Manor Park’s Digital Hub Plan

Lex – do you know where the 51 story building is in that render?

Everything looks lowrise there.

@ewankennedy wrote:

51 storeys in the heart of Dublin?? Wow!! Surely Irelands tallest building? Any pics? I’m surprised this hasnt caused more gasps.

It will, believe me. this is first anybody heard about it. And if it has any chance of getting through expect massive revisions to P Elliott & Co’s plan for the site across the road which has two “towers” proposed, one 15 and one 16 storeys high on a larger site.

Never mind 51… how about 29, 22, 17, 15, 13, 10 and 7 storeys in height ALL ON THE SAME SITE!!!

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Never mind 51… how about 29, 22, 17, 15, 13, 10 and 7 storeys in height ALL ON THE SAME SITE!!!

There’s an image of it one page 10 of today’s Irish Times. Doesn’t look too bad I have to say.

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Never mind 51… how about 29, 22, 17, 15, 13, 10 and 7 storeys in height ALL ON THE SAME SITE!!!

once you go over 7/8 storeys it doesn’t really matter how high you go. At least that is the perspective from the ground.

This could be just what the doctor orderered for dublin. We need a new substantial middle class area in the inner city , in order to change people desire to continually move to the suburbs.

If the plan is sound this should go ahead , it is about time that rich people started living beside poor people.

From a planning point of view it is sound with proper transport links around. it also shifts interest to the east of the city which is good. It would be important that the buildings have a family bent to them , i.e. big apparments.

Architecturally ,i haven’t seen the times photos and i can’t find it in dublincity.ie. . It is vital that it actually looks nice .

Has this site been designated as suitable for such a scale of development in the City Development Plan?

The image in the Irish Times looks impressive alright and the cluster of tall towers could really transform this part of the city. The proposal to insert a series of eight story blocks into the gaps between existing three to four floor buildings facing on to Thomas street looks a bit more problematic though. Reads a bit like a set of broken teeth IMHO.

It will be interesting to see the completed application; this is an elevated site and I imagine that there will be at least some opposition to the plans based on the rough outline we’ve seen here. It is however reassuring to see De Blacham & Meaghar’s involvement but as the cliche says ‘the proof will be in the pudding’

Architecturally ,i haven’t seen the times photos and i can’t find it in dublincity.ie. . It is vital that it actually looks nice .

😀 It looks very nice… (at least in model form)

I think this would add a touch of international class to dublin that I dont think it has quite yet.
Please excuse the quality, camera phone

PLAN FOR ‘MINI-MANHATTAN’ IN DUBLIN’S LIBERTIES

Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

Planning permission is being sought from Dublin City Council for two of the tallest buildings yet proposed anywhere in Ireland – and both of them would be even higher than the Spire in O’Connell Street.

The two glazed towers are the key elements of a Digital Hub scheme by Manor Park Homes (MPH) for a 2.5-acre site on Thomas Street in the Liberties, between St Catherine’s church and the Guinness Hop Store.

Designed by award-winning architects deBlacam and Meagher, the tallest of the towers would be 171 metres (564ft) high, making it nearly three times the height of Liberty Hall – the city’s tallest building.

With a helicopter pad at roof level, the proposed tower would rise 47 storeys from a podium, which in itself would be four storeys high. It would contain a 360-bedroom hotel, with 80 serviced apartments on upper floors.

The second tower in this “mini-Manhattan” project would be 124 metres (409ft) high – three metres taller than the Spire – and would contain 33 floors of offices designed to accommodate digital technology companies.

The podium on which the towers would stand is envisaged as a lively space, animated by having creches, bars and restaurants opening onto it. Its centrepiece would be a circular landscaped area, with walkways.

On the Thomas Street frontage, a series of five eight-storey blocks would be inserted between protected historic buildings. Their design echoes deBlacam and Meagher’s award-winning Wooden Building in the west end of Temple Bar.

A stone staircase, six metres wide, would lead up from the street to the podium level. Beneath the podium, a brick-vaulted gallery – 140 metres long – would extend right through the site, and would be lined with food courts and other retail outlets.

According to Shane deBlacam, the scheme was inspired by Aurora Place in Sydney, Australia, which was designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano. It also consists of two tall towers and “lifts everything else in the city around it”, he said.

“There’s no reason why Dublin shouldn’t have a skyline like that, with slender towers sticking up to great heights. The history of architecture is about putting buildings on a hill” – a reference to the fact that Thomas Street is on a ridge.

Asked why they had departed so radically from the relatively modest heights envisaged in the Digital Hub master plan, Mr deBlacam said its densities were “at the lower end of what Dublin could take” and this was about “real regeneration”.

MPH’s planning consultant, Stephen Little, said there was a “tradition” of tall buildings in the Liberties, citing the nine-storey Guinness Storehouse as a precedent. The Digital Hub was also part of a strategy of moving the city centre westwards.

Alan Sherwood of TDI Consultants, who have been advising on the scheme, said it had been tailored to the needs of firms employing up to 20 people who wanted offices with small floorplates in buildings with “soul”.

On the central issue of its soaring heights, John Moran – MPH’s development director – pointed out that the city council’s planners had granted permission for a 12-storey tower in nearby School Street, “so we’re not the ones who broke the glass”.
© The Irish Times

47 and 33-storey buildings on Thomas Street? Okaaaayy ….

There’s just a few minor matters such as the area not being designated for tall buildings (unless you want to say the site is in the Heuston area, which is pushing it a little) and a few whimsical Development Plan policies protecting the scale of the historic core (which Thomas Street is in) and the setting and prominence of protected structures and historic landmarks such as St. Catherine’s. But never mind that!

While I think this particular vision of Shane De Blacam’s is daft and a non-runner, I would actually agree with a lot of what he has to say about height in the city generally, and the desirability of diversity in Dublin’s skyline. His 9-storey Wooden Building in Temple Bar is a perfect example of a taller structure appropriately built in a historic area (though I think the original 13-storey height he wanted to build it at would have been too much in that location so close to City Hall and the Newcomen Bank etc.).

A Sunday newspaper article from last year said that buildings such as the Wooden Building hadn’t ‘yet changed the minds of planners who fall back time and again to the conventional formula of a 4-storey building with one setback and space for a shopfront at the bottom. As he walks around Dublin City, Shane DeBlacam watches a skyline appearing that has no diversity, filled as it is with apartment buildings that are all the same’.
(The Sunday Tribune Property, 3 July, 2005)

Agreed. But you have to be sooo careful. The ‘go higher’ message can be – and has been – misinterpreted as ‘how much floorspace can I possibly cram onto this site’ to the detriment of the city. And the greedy, ignorant results of this development strategy are already evident. Notable examples in my opinion are the Capel Building, the new buildings at Ardee Street on the Coombe bypass and, most serious of all, the new building at the bottom of Henrietta Street, which destroys a 250-plus year old scale order between Bolton Street and the city’s most important Georgian Street.

As for the ‘we need this height to get density up in the city’ argument being peddled in the above piece, pull the other one Shane. It’s well known that much upper-floor space in the city lays waste (older building stock particularly); we can’t even use the space we’ve got. We’re only really beginning to get out of this period of the city being full of disused buildings, full of wasting assets, as well as beginning to build appropriately on the ample brownfield sites in and around the centre. The idea that achieving high density does not per se require building high-rise has been gone over at length on the forum in the past, probably best expressed by Frank Taylor on this thread: https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4277

And I don’t get the sticking in of new 8-storey buildings between the protected structures on this part of Thomas Street, which the scheme proposes. What about the existing buildings there? There is a substantially-intact historic streetscape on Thomas Street (as well as a consistent scale). Assuming you can take out anything that’s not protected is just crass and planning-by-numbers. Thomas Street is a Conservation Area anyway, which favours maintenance of all older buildings of merit and that new infill respects the scale.

And just to prove that I don’t have a problem with the placing of taller new buildings next to older ones, these images show a newly-constructed building adjoining some former mill-buildings at Bellvue in Islandbridge. The scale, proportion and positioning of the new building is such that a good relationship is made:

(though not all of the new buildings in the Bellvue scheme are a success imo)

Looks like a little version of Ground Zero. My guess is that either it will be rejected out of hand or forced to lop off about 20 stories.

I think it is mad enough to work. The whole area there consists of tall structures. and i think it could be a great place for such a daring scheme. From street level it doesn’t feel much different whether a building is 6 storey high or fifty. You can only strecth your neck to see the first few storeys when beside it. I need to see what kind of materials will be used and exactly what kind of bulk the scheme will have, but very inspiring.

I agree with most of what Devin has to say on this, so I won’t double up. Just to highlight one point (among many) that raised my eyebrow:

“The history of architecture is about putting buildings on a hill.”

Is it? Defensive architecture and egotistical architecture certainly (which one is this?), but not architecture generally.
I await the tiresome, threadbare San Gimignano references with a weary head…

Wow, they definitely have balls to propose something like that. I’d like to see a proper render though before judging, in order to see the details of the design.
Anyway, I’ll give it a 99.5% chance…

of it being axed that is. 😀

@malec wrote:

Wow, they definitely have balls to propose something like that. I’d like to see a proper render though before judging, in order to see the details of the design.
Anyway, I’ll give it a 99.5% chance…

of it being axed that is. 😀

😀 snigger,snigger.
I hope youre right. A barking idea that would be cited in other proposals if it got the go-ahead.

The proposed tower would rise 47 storeys from a podium, and yet John Moran, MPH’s development director, points to permission granted for a 12-storey tower nearby, and says “so we’re not the ones who broke the glass”???
😮

Bonkers.

@Devin wrote:

I don’t think any contributor needs to state that they are for or against tall buildings being inserted beside heritage buildings per se; but if the rumours that 8 storey infill will be sought at this part of Thomas St then I think all previous stances are irrelevant.

If Guinness had not preseerved the city end of St James’ St so well then I would not have an opinion on this but given particular peoples efforts over the years to keep this area reasonably horror story free then the insertion of dominant modern infill would be entirely inappropriate to this location. I’m sure that De Blacham & Meaghar are more than capable of building a stunning building within the existing building lines that provides both adequate treatment of the neighbouring buildings and an examplar of contemporary design.

I do like that they have the guts to proposed such a seemingly ridiculous height. I’m looking forward to seeing more images of the proposal. Nice to see the country being not so dismissive of taller buildings as perhaps it once was, say 10-15 years ago.

Also, its good to see a scheme that has a cluster of tall towers at last. I was getting tired of various schemes having a ‘signiture’ / ‘landmark’ / 32 story / 60m etc etc building with the one tall building being part of a much wider proposal, with the end result of having one isolated tower looking quite lonely and tbh a bit silly on its own. The 32 story scheme (name escape me now..) to be near Hueston station comes to mind.

This is all very tiresome. If the site wasn’t identified as suitable for tall buildings in the height survey comissioned by DCC (which I don’t think it is anyway, being at neither extremity of the city) then it shouldn’t be built. Plain and simple. The eight storey blocks pushing into Thomas St sound particularly intrusive.
Also, why it is being hailed as a 47 storey scheme when it is clearly 51 is nothing but blatent obfuscation in avoiding mentioning the war: the 50 mark.

Alas I fear these scheme has legs given the ambitiousness of the project, the level of detail and amount of effort exerted, and the fact that such a project wouldn’t be proposed were it not to have a decent chance of getting approval, even if at 60-70% of the proposed scale.

what is the difference really between 40 or 50 stories
it seems maybe they try for a 50 story building knowing it doesnt have a hope, then when its scaled down to something like 10 floors nimbys are happy and developer gets his building

did the developers engage in any pre-planning with city council? this reminds me of another de-b & m high rise project in an unsuitable area

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2004/000201.html

@paul h wrote:

what is the difference really between 40 or 50 stories
it seems maybe they try for a 50 story building knowing it doesnt have a hope, then when its scaled down to something like 10 floors nimbys are happy and developer gets his building

The difference is high rise buildings look stupid in historic areas full stop. It just looks like the area went through a period where nobody gave a toss about it, so developers built whatever they liked. This can be seen in many British and other cities. Look at the Montparnasse tower in Paris &#8211]his[/I] vision) thinks he is ten years ahead of us all, and that in the future we will all see things his way. Were he to read this, I’m sure he would think ‘bloody closed-mind conservationist’ or somesuch. And he’ll probably hiss and steam in the newspaper when this ‘mini-Manhattan’ for Thomas Street gets thrown out like he did when his Donnybrook 32-storey tower was thrown out, and say ‘there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be allowed to build this’. But no, Mr. deBlacam, there is. Modern high-rise buildings in historic areas in European cities just look stupid end of story, and this is recognised around Europe. And Thomas Street is one of the very best and richest historic districts we’ve got.

Debate on where high-rise should be located in Dublin was fully run on the Dublin Skyline and other threads, so there is no need to get into that here.

They’re going to have a tough time with this proposal any which way, because it’s in Zone 5 and so officially in the central area, the objective for which is to ‘… reinforce, strenghten and protect its civic design character and dignity’. Zone 5 ends just to the west of the proposed site. Had it been in this area (Zone 7), things might have been slightly more favourable from their point of view, though probably not much. Also, it is rumoured the Chief City Planner is not a fan of the proposal.

Interestingly here in Hamburg, and in Copenhagen (couple of days there last week) no buildings over an agreed height are allowed so as to preserve both cities historic skylines. In Copenhagen its 6 stories max (a good height in a city I feel, after this things lose their human scale). Both cities have a skyline peppered with church spires (just like the Thomas St area). There are plenty of highrises that went up in the 60s and 70s but it seems to be accepted that these negatively impact the skyline.

Personally I never got the mad rush of some commentators to build highrise…regardless of their context or design value. (for another thread I know..) :rolleyes:

@Devin wrote:

Look at the Montparnasse tower in Paris – what does it do for the area? Nothing! It’s seen as a one-off mistake.

Have you actually been to Montparnasse? There are tall modern buildings all around the 59 storey tower. Paris is always used as an example of a low-rise city with one mistake, when in fact it has buildings that are taller than anything in Ireland all over it – there is a huge cluster of 30 storey-plus buildings right beside the Eiffel Tower.

I’m pretty sure that An Taisce types never leave Dublin 6, let alone Ireland.

Are you not confusing La Defense with Montparnasse?

Hmmmm not bad for someone who rarely leaves D6

Dublin Airport at 5am this morning was a complete mess not enough space to cater for our urban sprawl let alone another 51 stories.

I’m pretty sure that An Taisce types never leave Dublin 6, let alone Ireland.

It seems the ‘An Taisce types’ have moved from their usual haunt of D4, possibly in advance of the planned highrises on the Jurys site!

Pleeeease enough of this rubbish, Andrew. Have a little bit more intelligence that simply resorting to the vacuous generalisations peddled about by every small town politican.

As to your point: there are no tall buildings surrounding the Eiffel Tour nor as far as I can remember Tour Montparnasse, although both have a consistent mass of high density buildings around them. In fact I would imagine Parisians would go crazy as a proposal to erect a 51 storey ‘landmark’ beside their landmark (albeit only the An Taisce members). Also has anyone yet asked the question who would want to live ion the 51st storey…especially in recently rebranded ‘family-friendly’ SOHO

@StephenC wrote:

Also has anyone yet asked the question who would want to live ion the 51st storey…especially in recently rebranded ‘family-friendly’ SOHO

I would.

Seriously though, I’ve no problem with going tall, but this isn’t even a designated highrise zone so it’s in the completely wrong location.
If they do build it though, they should add on an extra 5 floors a la dubai 😀

@StephenC wrote:

………..there are no tall buildings surrounding the Eiffel Tour nor as far as I can remember Tour Montparnasse, although both have a consistent mass of high density buildings around them. In fact I would imagine Parisians would go crazy as a proposal to erect a 51 storey ‘landmark’ beside their landmark (albeit only the An Taisce members). Also has anyone yet asked the question who would want to live ion the 51st storey…especially in recently rebranded ‘family-friendly’ SOHO

Paris is no stranger to public outcry on building height. A large faction wanted to pull down the Eiffel Tower after the Exhibition. More recently there was a huge outcry over the Tour de Montparnasse and the clamour was so great that plans for adjoining similar height buildings were shelved. As for the other high-density buildings, surely you architects have not forgotten Haussmann and his height/boulevard width ratios? Would we get that in Dublin????

I’d have no issues in living on a high storey – but in SOHO? Wrong place for high-rise; shame the opportunity is being missed in Cherrywood. Lived on the 27th floor of a Manhattan high-rise for five years, with children, loved it. I cannot accept most of the issues blathered by the auld wans over high-rise living. If a child falls from the top window of a 3-storey maisonette or a hi-rise, its life is over. Same parental care and attention is necessary. (Yeah, I’ve experienced jumpers, and do not walk under hotels.)

Lifestyle in any shared building is dependent on the co-inhabitants; some people would wreck anything, vandalise lifts, etc. Good facilities help, but the average Irish knacker would not recognise them unless they jumped up and hit him in the face. It’s a matter of educating them.

Anyone ever look at La Defense from the Grande Terrasse in St. Germain-en-laye? Think of the view from Killiney Hill on a high-rise development at Cherrywood.
KB

i am fully behind kerryblog.

I would add two further points Paris is not a city to be compared with dublin. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to big . Large sections of it are uniformly highrise 8/9 storeys.

Inside is not that great either . My friends there all live in shoe boxes.

With regards to this proposal . I think that once a development is big enough then it stands on its own two feet, and doesn;t really have to make the effort to blend in anymore as it is a seperate thing. For instance you could build 100 storey blocks in UCD without any discernable effect on the surrounding area. Likewise for cherrywodd and sandyford industrial estate (which i would support if sufficient open parks were created).

My honest apraisal of the street is that the old goergian buildings are taller than in the rest of the city. The street is relatively narrow and combined with the taller goegian buildings already gives a highrise impression. You certainly get this on some of the laneways off thomas street where the street are very narrow and the buildings relatively high (~5storeys).

This could be really good. If you are going to make it stick up above the skyline then it doesn’t really make much difference how high you go. It might certainly save a few hundred acres in meath,kildare,and wicklow. (concreting louth is a ok with me 🙂 )

Next time you are in Paris, go to one of the department store roof top cafes like Printemps on Blvd Haussmann or Samaritaine and have a look at the Parisian skyline. You will see a rich pattern of rooves at a height of 8-11 storeys punctuated by church spires, the Eiffel tower the Sacre Coeur up in Montmartre and of course the Tour Montparnasse. Way off in the distance to the West you can make out La defense and to the East are the towers of the Bibliotheque Nationale. And that’s it.

Montparnasse stands up like a big mistake and a reminder to Parisians not to try this stunt again. It’s a false monument to nothing. Oo look darling – a call centre. Paris has 100 people per acre with just one highrise in the centre. To get an idea of the size of Paris, draw a box in Dublin around O’Connell bridge, reaching as far north as Griffith Avenue, as far souh as Milltown, to Ballyfermot in the West and the docklands in the East. There you have it – 80km squared in which the Parisians can house 2 million people in very pleasing buildings. While the Haussmann buildings create a pleasant character for Paris, they are often individually fairly uninspired structures. They follow the forumla of 6 storeys plus two mansard roof floors the builders had enough leeway to avoid monotony and enough planning restraints to create cohesiveness. We can see that a similar approach worked well in Dublin where the Georgian squares consist of a simple repeating pattern with just enough uniformity to create cohesion and just enough variation in roof heights and balconies to make it interesting.

Now take a trip out to the Banlieue on the RER and see what happens when architects are given free-rein trying to out-do each other in genius modernism. Randomised, oversized, low-density, inhuman shitsville. We are not going to solve anything with a few Tour Montparnasses – we need to rezone our inner-city semi-d housing estates for 8 storeys and let the market do the rest. I know I’d sell up,.

you see you have gone nuclear ! If this could be done i would wholeheartdly support you , but what would you do with the people who didn’t want to sell.

You would have to introduce a compulsory purchase scheme of some sort. It is possible that it could work. France did it thanks to some pretty strong laws . We have a pretty strong constitution. go figure.

Building the metro will do just what you want , over a very long period (30 years).

Remember the locals going ape over the north quay building heights . Understanbly from their point of view not from the city.

Ireland is about muddling through, and no amount of whining will change that. It starts at the top and works it’s way down. Our politicians are divided on historical ground not ideological grounds . So each of the big parties has the whole variety of opinion on everything, with the slightest differences in emphassis. Then we ahve proportianal representation which means we have power sharing and thus weaker government.

You cannot expect and will not get planning ideals under this system. It just can’t happen.

This doesn’t mean the system is a joke , it is in fact a very good system. It does mean that in these kind of matter we really on an individual minister coming along to improve things , instead of a party.

The greens could change this. they are untested , they may get a chance to prove themselves. But turning dublin into something like paris jsut won’t happen. Compare dublin to toulouse or brussels of chester. that i a fair comparison.

How about next time any of the An Taisce types is in Paris, he opens his eyes?

Here’s a photo of the large cluster of highrises a few hundred metres South-West of the Eiffel Tower:
http://www.atkielski.com/inlink.php?/PhotoGallery/Paris/General/FrontDeSeineLarge.html
edit: here’s some more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_Seine

How about an aerial photo showing the highrise buildings beside Tour Maine Montparnasse?
http://jlhuss.blog.lemonde.fr/jlhuss/images/12150035_1.JPG

… the other very big one is Le Meridien Montparnasse, a hotel:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/lemeridien/search/hotel_detail.html?propertyID=1920&language=fr_FR

How about another hotel, Hotel Concorde Lafayette near Porte Maillot:
http://www.concorde-lafayette.com/index2.htm

edit: I forgot possibly the biggest highrise cluster in Paris, the apartment towers in the 13th:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Paris-13eme-panorama-annote.jpg

… and all of these are in a city that has one highrise building outside of La D

@Frank Taylor wrote:

….Now take a trip out to the Banlieue on the RER and see what happens when architects are given free-rein trying to out-do each other in genius modernism. Randomised, oversized, low-density, inhuman shitsville. .

I don’t agree. When you go to the better suburbs say to the west or south west of Paris – which are the low density areas – the style/architecture of housing is quite good, although I can think of one or 2 that grate. Think of the style around the Bois de Bologne, decent lowrise apartment blocks nicely screened/landscaped or further out to le Vesinet or le Pecq. It is the high density areas to the N and East (and Nanterre) that are marred by architectural shite.
Nice photos, Notre Dame and av. Montaigne? No2 has to be off the Champs Elysees?
KB

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

Here’s a photo of the large cluster of highrises a few hundred metres South-West of the Eiffel Tower:
http://www.atkielski.com/inlink.php?/PhotoGallery/Paris/General/FrontDeSeineLarge.html.

The buildings should be placed in geographic context – the Periph and the Paris heliport are next door! And
“a few hundred metres” – is misleading, it is more like 1500 metres if not 2 kms. from the T. Eiffel. Also , Front de Seine was pushed through by Pompidou as a housing / urban rejuvenation scheme at a time when housing was very scarce and the area was kipsville, being part of the run-down workshops around the old Citroen works.

This argument is fundamentally flawed as it assumes Dublin is comparitive to Paris and hence the Thomas St proposal can be judged on the merits of high rise in Paris. How pathetic! I mean Dublin is great and all but let’s not get carried away! There are countless what could be termed for Dublin “highrise” buildings in Paris along entire streets, yet even the 8 storey parts of the Digital Hub proposal are causing disquiet here. Despite our best aspirations we’re slavinsh tied to the British model of urban planning. We’ll never have our la Defense (that boat has already sailed…). If you want to see the Dublin of 25 years time, go to London or Manchester and see the recent projects. An incoherent approach to reasonably well designed taller buildings.

None of the above are within 100 metres of the largest tourist attraction in the City and none of the above are anywhere near a streetscape like Thomas St & James’ St.

You do higher densities no favours with your one size fits all approach and a lot of the distances you have quoted relate to images that do not even display the buildings/structures you are trying to relate to.

From the reaction on this forum many of the more established contributors appear quite against this scheme many who equally bemoan the bland squat docklands.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

The buildings should be placed in geographic context – the Periph and the Paris heliport are next door! And
“a few hundred metres” – is misleading, it is more like 1500 metres if not 2 kms. from the T. Eiffel.

Viamichelin puts at at 1km by car]http://maps.google.fr/?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=48.851134,2.284341&spn=0.016718,0.025835[/url]

Notice, no Periphique in sight.

Also , Front de Seine was pushed through by Pompidou as a housing / urban rejuvenation scheme at a time when housing was very scarce and the area was kipsville, being part of the run-down workshops around the old Citroen works.

SoThomas St. is not “kipsville”? The proposal is also a regeneration of run-down former industrial land.

@Thomond Park wrote:

You do higher densities no favours with your one size fits all approach…

Huh?

@Thomond Park wrote:

…and a lot of the distances you have quoted relate to images that do not even display the buildings/structures you are trying to relate to.

Again, huh?

http://www.atkielski.com/inlink.php?/PhotoGallery/Paris/General/FrontDeSeineLarge.html

I really couldn’t be bothered discussing it with you further save to say your images are not accurate and do not illustrate the point you are making if you claim that those mid-rise bland blocks are a few hundered metres from the Tower then where is the Eifel Tower?

This is an important heritage area; the proposal does not take sufficient heed of its context and needs revision; I do hope that the architects stick with it they are good architects and are capable of raising the tone of the area but it must be an improvement that respects what is already there.

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

How about next time any of the An Taisce types is in Paris, he opens his eyes?

Here’s a photo of the large cluster of highrises a few hundred metres South-West of the Eiffel Tower:
http://www.atkielski.com/inlink.php?/PhotoGallery/Paris/General/FrontDeSeineLarge.html
edit: here’s some more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_Seine

How about an aerial photo showing the highrise buildings beside Tour Maine Montparnasse?
http://jlhuss.blog.lemonde.fr/jlhuss/images/12150035_1.JPG

… the other very big one is Le Meridien Montparnasse, a hotel:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/lemeridien/search/hotel_detail.html?propertyID=1920&language=fr_FR

How about another hotel, Hotel Concorde Lafayette near Porte Maillot:
http://www.concorde-lafayette.com/index2.htm

edit: I forgot possibly the biggest highrise cluster in Paris, the apartment towers in the 13th:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Paris-13eme-panorama-annote.jpg

… and all of these are in a city that has one highrise building outside of La Défense. How odd.

Well I’m not a member of AT! but I’ll take it as a compliment. 🙂

The buildings you’ve listed barely have an impact on the density in Paris and are notable for their scarcity. My point was that the Tour Montparnasse is the one tall building that stands out from the rest of the Paris skyline as seen from the centre city – Kilometre Zero. Yeah it has a few squat mudrisers as someone else once said.

Here’s another photo this time from the angle of the steps of the Sacre Coeur to the North, looking down to the centre and on to the South on a smoggy evening.
http://kapp.intrasun.tcnj.edu/Europe99/paris/par_skyline.jpg. Which building stands out?

The Porte Maillot hotel building is right by the peripherique. I don’t mind tall buildings being used for hotels because people in hotels are transient and have no chance of partaking in any community. They may as well be in a tower or a basement. They don’t have children to supervise while they do the dishes or friends to wave at in the street below. I’ve never been to the 13th, though I lived in Paris for years. looks like HongKong in that shot. These buildings diminish the chances of community and yes plenty of other building arrangements are also not conducive to community. I worked near the Eiffel tower for years and I never noticed the Front de Seine buildings so they can’t be that intrusive.

@a boyle wrote:

Inside is not that great either . My friends there all live in shoe boxes.

You can buy new shoe box apartments in Paris for around 90K for 15m2. I guess it’s illegal to build something that small in Dublin but on a per square metre basis I think the price is roughly equivalent to here. If you want to shell out 400K for a 70m2 apartment in Paris you can do that too. Your friends have that choice which they wouldn’t have in Dublin.

@a boyle wrote:

you see you have gone nuclear ! If this could be done i would wholeheartdly support you , but what would you do with the people who didn’t want to sell.

(this was in answer to me suggesting that city centre housing estates be rezoned up to 8 floors.) I would just rezone some poxy housing estate and watch greed work its magic. No CPO needed. Being realistic this is unlikely to happen except on green field sites and industrial areas and 100% council owned housing. First off will be the sites around the new metro stations.

As for the Guinness site. I work there fairly often and I’ll try to get a photo from the top of one of the buildings. It’s a really interesting arrangement of buildings from different eras including some mad brick windmill (minus sails). There is a massive white building lit up with green lights at night. It’s very tall and will likely make the precedent for the rest of the site. The site is about 1 hectare and could easily manage 20 X 8 storey terraced buildings enclosing about 5000sq m of overlooked green space. This would give around 30,000sq m of floor space.

Whatever happens to the site,I hope it has public access unlike the other gated apartment developments in the neighbourhood.

Its a shame this proposal wasnt set for somwhere like the docklands. It would probably be a great deal more suited to such a location.

Couldn’t agree more

Definitely! If it was proposed for the docklands I’d be all for it since it something daring and with a bit of height is what’s needed down there. It would depend on the details aswell and we need a proper render for that.

Yep, you’re right altuistic – its going to be dissapointing if it turns out to be a good quality design for a tower – perhaps at last – only for it to get dismissed due to its inappropriate location.

Still, that end of town does need some quite drastic work in places.

dublin is not paris and never will be!
why do we always have to look to other cities for inspiration
can we not do anything bold or innovative so other places can look to us and think ‘ see what they did in dublin!!’

we have a mish mash of different styles some work, some dont
its like were too afraid to do anything other than the mundane ‘dublin docklands’
the spire was a fresh idea, something different and its gets slated

georgian dublin is beautiful and should be preserved and most historic sites but we must grow also
a lot of our old city was built before the invention of the elevator which made higher buildings possible
does anyone think our planners of those days would have only built 4 or 5 floors if they had elevators and demand for taller houses
[ATTACH]2391[/ATTACH]

@paul h wrote:

dublin is not paris and never will be!

Yes, of course!

why do we always have to look to other cities for inspiration
can we not do anything bold or innovative so other places can look to us and think ‘ see what they did in dublin!!’

We are now at a growth stage on Dublin, We are planning and building entire new city districts. Point Village, Poolbeg, Adamstown, Cherrywood, North Fringe (worst name!). We have a chance to decide how these districts should be shaped. It is a a crucial time.

A city district is a complex system with many interacting components. Complex systems are never purely innovative, or else they fail. They have to consist of as many tried and tested subcomponents as possible, arranged in a way that is known to work. Innovation is always a tiny proportion of a successful system.

The safest type of system to build is a copy of one that works well somewhere else and suits the local needs and environment. I know architects don’t like using someone elses plans, but from an engineer’s point of view, this is the safest way to proceed. Every innovation is a chance for failure and while architecture is art, at least a poor painting can be left in the basement while some poor bastard has to live in Bachelors Walk.

The success of a city district might be measured in efficiency, house prices, sense of community, whether it turns out to be a pleasant place to be, whether it is regarded as a place at all.. Architects often aim to make their buildings remarkable and succeed, but to the detriment of the former goals. Remarkable buildings that vie for attention with each other in a district that doesn’t work.

When we choose the parameters for a city district in terms of building height, variations in that height, floor-area-ratio, plot ratio, street width- well whatever we choose will certainly have been done before elsewhere in one of the hundreds of thousands of city districts around the world. We would be crazy to ignore the success or otherwise of these living examples.

Great art is often produced within constraints, and there are many outstanding buildings in cities with broadly uniform building dimensions such as Amsterdam or Paris.

georgian dublin is beautiful and should be preserved and most historic sites but we must grow also
a lot of our old city was built before the invention of the elevator which made higher buildings possible
does anyone think our planners of those days would have only built 4 or 5 floors if they had elevators and demand for taller houses

I hate to return to Paris but the Haussmann buildings of 6 floors plus two attic floors mostly date from the 1860s, predating the elevator. Maids and young people lived at the top. The rickety lifts went in later.

8 floor buildings cannot be bracketed with tall buildings as high rise. We don’t have a simple choice between semi-d and 50 storey towers.

In the absence of architect designed guidelines dimensions for a city district, we just give general guidelines on density alone to builders and a few vague words about tall buildings at the corners of blocks and so forth. Now we are developing a special Irish house form, the semi-d on steroids. A fatter semi-d with an extra floor shoved in below. Nice.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

while architecture is art, at least a poor painting can be left in the basement while some poor bastard has to live in Bachelors Walk.

lol :D. This must the new Archiseek catchline, to be placed on the page title bar of every webpage 😀

Dublin’s comparisons with Paris are very much so valid. From a skyline perspective they are very similar places: developed, western European cities with a fundamentally low-rise historic character relative to other international conurbations, that both face modern-day planning challenges.

Paris has by and large faced up to this very well. If anything, the convention of building eight storeys as standard seems to have stimied the need for taller buildings anyway, or more pointedly has prevented developers from using low density as an excuse for building tall – they simply don’t have that card to play with, unlike in Dublin. Not that this should still be an excuse in Dublin either – frankly I cannot believe the density issue is still raising its head in 2006 when everyone with half a brain in their head knows damn well that even a conservative six storeys, let alone eight, can deliver most what Dublin needs within the existing city core.

8-9 is a nice height to rise up to though in the centre of developments, with the outer fringes coming down to respect the height of surrounding streets. This whole south-western corner of the city is one that has been bypassed by the boom years, and is likely to see a lot of investment in the near future, obviously encompassing the SOHO plan too. If the scale of this project is a sign of what’s to come, then we’re in for a rocky ride.

I have to laugh in a way at this project, as it matches exactly what I expected would happen the second Heuston Gate and was passed. Just like PVC windows, the second an element of height is introduced to virgin territory, it catches on like wildfire and soon everyone’s clambering on ship. That’s all you need – that single spark of leniency, or perhaps even appeasement, in permitting height in an area, and off the train goes on its merry way.

I’d like to read the height survey commissioned by the CC – is it included in the city dev plan, or is it a separate entity? In spite of it, there still doesn’t seem to be a clearly defined vision for the skyline of Dublin. The goalposts keep changing.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

I have to laugh in a way at this project, as it matches exactly what I expected would happen the second Heuston Gate and was passed. Just like PVC windows, the second an element of height is introduced to virgin territory, it catches on like wildfire and soon everyone’s clambering on ship. That’s all you need – that single spark of leniency, or perhaps even appeasement, in permitting height in an area, and off the train goes on its merry way.

I’d like to read the height survey commissioned by the CC – is it included in the city dev plan, or is it a separate entity? In spite of it, there still doesn’t seem to be a clearly defined vision for the skyline of Dublin. The goalposts keep changing.

Spot on.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Dublin’s comparisons with Paris are very much so valid. From a skyline perspective they are very similar places: developed, western European cities with a fundamentally low-rise historic character relative to other international conurbations,

Just no . Paris is by a large uniformaly 6 to eight storeys. It is enormous. It was built with and sustains level of wealth that are simply not comparable .

Brussels, Strasbourg, Chester. There is in fact no need to look so far afield Cork is doing by and large a lot better than dublin.

What is the obsession with paris ? (not just you graham , but many on the forum) Is it that none of us have been anywhere else because ryanair don’t fly there ? has anyone gone to the suburbs of paris ? they are horrid. You cannot judge the city purely by it’s core.

San francisco to me might have a lot of things we could learn. Due to various reasons they have mostly uniformly low rise buildings. and a large suburban sprawl issue. But by and large it is a very very nice place to live. How have they got it right ? (at least better than we have.). Since Dublin has sprawled we need to think of improving it . Reversing the sprawl seems to me to be a pipe dream.

Grrr!!!! no more comparisons to cities that don’t have at least a similar population, or similar problems. 😀

@Graham Hickey wrote:

I’d like to read the height survey commissioned by the CC – is it included in the city dev plan, or is it a separate entity? In spite of it, there still doesn’t seem to be a clearly defined vision for the skyline of Dublin. The goalposts keep changing.

It’s 6 years old now, but if you get a copy from the CC let us know, I wouldn’t mind reading it. Here is a summary of the report as produced by DCC:
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/HTN_ANALYSIS_4.0_tcm35-13613.pdf

and here is Frank McDonald’s assessment of the report:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2000/1102/arch.htm

@Graham Hickey wrote:

I have to laugh in a way at this project, as it matches exactly what I expected would happen the second Heuston Gate and was passed. Just like PVC windows, the second an element of height is introduced to virgin territory, it catches on like wildfire and soon everyone’s clambering on ship. That’s all you need – that single spark of leniency, or perhaps even appeasement, in permitting height in an area, and off the train goes on its merry way.

True. In fairness though, An Bord Pleanala did make it clear in its decision to permit the Heuston Gate 32-storey that the approval should not be regarded as a precedent in relation to any other proposal for a high building in the city.

See decision here: http://www.pleanala.ie/DCT/210/S210196.DOC

@lexington wrote:

What I find appealing is the developer’s ambition to develop a cluster, defined by 1 or 2 particularly striking towers, rather than another one-off “landmark” tower, this type of provision is too casually mooted about and often fail to exemplify an effective landmark structure … I think de Blacam Meagher have done well on the design front – the location is clearly going to be the subject of debate.

If this reference to deBlacam & Meagher above arises from a sense that they are being &#8216]Have you actually been to Montparnasse? There are tall modern buildings all around the 59 storey tower. Paris is always used as an example of a low-rise city with one mistake, when in fact it has buildings that are taller than anything in Ireland all over it – there is a huge cluster of 30 storey-plus buildings right beside the Eiffel Tower.[/QUOTE]Yes I have, and have plenty of pictures of the Paris townscape to prove it. Though they are slides and I can’t upload them here at the moment (though I may be able to soon). Most views across the city show that the Montparnasse tower (59 storeys) is ONLY high-rise building in Paris proper. And at 51 storeys, the Thomas Street proposal is certainly comparable to it in height – that’s why I mentioned it in my post.

[align=center:2u5aauow]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:2u5aauow]

I was down at that exibition in the Guinness Hopstore today, where the model of the Thomas Street proposal is on view. There’s a lot of other plans on show for the area (some completed, some imaginary). And Jaysus there’s some ludicrous stuff in the pipeline! All I can say is there’s gonna be some big battles ahead. The exhibition runs ’til Friday.

Paul, maybe you should rename this thread. ‘Manor Park’s Digital Hub Plan’ is about as interesting as Maynooth Shopping Centre. It’s going to be a very hot thread.

[attach]2396[/attach]
no more comparisons between paris and dublin, please!!! this picture proves we are nothing alike, but nice picture from a dif perspective(not sure if emporis permit reproducing its pics!),
but i can see why everbody here loves paris – its got it all , high rise here, huge intact historic core hereand its beautiful
is there any quality pictures of the digital hub project

Except that the image is heavily compressed through a powerful telephoto lens, making high buildings several miles from the centre appear close 😉 .

BTW the current Development Plan provisions for high buildings are contained here (scroll down to Secion 15.6.0 – ‘Building Heights’) : http://www.dublincity.ie/shaping_the_city/future_planning/development_plan/15.pdf

i figured it was about 2 miles from eifell tower, wasn’t really implying it was beside it:D
interesting read that pdf esp. the nightclub cafe section and the need for a 24 h city!!
might be seeing some later opening hours…nice! what is closing time for standard bar? 11.30 or 12.30?
4am here…cough cough:D

Thanks for the links Frank and Devin – will read with interest.

a boyle Dublin and Paris are very much so comparable – as I said on a skyline basis. That is, both cities still have pretty much the same skylines as they did before the modern movement, and indeed since the 1880s with the development of the skyscaper.
Each to their own, they both face the same modern-day pressures, arguably Paris even more so as a major world city.
Yet Paris has managed to contain high-rise, while Dublin persistently refuses to do so, even as a small capital of a tiny peripheral nation of 4.2 million people.
It could be done if the will was there.

and they have managed to contain their economic growth pretty nicely too
with a stagnant economy at a growth of about %1 and their unemployment rate at a cool %10;)

Originally posted by a boyle
San francisco to me might have a lot of things we could learn.

I think San Francisco is the city we should be using as a template for our future development. Remember we are playing catch-up on all these cities, however I’d love to see a TransAmerica Pyramid on the Dublin skyline, I’d love to see the Piers developed into major tourist attractions, like San Francisco and Chicago..these are relatively new cities in a very wealthy country. I’d love to see a SOMA style development..
Anything more amazing that looking back from a ship heading to Alcatraz and seeing a blimp flying over this skyline? I’d love that feeling looking back at Dublin.

@paul h wrote:

this picture proves we are nothing alike,

Trick photography!

How La Defense really looks from the top of the Eiffel Tower

Those buildings are just too tall for this historical part of the city. Down to the docks with this sort of proposal where it is needed and where it would work. The architects are arseholes to even propose such an overbearing scheme. Thomas Street/James Street is on a hill too when viewed from the river Liffey so these 2 towers would really dominate the area and the city itself. Thomas Street and James Street are two fine old historical streets with remnants of fine old Georgian houses. It should be treated sympathetically in this case …not abused and over-shadowed by a proposal from what seems a bunch of overbearing brassy hairdressers.

I would highly recommend anyone that has the chance to go to the Digital Exchange on Crane Street to look at the exhibition that is presently on regarding this proposal and other proposals for the Liberties more generally.

With regards to this proposal, the first thing that struck me from looking at the model was how it was like an early 21st Century version of The Barbican in London which is literally to be plonked on top of the historical fabric of the Thomas Street area. Although it attempts to fit into its direct surroundings through a merger with the existing fabric, the way in which much of it is raised on to a podium is going to essentially turn it into an elevated island with no real relationship to the surrounding area. Whilst I could not but admire the skill of the sketches by de Blacam Meagher, I felt they further hightlighted just how dominant this building will be on the surrounding area and the Dublin Skyline in general.

One of the models shows a stretch of the Liffey with only a few structures featured along its banks. This includes The Ringsend Chimneys, The Millenium Tower, the Custom House, Liberty Hall, The Spire, The Civic Offices, The Four Courts, The Heuston Gate Tower and of course the proposed development itself. The fact that what is proposed made all of these structures, apart, maybe from the Chimneys, look tiny emphasises the scale and bulk of this proposed development, and in my view indicates exactly why it should not recieve planning permission.

I know there are alot of people here who seem to want skysrapers for Christmas, but I think it is important to emhasis how wrong this location is for taller buildings. In saying this I would like to point out that I do not count buildings such as the Guinness Store House as tall. I think that much of the reason there is such strong opposition in Dublin, and Ireland more generally to the latest craze for landmark 16-47 storey towers is that we don’t have an entire streetscape that goes above 10 storeys, so therefore it is only natural to view anything above this height as being relatively tall.

I hope the planners turn this down, and I also hope that they dont start messing around with additional information etc etc, so as to get some sort of aborted version of what is presently being proposed.

@phil wrote:

With regards to this proposal, the first thing that struck me from looking at the model was how it was like an early 21st Century version of The Barbican in London which is literally to be plonked on top of the historical fabric of the Thomas Street area. Although it attempts to fit into its direct surroundings through a merger with the existing fabric, the way in which much of it is raised on to a podium is going to essentially turn it into an elevated island with no real relationship to the surrounding area.

Had lunch in the Barbican on Friday and it is amazing how the water feature reduced the humidity created by the concrete it was a very pleasant experience. Having spoken to many Londoners about the open interior of the Barbican complex it never ceases to amaze me how few Londoners have ever visited it.

It simply has not presented itself as a people freindly place and most locals feel it is a private space of residential and offices and not for the public with most never having entered the complex at all. I fear that if the Barbican were to be an example of what was to follow next then the above scheme would in no way fit with the SOHO plan that DCC have for this area.

The Barbican open space is semi-private overlooked community grounds. The hofjes in Amsterdam are another example. They often have a gate but the gate is not locked. You need some local knowledge or some courage to push the gate and you’re on your best behaviour. Trinity campus is another example.

Courtyards are a great form, enclosing you from the city noise and having the security of being overlooked. Most are car free (even the Barbican) which improves them by an order of magnitude. It doesn’t work so well when all the residents have been hand picked for their poverty.

Whatever about the relatively positive attributes of The Barbican, it is still very cut off from its surrounding area. Walking the elevated ‘City Walkways’ is an experience though.

http://skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=626

have a click^^^^
apparently they based it on renzo piano’s aurora place in sydney

based on this?

halledgedly

the obsession with height of the lack of it is whats wrong with the architectural deabate in this city…

one on side we have the view…. lets keep everything low rise because its always been that way.. any benefits of a regenereration from a plan such as MPH for the digital hub are outweighed by the fact that its too tall…let let the area rot as long as its low rise????

on the other side lets build anything as long as its tall… the location doesnt matter a damn

while this bitch fest is going on developers are throwing up the most mundane and boring crap.. O2 building anyone? i was walking to work looking around and it dawned on me we have had the longest boom in modern history…. name 5 outstanding buildings that have been built in dublin in the past 10 years…!!!! cork and belfast will end up having a better skyline that the biggest wealthiest city in ireland

quality should be at the forefront of the debate not height… a crap building is a crap building wheter its 5 or 50 stories

harcourt building.

@a boyle wrote:

harcourt building.

Agreed. My favourite building built in last few years. Hanover Quay, I think Beacon Court shopping centre could be interesting but that’s not built yet.

spike

I for one have never really understood the near obsession with some posters over the year to having skyscrapers in the city. I am all for higher buildings. I think the city should easily be accommodating 6-8 stories. I think the challange should be how we can increase the height of streetscapes while still retaining the character of the city (something that many of the penis-envy buildings proposed over the years have failed to do)Height for height sake is a shallow argument, what we should be doing is ensuring that the quality of design of new buidings is improved. If this means a tall building then why not. I agree that the scheme in Thomas St is ideally suited to Docklands the biggest criticism of which, as we all know, is its lack of variety of heights.

@a boyle wrote:

spike

not considering the spike

1. Harcourt building

4 more to go

wooden bldg

clearly this is just the wrong spot for something of this scale, its a pity that a proposal which may well be architecturally well designed will most likely (as it should in this context) remain in the un-built ireland section.

The Height survey comissioned by DCC just sits on the fence, pointing to little else apart from landmark gateways at strategic locations, while throwing the ball back in the court of the planners & DCC.

On one level I understand dbm’s seeming frustration & saying fuck it, time to break the mould … but as many have said, just the wrong spot.

Its up to DCC now to get off the fence; for me docklands & dublin port are the only place for high rise & it should be contained there – dublin should scale up as it meets the sea, creating impressive vista’s from the bay & the existing city centre.

DDDA’s vision is stunted, new development along the quays just falls away in to the river, a missed opportunity – standalone landmarks just look odd, 5 stories rising to 30 ?

Surely with so many applications for high rise developments coming in, regardless of location, DCC really need to formulate & outline their vision, the last study isn’t worth a fuck.

I know. The last Development Plan (1999) had very clear statements about high buildings in an appendix at the back, but the new one (2005) is a bit fudgy.

[align=center:3o2s4ulj]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:3o2s4ulj]

@aj wrote:

the obsession with height of the lack of it is whats wrong with the architectural deabate in this city…

one on side we have the view…. lets keep everything low rise because its always been that way.. any benefits of a regenereration from a plan such as MPH for the digital hub are outweighed by the fact that its too tall…let let the area rot as long as its low rise????

You’re stereotyping the supposed “anti” side. You’re really not reading the posts if this is your conclusion.

@aj wrote:

quality should be at the forefront of the debate not height… a crap building is a crap building wheter its 5 or 50 stories

I don’t agree. Architects fall into the trap of thinking anything can be built regardless of location if the ‘quality’ is high enough. They will go on and on ….. and on .. about design and finish, thinking this will override things like zoning, plot ratio and protected structure legislation. The original Gaiety Centre plan fell into this trap (7 storeys on a tight site next to PS).

The Clancy Barracks redevelopment is trying to get a 16-storey building at the moment, at the south-west corner of the site (next to the roundabout intersection of St. John’s Road and SCR), even though the site is not designated for a tall building. It’s nothing special]“designed to be an elegant distinguishing feature at the periphery of the Clancy Barracks site” [/I] ( :rolleyes: ). It’s with An Bord Pleanala now. We’ll see what happens ….

[align=center:3o2s4ulj]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:3o2s4ulj]

@paul h wrote:

http://skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=626

have a click^^^^
apparently they based it on renzo piano’s aurora place in sydney

Do you run the Ireland section of that site paul h?

Nicely lifted scan of the Thomas St. proposal from my post 😉 . You need to change the cancelled Players Square 28-storey tower to a currently-proposed 11-storey building. Where’s the DCC-approved 16-storey for Clancy Barracks? Where’s the completed 12-storey at Dolphin’s Barn? The Barrow Street 32-storey has been cancelled (what kind of a show are you running?! 🙂 )

And there are more currently-proposed 15 & 16 storey buildings on a site across Thomas Street from where 47-storey is proposed. Like this one:
.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thats the funniest thing in a long time
thanks but sorry to dissapoint devin but no i am not
true i have an interst in all things skyscraper, im actually doing dublin a favor trying to promote high rise there:D

someone has to educate you non believers:)
left wingers who see them as symbols of elitist development – skyscraper news words not mine !!
p.s check out nimby watch – sure to make blood boil

The equation of left wing politics and anti-high rise is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time..

Have you never heard of stalanist monolithic cityscapes?

Not that I am trying to equate Cathedrals of commerce with failed social housing models.

I suggest you either make a case for locational suitability or get off the stage.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Have you never heard of stalanist monolithic cityscapes?

Are you thinking of Moscow State University? Kind of neoclassical meets brutalism. Most aggressive building I’ve ever seen. It looks fantastic. Build one in CItyWest.

1. harcourt building

2. wooden building . (temple bar i presume.)

3. taney luas bridge.

4. new habitat building suffolk street

5. art gallery extension (that should be at the top with harcout building)

@Thomond Park wrote:

The equation of left wing politics and anti-high rise is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time..

I suggest you either make a case for locational suitability or get off the stage.

sorry thomond park i was quoting skyscrapernews it was a lighthearted joke
but judging by your immediate defence there might be some truth………

here is the offending material –
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=626

I work in the area and there is definitely a need for some regeneration projects for the locality. This planning application gives rise to debate about 2 issues, the need for regeneration projects in the area and the appropriateness of high rise in this city.

Much has been said about whether this is the right place for a high rise cluster, perhaps the docklands would be more appropriate.

As regards, the Liberties / Thomas Street area. NCAD have decided to stay, after thoughts of leaving for the suburbs, which is a great boost but the area needs more. How about a new city library to replace the ILAC? Or mediatheque along the lines of Koolhaus’s Seattle Library as a flagship? Dublin’s first ever public library was in Thomas Street so would be appropriate and bring real benefits to the area.

Your dead right Pico, there a a huge range of projects that could be considered to boost this area.

I would like to see the new City Library go in the new building on Dame Street, beside City Hall. I thiunk its the perfect central spot for it.

I hope that NCADs decision to stay will be a great stimulus for the area (its hasnt been to now) but I think a lots more imagination is needed here and a lots needs to be done to keep the local community in the area.

why do people propose such tall buildings here when they haven’t a hope in hell of being built? those 51 storey buildings are a perfect example. they will not get the go ahead.

any movement on this?

It’s been refused:

<a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4035/06&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Digital Hub planning app

😮
OMG I’m shocked, thought this one was guaranteed to sail though!

” 1. The proposed development because of its unprecedented height would seriously impact on the identity, character and scale of the inner city; would result in a precedent for the proliferation of developments of such excessive scale; would impact unacceptably on adjoining properties; would materially contravene the provisions of the Development Plan and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. “

So that would be a “no” then? Hardly surprising. Maybe this was just an exercise in PR to get the speculative juices flowing towards this end of town?

@Devin wrote:

It’s been refused

Oh happy day!

malec-
Why did you think this would ‘sail through’? From the word go I thought this was an over-scaled insensitive proposal- glad to see some sense has prevailed (for now…).

i knew this hadn’t a hope in hell myself.

yeh i thought they were just chancing their arm and their next scheme will be about 30 storeys, just as unsympathetic and shite. It’ll be granted by the Council, appealed, have a few storeys knocked off by the Bord and we’ll get another non-descript “skyscraper” down there… wonderful planning by all involved

@alonso wrote:

their next scheme will be about 30 storeys … It’ll be granted by the Council, appealed, have a few storeys knocked off by the Bord and we’ll get another non-descript “skyscraper” down there

Or maybe not. The area is not designated for tall buildings, and that will be the bottom line for all of this speculative posturing.

Funnily, I read through EIS for the Manor Park planning application, and the strategy taken* to justify the 53-storey etc. buildings was to argue that the areas of Dublin already identified for tall buildings (in the DEGW study, which DCC have incorporated into their Development Plan) were defective and that this area (Thomas Street) would be more suitable!!

Well, too late, I’m afraid. High buildings have already been approved in the areas identified in the DEGW study (Heuston & Docklands).

Just to clear up something from earlier in the thread: the 12-storey building in School Street which Manor Park Homes’ John Moran referred to in the ‘Times article of 8/6/’06 as having “broke the glass” for height in the area does not have final approval yet. It’s with An Bord Pleanala.

* in Section 5.6.7

A little birdie told me that the pressure to go high on this site came from the developers rather than from the architects or the planning consultants, despite professional opinions expressed to them that height would not be permitted in this location.

(Is someone finally starting to see through the indiscriminate use of the San Gimignano comparison?:rolleyes: )

While their strategy of attempting to undermine the DEGW study seems to have failed in this case, I wouldn’t put it past someone to try it on again, mainly as the study is such a fudge on the issue of appropriate locations for height (yes, it says Docklands and Heuston alright, but hardly convincingly) that I could see a competent planning consultant with a persistent streak managing to word a submission carefully enough to appeal to a DC planner who’d rather not have the bother of arguing otherwise.

We must remain vigilant, team.

@ctesiphon wrote:

A little birdie told me that the pressure to go high on this site came from the developers rather than from the architects or the planning consultants, despite professional opinions expressed to them that height would not be permitted in this location.

Course it came from MP Homes – they were the ones who stood to benefit most! Not that DBM have anything against towers – see Donnybrook scheme for instance – http://skyscrapernews.com/imagesall.php?self=nse&ref=1355&idi=Donnybrook+Tower&selfidi=1355DonnybrookTower_pic1.jpg&no=1

Mind you that scheme raises (no pun intended) other interesting issues]good[/I] planning :p

All in all a good day for good planning + a bad day for blighters! 🙂

Tjhere are some other situations where Part V can be waived, such as if there is a significantly supply of existing social housing in the area.

i reckon the DEGW study was pretty weak, pathetic even. If major rail lines intersect anywhere in the Metropolitan Area, it’s pretty suitable for medium to high rise (by which i mean 10 to 20 storeys i.e. not high rise at all). The only legitimate reasons for it not occuring are conservation and loss of residential amenity… so yes, areas like Tallaght, Blanchardstown, North Ballymun and Balgaddy are all suitable and any central area served or proposed to be served by rail is not only suitable for unprecedented (in Dublin) land use intensification, but on a strategic level, it must occur in order to consolidate the city and halt the sprawl… so even the very principle of identifying areas in a capital city of over 1 million for high rise is a flawed one, which has done nothing to contribute to planning in the city

but for the love of christ, 51 storeys was a complete nonsense and I;m glad it was refused. I honestly thought this was a scare tactic by the developer to get about 30 storeys through AI, negotiations and the appeals process…

I look forward to the next application

41 storeys anyone?