Manor Park’s Digital Hub Plan
- This topic has 99 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
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 sydneythe 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
@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.
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.
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 sydneyDo 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:Dsomeone 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
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
