We already have threads like this:
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3251
and
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4964

The Bank of China tower is a fine looking building.

There is not just a simple choice between hong kong/manhattan and thatched cottages/paddyfields

There is a happy medium.

here are some pics from Hong Kong of buildings where the client wasn’t Bank of China:

coooool!!!

350 is a good height, I agree. Would be an impressive sight to see a such a bulding dwarf the poolbeg chimneys.
In the question of sustainabilty, what kind of tenants are required for such buildings and at what point do they become too small? Regarding efficiency.. Is it not possible to build high and incorporate “energy plus”? The potential to create something really beautfiul shouldnt be dismissed so lightly. There would certainly be residential demand and would dramatically enhance the functionality of the city center if adequately servered by public transport – the beginning of a healthy commuter culture

Originally posted by ihateawake
here would certainly be residential demand and would dramatically enhance the functionality of the city center if adequately servered by public transport – the beginning of a healthy commuter culture

Well considering that a ticket bought in an Irish Rail ticket machine in Donabate doesn’t work in the Irish Rail ticket barriers in Grand Canal Dock station, I despair for the future of public transport in this country and an integrated ticketing system.

Good topic – very timely discussion !

As a member of community groups who may be viewed by developers as having issues / concerns with placing tall buildings in established suburbian settings – maybe I can contribute as to why existing communities have concerns when they hear “high rise” and “high denisty” building is coming to town.

– inappropriately located buildings
– overshadowing existing 2 storey homes
– inappropriate designs adopted in relation to the existing streetscape and landscape around them
– cronic lack of maintenance of apartment blocks
– lack of enforcement / active management in these blocks
– lack of social space of children / teenagers in such apartment complexes
– lack of engagement with local existing communities when planning to place a development which will introduce higher than 3 /4 storeys in an area of 2 storey homes

Tallaght has seen 2 storey homes being overshadowed by 13 storey apartment blocks in the last 2 years – not only did they have views of Dublin mountains eliminated over night – views which families had enjoyed for 30+ years but their concerns were consciously sidelined and no attempt was made to engage with them to try and address their concerns by the developer / architect.

A key to managing change in living styles and arrangements is meaningful consultation with the new and existing communities to make sure their concerns and queries are being addressed. And ultimately that the community created by developing homes/units is an effective positive one.

This does take time and effort – both of which imapct the bottom line for developers.

350 meters for the landmark buildings is appropriate

Well considering that a ticket bought in an Irish Rail ticket machine in Donabate doesn’t work in the Irish Rail ticket barriers in Grand Canal Dock station, I despair for the future of public transport in this country and an integrated ticketing system.

Im surrounded by optimists…

@Maskhadov wrote:

350 meters for the landmark buildings is appropriate

350m buildings in Dublin? Doesn’t anyone think this is “slightly” too much and that it’s quite a shock to go from 6 storeys to 90 storeys? First of all, I’ve got nothing against towers, in fact I love height but I do think tall buildings need context. A landmark building can definitely be twice the height of next tallest in the surroundings but not 10 times. I’d much rather have a few buildings of excellent quality that are 20 to 30 storeys high rather than building huge for the sake of building huge.

I’d love to see something like this go up:

In a few years we will have quite a few 130 meter odd towers in Dublin. Going from 130meters to 350 isn’t that big of a deal at the port providing there are smaller scrapers surrounding them.

Something like the above might be suited south of the liffey around grand canal docks

@Maskhadov wrote:

In a few years we will have quite a few 130 meter odd towers in Dublin. Going from 130meters to 350 isn’t that big of a deal at the port providing there are smaller scrapers surrounding them.

Something like the above might be suited south of the liffey around grand canal docks

I’d love to see it, but we need to get some towers built first, and in the same area rather than one here and there.

@d_d_dallas wrote:

That’s Eircoms new HQ (minus the taller portion) – Check out Anthony Reddy’s site

Actually the taller portion is not gone. I was up in Dublin the other day and it was about 10 storeys tall i think, as shown in the render.

i agree. it does look like the taller portion is going ahead.

does anyone else not think eircoms design looks a lot like the asian one except for the fact that with the asian one the architects made a visible effort to make they’re building stand out and be original while with the irish one its the same all over again bar a few alterations.
dont get me wrong eircoms building looks fine,but thats the problem isnt it?we say it looks fine and that means theres no need to try harder and design a ‘great’ building that stands out and look what we get…the docklands ,a place of monotonious mediocraty! a bit of hight differences would have been nice and that doesnt mean loads of tall buildings either which would probably be of the same dodgy quality!

@archipimp wrote:

does anyone else not think eircoms design looks a lot like the asian one except for the fact that with the asian one the architects made a visible effort to make they’re building stand out and be original while with the irish one its the same all over again bar a few alterations.
dont get me wrong eircoms building looks fine,but thats the problem isnt it?we say it looks fine and that means theres no need to try harder and design a ‘great’ building that stands out and look what we get…the docklands ,a place of monotonious mediocraty! a bit of hight differences would have been nice and that doesnt mean loads of tall buildings either which would probably be of the same dodgy quality!

I agree. The asian image rendering is more dramatic. While the Irish image is fine by all standerds and looks attractive, it is kinda boring in comparison. A bit of flair seems to be missing in any attempts here at designing buildings. The after effects of the monstrous offices built in the 1960’s has strait-jacketed our attempts today.

@Maskhadov wrote:

just as well you having nothing to do with developing the nation, otherwise it would be paddy fields and thatched roofs.

350 is a good height i think. Of course with some smaller buildings around them.

350mm is a good height for boots for stylish women going clubbing.

I had switched off this thread due to the infantile nature it had decended into; I only returned because I noted that this was Devin’s last post on the forum and after this post I can understand why he has stopped.

M if you only knew the contribution this individual has made to the City you would dun na bheal

350 m is a bit extreme, and i think would look ridiculous in dublin
Lets just see how the couple of 100m ones turn out, i am very happy that these are going ahead(hopefully!!!)
In all honestly i think anything above 160/170 m is too high, just yet

Rome wasn’t bulit in a day…..and all that lark:)

Eh? Is that the actual plan now:confused:

Has the residential building been scrapped?

Does that office building have PP?

P.S Anyword on U2 tower – now 130m I think. Any new images to reflect this increase in height. Cheers 🙂

Also any word on construction start date? Still no new plans for point village.

The Evening Herald (oddly) had a piece last week regarding the resurection of the planned CIE building over Tara Street Station. Apparently a revised scheme will be submitted for planning in May. The new scheme will not involve closing the station during construction, which apparently killed the last proposal. The EHs pictures loooked the same as past proposals though they may have been using an old picture. Good news – this corner is in bits.

The yellow box keeps rising. This is a 14 or 15 storey apartment block I believe. Alta Vista or some sort of name. Anyone know anything about it, or even have pics. I am working right beside it. It’s just on the corner of Grand Canal Quay and Pearse Street Bridge.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2005/000020.html

there is now a very tall concrete pile in the south dockland area of dublin. i saw it from pearce station yesterday. could this be alto vetro i wonder? it looks to be near the mill.

The End of Tall Buildings.
We are convinced that the age of skyscrapers is at an end. It must now be considered an experimental building typology that has failed. We predict that no new megatowers will be built, and existing ones are destined to be dismantled. By James Howard Kunstler and Nikos A. Salingaros.

(This article first appeared on PLANetizen at on September 17, 2001)

Our world has changed dramatically.
Watching video of the burning twin towers of the World Trade Center in the few minutes before they both collapsed, we were struck by what appeared to be the whole history of the skyscraper captured in vignette. In the blocks east and south of the World Trade Center stood the earlier skyscrapers of the 20th century, including some of the most notable prototypes of that epoch. Virtually all of these pre-1930 ultra-tall buildings thrust skyward with towers, turrets, and needles, each singular in its design, as though reaching up to some great spiritual goal as yet unattained. And there, in contrast stood the two flaming towers of the World Trade Center, with their flat roofs signifying the exhaustion of that century-long aspiration to reach into the heavens, their failure made even more emphatic in the redundancy of their banal twin-ness. Then they and everything inside them imploded into vapor and dust, including several thousand New Yorkers whose bodies will likely never be found.

The United States was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001. With the recent tragedies comes a sobering reassessment of America’s (and the World’s) infatuation with skyscrapers. We feel very strongly that the disaster should not only be blamed on the terrorist action, but that this horrible event exposes an underlying malaise with the built environment.

We are convinced that the age of skyscrapers is at an end. It must now be considered an experimental building typology that has failed. Who will ever again feel safe and comfortable working 110 storeys above the ground? Or sixty storeys? Or even twenty-seven? We predict that no new megatowers will be built, and existing ones are destined to be dismantled. This will lead to a radical transformation of city centers — which, however, would be an immensely positive step towards improving the quality of urban life. The only megatowers left standing a century hence may be in those third-world countries who so avidly imported the bric-a-brac of the industrialized world without realizing the damage they were inflicting on their cities. This essay looks at criticisms of tall buildings, while offering some practical solutions.

Tall buildings generate urban pathologies.
In a paper entitled “Theory of the Urban Web ” published in the Journal of Urban Design (Volume 3, 1998, pages 53-71), Salingaros outlined structural principles for urban form. The processes that generate the urban web involve nodes, connections, and the principles of hierarchy. Among the theoretical results derived were multiple connectivity — in which a city needs to have alternative connections in order to stay healthy — and the avoidance of over concentration of nodes. When the second pathology occurs, such as in segregated use zoning, and in monofunctional megatowers, it kills the city by creating a mathematical singularity (where one or more quantities become extremely large or infinite). Many pathologies of contemporary cities are traced to ideas of early modernist planning that appeared in a totally unrealistic context in the 1920s. We quote from that paper (page 62):
“Without a sufficient density and variety of nodes, functional paths (as opposed to unused ones that are purely decorative) can never form. Here we come up against the segregation and concentration of functions that has destroyed the urban web in our times. There are simply not enough different types of nodes in any homogeneous urban region to form a web. Even where possibilities exist, the connections are usually blocked off by misguided zoning laws. Distinct types of elements, such as residential, commercial and natural, must intertwine to catalyze the connective process. Dysfunctional cities concentrate nodes of the same type, whereas functional cities concentrate coupled pairs of contrasting nodes”.
In all cases and to some degree, high-rise buildings deform the quality, the function, and the long-term health of urbanism in general by overloading the infrastructure and the public realm of the streets that contain them. Leon Krier has referred to this as “urban hypertrophy”, making the additional point that overloading any given urban center tends to prevent the organic development of new healthy, mixed urban fabric anywhere beyond the center. (Leon Krier, Houses, Palaces, Cities, St. Martin’s Press, 1984). Bear in mind, too, that some of the sturdiest and even aesthetically pleasing tall buildings of the early 20th century are only now approaching the end of their so-called “design life”. What is their destiny?

The worst offender in this urban destruction is the monofunctional megatower. Paradoxically, it has become an icon of modernity and progress — how can images from the 1920s be considered modern? Indoctrination at its most subversive has successfully identified the glass and steel boxes of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe with a phony “efficiency”. Voices raised against the skyscraper include that of the architect and urbanist Constantine Doxiades (documented by Peter Blake in Form Follow Fiasco, 1974, page 82):
“My greatest crime was the construction of high-rise buildings. The most successful cities of the past were those where people and buildings were in a certain balance with nature. But high-rise buildings work against nature, or, in modern terms, against the environment. High-rise buildings work against man himself, because they isolate him from others, and this isolation is an important factor in the rising crime rate. Children suffer even more because they lose their direct contacts with nature, and with other children. High-rise buildings work against society because they prevent the units of social importance — the family … the neighborhood, etc. — from functioning as naturally and as normally as before. High-rise buildings work against networks of transportation, communication, and of utilities, since they lead to higher densities, to overloaded roads, to more extensive water supply systems — and, more importantly, because they form vertical networks which create many additional problems — crime being just one of them.”
Peter Blake condemned megatowers in Form Follows Fiasco on several points. One was the disastrous wind shear that their surfaces created; the other was fires that had burned out of control in two skyscrapers in Latin America. He warned the world that (page 150):
“The first alternative to Modern Dogma should obviously be a moratorium on high-rise construction. It is outrageous that towers more than a hundred stories high are being built at a time when no honest engineer and no honest architect, anywhere on earth, can say for certain what these structures will do to the environment — in terms of monumental congestion of services (including roads and mass-transit lines), in terms of wind currents at sidewalk level, in terms of surrounding water tables, in terms of fire hazards, in terms of various sorts of interior traumata, in terms of despoiling the neighborhoods, in terms of visually polluting the skylines of our cities, and in terms of endangering the lives of those within or without, through conceivable structural and related failures”.
We just saw two of the tallest buildings in the world burn and implode so that all their construction material (and contents — furniture plus people) was particulated and the residue compressed into the space of the underground parking garage. All of this happened on the order of minutes. Did no-one read Blake’s warnings? Certainly many people did, but the persuasive force of the modernist architectural image of slick, shiny towers going all the way back to Le Corbusier’s first drawings in the 1920s was more seductive than practical realities and risks.

As of September 11, 2001 we cannot afford to be so complacent — or so easily entranced by the totems of “modernity”. Every would-be terrorist who is now a child will grow up and be instructed by those surreal, riveting images of the two airplanes crashing into the World Trade Towers.

A new urban life, and alternatives to megatowers.
The New Urbanism has some (though by no means all) solutions that could reintroduce life into formerly dead urban environments. These ideas go back to several authors, including Christopher Alexander. In his book A Pattern Language (1977) Alexander proposed with his co-authors 253 ‘patterns’ that describe how to satisfy human needs in the built environment, from the scale of a city, down to the scale of detailed construction in a room. Two of those patterns are relevant to our discussion:
Pattern 21: FOUR-STORY LIMIT. “There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy. Therefore, in any urban area, no matter how dense, keep the majority of buildings four stories high or less. It is possible that certain buildings should exceed this limit, but they should never be buildings for human habitation”.

Pattern 62: HIGH PLACES. “The instinct to climb up to some high place, from which you can look down and survey your world, seems to be a fundamental human instinct. Therefore, build occasional high places as landmarks throughout the city. They can be a natural part of the topography, or towers, or part of the roofs of the highest local building — but, in any case, they should include a physical climb.”

We agree that the first of these ‘patterns’ might appear utopian and irrelevant to the industrialized world. However, our purpose is to reexamine the most basic aspects of urbanism, and in particular to look at those factors that have been destroyed by the megalomania of architects and the speculative greed of builders.

A city requires high buildings, but not all of them should be high, and they should certainly be of mixed use.

It is not possible to state with any certainty exactly what the optimum height of buildings ought to be, since buildings greater than ten storeys are an experimental product of industrial technology — itself an experiment for which the results are not yet in. We do know that the center cities of Paris, London and Rome achieved excellent density and variety at under ten storeys, and have continued to thrive without succumbing to the extreme hypertrophy characteristic in American urbanism.

Within the upper limits of proven traditional type, it might be prudent to confine future constructions to, perhaps, ten-story office buildings, whose four bottom storeys are strictly residential. Coexisting with the first type might be five-storey residential buildings with a commercial ground floor devoted to retail and restaurants. Both of these are a good compromise between traditional typologies, the ideal solutions proposed by Alexander, and the unfortunate, inhuman, alienating extant urbanisms that have been produced by modernist planning.

One of the most pressing commercial questions after the terrorist devastation of lower Manhattan is: where is the financial world going to find several million square feet of office space? The answer is right in front of our noses. Move into and renovate the numerous depressed areas just a few subway stops away. With the proper mixed zoning legislation that needs to protect residents and guarantee a thriving street life, this could mark the rejuvenation of parts of the city that for years have had the same bombed-out appearance as ‘ground zero’ of the Twin Towers has now (except that the slums are not shown on the evening news).

President Bill Clinton has set a shining example by moving his offices into Harlem.

Should the Twin Towers be rebuilt as a symbol of the defiance of the American people, as some sentimentalists have proposed in the aftermath of their collapse? We think not. If nothing else, it would be a disservice to humanity to rebuild proven deathtraps. Obsessively returning to the models of yesterday’s tomorrow would refute mankind’s past architectural achievements — and, curiously, would be a frightening parallel to the dogmatism that led the terrorists to do their mission.

It’s the fault of the architects.
Why are the above solutions, all available for decades now, not implemented to regenerate our cities? Several factors, including zoning, commercial speculation, and the tax structure created a favorable situation for erecting megatowers. That era is now over. We conclude with a broad indictment of the architectural and building professions as responsible for destroying our cities, and for putting people at risk in firetraps from which they can never be evacuated in time. From Bernard Rudofsky in Streets for People (1969), page 339:
“Unlike physicians, today’s architects are not concerned with the general welfare; they are untroubled by scruples about strangling the cities and the misery that this entails. Architects never felt the urge to establish ethical precepts for the performance of their profession, as did the medical fraternity. No equivalent of the Hippocratic oath exists for them. Hippocrates’ promise that ‘the regiment I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients according to my ability and judgement, and not for their hurt or for any wrong’ has no counterpart in their book. Criticism within the profession — the only conceivable way to spread a sense of responsibility among its members — is tabooed by their own codified standards of practice. To bolster their ego, architects hold their own beauty contests, award each other prizes, decorate each other with gold medals, and make light of the damning fact that they do not amount to any moral force in this country”.
Charles, the Prince of Wales spoke out courageously against megatowers, and was consequently accused by architects and the media as being ‘against progress’. The reaction was so severe that for a while his succession to the throne was in question. It is worth recalling his remarks, which, through his choice of words, now seem eerily prophetic. In criticizing the then-unbuilt Canary Wharf tower in London, Charles said (A Vision of Britain, 1989, page 55):
“What hope for London now? Cesar Pelli’s tower may become the tomb of modernistic dogma. The tragedy is that it will cast its shadow over generations of Londoners who have suffered enough from towers of architectural arrogance”.
Charles’s remarks were only one decade too early.

James Howard Kunstler is the author of the two books The Geography of Nowhere, and Home from Nowhere. His next book, The City in Mind: Notes on the Urban Condition will be published by Free Press (Simon and Schuster) in January. He lives in Saratoga Springs, New York State. Kunstler@aol.com

Dr. Nikos A. Salingaros is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas at San Antonio, and is the author of numerous scientific articles. A collaborator of Christopher Alexander, he is recognized as one of the leading theorists of architecture and urbanism today. salingar@sphere.math.utsa.edu

This paper has had quite an impact, and has been mentioned several times in the press. See commentary .

salingaros’s papers on architecture

End of tall buildings??
The age of tall buildings is more apt these days
If the author feels that becuse terrorists crashed planes into the twin towers,
therefore tall buildings are not safe because people died .
What if the planes crashed into a football stadium and killed thousands, by his logic
we should not use football stadiums also???
It also seems that a lot of this research comes from the 70s and 80s – a period when
american cities (downtown, city centre areas) were in a state of serious decline, with
new york leading the way.
that has changed with people coming back into city centres all over the u.s

I think maybe our irish dislike of tall buildings might have been influenced(slightly) by seeing,
in the movies etc, these dangerous run down dirty cities with a lot of tall buildings

Dubai is just one clear example, as the picture most definitely illustrates
Also it seems every where i turn in manhattan there is a new tower shooting up, especially
as the far westside kicks off
[ATTACH]4379[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4378[/ATTACH]

@Walker wrote:

The End of Tall Buildings.
“There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy…. “

Hah! 😀 Always had my suspicions about Archiseek’s resident high-rise pluggers!!

that’s the one.

I was having a look at the new Eircom development beside Hueston, it’s looking quite imposing now, i think the tower has reached full height and they have all the floorplates in and the outer facade of the low rise element is being clad with glass. Also, there is another development further down the road heading west, about 10 stories tall and has office space to let advertised down the side of it – another imposing building near Hueston, anyone know this one?

The photo of the tower blocks looks horrible. Gas to see the likes of that (an epidemic of tower blocks) and yet we don’t even have one tower of sorts in the country. From one extreme to the other. Very unusual that we don’t have too many trappings (particularly glazed towers) of a thriving economy. We patiently wait, as the years go by, for the U2 tower thing to be built, as well as everything else….ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
There are appeals against their Clarence hotel UFO makeover too.

City Council error to delay exclusive skyscrapers

Sunday Independent, March 18th 2007

JEROME REILLY

THE developers who control the €2bn golden triangle of land in Ballsbridge face what could be a crucial delay because of a mistake by Dublin City Council.

The original public notice seeking submissions in relation to the Ballsbridge Local Area Development Plan, which will govern future development in Dublin’s exclusive south city enclave, contained a technical error, the Sunday Independent has learned.

Even though more than 200 submissions have already been received, the error means the submissions’ process will have to be readvertised and the plan put on display for a further six weeks.

The development, centred around the Jurys/Berkeley Court site, is owned by property developers Sean Dunne, Ray Grehan, Bernard McNamara and David Daly.

It is understood that a new advertisement seeking submissions will be published early this week. Residents of Ballsbridge have already rejected proposed new development plans for the area.

The Local Area Plan put together by Dublin City Council proposed considerable high-density development. Residents living in the area voted overwhelmingly earlier this month to reject the plans, saying that the proposals were simply “a smokescreen to conceal the council’s efforts to facilitate the development of the Jurys Hotel site by developer Sean Dunne”.

In its plan Dublin City Council is allowing for 10-storey buildings – but only at the most central points of the development. This is far short of the 30-storey expectations of some developers, including Sean Dunne, who purchased the Jurys site last year.

Dublin City Council said its duty is to ensure the development of the area is in keeping with the surrounds, and city planners have yet to be convinced that 30-storey developments are in the interests of this largely-residential area.

“The key to the plan is integration. We want Ballsbridge to lead the way in terms of high-density development, but that can only be achieved properly if all aspects and outcomes of the development are considered,” city planner Dick Gleeson told the Sunday Independent earlier this month.

Developer Sean Dunne postponed the public launch of his proposed 32-storey building for the landmark Dublin 4 site recently. It is understood he will go back to planners and it could be April before his development is launched.

Some “iconic” developments will be allowed to be double the size of adjoining buildings which could see them stretch as high as 16 storeys, but Gleeson said such buildings would have to offer something “stunning” in order to get the go-ahead.

© Irish Independent
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/ & http://www.unison.ie/

I can’t wait until we have some tall buildings so that we can hold our heads up high and say ‘Yes! Dublin is a great and distinguished city, capable of engineering such wonders.’ We can then join the high table with Pyongyang and Harare. Everyone will be so impressed with us. That will show them how important and advanced we are.

Until we have a public transport system we are centuries behind the rest of europe, with or without the high rise buildings!!
Alto Vetro is going to 17 floors I believe. Each floor is one apartment, I also believe!
How high is the National conference centre across the river going to be?Apparently they’ve gone back for planning permission several times, raising the height of the hotel behind it by several floors each time.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

I can’t wait until we have some tall buildings so that we can hold our heads up high and say ‘Yes! Dublin is a great and distinguished city, capable of engineering such wonders.’ We can then join the high table with Pyongyang and Harare. Everyone will be so impressed with us. That will show them how important and advanced we are.

Now now, isn’t sarcasm the lowest form of wit……:D

@paul h wrote:

Dubai is just one clear example, as the picture most definitely illustrates

Dubai is not a good example to use in support of your case for high buildings, paul h.
A newspaper article from last Sept. said:

‘The French brochure includes a caustic commentary on the frenzy of development
in Dubai, describing it as “pure, unabashed, outrageous consumption” with no regard
for the need to conserve resources. The Gulf sheikdom’s grandiose property projects,
it says, “are probably the very last great folly humanity will be able to afford”.’

(A TALE OF 16 CITIES AT THE VENICE ARCHITECTURE FEST– © The Irish Times, 14-09-06
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2006/0914/1158001538113.html (Ireland dotcom needed))

Maybe somewhere like Madrid would be better to use. A few high buildings here and there …. nothing
impacting greatly on the historic core.

Thats true Devin, dubai is not a good example of development, by any stretch of the imagination

I was only illustrating that there is a massive amount of high rise construction going on worldwide, using Dubai as a clear example, to contradict the articles that were posted by Walker – ‘the end of high rise’
You mention Madrid
Heres a couple of shots of madrid
[ATTACH]4527[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4526[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4525[/ATTACH]

@Devin wrote:

Dubai is not a good example to use in support of your case for high buildings, paul h.
A newspaper article from last Sept. said:

‘The French brochure includes a caustic commentary on the frenzy of development
in Dubai, describing it as “pure, unabashed, outrageous consumption” with no regard
for the need to conserve resources. The Gulf sheikdom’s grandiose property projects,
it says, “are probably the very last great folly humanity will be able to afford”.’

(A TALE OF 16 CITIES AT THE VENICE ARCHITECTURE FEST– © The Irish Times, 14-09-06
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2006/0914/1158001538113.html (Ireland dotcom needed))

Maybe somewhere like Madrid would be better to use. A few high buildings here and there …. nothing
impacting greatly on the historic core.

built on slave labour ahh progress!

altro vetro is looking good. it looks a lot taller than what i thought it was going to be. good images above.

@paul h wrote:

Thats true Devin, dubai is not a good example of development, by any stretch of the imagination
……… You mention Madrid
Heres a couple of shots of madrid

Ahhh yes, get the high rises in!!! Any excuse!! 🙂 😉

I don’t see why people are so obsessed with height, or the complete opposite. As long as a proposal is well designed and is of high quality that’s all that should matter, be it tall or small.

Is Hueston Gate proceeding or is this just planning permission for the site with no developer on board yet?Seems like Dublin has a lot of bright ideas for High Rise but very view building of significance really been built.
Serious doubts the U2 Tower will start anytime soon.
No mention of Hueston Gate since it received permission.
Huge obstacles for Dunne in Ballbridge.
Its a very difficult city to build Landmark buildings in areas that are suitable.
Crosbie seems to be the only one who can get things done

@mcdanish wrote:

Is Hueston Gate proceeding or is this just planning permission for the site with no developer on board yet?Seems like Dublin has a lot of bright ideas for High Rise but very view building of significance really been built.
Serious doubts the U2 Tower will start anytime soon.
No mention of Hueston Gate since it received permission.
Huge obstacles for Dunne in Ballbridge.
Its a very difficult city to build Landmark buildings in areas that are suitable.
Crosbie seems to be the only one who can get things done

Heuston Gate is under construction, U2 Tower can’t start until the competition winner is decided, as for Crosbie the joys of docklands Section 50.

@jdivision wrote:

Heuston Gate is under construction, U2 Tower can’t start until the competition winner is decided, as for Crosbie the joys of docklands Section 50.

How did you come across that bit of information? Completion date?
edit: heuston gate I mean.

@darkman wrote:

At last we actually know how many levels will be in the watchtower – 35.

http://www.crosbieproperty.ie/point2.html

Developments around Heuston look good especially the ‘west gate’ eircom development. Dont think Heuston gate is under contruction yet.

i agree. i don’t think heuston gate is under construction yet either.

@malec wrote:

I don’t see why people are so obsessed with height, or the complete opposite. As long as a proposal is well designed and is of high quality that’s all that should matter, be it tall or small.

Location also matters. I love the bombastic 26-storey Franco building overlooking the Plaza de Espana in Madrid, but the 32-storey Torre Madrid – not a bad building in itself – should never have been built beside it imo.

The opposite is also true. In Brussels, many of the high buildings are of poor quality, but they look good because of the way they are dumped in here, there and everywhere within the old city. Needless to say, this shouldn’t be (and generally isn’t) allowed to happen in any other historic city, but because it’s already happened in Brussels, it contributes to the character of the place and should be preserved. They are talking about demolishing some of the more ugly high rise buildings in Brussels. I think this would be wrong.

(cue deluge of indiscriminate Brussels high-rise pictures from paul h)

Sorry, when I meant well designed I was taking into account the location as well, and any other impact it would have on the general area. Of course this matters hugely.

I just think buildings can’t be judged just by how tall they are. For example the general public would say something like this: “I can’t believe they’re building this horrible 17-storey monster here” before they’ve even seen the plans. On the other hand some want a tower built just because it’s tall and would be in favour of it even if it’s hideous. None of these two examples make any sense to me. Just because one version for a 17-storey tower doesn’t work doesn’t mean any building of that height can’t work.
This is also one of the reasons why I hate when a developer is told to simply lob a few stories off from his building. What generally happens is it becomes bulkier, boxier and more overbearing as he tries to cram the same amount of floor-space into a shorter one.

@Devin wrote:

Location also matters. I love the bombastic 26-storey Franco building overlooking the Plaza de Espana in Madrid, but the 32-storey Torre Madrid – not a bad building in itself – should never have been built beside it imo.

The opposite is also true. In Brussels, many of the high buildings are of poor quality, but they look good because of the way they are dumped in here, there and everywhere within the old city. Needless to say, this shouldn’t be (and generally isn’t) allowed to happen in any other historic city, but because it’s already happened in Brussels, it contributes to the character of the place and should be preserved. They are talking about demolishing some of the more ugly high rise buildings in Brussels. I think this would be wrong.

(cue deluge of indiscriminate Brussels high-rise pictures from paul h)

Ok i can take a hint, ill go easy on the pictures of high rises in other cities
The anti high rise mafia should thank me now 😀 .
I honestly dont understand how you can say a building is of poor quality(esp. a tall one) but its ok because it has been there for a period of time:confused:
defy’s logic? am i wrong?

@paul h wrote:

I honestly dont understand how you can say a building is of poor quality(esp. a tall one) but its ok because it has been there for a period of time:confused:

I’m more talking about the overall effect of Brussels rather than individual buildings. This would be a typical scene (below) – you’re walking down an old street and suddenly a faceless ‘60s tower block looms up. You get a few ill-sited tall buildings in most cities, but nowhere’s quite like Brussels for this!
.

@malec wrote:

I just think buildings can’t be judged just by how tall they are. For example the general public would say something like this: “I can’t believe they’re building this horrible 17-storey monster here” before they’ve even seen the plans. On the other hand some want a tower built just because it’s tall and would be in favour of it even if it’s hideous. None of these two examples make any sense to me.

I agree that a building’s aesthetic worth and its height are unrelated. However, tall buildings have a number of functional characteristics, both positive and negative, that are directly linked to height.

Also I think everyone can agree that because tall buildings are more visually prominent than shorter structures that they ought to be beautiful even if this makes their construction less economically viable. I’d also prefer if the most prominent buildings in the city were associated with some public good rather than a private concern. I’d prefer Dublin to be dominated by City Hall or a museum or an observatory or a hospital than by Monsanto’s headquarters or Commerz Bank’s back end sttlements service centre.

is altro vetro the only highrise under construction in dublin right now? by the way, any news on montevetro?

Regarding the Montevetro they are at last demolishing the storage shed that was there beside the Dart on Barrow St, about time! So I assume consrtuction on Montevetro has begun.

That project is now a 14 storey office building:
http://www.treasuryholdings.com/projectDetail.aspx?id=73
http://www.ddda.ie/planning_detail.jsp?id=DD385&st=barrow

That looks much improved

Yet another high-rise plan shot down. See breakingnews.ie item below.

Plans scrapped for 32-storey tower in Dublin
15/05/2007 – 09:23:49

Hopes for a 32-storey skyscraper with over 600 apartments for Dublin city have been dashed.

Property tycoon Sean Dunne was hoping to build the development on the site of Jury’s Hotel in Ballsbridge.

But last night Dublin City Council withdrew the plan and instead opted for another plan limiting tall buildings in the area to eight storeys.

more detailed article in today’s Irish independent. see link below

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1829256&issue_id=15618

@tomk wrote:

more detailed article in today’s Irish independent. see link below

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1829256&issue_id=15618

8 stories is too small for that site. Decisions like this should not be put to local councillors, whom are not sufficiently trained in planning or design and are easily influenced by external factors. It should be the job of the city Planners.

Its a shame, I think BMcE’s proposal was fanastic., if slightly too high.

Any pictures of the proposed development in Ballsbridge? What a terrible decision though, a building of that stature would have looked great in that setting in Ballsbridge. Far better than the monstrosity that is currently in situ.

how surprising the elections are coming up and councillors/politicians dont want to anger the voters! with something twice the height of that dreadful liberty hall skyscraper! what a surprise! O’Brien should bide his time, those in power are pretty fickle, they wont do anything to upset the public now, but money speaks! also 8 stories ha ha ha ha ha! it wont only be those living in the 35 story U2 tower who will be getting Vertigo! Not!

@tomk wrote:

Yet another high-rise plan shot down. See breakingnews.ie item below.

Plans scrapped for 32-storey tower in Dublin
15/05/2007 – 09:23:49

Hopes for a 32-storey skyscraper with over 600 apartments for Dublin city have been dashed.

Property tycoon Sean Dunne was hoping to build the development on the site of Jury’s Hotel in Ballsbridge.

But last night Dublin City Council withdrew the plan and instead opted for another plan limiting tall buildings in the area to eight storeys.

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of these posts about the Jury’s site- the councillors decided not to adopt the Ballsbridge LAP. It’s not specifically to do with Jury’s at all.

Did anyone even look at the Ballsbridge LAP, or is it just the Tall Buildings Society members getting their knickers in a twist as usual? The plan was okay in some respects, in that it proposed a network of non-car routes through the site and had a fair stab at getting the mix of uses right, but much of it was based on getting a Luas line into Ballsbridge as a justification for the density. Luas? Ballsbridge?

*thumbs through Transport 21 and A Platform for Change*

Nope. Luas in Ballsbridge doesn’t seem to feature at all.

Now if you wanted to have a debate about the fact that the Ballsbridge LAP seemed designed to facilitate the redevelopment of some sites in the area, that would be a chat worth having, instead of this knee-jerk “Another tall building plan- SHOT DOWN!! OH NOES!!!” approach. But this is the Tall Buildings thread…

On Topic: This location is not suitable for the type of development proposed by Mr Dunne.

quote from the article:
They claimed that the proposals were simply “a smokescreen to conceal the council’s efforts to facilitate the development of the Jurys Hotel site”

So it’s unacceptable to accommodate the developer, but perfectly acceptable to spite him. I’m not a supporter and god knows developers have earned their reputation, but there’s a definite whiff of schadenfreude about this latest news.

In any case if the proposal is sufficiently dazzling and well designed/planned AnBP (after the inevitable appeal no matter the lodged application) might well go with it. Worse and more inappropriate high profile proposals have been waved through.

@archipig wrote:

8 stories is too small for that site. Decisions like this should not be put to local councillors, whom are not sufficiently trained in planning or design and are easily influenced by external factors. It should be the job of the city Planners.

Did you see the list of parties involved in the public consultation? This process wasn’t simply a case of councillors getting up in the morning and deciding it was a bad idea, though I think stira might be onto something. Election time is never a good time for important decisions – especially unpopular but necessary ones – to be taken. Fortunately this time I think the right decision was taken.

@pleanala wrote:

Any pictures of the proposed development in Ballsbridge?
…
a building of that stature would have looked great in that setting in Ballsbridge. Far better than the monstrosity that is currently in situ.

You haven’t seen pictures and you’re saying it would automatically have been better?!?! I’m no fan of what’s on the site already, but your argument seems strange. Surely you’d need to know what the replacement would look like before deciding it would be an improvement? Not to mention whether or not there were other important aspects to the proposal aside from the aesthetic / height-for-height’s-sake one? Can the infrastructure cope? Will neighbouring properties be devalued?

Tall buildings make for big blinkers.

While I think 32 storeys is far too big for ballsbridge, surely you must agree it is a bit silly to have an 8 storey limit on this 7 acre site. This site is very big and well capable of accommodating something bigger. The redeveloped stadium will be much taller than that.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Nope. Luas in Ballsbridge doesn’t seem to feature at all.

The idea that a luas line is needed in order to accommodate the proposed density is ridiculous. When it comes to public transport, this is one of the most well served sites in Ireland. There is the Dart at Lansdowne, bus corridor going through ballsbridge, and another bus corridor in Donnybrook. I’m not calling for skyscrapers, but theres no need to be overly conservative.

@ctesiphon wrote:

You haven’t seen pictures and you’re saying it would automatically have been better?!?! I’m no fan of what’s on the site already, but your argument seems strange. Surely you’d need to know what the replacement would look like before deciding it would be an improvement? Not to mention whether or not there were other important aspects to the proposal aside from the aesthetic / height-for-height’s-sake one? Can the infrastructure cope? Will neighbouring properties be devalued?

Tall buildings make for big blinkers.

I didn’t say I hadn’t seen what the development looks like, rather I was looking for someone to put up pictures of the proposed development? In order to give people perspective. Thanks for the lecture on how to make a planning decision though:p

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/cities/pdf/tall_buildings.pdf

and I have to say again I still like this project:

http://www.skyscraper.org/WEB_PROJECTS/MANHATTAN_TIMEFORMATIONS/mt_intro.htm

@damcw wrote:

While I think 32 storeys is far too big for ballsbridge, surely you must agree it is a bit silly to have an 8 storey limit on this 7 acre site. This site is very big and well capable of accommodating something bigger. The redeveloped stadium will be much taller than that.

It is a big site and I agree it can take height and density, but the preferred plan doesn’t limit height to 8 storeys. Afaik it allows for certain buildings to go to 16 storeys (terms and conditions apply etc.)]The idea that a luas line is needed in order to accommodate the proposed density is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Not just ridiculous but entirely without foundation in any strategy, plan or policy. I suppose they just thought it was, y’know, sexy. More appropriate to the area than the manky bus.

Anyway, this is getting a bit off the topic. So, yes- no excessive height but no excessive conservatism either.

What is the current tall building guidance for Dublin? I know that DEGW perpared a report in about 2000, from which a policy was to follow, but I don’t recall that any ever was? Does anyone know is there a city-wide regulatory/guidance document or anything?

Anyone see ‘Johnathon Meades Abroad’ last night on BBC2, taking a rather comical look at urban regeneration in Britain and Europe.

@JL wrote:

What is the current tall building guidance for Dublin? I know that DEGW perpared a report in about 2000, from which a policy was to follow, but I don’t recall that any ever was? Does anyone know is there a city-wide regulatory/guidance document or anything?

Still waiting…

@JL wrote:

What is the current tall building guidance for Dublin? I know that DEGW perpared a report in about 2000, from which a policy was to follow, but I don’t recall that any ever was? Does anyone know is there a city-wide regulatory/guidance document or anything?

DEGW document still carries a lot of clout and is viewed quasi-statutorily by Bord Inspectors as far as I know (up to last year this was true anyway)

It has some statutory footing in Dublin City, as DCC incorporated it into their current (2005-11) Development Plan, where it says ‘The potential siting of higher building or high intensity clusters within the city will be planned using the principles and criteria ennunciated in the [DEGW Dublin Building Height Study]’ (Section 15.6.0).

While it is regarded as somewhat vague and esoteric, its findings are broadly accepted as identifying the areas around Heuston and the Docklands as being suitable for high buildings (see pages 58 & 59 of the study).

In regard to decision making, DCC have been putting through some high buildings outside the DEGW-identified areas, but the emerging pattern of An Bord Pleanala decision making on high buildings is to give approval if they are within the DEGW areas (e.g. 32-storey building at Heuston and 16-storey building at Clancy Barracks, behind Heuston), and to throw them out if they are not (e.g. 12-storey building on School Street off Thomas Street, and 25-storey building at Tara Towers Hotel).

don’t forget Manor Park’s 51 storey gem off Thomas St. I’m still upset that DEGW droppped the ball on that location!!!!

But that’s still under appeal from the developer, isn’t it?

Sounds like a biggy. Who are the architects?

@alonso wrote:

don’t forget Manor Park’s 51 storey gem off Thomas St. I’m still upset that DEGW droppped the ball on that location!!!!

With about as much class as 5 carat diamond on the hand of Pablo Escobar!!!!!

they surely didn’t appeal it did they? no chance. Can’t remember the architects….

deBlac & Meag, surprisingly. Decision due in 2 weeks: http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchdetails.asp?id=8949732&caseno=219930

@Devin wrote:

deBlac & Meag, surprisingly. Decision due in 2 weeks: http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchdetails.asp?id=8949732&caseno=219930

51 stories – game on! Yeah that is my favorite proposal for Dublin except it should have been in the docklands…would have complimented the chimneys nicely…just 30M lower than them! I saw the model for this development and was quite happy with the design, blows other designs from the past out of the water. If it ever got built (and we are all sure it won’t) can you imagine the amount of creaked necks in this city? They would have never seen the like! Well that’s how i felt the first time i went to Frankfurt…head up, walking into lamposts!!

Taunusanlage is pretty impressive alright

Just reckon it suited a City with no historical core better

Interestingly Frankfurt also has a proper transit system

Interesting also that Frankfurt has a well preserved historical core and that the CBD is just beyond this enough not to shadow it…in fact most postcards from Frankfurt depict the old town and not the hulking skyline!

One street or two olde worlde streets which consist of facade retentions and good replicas doesn’t really compare to Medieval Dublin or Cork

But I like the way they did Frankfurt there are fantastic recreational spaces particularly the way they maximised the amenity value drawn from the Main river and the area around Sud Banhof is a great watering hole

was there a thread for the 51 storey manor park tower at some point? Would like to read it again
Well TBH nothing in the liberties really hold interest for me. All i can think of down there is Guiness Brewery or the Thomas House pub…am i missing something here or just not symphatetic?

am i missing something here or just not symphatetic?

http://www.archeire.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/thomas_street/ssaugustinejohn.html

OK this spire is instantly recognisable and i have passed by many many times. But is this a factor in not deveoping the area? Does the tower ruin the views of this spire? Some new apartment blocks in town ruin my view of the Sugar loaf..but if i really wanted to see the Sugar loaf…i would drive to Wicklow and see it in its full glory! In New York they have built skyscrapers on top of churches. There is a strong message there… Commerce is the new Religion…Do you think many young city folk give much of a damn about the churches?
I am not unsympathetic, i am just in that mood and laying down ideas! And i have no strong opinions in this area and i would like to know where people are coming from

double post

Whilst I personally feel urban context must be considered as an evolving process, the proposed towers are of excessive scale in this area. In the end it gets back to the notion of a high density liveable city. Such densities are possible without excessive scale.

I posted the church as just one example of what there is to see in this area if you were to take a walk around.

I am suprised this was not touted as a ‘Landmark tower’ rather than over-excessive as 171m is one hell of a landmark. I am not sure if this is close to the areas designated by DEGW for high-rise or was that closer to Hueston? There seems to be a trend now of developers paying huge sums for sites and then their massive plans are shot down – are the developers more ambitious than the area is suitable for? Why can’t the DDDA/City council designate once and for all a CBD with the provision for taller buildings and stop the waste of time and money by developers and designers?

See breakingnews.ie news item – sounds like Sean Dunne et all are going to get some compromises from the council

High-rise towers may be allowed in Dublin’s Ballsbridge
08/06/2007 – 10:07:57

Officials in Dublin City Council are reportedly proposing to allow the construction of high-rise buildings in the upmarket Ballsbridge area.

Reports this morning says the officials want certain sites rezoned in a move that could lead to towers of between 16 and 20 storeys being built in the area.

The idea is due to be discussed by councillors next Monday.

Several wealthy developers have bought up lucrative sites in Ballsbridge in recent years in the hope that councillors will approve high-density tower blocks.

I would be pleased to see some taller buildings in the Thomas/James Street . As well as contrasting forms in areas that are dull and low-rise ( the docklands ) they can re-inforce and emphasize other aspects of city geography, such as the rising ground to the south of the river.
The ideas that towers are obsolete is mistaken. Properly designed tall buildings can be built to the new environmental standards the greener world of the future will require. Look at the buildings of Ken Yeang in Malaysia and in Manhattan, 4 Times Square by Fox and Fowle,
Anyway, we can’t deny that the desire for tall buildings is a constant human aspiration. They are more than just the sum of functions that they physically contain but express a human and civic longing for transcendence, splendour,pride and awe. Most urban cultures have built them, from the pyramids of the Aztecs and Mayas,to the pagodas of the oriental world,the castle towers and steeples of the westerm medieval period and the minarets of Islam in its period of glory. The tall building is also a mental structure that inhabits the human mind as metaphor and allusion,its signifance understood by Freud and others, but whose meanings can be more than the obvious ones. Look at the towers of literature and fantasy and the power they hold over peoples minds from the Tower of Babel ,the ‘Dark Tower’ of Robert Browning, and the tower in the work of Yeats to the towers of Camelot and the Barad-Dur of Tolkien.

Did anyone see the spire getting serviced on Monday morning? That was some mobile crane! It extended over the spire, that was pretty cool. Makes me get an idea how tall a 130 m will look like…The spire looked even more boring with no light at the top, like a big feckin aerial

A 130m BUILDING even

@Keen wrote:

Did anyone see the spire getting serviced on Monday morning? That was some mobile crane! It extended over the spire, that was pretty cool. Makes me get an idea how tall a 130 m will look like…The spire looked even more boring with no light at the top, like a big feckin aerial

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?p=67431#post67431

not to open up a heated debate or anything but personally i never got the point of the spire. It was supposed to reflect the economic growth and new found confidence of a 21 st century ireland but just looks like a huge metal rod in the middle of dublin. Its totally out of place with its surroundings and you would expect it to be placed somewhere better like say an area like central park in manhattan(i know i know dublin isn’t manhattan but just as an example)

They would have been better off building a landmark building instead of wasting millions on what is essentially a large silver spike.

@tfarmer wrote:

not to open up a heated debate or anything but personally i never got the point of the spire. It was supposed to reflect the economic growth and new found confidence of a 21 st century ireland but just looks like a huge metal rod in the middle of dublin. Its totally out of place with its surroundings and you would expect it to be placed somewhere better like say an area like central park in manhattan(i know i know dublin isn’t manhattan but just as an example)

They would have been better off building a landmark building instead of wasting millions on what is essentially a large silver spike.

To a large degree it was also built to be a symbol of Dublin as a means of promoting the city in and of itself. As to whether or not this will be a ‘success’, only time will tell.

what ever happened to the plans to redevelop hawkin’s house? i remember hearing about it quite some time ago yet it still looks hideous. redevelopment is going on every where else so why not here?

i wish people would stop criticizing that building, it’s infinitely better than liberty hall for example. it reminds me of the cold war and looks a bit like something in eastern europe. at least there was a bit of ambition behind it, which is more than can be said for the red brick three storey crap that’s getting built everywhere in ireland.

@shanekeane wrote:

it’s infinitely better than liberty hall for example

Hawkins House ? my ass it is.

Liberty Hall is pretty poor on close inspection but still looks reasonable from several vantage points.

Take the image below & picture it with its original transparent glazing.

almost every single poster on this website seems to be committed to a vision of dublin as some kind of sanitised, gleaming bourgeois paradise like all those fake central areas of european tourist cities. this building obviously wouldn’t fit into that aesthetic vision; but i happen to think it’s got a shabby magnificence all its own and i dont want to see it knocked down to be replaced by a ‘mixed residential, retail, museum development’. and i don’t want to see our capital city with all its failures and shabbiness to be turned into some kind of disney vision of the ‘ideal european capital city’. that building is magnificent, and more importantly it has character

yeh fair enough shane on your general points. But Hawkins House is a piece of crap, a blight on the landscape, environemntally inefficient (a sick building housing the dept of health) and I for one will greet it’s demise with glee

people travel to east berlin specifically to see whole areas full of buildings like that. there’s nothing else quite like it in dublin, and it will eventually be knocked down by the same charlatans who were responsible for the demolition of the unique, irreplaceable, and architecturally accomplished ballymun flats.

people travel to germany to see Auschwitz as well. Doesn’t mean we should have a concentration camp outside Mulligans. Yes it;s a stupid comparison but what part of “irreplaceable” and “architecturally accompished” makes sense in the context of system built high-rise prefabs that failed structurally as well as socially?

because there’s nothing else quite like them in the whole country, and they are indeed an important part of the social history of this country, not to mention the fact that they are beautiful. and i was drawing the comparison with east berlin, because as with these types of modernist building over there, the hawkins building is also beautiful. but i suppose you’re the type that only fucks conventionally pretty girls.

Anyone who thhinks Hawkins House is beautiful deserves to be fuc*ed themselves !

well i’m sorry i don’t have access to the platonic form of the beautiful like you apparently do, but i was hitherto under the impression that beauty was in the eye of the beholder. and just because the majority of people nowadays (including, most lamentably of all, architects) count as beautiful anything conventional enough to fit in harmoniously with their cosy caffelatte visions of life, and discount anything which could be considered remotely challenging or disharmonious, doesn’t mean that the latter are bereft of any value. indeed, i think it’s what makes them more valuable. hawkins house is a more interesting piece of architecture than almost anything else in dublin.

I like Hawkins House and I’ve never understood why it is the subject of such bitter hatred.

Walking down Hawkins Street is now a unique experience in the city, with first Hawkins then Apollo House ….. it’s like stepping back into 1973.

yes but currently 1973 is considered to be ‘bad’. just as georgian was considered to be ‘bad’ back in the 1960s. fashions come and fashions go, and when they go it is sometimes impossible for people to fathom why certain acts of destruction were permitted. there’s only one reason buildings should be demolished, and that is mediocrity. whatever else you say about this building, it is not mediocre.

it is mediocre. It just seems worse because we couldn’t afford to build more like it in the 60’s and 70’s. In any UK city it’d be nothing more than a standard slab of ugg…

well i don’t think it is mediocre. isn’t its uniqueness reason enough to retain it?

Also, it should be pointed out that Hawkins House’s impact on the cityscape is relatively low. Unlike O’Connell Bridge House, it is tucked in away from the sensitive areas of College Green and O’Connell Bridge, whereas the former is right there splat in civic area. I will always despise O’Connell Bridge House for its wrong location.

so once it’s hidden it’s ok? It could be replaced with a great building that screams out from it’s location, rather than maintain this slab. Uniqueness is not a good reason for retention whatsoever. you don’t piss about with cities. If a building fails it fails. Experiment in a studio but the landscape is for the people, not for the architects

I dunno ………. I guess you either like it or you don’t.

if it was planted right in the middle of stephen’s green i’d still say keep it. uniqueness is a perfectly good reason to maintain it (so long as it’s not mediocre), the very fact that it draws attention to itself is what makes it so special. if we want everything to be immediately likeable, let’s just build disneyland and be done with it.

but a dog turd on the footpath draws attention to itself too. I get your overall point but my God you’re in a tiny minority. No matter what building you’re talking about, there’ll be folk what love it I guess. But just look at it above. It’s urban trash, in my opinion.

@shanekeane wrote:

if it was planted right in the middle of stephen’s green i’d still say keep it. uniqueness is a perfectly good reason to maintain it

No, no, no, I don’t agree!! You know this redevelopment of Liberty Hall that is upcoming? Well the worst aspect of it is that when the Hall is demolished so as the new one can be built, people are going to get used to the scale of the Quays running up to the Custom House and the fact that there should never have been a tall building there. Then you will get angry when this is lost again ….. Location is everything.

eh no I won’t. I like the scale and form of Liberty Hall. People will react like you said but I won’t

so apparently everything in our cities should conform to the idea of beauty espoused by the majority? or is it by the expert minority? of maybe the government? or the church? i’m happy that in this country everything in a city isn’t made to conform to a certain outdated vision like it is in paris. i’m glad that we can throw stuff up that some people like and some people hate. the biggest blight on our cities is the uniformity of so much of what is being built nowadays, and the wider uniformity of cities throughout the british isles. it’s comforting to have some buildings which are so imposing which challenge the dominant idea of beauty or harmony current in people’s tastes. hawkins house isn’t a crafted or deliberate challenge to the architectural context thrown down by things like the guggenheim or the jewish museum in berlin. this is a more natural and organic type of challenge, one which arose out of largely functional motivations, and which takes on the status of a more radical challenge because it didn’t buy into the kind of aesthetic games which the guggenheim inadvertently bolstered by recognizing them in its challenge. whereas the guggenheim is merely the extension of nineteenth century planning control freakery, something like hawkins house doesn’t mesh with that kind of thinking of any level whatsoever, and enables us to glimpse how architecture can rip a hole in the complacency of its environment, and challenge the human need for order with the more primitive human need to destroy it.

@alonso wrote:

eh no I won’t. I like the scale and form of Liberty Hall.

I do too – it puntuates the Quays well from Ha’penny Bridge area, but overall it’d be better off without it.

Indeed but it’s difficult to imagine the city without this landmark

Shane everything you say is true and well put, but this is Hawkin’s House we;re talking about. It, along with Apollo House, is nothing more than an oul office block with little archiectural merit. It’s treatment of Tara Street and Poolbeg street is disgracelful for a central area not a stone’s throw from TCD and BoI. This entire block should be redeveloped, with new ground floor uses to create what, in effect, will be new streets opened up to the city. It’s an awful part of town that should be great

@shanekeane wrote:

i’m glad that we can throw stuff up that some people like and some people hate. the biggest blight on our cities is the uniformity of so much of what is being built nowadays

This partly why I am passionate about keeping Hawkins House. If it is redeveloped, what will you get? = a load of glass & sandstone-cladding autocad architecture like the top of Harcourt Street or Pelletstown or any new area you can think of.

I kinda like this ‘it’s proper, honest to goodness shite- as opposed to mediccre shite’ angle. It’s got some merit as a thesis.

the biggest blight on our cities is the uniformity of so much of what is being built nowadays, and the wider uniformity of cities throughout the british isles.

I admire your contrarian defense of Hawkins House and much of what you say has validity but I think you’re getting a bit carried away here. Hawkins House hardly distinguishes Dublin from other cities in Ireland or Britain. The opposite in fact; every provincial British city with a population above 50k has at least one Hawkins House or many of them. On the other hand, a building you despise, Liberty Hall, is genuinely distinctive and iconic. This blight you mention is real but the brutalism of Hawkins House surely is just an earlier example of it.

Also, while beauty is subjective, this building and Apollo House (which is suffering some sort of concrete “disease”) were poorly and cheaply constructed. They are already failing in a number of ways and I’m not sure they were designed to last more than a decade or two. To conserve or restore buildings like this would strike me as extremely odd given the amount of distinctively Dublin architecture from all eras which is crumbling away.

By the way, I actually agree with you regarding Ballymun. I was really disappointed that they didn’t keep (and restore) at least one tower. This development was historically significant in Ireland (even if for the wrong reasons) and the towers were widely recognisable.

I’ve heard some bizarre, contrarian. flatulent meanderings in my time but this takes the biscuit. We should keep it because its uniquely ugly! Reminds me of those juvenile “I’m for it ‘cos the rest of you are ‘agin it ” arguments we had in College where empty-headed types attempted to prove they were so “radical” by defending Brezhnev, and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Hawkins house is a heap of lousy, rotten crud,a brutal, ugly mess and an assault on the eyes. The way it looms over Burgh Quay is disgusting, as are the vile materials of which it’s constructed.it’s the unacceptable face of modernism and if people turned against modern architecture and wanted “three storey red brick crap” you can thank structures like this for what happened.
More nonsensical is this relativistic notion that claims everybody will come to love everything in time, so..therefore nothing is bad. Great so,lets throw judgement out the window. After all this means we’ll all come to love that “three storey red-brick ” garbage in time too. Yes, people look in amazement at the dinosaurs of Eastern Europe but far from admiring them,they’re thanking God we avoided that fate.Oddly enough,most women would rather be with Brad Pitt than John Merrick and likewise,if all people think Hawkins house is trash..well, you know what, they are dead right. what exactly is wrong with building harmonious cities? Architecture is there to delight the mind and soul, not depress it and the Mandarin nonsense the it should be always “challenging” people belongs in the dustbin.If you want to be challenged by incoherence, dissonance and ugliness go look at “Dogville” or listen to Harrison Birtwhistle. At least they don’t shove their garbage down people’s throat whether they want it or not, as everybody who walks down Hawkins street has it shoved down their throats.
Maybe I’m all wrong of course. Doubtless.the people of the future will have different standards and will have nothing only distaste for such “Disney-like” towns as Rome,Prague,Stockholm and Amsterdam and their “fake..sanitised, bourgeois crap” and stand in awe and admiration at the magnificent, “challenging” structures of Slough, Luton and Leeds. Hurry, lets stop this senseless re-development of such fine places as Birmingham city centre and preserve the artistry and craftsmanship of the architects and planners of the seventies. Let’s keep Apollo House too, or failing that, set up a theme park devoted to rubbish architecture, where we can stand in admiration in front of such strokes of sixties and seventies genius as crumbling curtain walling, light-swallowing brown brick,grime-encrusted cement piers and rain-stained pre-cast concrete cladding.
Finally to keep our friend here happy, here’s another gem. I will endeavour to find more.

@Hiivaladan wrote:

set up a theme park devoted to rubbish architecture, where we can stand in admiration in front of such strokes of sixties and seventies genius as crumbling curtain walling, light-swallowing brown brick,grime-encrusted cement piers and rain-stained pre-cast concrete cladding.

oooh – now that idea I like!

I accept both sides on this, and agree that Hawkins has certain merit, albeit entirely symbolic. What is commonly perceived to be ‘bad’ architecture is not always a negative thing. The worst type of such design is manifest in buildings that insidiously creep into the urban-scape, slithering in the back door to contaminate the wider city environment, spreading like a cancer without anybody noticing or taking heed. This in particular is what has destroyed so much of the quays, and in turn the very character of the city. They affect whole communities and business districts, dragging a wider area down in a way that cannot always be pin-pointed.

By contrast, bombastic ‘errors’ or arrogant relics of times past are easily digested and accepted – Hawkins House is a fascinating remnant of the ‘enterprising’ city of the 1960s. It is so breathtakingly ugly that it captivates your attention quite unlike any other building in the city. Unlike UK Brutalist concoctions that are despised simply for being ‘modrin’, in spite of them often being quite imaginative and of quirky appeal, Hawkins is such a monstrous pile of rubbish in every respect that it’s really quite refreshing. It doesn’t even bother to try to be daring, wave-creating, mould-breaking; it really couldn’t care less. It’s just a pile of concrete and steel windows chucked together that miraculously managed to gather in the form of a building and last for over forty years.

Also, to be able to distinguish it so clearly from its environment, and almost separate it into a pigeon hole in your head to be discarded at will is also of benefit. It’s akin to aluminium windows in older buildings: they’re so hideously out of place that they’re not nearly as offensive as recent plastic concoctions. In fact they’re almost a relief to see, safe in the knowledge that they were born out of a wider trend of ‘progess’, in contrast to mediocre modern-day development generated out of sheer ignorance, at a stage when people should be beginning to know better. As to whether Hawkins should be demolished (on a conceptual level, given it’s likely to go either way) – is open to question. I’d like the quayline to be reinstated, but given this will never happen, redevelopment or not, it’d be interesting to see what could be done in cleaning up the main concrete body of the building, with just the buscuit tins demolished and rebuilt in something crisp and striking in contrast. I’d imagine it could become quite a desirable place to live. There is a market for that type of design and innovative conversion/updating.

What is unsettling about Hawkins though, that cannot continue, is its appalling condition, down-at-heel environment, and gross inefficiency. It must be the sickest building in the state by a factor of twenty – you can almost take you coat off stepping into the car park, such is its generosity in heating the surrounding streets.

I’d rather see it demolished but if it was re-clad or reconstructed the top three floors would have to come off to stop the way it glowers over the quay. But what could be done about the way it steps back from the street line?

i happen to think dogville was a really good film.

i’ve got a better idea. why don’t you knock down everything else on the street and everything else on the quays, and make them conform to the pattern of hawkins house.

Or…even better, you could go back “life on mars” style, in a time-machine to 1973 and enjoy the ‘golden-age’ of concrete cladding.

id rather live in the golden age of concrete cladding than in an age where all that crap gets built right next to st. patrick’s cathedral

double triple post

oops

the poor oul theatre royal mattered not a jot though did it

Isn’t this a lovely vista courtesy of unique architecture?

@alonso wrote:

the poor oul theatre royal mattered not a jot though did it

It’s not so much the building itself (which really is pretty bad, no matter how many beers you have) its what it replaced.

I’d suggest thats the real reason why hawkins house is viewed with such contempt. It occupies an area that once hived with activity whereas now its awkward footprint & shocking integration with street level leaves us with an entire city block that is well & truly dead.

Bring back to Royal 😀

Hilvaladan, I saw a very similar building to the one you posted last time I was in Brussels and I was quite worried about it, as it was empty with the ground floor hoarded off (below). There are other lower blocks around it. I think it’s a fantastic complex …… like O’Connell Bridge House gone mad. It is only 5 minutes from the Gare Centrale yet the whole place is deserted with just the odd person walking through.

Don’t ask me why I like it. I just do!!! And I’m not trying to be radical or contrary or something.

The long block on the right is part of the same complex. The building beyond that shows what is happening to much of Brussels’ ’60s & ’70s commercial architecture: an homogenous noughties glass refacing/refurbishment. It makes me angry to think that this is probably what is going to happen to the first building …

Two more views of it:
.

and i’m not being bizarre on contrarian either, honestly, but that picture of the theatre is just really wonderful. it’s so atmospheric and different, and redolent of the strange sci fi visions of the future that the modernists had. i could look at it all day. i went to prague a couple of years ago, and honestly the stuff i was most impressed with was all the ‘drab’ communist stuff; i got bored of the habsburg stuff after five minutes.

so would you live in a drab 30 storey communist machine for living in? or would rather live in a duplex or “red brick 3 storey crap” building?

Not that the latter is a lot better than the former. But, it’s all very well to be “is;nt it fun to like horrible things at a distance” but try living there for a couple of months. Can you imagine a whole city like that?
As for Brussels: An homogenous noughties glass refacing/refurbishment graph-paper architecture to replace an homogenous seventies glass graph-paper architecture. God help us all!

@Devin wrote:

Don’t ask me why I like it. I just do!!!

Though I haven’t see it in person, I’d be inclined to agree. I think the difference here is that the buildings exist as a group rather than as individuals plonked into a historic city centre, so the massing and interrelationships can be decided and arranged, and the awkward clashes of the likes of Hawkins House avoided. Then again, how does this complex meet its neighbours? I wonder if it looms horribly over some Gothic church just out of shot? 😉

I think ’60s and ’70s developments generally work better at this scale- UCD Belfield campus, the Barbican in London and the Olympic Village in Munich spring to mind. (I’m not saying all big ’60s/’70s stuff was a success, btw! Just that the style is more likely to work on a larger canvas.)

The larger the canvas the more hideously impersonal the environment. These areas are like real sets from some dreadful 1984-like dystopia, or like a partial realization of Hilberseimers ideal (ideal?)city. To say these work better at a certain scale is like saying Stalinism worked better in Russia than Europe. Can you imagine these on a wet, dark Brussels day ..or an Irish Summers day? By the way, these images show that the rot in Modernisn was with it -the worm in the bud-from the very beginning , not just the doing of bad, corporate architects in the 50os and 60s.

@alonso wrote:

so would you live in a drab 30 storey communist machine for living in?

The same could be applied to buildings built today]http://www.linetosurface.org/downloads/07.pdf[/url] – but would they live there? Nah! They live in a huge Victorian house in leafy D4!!

@ctesiphon wrote:

I think the difference here is that the buildings exist as a group rather than as individuals plonked into a historic city centre, so the massing and interrelationships can be decided and arranged, and the awkward clashes of the likes of Hawkins House avoided. Then again, how does this complex meet its neighbours?

They’re actually integrated well with the 19th century planning of the city – unlike many of their time! Two of the lower blocks are centred around an adjacent stone obelisk, which also terminates several older streets (see below).

And the main tall block is well proportioned. I’ve searched before to try and get some info on what’s happening with this complex but no luck. Any Brussels residents looking in??!

Well-proportioned? well thats damning them with faint praise, although I’d prefer to go the whole hog and damn them with curses, obloquy, abuse and derision.
I’d call this the epitome of the architecture of bureaucracy, but in fact,come to think of it,Somerset House, the Custom House and other fine buildings are also an architecture of bureaucracy. It’s the perfect grey architecture for the grey-suited office drones of the late 20C.These boxes are indeed the nadir of the “International style”:graph-paper architecture,without articulation,ornament or interest, deadening blandness scaled-up to an insane size,no top, no sides, no sense of scale,just the same modular boxes capable of being carried on into infinity of height and length,the reductio-ad-absurdam of brutal,uncompromising,obsessive-compulsive geometry frozen into a rictus of rectilinearity. By, god, I’d enjoy having an F16, fully loaded with missiles and cannon and taking these corpse-like boxes apart in an orgy of flame and destruction.

Damn them with curses, obloquy, abuse and derision, hurl in their general direction the 20-volume OED (ed. John Simpson) and a very large thesaurus if you must, but please don’t blow up the poor hideous buildings of the world, what on earth would happen to Archiseek if you did?

By the way, Hiivaladan, have you thought to contact John Cleese? I think your architectural insults would sound great with a sneering French accent. In the meantime, I do hope you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some cows to catapult at Hawkins House.

Lol manifesta!

Oh Hiivaladan, I just can’t take any more!!!

By the way folks the evaluation of our late 20th century built heritage has come up many times in the threads before. Phil has been vociferous about the need to protect it.

Devin,

Yes, I know this building complex in Brussels and I gather that it was recently sold by the finance dept. to a private concern, it’s part of a selling-off of state property to raise some cash.

It is a fantastic set of buildings, very Brussels, massive scale, ugly, totally out of place but utterly fascinating.

The huge skyscraper on the corner of the site is a monster, so big in fact you never really notice it, it just doesn’t register, possibly because it’s surrounded by a number of architectural gems.

By the way, Brussels is an architectural paradise, very under estimated…….

I hope they are dead cows?

I have yet to work out the details.

Thanks for that Shaun,

Agree about Brussels. The Centre de la Monie at the start of rue Neuve is another modern treasure / horror, depending on your view ….

well obviously a lot of people have a problem with reducing architecture to geometrical precision, and removing all of the fussy ornamentation you get on architecture of the past; but these are the same people who can’t face the silence of the universe, and insist upon filling every possible moment with noise and pollution. it is only when we remove excess ornamentation that people can project their own sadness onto the blank canvas of modernity, thereby rendering themselves even more depressed. but the joyous among us find reflected their our own joy. modernist architecture doesn’t tell us how to think, and doesn’t inveigle petty distractions into our feeble minds, but allows to be human, to be strong, to be ubermensch!

Look at the use of loaded terms, right off the bat! Ornamentation on the architecture of the past is “fussy”. Well, that puts Neuman, Asam, Vanbrugh and Henry Yvele in their place.The disposing of every instance of ornament as being like “noise and pollution” or “petty distractions” is just plain daft….and that’s being polite. In fact this was the hubris of the high modernists (or rather of the reductionist strain which hi-jacked modernism) in trying to impose their own abstruse,right-angled, platonic doctrines of geometrical perfection on the general population whether they wanted it or not, Castor-oil architecture. “this is good for you, you’ll thank me one day”.oddly enough they did’nt. Excess? I thought to people of this type ALL ornament was wrong, not just some, which the use of that word implies. “The silence of the universe”…”Ubermensch”..don’t make me laugh. Only the late, great Louis Hellman could do justice to this nonsense and subject it the derision it deserves…come to think of it, he did. Even if I held to that rarefied view of architecture, the fact is that only very accomplished architecrs like Luis Barragan, Tadeo Ando and (but only sometimes ) Mies van der Rohe can get away with this type of building and there is a very fine line between precision,fine proportions and minimalism and boredom, sterility and monotony and that line was crossed very quickly indeed when the bog-standard architects got their hands on cities and began to construct their curtain-walling by the yard (or mile) corporate or bureaucratic boxes. Many doctrines are always fated to be destroyed by dilution and widespread use and the “International style” went down that route very quickly indeed.To attempt to load this garbage with significance,to dignify the (by now rotting away) trash that disfigures Leeds,Coventry, Houston and scores of other cities all over the world by associating it with these bizarre pseudo-Zen-like notions is so ludicrous as to be laughable. The task of architects was to make environments that would make it a pleasure for people to work and live in, that would facilitate their lives and delight them not to “confront then with the silence of the universe” or to “make them strong”. In the event they ended-up doing neither, just serving their corporate and governmental masters in rolling out office and factory walls and floors by the yard and stacking them up like tires in heaps in a tire yard.In the event the inhabitants of the flats and offices were made neither strong nor joyous, just the usual salary-man zombies. but I suppose that’s not the architects fault, its the workers fault for not appreciating the works of their betters and using it correctly. Now, I’m off to Fenian Street to gaze at Cumberland House House and see if it makes me stronger.

i think the fact that you considered the possibility that i was even remotely being serious suggests that you’re living on another planet.

There is no end to the foolishness of men….if you can see people defending (say) Tom Parlon then nothing would surprise me. Any day of the week you’ll see eejits defending the indefensible.

what kind of a total cretin dismisses anything he doesn’t agree with as ‘indefensible’ and those presumably many thousands of people who like modernist architecture as eejits.

So you decide what is modernist? This stuff is ‘modern architecture’ in the same way Silhouette and Mills&Boon are English Literature. Cretin, eh? Well, I should have known you’d get around to personal insults eventually. Cool your jets, Mister! A moment ago you were accusing me of taking you seriously when you were..what,exactly…? Joking? Now you’re back to the old malarkey…make up your mind!

i was talking about the ubermensch stuff, clever clogs.

i didn’t personally insult anyone, i was making a general statement (as you were about eejits who defend the indefensible).

Jawohl…Whatever you say, my nietzschean friend…:rolleyes:

is the mini burj al arab near heuston station under construction yet?

I see the Red Cow Moran hotel owners got planning permission for a 17 storey hotel at the Red Cow roundabout which they say will be the tallest hotel in Ireland. Construction will take two years and start later this year. The image of the completed hotel on Saturday’s Irish Independent looked very impressive but isn’t inluded on their online report. See link below

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/red-cow-hotel-at-night-to-be-dublin-skyline-delight-1061706.html

hey-tats great news apparently the naas road is earmarked for high rise by sdcc.. do ye guys hav a full summary of projects thread so people browsin know whats been built?? deres quite a few high rise now i think

A picture of the new Red Cow Moran Hotel from HKR’s website.

That looks great. It would be a fantastic landmark on the way into Dublin

i like it too.

PTB it’s nothing special. It’s imaged through a wide angle perspective, making it look more dramatic that it actually is. And the standard half-light backdrop with lights on in the building.

Beware of the way proposals are imaged.

Cubix, there was this site – http://skyscrapernews.com/bdbsearch.php?cs=0&country=Ireland – I don’t know how reliable or up to date it is though.

^^ That’s what I was thinking as well. Night renders are always deceptive since most highrises that wouldn’t look so good suddenly look great at night. The 1000s of residential towers in Hong Kong are a good example of this.

By the way have any of you seen this SOM proposal for a tower in San Francisco? Now this is how things are supposed to be done 🙂

imagine building that in as earthquake prone area are as san fran…. crazy

@Devin wrote:

PTB it’s nothing special. It’s imaged through a wide angle perspective, making it look more dramatic that it actually is. And the standard half-light backdrop with lights on in the building.

Beware of the way proposals are imaged.

Cubix, there was this site – http://skyscrapernews.com/bdbsearch.php?cs=0&country=Ireland – I don’t know how reliable or up to date it is though.

Now that you mention it, how come all the lights are on if its daytime?

More images from hkr.ie. This is a 17 storey hotel and office development proposed for Sandyford. The site is in between Vodafone’s central park offices and Woodies DIY.

looks impressive..

Not a fan of the building in the first image design wise, but gives the road a much better feeling of place due to its height and block-like shape .The building in the third picture looks impressive enough.

can any1 give me info on the cherrywood tower? i think some1 said recently it was 40 storeys high and had been approved…

17 storey hotels in Sandyford and at the Red Cow?

Does nobody look out of hotel room windows any more? Or is the expectation that the clientele will be too tired, too drunk or too blind to notice?

can any1 give me info on the cherrywood tower? i think some1 said recently it was 40 storeys high and had been approved…

That tower is in Cherry Orchard as far as I know, maximum height allowed in Cherrywood at the moment is only around 10 storeys.
I’ve heard that this Cherry Orchard tower is at least 40 storeys but have never seen any renders and the news of this tower has been going around for a while.

Here’s a bit about it from skyscrapernews.com
http://skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=4599

Im nearly sure I read a post in here with some guy saying” there just about to start building the tower and it was 40 storeys high” I havent heard about it since and after looking I cant find the thread! very strange……

It is a bit odd alright, its listed on a couple of websites but none have renders and you would think that for a building of that size which isn’t in the CBD then they would have renders, it’s not like it’s an inconsequential size for the area.

@forzairlands wrote:

That tower is in Cherry Orchard as far as I know, maximum height allowed in Cherrywood at the moment is only around 10 storeys.
I’ve heard that this Cherry Orchard tower is at least 40 storeys but have never seen any renders and the news of this tower has been going around for a while.

Yep there’s a 40 storey tower proposed as part of the cherry orchard ‘town centre’ plan.
Durkan are one of the developers & Bucholz McEvoy are supposed to be the architects (of the elusive tower anyway).
I’ve never seen any renders either & if any exist they must be under lock & key.

Little has happened on site for years, although they have moved in recent weeks to clear areas & errect a perimeter railing.

Harcourt / Sisk are constructing the new train station immediately to the left of the site, (similar to adamstown) which is well underway.

I’ve no objection to a tower, but the tallest in the state ?

Whatever about the city centre, random high rises are certainly springing up in the suburbs, 40 storey at cherry orchard, 20 storey at red cow, several on the cards in sandyford, its all back to front.

This ought to make an appearance before the end of the week:

ARE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS THE FUTURE FOR DUBLIN?

YES:

James Pike says suitably sited high-rise towers can help meet the challenge of containing a rapidly growing city.

There is no doubt that if we carry on with our current sprawling pattern of development in Dublin, the quality of life for most citizens will deteriorate further, as commuting times increase. This will also reduce the city’s attraction as a location for key players in business and education worldwide.
Current estimates show that the population of the Dublin region can be expected to grow by at least 700,000 over the next 25 years and that at least 500,000 of that growth needs to be within the Dublin conurbation. This would still mean huge growth for the satellite towns within the region.
Much of this growth will have to be provided in the townships on the urban edge, such as Adamstown, the Leopardstown/Cherrywood corridor and the north fringe. These are already being developed at much higher densities than existing suburbia and are well served by public transport.
The new Adamstown, which took at least 25 years to plan and build, will provide for only 250,000 people, so the challenge remains to intensify and grow the city centre and the existing suburbs.
Of course, increased density does not mean high-rise, but high-rise is hard to define and relative to the immediate built environment. Six stories in two-storey suburbia could be considered high-rise, whereas 20 stories in Manhattan would be considered low- to mid-rise.
Densities of up to 50 dwellings per acre can be achieved by three- to four-storey developments, but this is difficult in many suburban or even inner-urban sites that are surrounded by existing one- and two-storey housing and there are very few sites in central Dublin or the suburbs large enough to allow development densities to be maximised.
Densities that could be achieved in our inner-urban streets are going to be further reduced by the new standards for apartments introduced last week by Dublin City Council. These standards have a very worthy purpose of making apartments more family-friendly, but they will mean considerably fewer apartments on a length of street frontage. Thus there is more pressure to increase building height in order to achieve good urban densities.
Most residential development in central Dublin to date has been low- to medium-rise, in line with existing building heights. Slightly greater heights have been achieved in major redevelopments such as Dublin Docklands or Smithfield, which address larger public spaces or water frontage. However, considerable criticism has been levelled at the Docklands for creating too even and uneventful a profile.
This was only broken to date by the Millennium Tower at Charlotte Quay with a modest 18 stories, of similar height to the adjacent Boland’s Mills, but it is now joined by the new, slender tower on the other side of the harbour.
Further landmark buildings at about the height of the Spire (120m) are emerging at key gateways at the Point Depot and the U2 tower on the opposite bank of the Liffey and also at Heuston Gate. I would consider that such landmark buildings at key points in our sprawling city are vital, as long as they do not compromise existing housing or historic buildings.
Are such high-rise buildings sustainable? They can be designed to zero carbon standard and they maximise development at key transport hubs. Building costs are higher, but they fetch more money.
I would therefore defend the siting of a tower at the Jury’s site in Ballsbridge, although I feel it needs refinement in slenderness and a little reduction in height. It is sited at a key point of one of Dublin’s major inner-urban townships. It creates a focal point at the end of Dublin’s grandest 19th century terrace in Pembroke Road and does not impact on views from the surrounding grand, tree-lined roads. It will also complement the curvaceous but considerable bulk of the new Lansdowne Road stadium. Many of the lower buildings are going to create no more impact than the existing hotels and office buildings and promise to be much more refined, but some will need to be reconsidered.
Where else in the city is high-rise justified? At key locations on the urban edge or regenerated industrial estates such as Sandyford, or as focal points of major townships such as Ballsbridge or Heuston Gate, if suitable sites can be found. But I consider our greatest opportunity presents itself on the Poolbeg Peninsula and more particularly the existing Dublin Docks, which must inevitably be moved out in large part to Bremore, presenting a wonderful opportunity to create a major new city quarter, with up to 80,000 inhabitants at the heart of a magnificent bay, far from immediate impact on existing communities, and at present marked only by power station chimneys.

James Pike is a director and founder of O’Mahony Pike Architects and author of Living Over the Shop, which was recently published by Comhar, the national forum for sustainable development.

http://www.ireland.com/head2head/no.html

ARE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS THE FUTURE FOR DUBLIN?

NO:

Sue Roaf says that climate change and peak oil mean that the age of the skyscraper has passed.
The age of skyscrapers is at an end. It must now be considered an experimental building typology that has failed.

Let’s pretend you are choosing a new flat in a city location. What is the maximum number of storeys that that building should be if you want to remain comfortable and safe in that building over time? The world is getting warmer and the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published last April, is much more alarming that the first three.
On top of that, oil will be really expensive by 2020, because we have now passed the peak of oil production for global supplies.
The last place in the world that you want to be when the lights start going out in an extreme weather event like a violent storm or a heatwave is 20 stories up in a glass tower!
I give a wide range of good reasons why we should never build tall buildings again in the book, Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change: A 21st Century Survival Guide. The height of a building affects its internal climate. It has proven nigh on impossible to prevent all south-facing apartments in high-rise buildings from overheating in summer, and all north-facing ones being cold in winter due to radiant gains and losses.
A building develops its own internal micro-climate, and heat from the lower floors will rise by natural buoyancy, making the higher floors hotter. The higher the building, the greater this problem of thermal stratification, and the more energy has to be thrown at cooling the upper floors. Tall buildings, by their very nature of being tall, can use twice as much energy as equivalent low buildings.
The higher the building, the more it costs to run, because of the increased need to raise people, goods and services, and also, importantly, because the more exposed the building is to the elements, the more it costs to heat and cool. The higher the building, the higher the wind speeds around the building, the more difficult to keep it out, and the more the wind pressure on the envelope sucks heat from the structure.
The higher the building, if standing alone, the more exposed to the sun it is, and the more it can overheat. And hence the higher the building, the more it costs to keep the internal environment comfortable.
With increasingly poor standards of environmental design, including widespread excessive use of glass and rapidly increasing levels of equipment use, in particular of computers, air conditioning becomes more and more essential. Air conditioning can quadruple energy costs at a stroke, giving them a disproportionately high carbon-emitter status, at a time when carbon taxes for homeowners are being spoken of.
So on top of high running costs, homeowners would also have to consider that they may have to pay far higher carbon taxes associated with high-rise buildings in the future.
The bottom line is that the cost of conventional energy will soar over time and glass towers are the most expensive buildings on earth to run, with their lifts and the water pumping and the fact that they need much more heating and cooling, being stuck up there, exposed to the worst of the sun and the wind and the cold.
Who knows what global economies will do in a fossil fuel-challenged future – but you certainly cannot run a glass tower on renewable energy. For example, the geometric properties of towers make it difficult to utilise solar hot-water systems for occupants because of the low ratio of the external building surface area to the number of occupants.
The lights in cities around the world are going off more commonly every year and you should choose a flat to which you can easily carry a bucket of water to and walk down from comfortably to do your shopping when the power in your neighbourhood does fail. And don’t forget that the home should remain tolerably comfortable, even in extreme weather when those lights do go out.
It is difficult to understand exactly how different the 21st century will be from the last 100 years, but the smart money won’t go aloft in the future – not least because smart money does not want to live in a “target building” since 9/11.
If you were thinking of buying the “full-view” penthouse on the 40th storey of a new tower, with fixed windows and central air conditioning, do your children and yourself a favour.
Think again, because it is likely to be a bad investment in the short, medium and long term too. Play safe, because you will need to in a rapidly changing 21st century.

Sue Roaf is visiting professor at Arizona State University and at the Open University. She is an author of numerous books and academic papers, an Oxford city councillor and works with the Green Consultancy and the Carbon Trust.

http://www.ireland.com/head2head/no.html

Kind of funny that Jim Pike got lumped with the ‘YES’ side. He couldn’t be further from the How-tall-is-it?-Why-isn’t-it-taller? brigade. I think what he is ultimately arguing for is “good urban densities”.

pretty good article but this guy is just some journalist, we need the the people who are in charge to adapt this attitude, im reading stuff like the above for the past 6 years….

By Sue’s logic we should all live at ground level or maye develop a subterannean play-it-safe world (which will fundamentally encounter the same fate as an overground 21st century society). Sorry Sue, i prefer to look down on god’s green earth rather than skulking around the surface with buckets of water looking up now and again at the sky, thinking “if only we had the balls”.

Her argument is so flawed as to be beyond belief

She says the age of oil is over – if so why is she advocating sprawl, rather than taller buildings?

Her view of the future is so dystopian as to be ludicrous – we are humans and we adapt to survive, fossil fuels may run out but we will find a replacement power source. Her version is more ‘protect and survive’ post apocalyptic rather than anyone else’s resonable expectations of the future

And as for the september 11th analogy – well we may as give up live in hole and convert to Osama Bin Laden’s flawed Islamic code because then they have won.

Rubbish over the top nonsense – can’t believe the ‘newspaper of record’ printed this sub Daily Mail cack

Well,she got her answer. The responses today in Irish Times were-unusually- all against her.
Live underground…and turn into Morlocks? No way!

whats the story with the moran red cow hotel?any one got a construction timetable or hear even know if its started..?

More delays for Heuston Gate – The fire cert hasn’t been awarded yet, they need more drawings for the tower according to the OPW.

@cubix wrote:

whats the story with the moran red cow hotel?any one got a construction timetable or hear even know if its started..?

Surprise, surprise, it has been applealed to ABP.

Does anyone have a link to that appeal?!

Not to be overly snarky about this, but did you bother to look on the ABP website before you posted that request for a link?

At a guess, it’s this one: http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/225311.htm

Step 1: Log onto the ABP website (http://www.pleanala.ie).
Step 2: Do a search for ‘red cow’ (or whatever key word you want to use).
Step 3: Check the list of short descriptions returned to see which one is the most likely- the year in a good hint.
Step 4: Click the link.
Step 5: Sit back and enjoy.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Not to be overly snarky about this, but did you bother to look on the ABP website before you posted that request for a link?

At a guess, it’s this one: http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/225311.htm

Step 1: Log onto the ABP website (http://www.pleanala.ie).
Step 2: Do a search for ‘red cow’ (or whatever key word you want to use).
Step 3: Check the list of short descriptions returned to see which one is the most likely- the year in a good hint.
Step 4: Click the link.
Step 5: Sit back and enjoy.

So this appeal could potentially hold up construction for over a year?only 17 storeys at the side a motorway and people are complaining..

Local residents are gearing up with a ‘Save our green belt’ campaign in response to SDCC’s request for submissions on the Naas Road Gateway Urban Design Masterplan.

Many were ‘shocked’ to discover that a 17 storey monster was granted permission at the red cow, and under their collective noses no less, so stopping the construction of the 17 storey in question has become target number 1 of the ensuing campaign.

Save our Green belt, I want my kids to live in Offaly.

If a high density hotel development can’t get through at the junction of the M50, the Cork and Limerick Roads AND the Luas…

its ridiculous! this nimbyism has gotten totally out of control.The planning laws in Ireland are ultra democratic with every joe on the street having a say.Were gonna be waiting years for this to start aswell just like everything else..

Hold on a second. Do you know who is appealling or why. Do you know what the scheme looks like. Have you stopped to consider that theremight be legitimate reasons to appeal.

Big buildings good, small buildings bad….baaa

Good planning bad, build anything you want where you want good….baaaa

Wel as stated above its the local residents who appealed and heres a pic of the scheme.Its been opposed for one reason only and thats beacause its high rise End of.

They could build a 200m turd on that site and it wouldn’t matter – what is the point in objecting to anything there. Who cares.

So much inappropriate stuff get’s through everywhere, it’s hilarious to see people get riled up about some generic but slightly taller structure in a shithole part of a motorway intersection when up the road there’s horrific low rent apartments zero design quality towering over and cheek by jowl with long standing sem-d’s.

It’s great we have a democratic planning system, wouldn’t have it any other way – but spend your €220 more wisely…

did people object to the blanch hotel that is currently under construction? they both look about the same height.

As I said objections here are more to do with a local residents campaign to save the so called green belt between the kingswood housing estate & the naas road in the context of SDCC requesting submissions on the Naas Road Gateway Urban Design Masterplan.

High density / high rise development is likely as part of the gateway, particularly east of the red cow. Objecting residents would see this ‘high rise’ as a gateway to more west of the red cow.

Basically, expect objections to every proposal for the n7 gateway ribbon west of the red cow, or anything near it for that matter.

The existing red cow hotel exterior is dreadful, this fairly modest proposal would be a substantial improvement imo, although shite renders available as usual.

@Pepsi wrote:

did people object to the blanch hotel that is currently under construction? they both look about the same height.

I saw objections from a number of parties including Leo Varadkar (recently elected FG TD for Dublin 15). Obviously Bord Pleanala overruled them to allow development to proceed. The hotel and apartment development in Blanchardstown is situated behind the shopping centre and adjoining the N3 and is being built in a commercial area and not a residential area (ie not overshadowing residents back gardens or injuring anyone’s visual amenity which is a usual excuse to halt development etc) so this probably helped allow it to proceed.

Leo Varadkar jumping on the NIMBY vote catching wagon.

@tomk wrote:

I saw objections from a number of parties including Leo Varadkar (recently elected FG TD for Dublin 15). Obviously Bord Pleanala overruled them to allow development to proceed. The hotel and apartment development in Blanchardstown is situated behind the shopping centre and adjoining the N3 and is being built in a commercial area and not a residential area (ie not overshadowing residents back gardens or injuring anyone’s visual amenity which is a usual excuse to halt development etc) so this probably helped allow it to proceed.

thanks tomk. 🙂

Anybody know where I can find a list of proposed high rise buildings – in construction and planned for Ireland?
Any help appreciated

http://skyscrapernews.com/bdbsearch.php?cs=0&country=Ireland
That should help you out

Anyone know what the tallish building going up at the Blackhorse luas stop is? It looks to be about 12 stories but difficult to tell the scale because it’s so much bigger than anything else in the area, and still covered in scaffolding. Sorry I’ve no pic.

Funny, I was in the Phoenix Park today and looking across at that in the distance against the mountains and wondering the same thing. From the park it looks like a black Miesian block … but maybe that’s just the scaffolding around it.

drove by it a couple of days ago … looks like just another ‘landmark’ apartment development & a fairly average one at that … bit early to judge but wasn’t impressed by what was visible through the scaffold … Its very imposing from Davitt Road, I’m not sure if this is one of DCC’s city gateway landmarks that were talked about a couple of years ago, I hope the finished product is better.

it’s a 20 apartment residential development as far as I know – around 10 stories. Looks well comin down Davitt Road, with the LUAS and all, but when you get to it and see it’s surrounded by old Dublin suburban development, it kinda jars. The LUAS and the Canal help to offset it’s impact to an extent. although I haven’t see it from the Naas Road end.

10 storeys? It looks bigger, but then its neighbours are all traditional terraced houses. Dimensions look good from a distance, but I suspect there’s cheap red brick cladding underneath the scaffolding. Surprised not to have read anything about it given its impact on the area.

Any update on heuston gate at all… fire cert yet?

Talks of 20 storey buildings here for North Wall Quay, and a modified masterplan due “in the coming weeks ” to allow heights above 7 stories. Great stuff! (potentially) 🙂

Jack Fagan

AIB Capital Markets has shortlisted two waterfront sites on North Wall Quay in the Dublin docklands for its new headquarters which will extend to 37,160sq m (400,000sq ft). It is currently based in the IFSC.

Leading developers Treasury Holdings and Liam Carroll’s Danninger have made presentations to the board of the bank on rival schemes which will take about 30 months to complete. Sources in AIB Capital Markets suggested that a decision may be made before Christmas on whether to choose either the Treasury proposal for the former Tedcastle site or the Danninger scheme on the old Brooks Thomas site.

Both developers have engaged leading UK architectural firms to design what is described as a “signature building of considerable distinction”. It is likely to exceed 20 storeys, making it the tallest building in the docklands, apart from the proposed U2 Tower planned for Britain Quay on the south docks.

A new masterplan for the area – being prepared by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and due to be released in the coming weeks – is expected to recommend that the current seven-storey height restriction should not apply to certain high profile sites on the north quays. Both the Treasury and Danninger sites are expected to benefit from the change of policy.

The same sites are likely to have been considered by Bank of Ireland which is looking for a front office headquarters of 23,225sq m (250,000sq ft) and a back office of 46,450sq m (500,000sq ft). It is also studying a site close by at Eastpoint where attractive terms have been offered by the developers.

Leading accountants and business advisers KPMG is also thought to have looked at both sites on North Wall Quay. It is understood that KPMG has not yet decided on a venue to replace its offices at St Stephen’s Green in Dublin city centre. KPMG is looking for between 23,225sq m and 35,208sq m (250,000sq ft and 380,000sq ft).

PricewaterhouseCoopers has already relocated to Spencer Dock in the north docks where it is renting three buildings from Treasury Holdings. The firm is occupying 20,438sq m (220,000sq ft).

Most of the companies looking for substantial new office blocks in the city are concentrating their search on the north docklands where most of the major developments are expected to take place in the coming years.

This year about 60 per cent of all office deals were in the city centre, particularly in the Dublin 1, Dublin 2 and docklands areas.
© 2007 The Irish Times

Any word on Heuston Gate. They seem to have been waiting on a fire cert for ages.

City council to unveil strategy for high-rise buildings

A new strategy which will govern the future of all high-rise and high-density development in Dublin will be released to the public by Dublin City Council next month. The plan, Maximising the City’s Potential: A Strategy for Height and Intensification, will reveal the areas of the city which the council has earmarked as suitable for intensive development and where it envisages high-rise and “landmark” buildings should be sighted. The plan will also give a guideline to the generally acceptable heights for different areas or types of development. The strategy will be reflected in plans being developed by the council for local communities and urban villages such as the Phibsborough Local Area Plan which will come before councillors early next month, the redrafted Ballsbridge plan, and the urban village planned for the Poolbeg area. Inner city projects such as the major retail and mixed use complex planned for the site of the old Carlton cinema, and the regeneration of the old markets area adjacent to Smithfield, will also be guided by the plan

Just wondering is there not already some type of strategy in place,are the docklands,naas road around heuston station not earmarked.I think its good news for high rise in Dublin,suggests it definitely has a future.

Yep it was released in 2000, called “Managing Intensification and Change” by DEGW. Not much in it really. Didn’t really do much to guide development, hence the need for the above

Full article is long enough but seems promising, hopefully not a rehash of previous plans, Mr Tierney seems to have had enough sprawl for his life time -refreshing stuff:)

The Irish Times have a small table of new heights, how accurate this is will be revealed in a few weeks

Low Rise up to 15m or four stories
Mid Rise 15-50m or 12 storeys
High Rise 50-150m
Super High Rise(Landmark) above 150m

So the first one covers the majority of whats in north docks / IFSC

I think the last one is most interesting as it appears >150m buildings are up for consideration -That puts the conference centre hotel in play and maybe even the old digital hub proposal

The Digital Hub “Mini-Manhattan” was sent packing, I thought.

Yes.

New submission- tallest building is 26 storeys over a 4 storey podium, or somesuch.

Dublin doesn’t need to build high rise. High density does not always mean high rise.

I believe the city in Europe with the highest density centre, is Paris, which has barely anything above 10 storeys, and yet still has plenty of parks, and wide footpaths.
5 Storey terraced buildings, using their site efficently, will provide the same, if not more density as 10+ storey buildings surrounded by little used public plazas, as nearly all proposed towers are.

You only have to look at central paris and then the tower blocks in the outskirts of Paris, built in the mid 20th century, to see which approach is better.

AFAIK a decision on this is expected tomorrow,only objection is a local business.So any predictions??

DCCs tall building policy is finally out:

http://www.dublincity.ie/business_services/planning/maximising_the_citys_potential/index.asp

cheers for the link, could not find a whole lot that was new in there, still looks very conservative indeed, no mention of Ballsbridge in there at all that I could see, use of the old U2 tower picture on page 9 is very poor indeed 😮

The plan is a bit vague and theyre still waiting on so many studies to be done that I wouldnt think its hugely significnt at the moment, I could be wrong though.
IMO: 15-20 stoerys on Guinness lands is quite low when you consider the amount of land there and the proximity to Heuston, LUAS and future underground. We could have our own mini la Defense if we wanted;)

Also Connoly is mentioned as a tall building location, where near connoly is available?

above and around it.

Especially the connolly carpark

Its not only that – there is plenty of scope for redevelopment along Amiens Street and Sherrif Street. This part of the city wont stay stagnant forever. Likewise it may well be desireable at a later stage to redevelop parts of the Custom House Docks area to incraese heights and densities.

CIE has been drawing up plans for development around Connolly. Think the Irish Independent had a story on it about 18 months ago.

just having a quick flick over the DCC document, it seems fairly wide ranging?
a lot more high rise/density areas than i would have imagined, pleasantly surprised i must say.
Although the term super high rise set at 150m is really laughable, in a global context.
I didnt see a mention of sandyford? it seems to be plodding along on its own

Also i wonder if there is any long term plan to tackle the suburbs?

Is there any way to densify these areas without losing elections

In relation to the suburbs DLR CoCo have this
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/tallbuildings/tallbuildings.pdf

Not quite sure if it’s to be adopted any time soon or what basis it may have. Not a lot to shout about. Sandyford, UCD and Cherrywood identified for some tall buildings, but the document seems to ban it everywhere else. It’s not easy for this County to absorb tall buildings outside these areas. Personally i’d like to see some coastal landmarks but there’s no way in hell that will be let happen

High rises will ruin Dublin character, says group
Paul Cullen, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Plans for high-rise development in parts of the centre of Dublin will eliminate the city’s historic character, according to an environmental group.

The National Conservation and Heritage Group (NCHG) says the spread of high rises will put visitors off coming to Dublin and many of the skyscrapers will be built in inappropriate locations where they will be “blots on the landscape”.

In a submission opposing Dublin City Council’s plans to permit skyscrapers of up to 150 metres in height, the group suggests that buildings over eight storeys in height are unsafe because they would not be accessible by the fire services in the event of a fire, collapse or flooding.

The council’s plans to create “high density clusters” in parts of the city and allow high rises in selected suburbs has evoked strong opposition among environmental groups since they were published last week. Opponents plan an intensive lobby of city councillors to have the proposals overturned.

Damien Cassidy, chairman of the NCHG, claimed the council was contradicting itself by introducing high rises to many areas when, in regeneration work at Ballymun, it had blown up “perfectly sound” high-rise apartment blocks and replaced them with low-rise housing.

“Even if one were to accept that high rise is a necessity, and we do not accept this, the architecture involved in some of the high-rise buildings that have been allowed by Dublin city council planners is quite extraordinary.” Existing high-rise buildings such as O’Connell Bridge House, the Central Bank and Hawkins House, had been “universally condemned” as being out of character with their surrounding areas, he said.

The council says its strategy is aimed at consolidating the city and minimising urban sprawl. The plans are currently on view at Civic Offices and the underlying report is available on http://www.dublincity.ie. The public is invited to make submissions before March 7th.

© 2008 The Irish Times

This sort of crap pisses me off, is there ever any lobbying in support of these type of large scale plans?

A high rise building will put off visitors from coming here? What a load of crock
I would argue for completly the opposite
The audacity to use Ballymun as an example, but they’ve turned this tired old example on its head:mad:
If the towers were still there then of course it would the no1 example to use against high rise

They are dangerous in event of flooding?
Pathetic argument, what scared little people they must be
Blatant anti development, short sightedness.

These goups really need to step aside and let Dublin grow into a well rounded city
Im always reminded by Luke kelly lamenting his town becoming a city, but it would be funny if it wasn’t so serious

read that earlier Paul… made me fricking sick to see Ballymun used again to beat up high rises – have they seen Santry Cross? And many of the towers in Ballymun had structural faults, as well as the obvious social ones – Forgive me for being so broad minded but I believe “perfectly sound” extends beyond the purely physical. It’s intellectually backward architecturally blinded buffoons like this that we have to thank for the North Lotts. I like the view of the Central Bank from Merchant’s Arch/Crown Alley, and I don’t hate O C Bridge Hse at all. Hawkins House is rubbish, but so is the ESB block of 5 storeys, so is the current view along the north docks, Mount St Lower is sh1te as are the beautiful 2 storey sprawling housing estates that we all grew up in.

These people need to be eliminated from this discourse. They serve no purpose but to strangle our city with their zealous rhetoric and total absolute lack of an alternative view for the growth of Dublin.

The NIMBY’s and sceptics have been winning for years, do you see anything taller than Liberty hall after all the talk about high-rises? Nooo…How can they get things so wrong…since when does anti-deveopment attract visitors and awe. Dublin is a grey, low-rise, boring-to-look-at city at first glance…trust me if i wanted to see Charecter, there are a lot of cities ahead of Dublin that would jump out…but even those cities have high-rises. Look at this picture of Munich i took some years back…recently there are some tall buildings too, most recently a 148m scraper…which makes me think aah here is history, beauty and commercial development linked in one world-class looking city. When i think of ‘skyline’ ,Dublin reminds me of Sheffield in comparison. It has the potential for so much more!!! Wake up, Ireland in 2008 is about trade, commerce, development, modernism, so please reflect this in our architecture and attitudes towards archittecture! Build big, classy and modern architecture, because believe it or not…the rest of the world is used to that, and you are not going to shock them with a 100m tower or two…zzz…

V true,the unique character argument is utter bull,go to any small/medium uk city and you will see the same.Go anywhere else and its simply depression whats on offer.The ballymun excuse is just pathetic,actually its a insult.Maybe they shouldnt of published this at all,just let the odd high rise development like the u2/heuston gain approval and no big announcements to alert the nimbys.

@alonso wrote:

read that earlier Paul… made me fricking sick to see Ballymun used again to beat up high rises – have they seen Santry Cross? .

I have and believe me it’s no advertisment for high rise. Panels are going green with damp already. It’s as bad as the flats in terms of look. Disgraceful that council allowed them use the cladding they used,

From the Sunday Independent in relation to the adjoining apartments:
“There are also issues over construction, with owner occupiers discovering that there was no ventilation air vents in some of the bedrooms leading to problems with damp.

Mr White’s counterclaim will declare that, far from being a high class residential development, the entire estate has become a development in rapid and serious decline towards slum status”

By the way who the hell are these National Conservation and Heritage Group guys? Have never heard of them before. I’m going to set up a National High Rise High Density Advocacy Group. Three members so far: me, myself and I so membership outnumbers theirs already

I agree that that point about high rise turning visitors away is bo**ox. Look at Bracelona, it is one of the finest cities in the world and does it have high rise buildings, YES, in fact there are two of 3 of them almost side by side on the coast, is it likely to deter visitors ,NO, because it still has its gems (Sagrada Familia, La Pedrera, Casa Batllo) which are not beside the high rise buildings and are unaffected by them, also the Torre Agbar is class, I love it.
Will the high rise buildings in Dublin be built beside the old landmarks like the GPO and fore courts, NO, so what is their case against them, they will be built, we hope in the docklands and around Heuston where they are suitable.

The torre Mapfre and Torre Arts look like the DDDA’s fabled gateway of U2 & Watchtower:D

that article made me sick reading it.dangerous in fire-how does every other city manage?? dangerous in collapse-so all high rises are poorly built but every 5/6 storey cube is perfectly fine and as for flooding??? what a pi**take.

using ballymun is simply to get the masses to oppose high rise as its one of the few examples of tall buildings in the city and yes, it didnt work, but to effectively say all highrise clusters will turn into a ballymum is a joke, which is what theyre trying to hint at, and immediately make the general public skeptical about the plans.

and put tourists OFF? some of the worlds biggest tourist attractions are skyscrapers and as mentioned they would not be near eg christchurch, trinity etc.

i know nothing of this council but i can hazard a guess they are old, backward and narrowminded.when will people like this give the new dublin the city they deserve as a product of the celtic tiger.im 21 and would love to see dublin with a few iconic towers but im worried all be their age by the time that comes around.

@jdivision wrote:

I have and believe me it’s no advertisment for high rise. Panels are going green with damp already. It’s as bad as the flats in terms of look. Disgraceful that council allowed them use the cladding they used,

From the Sunday Independent in relation to the adjoining apartments:
“There are also issues over construction, with owner occupiers discovering that there was no ventilation air vents in some of the bedrooms leading to problems with damp.

Though there was a vent-like structure visible on internal walls, an engineer discovered there was no duct to the exterior.

An independent surveyor found there was no insulation in the external walls in apartments at the eastern side of the Linnbhla apartment complex.

Residents complain of mildew, pools of water on what are now warped window sills, flimsy external doors and a host of other defects in what were trumpeted as a potent symbol of Ballymun’s rebirth and proof that private investment could successfully bolster public regeneration.

It is understand that a number of owner occupiers are in the process of initiating proceedings against the builders.

One resident has claimed that asthma which she contracted since moving into the Linnbhla complex is related to problems with the construction…

Mr White’s counterclaim will declare that, far from being a high class residential development, the entire estate has become a development in rapid and serious decline towards slum status”

By the way who the hell are these National Conservation and Heritage Group guys? Have never heard of them before. I’m going to set up a National High Rise High Density Advocacy Group. Three members so far: me, myself and I so membership outnumbers theirs already

Disgraceful, and especially for such a, lets say, sensitive area. The highest standards should have been applied. Cowboy builders/designers probably? Is the santry cross building a public or private development?

Count me in for membership to NHRHDAG:D bit of a mouthful eh
Ive actually just fired off a supportive e mail regarding DCC draft plan, takin it to the streets:D (armchair style)

jdivision just to clarify, I wasn’t defending the character of Santry Cross, merely stating that any attempt to link the demolition of the flats with the end of high rise at that location is false

@ForzaIrlanda wrote:

Will the high rise buildings in Dublin be built beside the old landmarks like the GPO… NO,

Ha – just wait a few weeks ForzaIrlanda. We’ll know all about what this document is being used to justify.

Otherwise I support comments made in respect of a thoroughly preposterous press release, if not some later sentiments espoused. Such ill-informed blinded comment has no place in any reasoned debate, and if anything is damaging to genuine conservation concerns. It’s like they’ve stumbled in the door from the 1980s.

I think the rant against the ‘consaevation action group,’ or whatever it’s called, is a bit unfair. The problem with opening the door to ‘High rise’ is that you don’t know what’s going to come through it. The first one or two may be spot on, and that’s being optimistic, but then the herd instinct takes off and every developer within half a mile of a ‘potential cluster’ is in there with something out of Benidorm in the ’70s updated with slanty windows.

Most people warmed to the Heuston Gate tower almost instantly because it was well designed, had an elegant profile and it had clear landmark qualities where a landmark would seem to be justified beside Heusto Station on the perimeter of the historic core, but most of the more recent proposals for Highrise don’t have those qualities.

‘Slab blocks’ for a start are inherently anti-urban, they have the proportion of a head stone. A Highrise building, by definition has vantage points in all directions, yet the slab block has only one orientation.

What I would argue for is that, if we take a decision to go down the Highrise route, then each developer that you’ve opened the door to must be obliged to sponsor an architectural competition for their Highrise scheme. I know that’s not still a guarantee that some crimes won’t be committed, but at least it better than a weak plea that the buildings be ‘of the highest architectural quality’.

@paul h wrote:

Disgraceful, and especially for such a, lets say, sensitive area. The highest standards should have been applied. Cowboy builders/designers probably? Is the santry cross building a public or private development?

Private development. I nearly bought there because of the tax incentives but talked to somebody who was involved initially and when he saw the spec that they were going ahead with rather than what was originally planned he told me to avoid it like the plague. Thanking my lucky stars now

@gunter wrote:

What I would argue for is that, if we take a decision to go down the Highrise route, then each developer that you’ve opened the door to must be obliged to sponsor an architectural competition for their Highrise scheme

Areas outside designated high rise areas will have to do this. won’t make a difference though if materials used are rubbish.
Incidentally was talking to people last week and they don’t think there’ll be many more proposals like this in immediate future – build costs are too high in current climate

@alonso wrote:

In relation to the suburbs DLR CoCo have this
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/tallbuildings/tallbuildings.pdf

Not quite sure if it’s to be adopted any time soon or what basis it may have.

Quick point: as far as I know, this has been quietly dropped following the recent reshuffle at the top in DLRCoCo.

PS Reading this thread reminds me why I visit it so little. The standard of debate from some of the pro-high risers is pretty weak (and I don’t mean the criticism of Mr Cassidy- that’s the proverbial fish in a barrel), but I’ve given up trying for any meaningful engagement.

What worries me most about the DCC high rise strategy is that it looks like it’s been put together to accommodate schemes that were originally proposed but then shot down by Bord Pleanala.

Example, the Digital Hub high rise (the one on the windmill site on the north side of James’s Street) which was originally passed by DCC and then over turned by the Bord. From what I saw of that scheme, the bulk of it was good quality, great urban scale with some nice interaction with original features. The only bum note in the whole thing was the high rise ‘slab block,’ end on to the street, with some superficial slanty thing going on on the east elevation towards city centre.

If DCC hadn’t gone and cobbled together some ‘Axis of Knowledge’ nonsence to justify high rise here, there was a great chance that the scheme would have come back in again without the unecessary landmark feature.

My dislike of this scheme has nothing to do with the fact that I live quite close to it in the soon to be ‘Valley of Darkness’.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Quick point: as far as I know, this has been quietly dropped following the recent reshuffle at the top in DLRCoCo.

PS Reading this thread reminds me why I visit it so little. The standard of debate from some of the pro-high risers is pretty weak (and I don’t mean the criticism of Mr Cassidy- that’s the proverbial fish in a barrel), but I’ve given up trying for any meaningful engagement.

I think it very obvious even to the casual observer the anti high rise brigade are thay ones with shallow points been made,ballymun,fire hazard,scare away visitors so im not even sure your point makes sense,how ironic,as for inappropriate locations the whole idea behind this plan is to counteract that from happening.

You’re so good at making my points for me I should put you in charge of dinner.
@ctesiphon wrote:

(and I don’t mean the criticism of Mr Cassidy- that’s the proverbial fish in a barrel)

But why question the standard of the debate,it was no more than a sly dig with no substance.Every single point made in this thread for high rise development has been valid and worth noting and if you cant see that,wel then your just another nimby.

@cubix wrote:

But why question the standard of the debate,it was no more than a sly dig with no substance.Every single point made in this thread for high rise development has been valid and worth noting and if you cant see that,wel then your just another nimby.

Cough, cough *flame/ troll at work*

Yes old enough to remember the 80’s, developers have indeed been greedy building land banks but would you not have done the same?

A functioning city is more important than one with just views, land use is the future and maximising areas around metro and interconnector are essential, if that means high buildings so be it but the conservationists are just as likely to object to 7/ 8 stories.

Compare Londons underground and its high buildings with the functioning of the city to Dublin -new tread needed i fear, London underground functions well but does not always lead to the best layout of the city above ground.

We will see what Dunne is made of now that market has cooled, sprawl and guff indeed as building in greystones also, but ballsbridge is only 30 mins walk to city centre

Off you go to wicklow town this weekend to see how the 30 something generation live, 30 yrs old and 30 mile commute each way !

It is probably true that many conservation types would be as likely to object to 7 – 8 storeys as readily as 35 storeys, but you can’t just write off that segment of opinion, you have to believe that if the arguement is strong enough, you can convince anyone, especially people with enough passion about their city to get off their asses once in a while and protest about something.

The problem with the high rise as a means of boosting density is that this arguement is quite weak.

I can’t remember how many apartments there are in the Heuston Gate tower, but it’s bugger all in terms of boosting the density of the city, and even if you had 10 or 15 Heuston gates, you’re not going to make much impression on the densification index. The slenderness that makes Heuston Gate acceptible defeates the goal of adding really significant numbers.

As far as I can see, the decision on high rise within the city core was made when they said no to the Smithfield tower and the digital hub towers and the one on the Player/Wills site. Right now it’s just a distraction from getting on with the real business of mending the city that we nearly destroyed with decades of neglect and daft road widening plans. There is so much scope for good urban scale densification without reaching for quick fixes that aren’t there. It would be nice if we learned to walk before we start to try to run. Maybe if you live in Arklow you might be happy to take the risk, but it looks like a reckless gamble to me.

I’m all for high quality high rise in Dublin, BUT, in suitable locations. The docklands, especially North Lotts, definitely; Heuston station and environs, I suppose. But Thomas street? Connolly station? Grangegorman? Tara street?

Do we really want Dublin to turn into Brussels?

@JoePublic wrote:

.But Thomas street?

will be on interconnector, walking distance to Luas and heuston station so good public transport
@JoePublic wrote:

.
Grangegorman

I presume this is part of the DIT campus
@JoePublic wrote:

.
Tara Street

Dart stop, train station and luas station within walking distance as is bus station
@JoePublic wrote:

.
Conolly station

As above

I think in fairness that public transport networks played a big decision in areas they chose and this is to be commended.
Google apparently has 20 car parking spaces for its employees, the vast majority of the rest apparently walk or use public transport. That in itself creates a model for future office development in city centre.

@hutton wrote:

maybe youre not old enough to remember how this town used to be in the ’80s – where everywhere was derelict and run-down; why – because spec developers were allowed sit on prime city centre sites so that they could wait for pp for much larger schemes.
.

Were they or was it the economic climate of the time? I seem to remember the largest or at least the best known developer of the time went bust. But hey, it’s because he couldn’t go high rise:rolleyes:

I really don’t want to see high rise buildings scattered all over the city like this, public transport corridors or not. Now if we’re talking about increased densities with heights of say around 10 stories in these locations, then absolutely.

High rise buildings scattered all over the city scape like in London or Brussels look… crap.

@JoePublic wrote:

I really don’t want to see high rise buildings scattered all over the city like this, public transport corridors or not. Now if we’re talking about increased densities with heights of say around 10 stories in these locations, then absolutely.

High rise buildings scattered all over the city scape like in London or Brussels look… crap.

Don’y agree. Think it looks good.

@cubix wrote:

But why question the standard of the debate,it was no more than a sly dig with no substance.Every single point made in this thread for high rise development has been valid and worth noting and if you cant see that,wel then your just another nimby.

You’re right. I should really try to engage you more.

First up, how about the last sentence of the above quote? Even allowing for the truth of the statement that ‘…every single point… has been valid and worth noting‘ (which is untrue [in my opinion, etc. etc.], but that’s not the point I’m making here), your argument is flawed, because the conclusion ‘then your [sic] just another nimby‘ cannot be drawn from the premise, i.e. it’s an invalid conclusion. Can’t you see that it’s unsound reasoning? ‘This is right, therefore you’re a nimby’. Had you said ‘…therefore you’re wrong‘ I would disagree with you but at least your argument would have been valid. This is what I mean by ‘the standard of debate‘. All too often, both sides in this retreat into emotion and blind faith and the possibility for informed, rational debate is lost. A while ago I abandoned this thread to the flag wavers for high rise- I should have just left it at that.

I was going to post other examples of flawed logic, but that might be enough for now.

Have at it, boyo. Just keep the flags away from my eyes.

I’d agree with Joe.

High rises should not be alowed stray in to or near the city core, clear lines of division should be drawn.

By all means, allow quality high density development at the various proposed public transport nodes but this business of random high rises protruding from obscure locations, paying no deference to the established city, is nonsense.

Does nobody in DCC contemplate the wider aesthetics of the city, the fact that the city itself is part of an overall vista, ensconsed in a bowl like depression, on full view from most of the surrounding suburbs.

Look up & down the river DCC, stand on the fifteen acres, drive in on the N4 or N11, take a stroll down the Clontarf road. I was looking for something a little more considered than here’s a train station, here’s a high rise.

Sorry, guys, but ‘developer’ and ‘development’ = brown envelopes and bad planning. Hutton is dead right; Paris is high-density, not high-rise and is very far from being a museum (the best city in the world? discuss). Dublin should bite the bullet and ban anything over c. 6 storeys within the canals. Most advocates of high-rise are c. 12 1/2 and can’t remember the cities of the 60s and 70s: cram the working class into multi-storeys and litter the city centre with bulky shoe-boxy office blocks and – if you’re really trendy – clad them in glass. Oops, doesn’t that describe today?

I advocate high rise in certain locations. I’m not 12 1/2. Any ban on high rise inside the canal would be lunacy.

Alonso – why ‘lunacy’ (strong word)? And do you remember the cities of the 60s and 70s? Is the form of development in the north Docklands bad because it’s medium-rise or because it’s just plain bland? What is the advantage of high-rise? A bad tall building is still a bad building.

@johnglas wrote:

Alonso – why ‘lunacy’ (strong word)? And do you remember the cities of the 60s and 70s? Is the form of development in the north Docklands bad because it’s medium-rise or because it’s just plain bland? What is the advantage of high-rise? A bad tall building is still a bad building.

It’s more than that, a bad tall building causes havoc on a much wider scale than a bad medium rise building, that’s why opening the door to high rise within the city core is such a gamble.

I could probably be convinced by an individual high rise proposal at almost any location, inside the city or on the perimeter, if it’s brilliant enough, I just want to see it first, before it’s been decided, in principle, by being designated as a suitable location on a high rise stategy map.

For a city the size of Dublin it’s amazing how few people are involved in planning monitoring. We all love to rant, rave and wax lyrical here on Archiseek about buildings or plans we don’t like, but all the talk in the world and all the money in the world won’t rescind a bad decision once it’s made. There is no point in doing post mortems up here on buildings once they are built. Take the Clarence Hotel proposal. For all the obloquy it received here, there were only 3 appeals against it – and one of them a just a nimby appeal from a commercial firm next door.

Dublin has no protection at the moment, except for one or two heritage groups. D Gleeson mentioned earlier is one of the few who would have some grasp, but there are one or two individuals who have climbed quite high in Dublin City Council planning department who don’t have a breeze of the qualities of Dublin and what should be protected. Inappropriate development is being waved through right left and centre. The developers and architects know this and you can see it reflected in the pre-planning discussion notes and in the humungous scale of plans. Colossal development is coming in all the time. Some is getting through. There are a thousand people to jump on development in Ballsbridge but the city centre is now a developer’s playground. A lot of major stuff doesn’t even get discussed on this board. There was a guy on the Cork threads a few years ago – many of you will remember him – he had no taste, but he was great for putting all the development up. You knew exactly what was happening in Cork. Stuff that will change the city slips through amazingly quietly in Dublin.

Needless to say the couple of trigger happy planners I refer to are responsible for these new ‘Maximising ..’ height guidelines designed to get stuff that previously fell at ABP stage through the second time around.

Johnglas – I believe the french have a term for it – Museumification
Where is this city ‘littered’ with office blocks? I see a reasonable amount of office blocks relative to the economic demand.
you have a better suggestion than ‘cramming’ working people into multi story buildings? bleak suburban estates i suppose?
The docklands is BAD because it instills ZERO EMOTION.
I can guarantee that if the docklands was developed along the lines of a more traditional financial centre – ie taller buildings of various heights and shapes,
then we would have somewhere that would be of interest

Devin – you say we have no protection?
ok for a city with no protection please show where we are being bombarded with tall buildings?
remember a proposal is not the same a finished building
I would think from the perspective of an outside observer we would have some of the most severe height restrictions of a city in the world

Also you say the u2 hotel only had 3 appeals against? Well maybe that is evidence that people dont hate it as much as you would like to think

Actually high rise isn’t the consequence of no protection: poor urban fabric is, NYc is a highly _highly_ protected city, it has high rise, but it also has superb urban fabric, seoul has little protection, it is mostly medium rise and the urban fabric is very poor etc etc.

Yes, true, but Devin mentioned – ‘Colossal development’ and ‘humungous scale of plans’

Isnt the new draft plan fairly specific where city centre high rise can be located?

It does not seem to be the total free for all, height wise, as some posters are making out

There is a couple of city centre locations – Heuston station region with Thomas st, Tara and Connolly stations
The only ones i might have reservations about in a conservation sense, is Tara with possibly connolly depending on how they approach it

We grumble about developing with no readily available public transport, but it seems they are doing just that now, and its still no good?

@johnglas wrote:

Alonso – why ‘lunacy’ (strong word)? And do you remember the cities of the 60s and 70s? Is the form of development in the north Docklands bad because it’s medium-rise or because it’s just plain bland? What is the advantage of high-rise? A bad tall building is still a bad building.

why does every opponent of high rise use the 60’s as the example. I could just as sensibly retort with the Chrysler, Empire State or Wrigley building in Chicago. The low rise nature of the North Lotts is the prime constiuent of its blandness. For another example go to Elm Park in Bootertown. 7 or 8 ranks of 9 storey blandness where one high rise and a bunch of different sized blocks would have been far more attractive and create a far better place. There are only 3 or 4 locations at most in Dublin that are suitable for a “ban” on high rises.

I’d love to go back in time and smack Neil Blaney with a hurley. I truly believe that Ballymun syndrome still flourishes amongst Dubs

You know the bad thing that happened in the 60s and 70s was the flight from cities and subsequent decay in America and the extraordinary destruction of historic city centers in the UK and here. The buildings they built weren’t actually all so bad, they are just out of fashion: sure some are bad, but that is because time hasn’t allowed us to demolish the bad ones and understand the good. This anger against the 60s and 70s as a period of bad building, as opposed to bad planning, is no more useful than the anger against Victorian buildings which was so damaging during that period.

What a lot of crap about using Paris and density as a comparison for Dublin. Dublin cannot be compared to Paris. The French approach to land (“terroir”), buildings and heritage is totally different to the position in Ireland. Their 8-storey re-build was intrinsically linked to the width of the avenues; like many things French it is “form over substance”, as most Parisians have not space to swing a cat when at home. Have you ever been in an average Haussmannian apartment? Other than the first floor apartments, the rooms are tiny and get progressively smaller as one climbs up the building, ending in the maid’s room, a box in the attic with no sanitation. Move in or out and you need to get your furniture down by hoist, through the windows, as the stairs are not wide enough. I’m not that big, but when I drop the soap I have to get out of the shower to pick it up. The bathroom does not have a bath because it cannot fit one (other than a hip contraption.) Size is disguised by describing apartments by the number of “pieces” or rooms, not in m3.

Paris is further squeezed by the Peripherique that has defined the city for years and encouraged maximization of space. Dublin does not have such a boundary, (although we could have used the canals as such a century or so ago, and the M50 bisects the sprawl.) Parisians describe the city as “intra muros” referring to the Periph.

Most of the high rises mentioned above are on the fringe of the city and all the ones inside the Periph were built on derelict sites – the sheds/storage areas of Citroen, Panhard, etc. Anything would have been better than the crime-ridden junkyards that were there. Many of those apartments are owned by multinationals and expats, the Parisians are not fond of them or the locale. It is their equivalent of our Docklands. Cherrywood presented an opportunity to create a mini la Defense, which, as usual, we screwed up.
Kb

@KerryBog2 wrote:

Parisians describe the city as “intra muros” referring to the Periph.

…because the Peripherique follows exactly the line of the old city walls, I believe.

Rykwert’s The Idea of a Town goes into some detail on this. Great book generally too, by the way.

Indeed:

“It was built in the early 1970s on the empty space left abandoned after the destruction of the defense wall of Paris in the 1920s, and completed on April 25, 1973. It is the generally-accepted boundary between the city proper (approx. 2 million inhabitants) and the suburbs (more than 9 million inhabitants), as it is situated along Paris’s administrative limit . . “

from Wikipedia. Now I did not know that: I thought the Ringstrasse was the only example, any others? I would apologise for going off topic here, but what was the topic again?

Isn’t the proposed D.O.O.R. based on the alignment of The Pale? 🙂

PaulH:No-one is talking about ‘museumification’, we are talking here about trendiness and the ‘magic bullet’ solution of high-rise. Dublin is not and never will be Metropolis; the Docklands are not low-rise, but medium rise, and terminally bland, at least on the northside. Unfortunately, the solution is seen as being more trendy and inviting in chancers like Liebeskind to design a building that everyone will hate. I live in the UK- many ‘redeveloped’ cities of the 60s and 70s were ruined by injudicious high-rise, system-built construction – Ballymun was a typical build-it-quick, get-the-poor-out-of-sight-out-of-mind ‘technological’ ‘solution’.
We know what constitutes good design and the does not equal high-rise in its current manifestation. Sprawling ‘estates’ are no kind of a solution, but can anyone today ‘design’ townscape?

A European example of how it is possible

Frankfurt Approves 212m Tall Jean Nouvel Tower
Published on 2008-01-29 by Skyscrapernews.com

After several years of arguments, approval has finally been given to a new project for Frankfurt.

Named the Urban Entertainment Centre or to save time, words and delay the onset of carpel tunnel syndrome, UEC, it will comprise of two towers and several smaller residential buildings.

The towers designed by French architect Jean Nouvel will stand at 212 metres and 160 metres the tallest allocated to office space and the second housing a hotel. This will be a Grand Hyatt hotel and offer patrons five star luxury along with 450 rooms, fitness and well being centre as well as restaurants and bars. A visitors centre open to the public is also under consideration to allow the average Joe to enjoy the spectacular views from the top of the tower.

The towers will stand amongst smaller buildings that will provide accommodation, entertainment and shopping facilities for the site. Located next door to the famous post-modern Messe Turm, it will be the centrepiece of the inner-city redevelopment project called Europaviertel ( European Quarter) which will replace old cargo rail terminals and tracks.

The towers are quite simple in design, seemingly slim looking from the front they taper outwards at the back creating a sort of rounded off slim triangle. Both sport the ever popular sleek glass facades which are clearly not modelled on Germany’s most popular and hairy superstar David Hasselhoff but rather on Nouvel’s love of glass.

The facades will allow passers-by to have a snoop at what is going on in the building whilst giving workers of the office tower and patrons of the hotel lovely views of the surrounding city.

Developers Vivico hope to begin construction in spring of this year, although the office tower may not start until a main tenant can be hooked and landed.

Urban Entertainment Centre, Frankfurt

Urban Entertainment Centre, Frankfurt

@johnglas wrote:

PaulH:No-one is talking about ‘museumification’, we are talking here about trendiness and the ‘magic bullet’ solution of high-rise. Dublin is not and never will be Metropolis; the Docklands are not low-rise, but medium rise, and terminally bland, at least on the northside. Unfortunately, the solution is seen as being more trendy and inviting in chancers like Liebeskind to design a building that everyone will hate. I live in the UK- many ‘redeveloped’ cities of the 60s and 70s were ruined by injudicious high-rise, system-built construction – Ballymun was a typical build-it-quick, get-the-poor-out-of-sight-out-of-mind ‘technological’ ‘solution’.
We know what constitutes good design and the does not equal high-rise in its current manifestation. Sprawling ‘estates’ are no kind of a solution, but can anyone today ‘design’ townscape?

The area in the docklands with the Liebeskind designed building coupled with the taller alto vetro is probably the most visually interesting for me.
The Liebskinds of the world are a product of our modern enviroment, everthing needs to be branded, instantly recognisable. So I dont think buildings are designed to last the ages, in such a throwawy, disposable world why would architecture not be the same. He’s a chancer (you say) in as much as any person who works for a profit is a chancer

you mention Ballymun………oh, ok, your one of those people i see:D
You would wonder why if these cities were ‘ruined’ in the 60s and 70s why there is a complete surge in high rise skyscraper type construction, especially London.

When Canary Wharf was built it helped save London, which now is even overpassing old NY, in some respects, for financial dominance
Also you ask can anyone today ‘design’ townscape, actually probably not on the news in the UK, but there is somesuch scheme here – click http://ireland.archiseek.com/news/2008/000039.html

Paul h: the reason for all the high-rises in London is ‘capitalism’ – or is that too reductionist? (Being translated: pile as much capital on the one spot as you can get away with.) Liebeskind is a chancer not because he makes a profit but because he sees everyone coming (and you fall for it). ‘Throwaway’ architecture is wrong because the rest of us have to endure that rubbish. Architecture is not a game – it actually costs money and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Indulge yourself at college by all means, but don’t expect society to pay for it.
PS Adamstown – though absolutely correct in theory – is neither yet built nor lived in. We’ll just have to wait and see (and I am not by nature a pessimist about such visions).

Hi all

Anyone have a contact for someone who is “officially” pro intensification/high rise? A council rep, or perhaps somebody on here? Need to talk to someone asap.

Thanks a lot

Damnedarchitect

@damnedarchitect wrote:

Hi all

Anyone have a contact for someone who is “officially” pro intensification/high rise? A council rep, or perhaps somebody on here? Need to talk to someone asap.

Thanks a lot

Damnedarchitect

Im pro-intensification. Im also pro-high rise. Its just that I am not in favour of uncoordinated high-rise, and nor do I mix up “high-rise” with “intensification”. Up with high-rise where its suitable, such as in the eastern area of the docks, and up with suitable intensification too in the city centre. Hope this is of help 🙂

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/skyscrapers-scaling-new-heights-to-beat-council-cutoff-point-1280711.html

It says that Heuston Gate will be finished later this year, is that true, I didnt even know it had started.

that date for Heuston Gate does seem unlikely as I haven’t even seen a lift shaft going up the last time I was in that area a couple of weeks back. The only development I see around there is the nearly completed Eircom headquarters there which is about 10 storeys