Manor Park’s Digital Hub Plan
- This topic has 99 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
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 buildingdid 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
@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 buildingThe 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 –]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.
KBi 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_SeineHow 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_FRHow about another hotel, Hotel Concorde Lafayette near Porte Maillot:
http://www.concorde-lafayette.com/index2.htmedit: 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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
