Higher and Higher…

That looks marvellous, let’s hope they build it. It would be a geat focal point for the city, providing jobs and office space for the inner city and at the same time curbing the urban sprawl and the competition from suburban industrial office parks.

Yea, it’s the place to have one, stack ‘m high rather than spread thinnly from here to athlone. There’s too much of a preoccupation with size when the design quality is the real issue. Don’t ya think? eh?

Just what is this City’s problem with regard to high rise?

For sure, they shouldn’t build skyscrapers alongside low rise heritage sites, but what’s the betting that the residents of Ringsend & Sandymount etc.. with get a bee in their bonnets about this tower (no doubt because their view of the dock cranes and twin chimneys at poolbeg will be interrupted!)

Budding schemes like this are often reported in the news media, but only a handful seem to get past An Bord Planala or the High Court or whatever the anti-high rise lobby / local cranks / An Taisce / ……employ to squash such plans.

Look at what is being inflicted on Dublin at the back of George’s Quay? And they call that good architecture? Hmmm. The SOM design was far superior (going by model comparison).

On a more general rant, I have never seen another city like this one, that objects to quality schemes like the ones above, and then allow tons of those awful legoland yellow brick squat apt. blocks (who were obviously built by savages who didn’t even know what the word architect meant). Not to mention a city whose planners have about as much idea of cohesiveness of design (the redeveloped quays, par exemple) as a melting Mars bar.

I have to agree.I mean we desperately need buildings of a more substantial size.The docks is the right location for such.People object to high rise because they are ignorant or afraid.The city is just sprawling out beyond the limits. Look at Tallaght and Blanchardstown.They are totally car orientated and resemble Vegas or L.A. with the monolithic shopping malls and networks of roads.Dublin city needs more office space too especially if it’s to maintain the success. Keep the offices within the city centre where the people are now and within walking distance, instead of all this commuting business in and out of Dublin which causes the traffic jams.There is a great desire to live in the city now so it will not become a ghost town as before with just offices and no life. I was in Palma City, Majorca before and was so suprised to see what a reasonably well planned capital city for a small island. Buildings were of a reasonable density, 6 and 7 storeys (appartments, offices etc…)or more and every street was reasonably wide enough.There was no unsightly gaps or wide open spaces where buildings should be like what you see in Dublin or ugly incoherent styles and forms. The historic core of the city centred around the splendid Gothic cathedral was more or less intact and well maintained too, with the little winding medieval streets.
And as for the airport there compared to Dublin’s, well you’d just get lost in it,it’s so big compared to the pokey little piece-meal of a thing that we have. As that once great 80’s philosophical pop songtress’Yazz’ once warbled ‘THE ONLY WAY IS UP’

Is this the same building proposed for the Hammond Lane scrapyard ? If it is`nt could anybody tell me where the exact site is please.

The Hammond Lane job should be given the go ahead too.

This proposed scheme in question is located at the South Bank Road , Ringsend,near Sean O’Moore Park overlooking Dublin Bay.

Re: ‘Bonzo’ and TomF’s comments in respect of high rise developments and speaking as an architect with a few ‘decent’ schemes under my belt!!.

Palma is probably not a bad model however the crucial diference between a city such as Palma and Dublin is that high rise development in Dublin is taking place in a developer led environment rather than a controlled one dictated by proper masterplanning. Hence the concerns regularly expressed by the Likes of An Taisce etc.

Re: TomF’s comments -get a life!!. If yo uhad attended the oral hearings in respect of Spencer Dock, or Georges Quay you would realise that the concerns expressed by the appellent were in relation to very real arhitectural issues relating to overshadowing, loss of daylight (not the same thing incidentally) lack of traffic management policy, infrastructural inadequacies, overlooking and, specifically in the case of Spencer Dock, a wincingly awful scheme design which the city of Dublin can very well do without.

As for the aesthetics of the original Georges Quay development, hardly an elegant solution, a series of mega floor plates which would have nothing of the elegance of the best high rise schemes coupled with an inane glazing system which far from beng transprent would only achieve 40% transparency thereby presenting all of the charm of a 20 storey battleship at the quayside.

As for the abysmal scheme now under way (although in fact suspended pending a judicial review of the propriety of the compliance documentation lodged by the architects. You may be interested to know that this, the ‘Portals of Darkness’ was the product of Keane Murphy Duff architects proud stable of David Keane RIAI former preseident of the RIAI.

PS: This is one very good reason for avoiding memebership of RIAI, I took the RIBA exams myself, they at least have a history of appointing decent architects as their presidents.

Hi JK,

I will try to get a life, maybe I’ll put it on my New Year’s 2001 resolution list.

This is the problem with online forums. People are attacked for expressing their legitimately held opinions. However, I can’t say that anything you said has had a altering impact on mine.

I am not an architect. I didn’t think you had to be to one comment on architecture. I attended much of the Spencer Dock hearings and closely followed the Georges’ Quay hearing through an architect friend who did attend it.

I do not know your architectural pedigree so I shall not comment on your opinion of high rise in Dubllin only to say that it superficially at least, doesn’t seem to be like mine. I have been a keen observer and enjoyer of architecture (very little of the latter in Ireland of the 1960’s -> ) for many years, and I do feel entitled to voice my opinion; that is pro high-rise in this city in certain areas. I basically feel that it will mainly have the aesthetic effect of adding some interest and vertical emphasis to the skyscapes of “wincingly” banal areas of our skyline, that would barely do justice to the most depressed post-industrial town in Northern England.

The DDDA makes me laugh when it talks about the uniformity of height in its latest Docklands scheme. God, who says small minded insular, aesthetically ignorant Ireland is gone? It isn’t.

One point I half agree with is when you talk about the developer led market that currently prevails. I feel that this scenario has a far more adverse effect on mainly residential developments [as in “legoland yellow brick squat apt. blocks”] and in the suburbs than it does on landmark mixed use schemes, which whether they are subjectively or objectively liked or disliked by people like you and me, tend to be comprehensively thought-out and thier plans properly vetted by the “authorities” (not that they prove to be authorites on much at the moment!). Maybe its a neccessary evil. If there weren’t the big developers, who would produce our Eutopian planned City? Its basic Supply and Demand Stuff.

By the by, I hope this message in response to yours, is in no way offensive to you personally. I do not know you nor you me, and there’s nothing worse than being insulted by strangers on this wholly impersonal world wide web.

Tom F.

Fair Enough, you don’t have to be an architect to have an opinion or to discuss either architecture or high rise. However the fact of the matter is that proper criteria in respect of the masterplanning of Dublin have to be established in relation to high rise development prior to imposing high rise solutions on the city.

Again it needs to be remembered that Dublin is one of the few European or even Global capitols to survive into the 21st century without destroying its skyline.

High rise in its own right won’t produce better architecture just higher speculative office and residential developments and anybody who is familiar with the development scene in Dublin will be aware that the citys developers hav’nt the faintest interest in aesthetics or good design, in fact design (with a capital D) for these characters usually means maximising square footage at the expense of everything else including environment, community, public spaces etc.

As to my ‘opinions’ and those of the appellents re: Spencer Dock and Georges Quay, look again, they are based upon solid established plannnig criteria which are acccepted worldwide in respect of the impact of high rise development on neighbourhoods.

Frankly, would anybody contributing to this forum fancy loosing their views, sunlight, air quality etc for the sake of a whimsy to the effect that the citys skyline is banal and needs a few vertical elements. Dublin has its vertical elements in the form of church spires and towers.

Most other modern European cities would envy us our low skyline ,I’ve played ‘host’ to a number of foreign architects, most of whom make the same point, “nice city, shame that its being over developed”.

Additionally, the lego land type development is of course a very real threat, but the solution to this is higher densities for housing not high rise, the two are not related. For example my own practise has achieved a density of 4 for two storey council housing and managed to include generous amenity space, Merrion and Fitzwilliam Squares achieve densites in the region of 3-4 and yet manage an air of civic generosity, high rise schemes such as Georges Quay however only manage densities of 2-3 by comparison. This is due to the increase in surrounding infrastructural areas (car parking, road widths etc) required to service high rise development. In other words, you end up with a ‘product’ which does not use land economically.

I’m aware that this kind of info is hard to ingest however it is critical that people understand that high rise is neither economically or environmentally suited to a city such as Dublin which has traditionally failed to control vehicular traffic or land zoning. The aesthetic quality of most of what has been proposed to date is very poor. The high rise building as we know it (Chrysler Building, Empire State, Colgate Building etc) had its heyday in the States during the 50’s and 60’s, low labour costs and high manual trades skills existed then which allowed many of these buildings to be almost ‘hand crafted’ eg: the stainless steel decorative sculpture on the Chrysler Building or the hand worked chrome mullions on the patent glazing to the Mies Van der Rohe buildings. This technology and allied skills are now as obsolete and redundant as the masonry, woodcarving and plasterworking trades skills ofthe 18th century.

This is clearly evident on any high rise dating from the 70’s and 80’s eg: the Nat West Tower, Manhatten Twin Towers etc. Big Buildings which look attractive from a distance but which are shoddily detailed and poorly assembled when seen close up.

Yes, many of the areas where High Rise has been proposed need some heavy duty Urban Renewal ,this can’t be done however through speculative high rise development. Rather what is needed is sensitive, well thought out architecture which establishes streets, squares, parkland and public amenity facilities. Thiskindof thing is’nt glamourous, but in the long term (I’m thinking 50 years plus) it pays off big time!!.

The greatest problem facing the community in many of these areas is the disenfranchisement of a large part of the populace, drugs, acholism, illeteracy, impoverishment all thrive in the areas to which we are referring and over which the likes of Zoe Developements and SDDC are casting a beady eye.

Their solutions will only result in local people, already vulnerable, being forced out of their locale (eg: SDDC’c statement at the Oral Hearing Re: Spencer Dock to the effect that Local peoples concerns about overlooking and loss of light were not worth considering because as a result of their development land prices would rise so high that the ‘troublesome’ locals would sell up and leave.)

Architecture is not particularly about aesthetics, yes aesthetics reflect a ‘harmony’ and ‘rightness’ about a scheme, but there are many other factors which make good buildings and pleasant spaces, social forces have a lot to to with the ‘rightness’ of a development or space. The essence of many of the proposed high rise schemes for the city is that not only are they of poor aesthetic qualitym, not only are they ill considered in terms of planning, environment and impact upon their locale but that they are generally so damnably anti social, splitting communities, establishing an “us and them” mentality, brutishly shoving aside local people and alll the while making pots of money for some of the most unpleasant and unsalubrious characters to hit the dvelopment scene in Dublin for the last thiry years.

Anyway, apologies for the diatribe, looking forward to seeing replies.

Hi JK, any chance of mentioning some of those building schemes you designed.Cheers.

JK,

You really dont need any replies – as you have already got all of the answers, it seems.

Clearly, you are anti high rise for Dublin. Full stop. There is little point in me going on for pages about why I think you are wrong. You & I are diametrically opposed on this one it seems.

Well then, let’s have’BIG’quality buildings. Small buildings for small minds? BIG buildings for BIG ideas? BIG ideas,BIG money,BIG egos,BIG heads…… So what! The founding forefathers of this city had the same outlook but maybe more taste & style. They produced a city emblematic of their times.The founding forefathers of every major city on the planet likewise. MONEY and corruption is the key driving force of every successful city throughout history, from ancient Greece to the present. Athens,Rome,Venice,Florence,Paris,Moscow,NY or whatever………. Despots,Dictators,Monarchs,Emperors,Popes Presidents,Capitaists,Communists,Religists, etc…. have all produced a legacy of monumental edifices that we have today and wonder with awe, but we don’t realise the corruption behind such and the misery caused creating such. Ordinary folks needs were never considered throughout history regarding the building of grand projects. Think of all the hungry Parisien mouths that could have been fed with all the money spent on Versailles. Full bellies and no Versailles! Great buildings and morality have never gone hand in hand. Running rife through all us Irish is the hinderence of our ‘Catholic guilt’ and an enormous inferiority complex of which no building large enough could house ; fearful of the BIG,the GRAND,the NEW, which is why we have a such a mediocre city today. We have enough of dinky little structures for Darby O’Gill and the little people. THINK BIG!

Here Here!
Socialism isn’t too successful at producing great cities.

See that the EIS for the Docks area has pinpionted just two sites for high rise stuctures. Wow! two sites, I’m overwhelmed with dizziness.It’ll make some impact.

Let’s hope that the locals with the help of the Green Party and local councillors will object to these potential eyesore blots on the city.

Apologies I’ve been away.

Cite my ‘stuff’ online, no fear, I might as well stick a sign up saying “Sue me!” however if you keep au fait with the AAI awards you’ll find me in there among the current batch and again over the previous few years.

And I would imagine that anyone who has kept track of this debate could determine fro mmy comments which scheme this year is mine. Give you a clue, socially conscious, a bit ‘wet’ and clever with money. Any guesses??

As for all the answers, you must be kidding, however I am trying to marshall reasoned consederation rather than ‘gut’ ‘…Love it hate it…’ statements.

Actually I rather think that the Docklands EIS is quite well considered re: high rise buildings, the placement of the two sites is quite carefully thought out and high rises on those two locations would have a pretty positive effect rather than the adverse.

Sorry, I can’t resist one last comment, concern re: social issues and seeeing architecture in a social light does’nt necessarily make one a socialist and as for architctural socialism, would it surprise anybody to know that the basis of most pro high rise theory in early 20th century architecture related to socialist architects concerns about the lot of the urban poor living in tenement accommodation ,Mies van der Rohe, Corbusier, Behrens, Taut ,Gropius and surprisingly enough Frank Lloyd Wright were all fairly rigid socialists and Pro High Rise at the time when they propounded their theories about the high rise city.

Hmmmmnnn! true….. but was’nt the products of such architects favoured by the very rich and fashionable of the day. Such schemes to house the poor proved to be disasterous, just look at Ballymun.