national conference centre hotel

Wow cool! Any views from the river?

Meaning potentially four skyscrapers under construction in Dublin within the next two years,not to mention the revamped liberty hall and the AIB capital market hq.Any info on the height,it has to be at least 100m but probably more.

Thirty five stories of mediocrity. Shouldn’t we insist on better?

At first glance it doesn’t look at all mediocre to be, it looks very handsome: maybe old-fashioned but very logical.

….Sorry but i can’t look at that national convention centre without clenching my butt cheeks :rolleyes:

Its hard to make a judgement from that one picture but,
not a fan of this slab style, im cringeing writing this , but it looks a bit over scaled
tall – yes please….
blocky – not so good
I suppose being a hotel it has to be practical
Although it could provide a nice contrast with tall and slender point tower and the extra tall and slender U2 tower(fingers crossed)

It will be interesting to see how the serial tall building objectors will approach their inevitable dissaproval
Almost all tall or unusual proposals the dublin area has seen has been met the with a unanimous chorus
of – it’d be better suited for the docklands

I’m quite surprised by this … with this announcement & that of AIB seeking another site on the north docks for a medium rise, can we take it now that DDDA have finally abandoned their long held position !?

I think it fits quite nicely behind a slightly bloated conference centre. At this stage we could really do with a wider ranging montage of the north docks detailing any proposed taller buildings. Although I’m happy to see a break away from their business park policy, Its a shame we have this back to front approach, locations for high rises should have been detailed to the letter in the original master plan.

@paul h wrote:

It will be interesting to see how the serial tall building objectors will approach their inevitable dissaproval
Almost all tall or unusual proposals the dublin area has seen has been met the with a unanimous chorus
of – it’d be better suited for the docklands

Indeed it will, especially if one remembers back to the original Roche plan for Spencer Dock, nothing could exceed the roof height of holles st hospital when viewed from lesson street. Hopefully the DDDA now see the errors of this policy and we should start to see some kind of skyline. Not too sure about the design here but let see some other photos. No mention in the press today?

Are those old gates / bridge lifters protected – – should be removed so we can see the focal point of the conference centre when viewed from city center, dont need another loop line bridge experience of blocking a Dublin landmark.

Wawaweewah!!!!! Its a good looking building, and would be great for breaking the monotony on the side of the Liffey.
And with it being in the docklands there will be less reasons to object to it. Here’s hoping.

It looks very well and definitely complements the conference centre. Finger’s crossed it actually gets built.

Thirty five stories of mediocrity. Shouldn’t we insist on better?

How can you make such a critical judgement with just one measly render?Genuinely believe people come on here just to have a rant and nothing else. Im just hoping the recent slide in the propert market dosent effect any if these SS being built.

@cubix wrote:

Thirty five stories of mediocrity. Shouldn’t we insist on better?

How can you make such a critical judgement with just one measly render?Genuinely believe people come on here just to have a rant and nothing else. Im just hoping the recent slide in the propert market dosent effect any if these SS being built.

The general negativity on this board annoys me too, and in fairness to me, I have spoken out in favour of many of the proposed developments that are controversial on this board, e.g. the foster U2 tower, the clarence hotel redevelopment, Gormley’s liffey statue, the Liebskind theatre.

I am absolutely in favour of a high rise building on this site, but to me, this building is just a 35 storey rectangular box. It would not have been difficult to make it more interesting, e.g. have a diagonal or stepped roof, …., something. Of couse this would involve removing hotel rooms, and the developers would not maximise their profit by squeezing every last square inch out of the site.

Why is it that the innovative U2 tower comes in for such a bashing but this mediocre building gets a free pass? Is it because this building is by an Irish architect but the U2 tower is by *gasp* a British ‘starchitect’?

I would like to see the planners saying ‘yes, you can build a 35 storey building and reap the huge rewards, but you better give us a world class design first’.

Looks like we’re going to get our high rise district down the North wall Quay after all, fantastic, but we only get one shot at it so let’s insist we get the best quality buildings we can. The developers will learn quickly the standard required after the first one or two are shot down for design reasons. Remember the first design for the watchtower? Are you glad that was shot down? What about the second design? Imho they should have shot down the current third design as well but at least it’s better than the previous two.

You see we differ here, I think a sloped roof would ruin it; what appeals to me, based on this one picture which makes it hard to make a hard and fast judgment, is the modernist logic of the design, the overall regularity, playfully broken by the garden floor and the different windows. It seems a very thoughtful building, I don’t get the U2 tower at all, I just don’t understand it, the Hadid proposal made more sense to me.

Agreed notjim. Its slab-like quality, whilst somewhat predictable and tried-n-tested, can still make an elegant modern statement in a reinterpreted way. It’s also the neatest solution to incorporating a tower into the NCC development, slotting slimly in to the rear to the width of the centre itself (also I’ve always been a sucker for wafer slab blocks :)). Is this the answer to the Corpo HQ proposal the city never got?

Had to laugh though – knew it was classic Cleary output before even reading the name. Slight concerns as to its integration with the centre, the head-on view, and the fact that its principal street elevation with be north facing, but hopefully it’ll work out.

Also where will it be positioned in views from the city centre? Here perhaps?

(VERY rough :o)

Its angle relative to the city will be important in massing terms, especially should it crop up even closer to the Custom House.

@notjim wrote:

You see we differ here, I think a sloped roof would ruin it; what appeals to me, based on this one picture which makes it hard to make a hard and fast judgment, is the modernist logic of the design, the overall regularity, playfully broken by the garden floor and the different windows. It seems a very thoughtful building, I don’t get the U2 tower at all, I just don’t understand it, the Hadid proposal made more sense to me.

I would agree with you.
This doesn’t look at all bad – it’s subtle architecture (not subtle in its size but subtle in the details) whereas the U2 Foster tower is just a golden turd. You can shine it up, but it’s still a turd.

im not that impressed…
modelworks need to lift there game?
if the facade has the same idea as the scott t walk building across the road it cannot look to bad
but the impact on custom house would be interesting to see

@GrahamH wrote:

Also where will it be positioned in views from the city centre? Here perhaps?

I think you’re right Graham, threw this little effort together, by no means perfect !

Not much impact when viewed from O’Connell Bridge, in fact it doesn’t like it will be visible at all really from the southside of the bridge with curvature of the river etc.
***************************************************
Poxy thing didn’t upload, will put it up later.

I think part of the reason it’s so tall is the footprint of the building is quite narrow…..due to the Luas at the back and the conference centre at the front. For maximum space the only way is up, really! I’d be surprised to see it getting permission without a raft of conditions attached.

@GrahamH wrote:

Agreed notjim. Its slab-like quality, whilst somewhat predictable and tried-n-tested, can still make an elegant modern statement in a reinterpreted way. It’s also the neatest solution to incorporating a tower into the NCC development, slotting slimly in to the rear to the width of the centre itself (also I’ve always been a sucker for wafer slab blocks :)). Is this the answer to the Corpo HQ proposal the city never got?

Had to laugh though – knew it was classic Cleary output before even reading the name. Slight concerns as to its integration with the centre, the head-on view, and the fact that its principal street elevation with be north facing, but hopefully it’ll work out.

Also where will it be positioned in views from the city centre? Here perhaps?

(VERY rough :o)

Its angle relative to the city will be important in massing terms, especially should it crop up even closer to the Custom House.

From what i know of the area, this site is significantly further down the quays, and the view from o connell bridge will be more of the thinner side of the building than the wide ‘front’

I don’t really care what’s built down there any more, but won’t this building mean a huge loss of south light for all the residential that’s just been built in behind?

Form of the building has a remarkable similarity to Cork County Hall. Perhaps Shay Cleary got so excited about his rennovation of that building that he thought he built it himself ….. and decided to do it again now in the Dublin docks.

@JoePublic wrote:

I would like to see the planners saying ‘yes, you can build a 35 storey building and reap the huge rewards, but you better give us a world class design first’.

It does actually say that in the Development Plan. It says:

‘In view of the inevitable prominence of a high building it should be of outstanding architectural quality, creating a building which is elegant, contemporary, stylish, and, in terms of form and profile, makes a positive contribution to the existing skyline.’ (Section 15.6.0)

– though I know the docks is independent of the city dev plan.

here’s what I attempted to post earlier …

I also thought that it would not make line of sight at all due to curvature of river etc but turns out it probably would, this little effort has no loop line & no ifsc though, overall i reckon its impact from the west side of butt bridge will be fairly minimal, i could have the scale way off.

Devin agreed on strong similarity to cork county hall and to be honest surprised to hear your not bothered as to what we’ll end up with down there .

@Devin wrote:

It does actually say that in the Development Plan. It says:

‘In view of the inevitable prominence of a high building it should be of outstanding architectural quality, creating a building which is elegant, contemporary, stylish, and, in terms of form and profile, makes a positive contribution to the existing skyline.’ (Section 15.6.0)

– though I know the docks is independent of the city dev plan.

This is a real grey area, because im not really sure how you could actually regulate taste?

Im not a fan of this building from that one pic
The height is definitely not the problem, it just seems too wide
It really needs to slim down, even raising the height to retain some lost floor space

This slab would not sit pretty in dublin

Devin,
regarding loss of south light to the residential component of Spencer Dock… try looking at any other treasury devt of late – they get their value out of the site!!! The residential component of Barrow St had loads of lovely light and a view – but look at it now.
They’ll get their original plan for Spencer Dock yet – there’s plenty of brownfield left yet!

I’ve got to say, I like it. Sure, it may be a bit of a slab, but only in the sense of a classical Miesian skyscraper. And brightened up with the addition of colour. Makes a nice contrast to the squatter, more massive conference centre alongside it.

Two thumbs up.

Very very boring looking skyscraper. Not elegant. Not interesting.
If we’re going to have skyscrapers in the city, can we at least have decent designs.

What!! skyscrapers have been refused in Dublin because of their eleged uglyness. This is the only actually ugly one I’ve seen. If it gets permission at least I’ll understand that the planning laws require something tall to be hidious in order to get permission. What was wrong with the thomas street developement?

@cgcsb wrote:

What was wrong with the thomas street developement?

Too tall apparently and not in the docklands, dont worry new application in for 26 floor building, also likely to be refused

Feeling a bit fed up tonight. Every thread I look up here seems to have a fair share of people saying “eugh! this is ugly!”. Hell, I’ve even said it myself. But all we seem to end up with is either (a) nothing gets built, or (b) the majority that does get built is so harmless and tries so hard not to offend that it veers into extreme blandness.

Maybe there’s an argument to be made for an architectural free-for-all, which I would like to call “BAAA!” – Build Absolutely Anything Anywhere. Sure we may end up with a shedload of crap (which we’re getting anyway), but we should also end up with the odd diamond. No need to compromise your “vision” in order to get things approved, just go for it.

Aah, I’m feeling better already….. :rolleyes:

@massamann wrote:

Feeling a bit fed up tonight. Every thread I look up here seems to have a fair share of people saying “eugh! this is ugly!”. Hell, I’ve even said it myself. But all we seem to end up with is either (a) nothing gets built, or (b) the majority that does get built is so harmless and tries so hard not to offend that it veers into extreme blandness.

But isn’t your point (b) the exact problem with this building? It is so mediocre that it gets the least reaction, and so has the best chance of being built. At least the Foster U2 tower, love it or loath it, provokes a reaction, likewise Gormley’s statue. This building provokes nothing but resignation to settle for lowest common denominator architecture, much like the rest of recent buildings in Dublin.

It isn’t gimmicky, true, but how is it mediocre? I think, based true on only one picture, that it is very handsome, playful and cool: with the possible exception of the real winner of the u2 competition, to my mind it is the best of the tall building proposals we have seen. The digital hub proposals were mediocre, second rate corporate modernist, ditto the tower by the point, the U2 tower I don’t get, dunne tower I quite like, but this, from the one picture, seems like the real thing, something that will make me smile when I see it, the proportions are good, considered, the lines clean and consistent, imposing, the contrast between the depth and width is exciting, but matched by height, the window colours and patterns are playful and compliment the massing. It seems to be everything a tall building should be, the sort of building that people who like tall buildings like, but weirdly, the debate here is the other way, all the people usually advocating tallness for the sake of it, tallness at any cost, are against this, when, it seems to me, this is the only proposed tall building which is unembarrassed by its height.

Well said notjim. If anything, the negative reaction to this building merely serves to reinforce the increasingly tokenistic attitude to high-rise in these threads. Building tall doesn’t just involve ‘iconic’ shiny needles and pinnacles; what is almost exclusively advocated here. Yet when a building of substance comes along, that is a good building which just happens to be tall, it is berated as being mediocre and even ugly.

For once a structure is not being built tall for the sake of height, but because the constrained location makes it desirable and the site can accommodate it. And fundamentally it is a good piece of design.

Mediocre according to some,why do the people who don,t like this building automatically assume everyones in the same boat. I say build the dawn thing, it would be hard if not impossible not to better whats already there.

Not trying to stoke things up with this, just wondering:

For those who don’t like the look of the building, would they prefer that nothing gets built on this site at all, if the alternative is that this is the only design that can get built? Basically, I’m asking you to choose between this or nothing…

I appreciate that this is a hypothetical question, and that it could be applied to any of the proposed builds in Dublin. In fact, why not – lets throw it open: which buildings as presently designed should go ahead, even if you’re not 100% in love with them? Which ones do you think should be built, even if you feel they are a long way from ideal?

I’m betting that much of the criticism on here might be along the lines of “could do better” – but that’s not necessarily the same thing as saying “over my dead body”. Or is it? :confused:

I’m also amazed at the reaction high buildings get in relation to taste considerations, but no-one berates a 300 unit semi-d sprawl ghetto for that reason. Build it, just fucking build it!!!

Totally agree with Alonso, just built the thing, we have far worse looking buildings in the city already and this one isn’t that bad, well proportioned etc.

I think that the render wont look so similar in reality. Look at the sand colour shades in the windows – very bibliotheque nationale, but will they actually look like that in reality? Same goes for the glass.

I think it would be better if there was more variation or premeability in the facade to break up the sheer size of it.

[ATTACH]6521[/ATTACH]

I took this picture today with my phone

For me the UN building here on the left (big green slab) is a really ugly addition to the skyline of manhattan
and bear in mind i think its only 40 odd floors tall
this is only one example
All over the city the big slabs are usually the most detested buildings
Have any of you ever seen the skyline before the Big Box invasion back in the forties and fifties?
A city of tall elegant spires , truly magical

The key to a good looking (tall) building is a decent slenderness ratio

Well paul h we could play this game all day: when I lived in nyc people seemed to like the UN building, regarding it as one of the few good buildings in the upper east side: what they didn’t like was the uninspiring residential towers that dominate that area. The tower everyone loathes is the met life buildings and that is because of its location not its shape, reminding you what committed urbanists new yorkers are.

I agree with you regarding the early beaux art skyscrapers and recommend the lost weekend as a film that really shows them off, but believe that they were the culmination of a mature vernacular decorative style which had developed as a feature of much lower buildings, for eg in the upper west side. However, I think the big wall of modernist boxes along lower 3rd Avenue (3rd I think, it is a while since I left new york) are equally if not more impressive and equally admired locally.

Heres another two pics.Are we getting a bit carried away?Like what are the chances of this even getting planning permission

@notjim wrote:

Well paul h we could play this game all day: when I lived in nyc people seemed to like the UN building, regarding it as one of the few good buildings in the upper east side: what they didn’t like was the uninspiring residential towers that dominate that area. The tower everyone loathes is the met life buildings and that is because of its location not its shape, reminding you what committed urbanists new yorkers are.

I agree with you regarding the early beaux art skyscrapers and recommend the lost weekend as a film that really shows them off, but believe that they were the culmination of a mature vernacular decorative style which had developed as a feature of much lower buildings, for eg in the upper west side. However, I think the big wall of modernist boxes along lower 3rd Avenue (3rd I think, it is a while since I left new york) are equally if not more impressive and equally admired locally.

3rd ave!! Hell No!! only jokin , but it just really boils down to taste
3rd ave midtown and 6th ave midtown, two really corporatey, faceless, soul-less corridors
big rectangular boxes nothing more, in my opinion, than giant filing cabinets
NYC would not be the same without the varied size, shape, quality of skyscrapers spanning over a century, and they all have their place
but , give me a woolworth or a 40 wall st anyday

It’d help if we could see some more pics of the hotel proposal, maybe giving us some perspective as to the scale of it, a tall and slim building is so much more pleasing to the eye

Its about 27 commercial stories tall; i.e. low high rise or high mid rise.

Every morning as I walk down Grosvenor Square one sees the Centre Point Building at the end of the view; it doesn’t destroy the vista but rather makes one appreciate the quality of the square.

Centre point in comparison to this proposal is far from attractive but still has its merits.

It is good to see for the first time a large Irish developer put together a proposal of real quality.

hmmmmmmm, flip it around & what have you got ? this one is 28 stories, albeit with & lightness of touch that its proposed, ahem, sister down the quay might be lacking.

taken from SCA’s proposal for City Quay which i have to say, i liked a lot, lovely scale for that location I thought …
I presume we can include it in the ‘un-built ireland’ section at this stage.

Build the lot I say ! I think such uniformity flanking either side of the river would work well.

Not much between them though is there ! ?

Middle picture looks great but no chance of this being built, An Taisce might even support this one as it could block out U2 tower. Current site is a car park and eye sore.

Is this waiting approval?Looks pretty decent to me,nice and sleek,exactly the type of high rise we need…much prefer this than the hotel.

Yes…but as someone has pointed out here before, like Canary Dwarf beside it, that lovely building would be visable from the Trinity Cricket pitch and therefore would startle the Joyceaholic toffs that we all like to think inhabit that college. It wouldn’t be visable from the other Georgian Squares if its similar in height to the Ulster Bank tower.

The design of the proposed hotel (from the one image I have seen) is mediocre – it looks like Alto Vitro writ large crossed with the redeveloped Cork County Hall. From the looks of it about 5 minutes thought went into it. The SCA proposal for city quay is a much more desireable than this risable design – but since when have Treasury been arbiters of good taste.

I can’t believe that people on this site are calling for it to be built but there seems to be a core group of build any old shite as long as it’s tall brigade out there.

By all means build big but build good as well – we can have and deserve good buildings

The documents are up on http://www.dublincity.ie. Scanning quality of the pictures are really bad (someone buy those poor people a colour scanner for christmas). Particularly interesting are the views from around the city: it will be VERY visible.

Planning reference number is 6469/07 if the link below doesn’t work.

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=6469/07&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=792527%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=Search%20Criteria‘>Search%20Results

difficult to get a full appreciation given the almost invisibility of the proposal in the b/w copies. However, it will be very visible in reality, as it should be. The biggest issue will be that a small portion peeks out from the key view of Georgian Dublin towards Holles st. IGS and An Taisce will go bananas while the rest of us will stare up and wonder what could have been across the Dockland skyline, while acres on the ground remain redundant.

its strange they didn’t take shots from the centre of oconnell st bridge and the next bridge back…

I still the the conference centre looks like a keg of guiness..

Am I the only one who cannot access the pictures on DCC website?, I have located the documents section of the applicatioy but cannot open them?? Any suggestions?

You click on the document to highlight it and then click the “view” button. If that doesn’t work, it may be a pop-up blocker problem.

and switch off your pop-up blocker for the dcc site.

Thanks guys, popup blocker indeed, computer course for me in 2008 I fear.

No wonder DCC receive in so much negative feedback on these kind of proposals, surely it must be basic requirement that the public can see the slides in colur and detail.

It’s pretty big alright, at 157 metres. Quality of images is dreadful as mentioned, I’ve grabbed a couple & tried to outline where necessary.

Its protrusion in to the georgian mile horizon is obviously fairly controversial (see below).
How come this is going through DCC ? I thought that the docklands authority would be handling it, even if it does contravene their own plan.

the buildings either side of the proposal should be brick and not so ugly

the proposal is ok but i would expect they ask for more viewpoints and they choose them

Nope still a monolithic slab. Surely the focal point of Spencer dock should be the Conference Centre itself rather than the supporting hotel.

My main gripe with this is that it is not in keeping with the conference centre and rather seems to ape it. Would it not have been possible to think of something more witty that ties in with the development as a whole e.g. an extention of the ’tilted keg of guinness’ motif into the hotel building rather than just a moronic ‘look at me i’m a slab’?

@Rory W wrote:

Nope still a monolithic slab. Surely the focal point of Spencer dock should be the Conference Centre itself rather than the supporting hotel.

My main gripe with this is that it is not in keeping with the conference centre and rather seems to ape it. Would it not have been possible to think of something more witty that ties in with the development as a whole e.g. an extention of the ’tilted keg of guinness’ motif into the hotel building rather than just a moronic ‘look at me i’m a slab’?

The original plans for Spencer Dock looked much better from the river front, unfortunately these were shot down. We are now left with the usual Irish solution of retro fitting buildings onto a site. I dont think the problem is with the conference centre or the hotel proposal but rather with the other buildings such as PWC building.

@CC105 wrote:

The original plans for Spencer Dock looked much better from the river front, unfortunately these were shot down. We are now left with the usual Irish solution of retro fitting buildings onto a site. I dont think the problem is with the conference centre or the hotel proposal but rather with the other buildings such as PWC building.

No the original plans were shockingly bad, the current plans aren’t the best but there was no glory with the originals

I think they complement each other … not sure how i’d feel about the hotel without the conference centre cushioning it from the river however.

The original high rise effort proposed for spencer dock isn’t worth talking about.

The tower idea is good as it adds variation to the whole complex and the quays, but I don’t think it looks well directly at the back of the NCC. Two different buildings jammed together doesn’t work. Besides we’re gonna lose that kinda Art Deco-esque rear. Maybe it’s riding it; some subliminal thinking by the architects.

I wouldn’t worry about it’s visual intrusion into the Georgian streets, It is far more important to preserve these old buildings themselves, rather than gut them, or let them fall into disrepair only to replace them with a hotch potch pastiche. BTW it’s impact is minimal in the image.

I agree GregF the arguement about impact on the Georgian mile was always nonsensical. How can a city be expected to grow and develop when this type of restriction is put on it. Your point is well made….focus on the repair and preservation of the buildings and streetscapes themselves.

I like the hotelbut its doesnt seems to have a proper context stuck behind the NCC like that.

@StephenC wrote:

I agree GregF the arguement about impact on the Georgian mile was always nonsensical.

For the record, not my argument ! I’m just suggesting we’re likely to hear that type of guff from certain third parties.

Ah hang on just a second now – how can you say that an enormous slab tower block will not have a potentially injurous impact on the most significant streetscape in the city? As we know, this streetscape is increasngly deemed to possess the qualities of a World Heritage Site in terms of its sheer scale and completeness – it is a setting of breath-taking quality and uniqueness.

To have a major intervention such as this tower poking its head substantially in the vista as depicted is of significant concern. Notably the image is taken in the middle of the road, not along the right-hand pavement where it comes entirely into view, and stays in view as you walk northwards, including over Merrion Square – albeit diminishing. It changes everything forever – i.e. at present there isn’t a single modern intervention visible in this area (ESB glaringly aside). Once that changes, there’s no going back and that scene is gone for good.

Also that’s a bizarre statement to make Stephen and Greg regarding focussing on actual fabric and streetscapes – so mini-Manhattan in the Liberties looking down the quays wouldn’t matter as long as the fabric of the quays is in good nick? We all know well that urban planning encompasses a lot more than the immediate or the local. And in any event, what’s the point in preserving fabric if the setting is lost? Obviously there is merit, but in a case of such enormity such as this, the wider picture comes into play.

I appreciate it’s easy to fall into a mindset of the Georgian Mile being an ‘old argument’, something that belongs to the 1970s and earlier. But it’s just as pertinent today as it ever was, and as we have seen with City Hall, Hugh Lane (in my view anyway), The Clarence and myriad other cases around the city, it’s all too easy to assume that in these flagship sensitive cases best practice will follow through, or that proposed developments such as this are by definition a positive contribution to the city. This clearly is not always the case.

As I have said, I like this tower (if not its bizzare positioning behind the NCC) – indeed others here don’t like it and probably wouldn’t object to an intrusion on the Mile – but its location raises serious doubts in my mind purely going on the above render. Further details are needed.

Graham, I actually agree about the Hugh Lane extension, which is rather clunky and has never really been remarked upon. The sentiment was right and it’s been a marvellous addition to the interior but externally, it doesn’t work so well. Just wondering what your thoughts on it were. Also, what was your issue with City Hall?

I would also have to query the Georgian Mile argument – does this mean we can never redevelop anything in that line either North or South of any height. To me, that seems rather arbitrary.

In saying that, some more renders are obviously important because the one put forward so far deliberately makes the hotel appear as if it’s blended in to the existing street scape. As you said, if you’re on the east side of the street, it could look quite different.

Hi kefu. Yes the Hugh Lane extension was well – if admittedly exasperatedly – covered on the Parnell Square thread if you want a look. Sorry City Hall referred to Robocop and attendant plaza – not the 18th century building lol. Damn that Cooley and his exquisite notions!

@kefu wrote:

I would also have to query the Georgian Mile argument – does this mean we can never redevelop anything in that line either North or South of any height. To me, that seems rather arbitrary.

Frankly, yes. On that extreme scale. I don’t see it as a major problem to be honest – the potential areas for highrise development are pretty limited to either end of the Mile. To the south are Victorian suburbs, to the north is a reasonably narrow strip of Docklands. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that the relevant areas in Docklands be set aside as low/medium rise. Indeed this ought to have been built into the masterplan for Docklands from Day 1 – I’m surprised it wasn’t. And given this is pretty much the last site to be developed here, I find it unfortunate we were so close to escaping a major intrusion until the very last minute. Especially on what seems to be a rather compromised site.

However, to clarify, I do agree that it would be unreasonable that the city be constrained by the Mile – obviously minor intrusions are acceptable and possibly even desirable: fleeting glimpses of local landmarks and distant structures are after all what inject a city with interest and vitality. But something as arrogantly invasive as the NCC tower is in a completely different league. Far from being a glimpse, it’s essentially become part of the Georgian streetscape from what can be made out above.

To be honest, my concern isn’t the impact on an historic streetscape or a Georgian streetscape, or a Georgian construct and all the loaded meaning that comes with that term. Purely on an objective basis, to be able to stand in a virtually intact townscape of such enormous scale without the slightest signifcant later intrusion is one of the great wonders of this part of Dublin. Forget all the old arguments – heck call them all terraced barns if you want – but as a composition these houses are spectacular in scale/beauty/arrogance/design/pretension/imitation and ought to be preserved as such as far as is practicable in their original setting. It’s incredible that you can still stand on the Mile and be looking at pretty much the same scene as you would have 200 years ago. That’s pretty special for a such a vast area of urban land. Especially in this country.

@GrahamH wrote:

Purely on an objective basis, to be able to stand in a virtually intact townscape of such enormous scale without the slightest signifcant later intrusion is one of the great wonders of this part of Dublin.

I take your point Graham & its well made, but really the potential area for incursions in to the vista of the mile covers a large tract of the city.

Perhaps whats surprising, is that it’s a structure on the north side of the river, a considerable distance, that may finally break the parapet. Had this been a more conventional proposal (by Irish standards) for a 120m structure, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. However, given the ratios, such dimensions are unworkable for Cleary’s proposal imo.

The point being though that while it takes 157 metres & 35 stories to have a significant impact from the north side, a fairly modest 8 – 10 story within the vista’s frame on the southside is also likely to break the line.

The intrusion of this tower & its alignment are unfortunate, but I suppose I saw an incursion at some stage as inevitable. Not that it has to be of course ! but obviously fairly draconian planning restrictions, covering a large tract of the city, are required if this is not to be the case.

Is this with DCC or can the DDDA just rubber stamp it through ?

Its been lodged with DCC

Graham – regarding your question yesterday the proposed hotel will have 427 standard rooms and 30 suite/duplexes.

Aha! Thank you sir 🙂

I don’t think the area affected by a restriction would be that wide Peter. We’re only talking the view down the Mile here – by the time you get to Merrion Square most things have disappeared from view, even 30ish storeys. And in any event any minor breach by then doesn’t matter – there’s a lot more going on on the square to be able to absorb such an intrusion. But on the Mile, where the singular focus is its vain spectacular self, there’s little question in my mind that that ought to be preserved where absolutely possible, and that only involves a cheese-triangular ‘shadow’ extending out from Holles Street with a relatively narrow focus over the northern Docklands to a limited depth.

I agree there’s been too much blithering over the years about protecting Georgian areas from this type of scenario (though frankly most of it generated and blown out of proportion by pro-dev types) – but there’s pretty much nowhere in Dublin that is deserving of the level of protection of this streetscape. It’s ironic that it is so important, and has always been there, that most of us have actually forgotton about it, presuming it to always remain the same.

Clearly some want that changed…!

ah the toss up, you see I want this ;

but not this

The north quay front needs such a solid, uncompromising intervention to save it from itself, simplicity on an appropriate scale; a welcome break from the myriad of nauseating granite, glaze & sun grill laden tat – complete with an all singing, dancing conference centre, that varies the format, vegas style, solely to save the passer by from descending in to slumber.

Unfortunately there is no middle ground, its a simple yes or no to Shay Cleary’s hotel, or at least it should be. The danger is that DCC will shovel stories off the top, destroy the proportions, save the mile & leave the docklands with a flatulent stump.

I concede that in the context of the mile, allowing this proposal to go ahead constitutes a precedent with beginning & end, i.e. it wont matter much what projects in to the mile’s vista thereafter.

I can’t make up my mind.

It will be reduced in height and we’ll end up with a stumpy, wide-ass slab of mediocre-looking bollox — exactly what DDDA’s-ville doesn’t need.

For its width, it’s current height is justifiable (barely). I’m guessing it would have to be reduced to 20 floors (if not lower) for it not to be visible from the Mile.

If it is reduced in height, it will only make the Docklands look even more ridiculous than it already does.

I’m torn with this one. The tower would create a fantastic frame for our new, swanky bridge and would certainly add greatly to our new, modern vista down the Liffey. But we really need to see more renders from Fitzwilliam – none of this vague, b&w tat. I do assume that the original PDF contained full res/colour images. Why haven’t they been posted here?

Either build it at 32+ floors or build it at 8-10 floors so that it doesn’t interfere with the NCC.

edit. Just to clarify, I’m just as concerned about the view down Fitzwilliam as the rest of you. I’d like to see more renders.

Reduced to 20 floors

Reduced to 20 floors

There are full colour ones in the file

@jdivision wrote:

There are full colour ones in the file

Have you a link? The PDF I’m looking at has only b&w pics…

@Morlan wrote:

Reduced to 20 floors

Reduced to 20 floors

Looks stupid tbh. Either build it as a skyscraper or dont build it at all. God knows the docklands already looks stupid as it is. I say just build the fing thing and let people see that hghrise is not a bad thing. Dublin could be so much more then what it is now except for the NIMBYism.

20 floor version reminds me of Hawkins House, the mile view is way over rated, get it built and if
it is that modern looking it should enhance the Georgian street scape. People who hate it will look to merrion square wishing the whole city could be free of new builds like this one and people who like it will be pleased they can see some of it over the older buildings.:D

20 floors looks awful so we’re pretty much guaranteed that’s what we’ll get. I’m so tired of the Georgian mile. The only vista worth saving is from the Baggot street junction towards the mountains. The Fitzwilliam Lr / Merrion square end is punctured by the ESB and framed by a non-Georgian Hospital. ie already greatly compromised by later interventions. Modern buildings do not lessen the old. Only bad ones do.

Doubt the top will be chopped off,what sort of record have we got in doing that,I think it will either get permission or not.I really hope it does cause the odd development like this might actually save the docklands.

George’s Quay – a taller more slender more attractive development was refused after opposition from the Georgian Mile brigade. The developers went ahead and built the squat little dumpling we have now, as they already had a permission for it. I think that was the case anyway. More knowledgeable contributors may know better

True that we got George’s Quay the way it is because of the existance of the 10 year permission. The 20 storey version looks far worse than the 32 storey (even though I think that was a pile of shite as well). No problem with the height issue myself just think the design should be better and should defer to the NCC. I’m not overly hung up on the view from the Georgian mile to be honest as I dont see it as a major intrusion (it would be if it were being built in say Fenian Street. Given that tall buildings can be seen from many KMs away I dont think the city can afford to get overly hung up on views.

Yes you can see Hawkins House from TCD but unless you are making a historic film does it really detract so much from its environs?????

Firstly, I was under the impression that the DDDA don’t need planning permission from the Council.. Am I wrong?
Secondly, I was walking past Trinity this morning and the view of the buildings beyond the cricket pitches don’t take away from the campus itself. Canary Dwarf doesn’t look awful from this perspective actually.

With regards to the slab.. the view south along the mile towards the mountains has always been the direction of the vista for me. It’s not like we are ending up with this, to be fair:

@fergalr wrote:

………………With regards to the slab.. the view south along the mile towards the mountains has always been the direction of the vista for me. It’s not like we are ending up with this, to be fair:

What are you on about?
what a truly quintessential, spellbinding, atmospheric ,new york vista that is

Great shot Paul, and whats that I see sunlight and people on a street where there are tall buildings, god our councillors could do with some time in NY to see how it works.

Last time I checked the MetLife building consistently wins the most despised building in Manhattan. It’s their Hawkins House.

Per todays Sunday Times the DDDA have objected to this hotel on grounds of height and location, height issue is that it exceeds U2 tower and watch tower, strange they apper to think it could be located somewhere else in Spencer Dock. This seems to indicate that their new highrise strategy for docklands will have a cap on height below that of the u2 tower

so with the DDDA themselves objecting to this, approval would seem unlikely ?

I’d have thought the developer would have broached this with them & attempted to proceed with the DDDA on side, maybe they did & just weren’t getting anywhere.

Presumably DDDA said no in pre-app consultations so they went via Dublin City Council. Refreshing to see that after saying they would allow higher rise buildings the DDDA is still addicted to the twin gates approach. :rolleyes:

@kefu wrote:

Last time I checked the MetLife building consistently wins the most despised building in Manhattan. It’s their Hawkins House.

That was my understanding too.

It’s been said to me that DDDA really had to object, if only on procedural grounds, as the development isn’t in compliance with the relevant planning scheme.

Now if the development had been submitted to DDDA, it could just have varied the scheme to suit the proposal, right? (See U2 Tower for previous example. Sorry, that should say ‘examples’, as I strongly suspect that the new U2 design will require an amemdment to the relevant scheme on that side of the river. Call it a formality.)

Actually the Sunday Times article said was that the DDDA were going to object in the belief that the hotel was only going to operate up to the 17th floor and it was going to be apartments in the levels above that (given that there is seperate access to the18th floor and above.

the plot thickens methinks

I’m glad this was rejected, if it has. It would have looked bloody horrible overall. Two different buildings sandwiched together just didn’t work.

The economics of Manchsester’s Beetham Tower are a Hilton Hotel on floors 1-23 and apartments from 24 – 48. And while it looks relatively fresh and sparkly now, Manchester has its share of Hawkins House-types lurking in the city centre.

Is that the Beecham’s Tower, (named after the conductor Thomas Beecham)

@GregF wrote:

Is that the Beecham’s Tower, (named after the conductor Thomas Beecham)

I’m certain it’s not.

http://www.thebeethamorganization.com/plugins/content/content.php?recent.5

Dermot Desmond, An T & DDDA among objectors so far it seems.

@Indo ‘property plus’ like wrote:

DESMOND OBJECTS TO
SPENCER DOCK HOTEL

Accommodation is an integral part of any
conference centre so Treasury Holding’s
proposal for a 35-storey five star Ritz
Carlton hotel on its Spencer Dock site in
Dublin’s docklands is a valuable facility
for visitors. It is also likely to have the
city and docklands authorities drooling at
the thoughts of such a prestigious
hotel name for what was formerly a
derelict area of the capital.
But Dermot Desmond, who previously
unsuccessfully promoted an
Ecosphere development in the dock
area of George’s dock in the nearby
International Financial Services
Centre, has objected.
So too has An Taisce. But that is
nothing new to Treasury. It has been
fighting planning battles with Michael
Smith, a former chairman of this body,
for many years. Possibly their most
notorious dispute was over the redevelopment
of the Westin Hotel in
Dublin which went all the way to the
Supreme Court and the Michael
Smith-formed objection company was
wound up, unable to pay its legal bills
related to the case. In addition,
Dermot Desmond also previously funded
an expensive objection to architect
Kevin Roche’s design of the Spencer
Dock scheme. However, a decision on
the case could be made shortly by the
Dublin Docklands Development
Authority which is also carrying out a
review of the site density there which
currently stands at a very low 3:1 for
such a prime site. Anywhere else in
the world, a major port such as ours
would have plenty of high-rise and
high-density schemes.
Meanwhile, Singapore based Richard
Barrett, who heads up Treasury in
China, believes that there is ridiculous
over democratisation of the planning
process here. “We don’t have any sites
that did not take us 10 years to develop.
It’s tortuous and an impediment to
society,” he claimed adding that two
objections to the Ritz Carlton hotel in
Powerscourt, Enniskerry were from
people based in New York.

DCC issued a request for additional information – some of the more noteworthy listed below.

They rightly criticise the colouring book quality of the visual imagery. However they seem to be more concerned with the impact on Parliament Square with no mention of the mile …

Whatever about not allowing incursions in to the mile’s skyline, surely applying the same policy to the square’s horizon, given its breadth & scope, is overly restrictive.

1. Visual Impact: Having regard to the scale and height (152m) of the proposed building and its potential impact on the skyline of the city the applicant is requested to submit additional visual imagery of the proposed development to sufficiently allow the Planning Authority assesses the visual impact and quality of the proposal. These should include the following (i) Additional photomontages of the proposed development from all those specific chosen points in the submitted visual impact study. The quality of all images should be of a standard comparable to that of the print resolution production of an architectural magazine. (ii) 3-D animation visualisation of the proposed project. (iii) Photomonages of the proposed development from Parliament Square in Trinity College Dublin. (iv) Computer generated imagery of the city from the proposed skybar on the 35th floor. (v) Appropriate night time visual imagery. Note: The applicant is advised to note that the submitted images are of a poor quality and either does not do justice to the proposed design and/or give rise to concern about the potential visual impact of the proposed development.

3. Architecture and Design: (i) Physical Connection with National Conference Centre The applicant is requested to justify the proposed access relationship between the hotel and the NCC. The applicant is also requested to explore alternative design solutions that better reflect and respect the scale of the NCC and the proposed hotel. Notwithstanding the proposed direct access to National Conference Centre at second and third floor the Planning Authority has concerns regarding the appropriateness of the scale of the functional and architectural relationship between the proposed hotel and the National Conference Centre. Note: The applicant has made a strong argument in support of the scale of the proposed hotel on the grounds that it is self evidentially appropriately located directly adjoining and interconnected to the National Conference Centre. The submitted plans at 2nd and 3rd floor however show very modest and restricted internal functional access arrangements. (ii) Winter Garden Bar 35th Floor The applicant is requested to justify the design, layout, and use of the proposed winter garden at the 35th floor, and where feasible amend to provide greater clarity of both public access intent, use and architectural impact. The proposed hotel shows a 35th Floor Winter Garden/Bar. This includes a fitness centre, function room, meeting rooms, and various supporting ancillary services, including toilets, stores, changing facilities etc. The Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposed fractured internal layout with its multiplicity of competing rooms and functions of limited scale or interest fails to sufficiently maximise or understand the potential of this as accessible public space. Having regard to the above the applicant is requested to clarify their intention with respect to the degree of public access to the proposed upper floors. In this regard, the applicant is requested to suitably amend the design where appropriate to ensure legible public access. Note: The 35th floor of any building, let alone one in Dublin, has the potential to provide an iconic piece of pubic accessible space affording dramatic and unparalleled views of the city, in effect a new public space in the sky. Whilst the Planning Authority recognises the potential of the winter garden area, it is nevertheless strongly of the opinion that a building of this scale and height which will necessarily dramatically impact on the skyline of a relatively low rise city has a responsibility to infuse a greater civic spirited and public accessible dimension into the upper floor(s). (iii) Lift Core Accessibility The Planning Authority has a number of concerns regarding the proposed internal arrangement for lift core accessibility in the proposed hotel. There are two issues of note here. Firstly it is unclear from the submitted drawings and/or written statement whether or how the applicant proposes to ensure reasonable and continued public accessibility to the upper floor winter garden space and bar. As discussed above, the accessibility of the upper floor for public use this is fundamental in assessing the overall merits of the proposal. The applicant should thus be requested to clarify their intentions in this regard. Secondly the submitted designs would seem to indicate a separation of use between the lower and upper hotel suites with regard to the proposed lift core access. The applicant is requested to clarify the rational of their intentions in this regard. (iv) Lower Ground Floors The applicant is requested to clarify the architectural design intent informing the proposed kitchen use at the second floor level, in particular how it is intended to treat the skin of the glazing as it faces onto Mayor Street. Note: The Planning Authority is of the opinion that a building of this scale (152m) should demonstrate a clear and unambiguous but ambitious intent with regard to the visual impact of the lower ground floors. There are reservations about the visual impact of the proposed location for the kitchens to serve the hotel building. These are shown at the 2nd floor level and thus potentially have a very strong visual relationship with the streetscape. (v) Material Finishes Having regard to the height (152m) and scale of the proposed development and the innovativeness of the proposed material finishes it is considered reasonable that further detailed information be requested with respect to a number of issues pertaining to architectural design in particular material finishes and architectural detail that require greater specification, clarification or more detailed visual presentation than that presented in the NCC HOTEL TOWER Facade Report (i) The applicant is thus requested to submit visual examples of where the proposed primary external material finish has been successfully executed. The images shall be of a quality of architectural magazine print. (ii) In this regard the applicant is requested to submit images that specify the comparable climatic differences or otherwise between building(s) shown in any imagery and the site of the current proposed development. (iii) The applicant is requested to submit additional mitigation measures that may be necessary to prevent deterioration and/or accelerated climatic and/or pollution staining. (iv) The applicant is requested to address the life cycle of the proposed material in the context of an Irish climate including specifically issues of potential pollution staining, water runs, oxidisation etc. A maintenance plan should also be submitted. Note: The submitted NCC HOTEL TOWER Facade Report whilst outlining in considerable detail various potential facade options (glazing, mesh etc) would appear to be non-specific as to its preferred or exact choices. The booklet itself acknowledges that the sketchbook provides feedback to the concepts produced and is intended to illustrate the appearance, feasibility and performance of the different components of the facade and that a variety of choices are given as to potential solutions to various elements in the facade.

@Indo Property Plus wrote:

DESMOND OBJECTS TO SPENCER DOCK HOTEL

Accommodation is an integral part of any conference centre so Treasury Holding’s proposal for a 35-storey five star Ritz Carlton hotel on its Spencer Dock site in Dublin’s docklands is a valuable facility for visitors. It is also likely to have the city and docklands authorities drooling at the thoughts of such a prestigious hotel name for what was formerly a derelict area of the capital.

But Dermot Desmond, who previously unsuccessfully promoted an Ecosphere development in the dock
area of George’s dock in the nearby International Financial Services Centre, has objected. So too has An Taisce. But that is nothing new to Treasury. It has been fighting planning battles with Michael Smith, a former chairman of this body, for many years. Possibly their most notorious dispute was over the redevelopment
of the Westin Hotel in Dublin which went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Michael Smith-formed objection company was wound up, unable to pay its legal bills related to the case.

In addition, Dermot Desmond also previously funded an expensive objection to architect Kevin Roche’s design of the Spencer Dock scheme. However, a decision on the case could be made shortly by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority which is also carrying out a review of the site density there which currently stands at a very low 3:1 for such a prime site. Anywhere else in the world, a major port such as ours would have plenty of high-rise and high-density schemes.

Meanwhile, Singapore based Richard Barrett, who heads up Treasury in China, believes that there is ridiculous
over democratisation of the planning process here. “We don’t have any sites that did not take us 10 years to develop. It’s tortuous and an impediment to society,” he claimed adding that two objections to the Ritz Carlton hotel in Powerscourt, Enniskerry were from people based in New York.

Lol. Such Guff. Badly written, poorly informed PR guff.
@Indo Property Plus wrote:

However, a decision on the case could be made shortly by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority

Really? And I thought that the application had been made out to DCC – to which the DDDA has filed an 11 page objection! Lol. last time I looked there are about 18 objections in total

In getting the boot into that notorious anti-development sort, Dermot Desmond, happily the hack also seems to have omitted that were it not for DD approaching CJ Haughey in the mid-80s, there would not be an IFSC or a DDDA.

Finally I really like the way the hack seems to have no sense of irony whatsoever when quoting “Singapore based Richard Barrett” giving out about objections filed from NYC over a dev in Wicklow.

Who said that the Indo Property section is “intellectual pornography” cos it sure aint intellectual anyway :p

Tis the usual indo property shite neatly disguised as a glossy mag. That particular contradictory & inaccurate ‘xpose’ came from Cliodhna O’Donoghue in her new column entitled ‘Behind Closed Doors’ … plenty more where that came from i’d suggest.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

That particular contradictory & inaccurate ‘xpose’ came from Cliodhna O’Donoghue … plenty more where that came from i’d suggest.

Considering she’s the editor (!), I suspect you might be right. Excellent editorial standards :rolleyes:

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

That particular contradictory & inaccurate ‘xpose’ came from Cliodhna O’Donoghue in her new column entitled ‘Behind Closed Doors’ … plenty more where that came from i’d suggest.

Behind Closed Doors? Would those be the doors of perception?

@hutton wrote:

Considering she’s the editor (!), I suspect you might be right. Excellent editorial standards :rolleyes:

She’s not actually, Yvonne Hogan is.

@jdivision wrote:

She’s not actually, Yvonne Hogan is.

She must have moved down the food chain so, as she is very definately listed in 2005 as “Cliodhna O’Donoghue. , Property Editor, The Irish Independent” – or so Google would have one to believe.
Can you throw any further light on this, as you seem to know your newspaper people quite well 🙂

@hutton wrote:

She must have moved down the food chain so…

How condascending. She retired last year

@jdivision wrote:

How condascending

I presume you are taking the piss!

@jdivision wrote:

How condascending

@hutton wrote:

I presume you are taking the piss!

Now I know you were taking the piss – https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3886

Shame I cant say her standards have dropped as they were fairly shite to begin with. A real loss to the world of journalism, her retiriement 🙁

Cliodhna broke some good stories in her time

Why are you being so condascening about her. She wrote an opionion that was pro-Treasury, is that it? Johnny and Richard in Treasury were amongst her best contacts I would think given how many stories linked with them that she broke.

I do find it condascending to say somebody “moved down the food chain”

@jdivision wrote:

Cliodhna broke some good stories in her time

Why are you being so condascening about her. She wrote an opionion that was pro-Treasury, is that it? Johnny and Richard in Treasury were amongst her best contacts I would think given how many stories linked with them that she broke.

I do find it condascending to say somebody “moved down the food chain”

😮

Its not that she wrote a pro-Treasury article, its that her piece was, well, factually bankrupt.

The original story at the head of this thread is a perfectly fine piece of journalism; its pro-Treasury in that it announces the proposal – yet it doesn’t put the boot in to critics of the scheme. Thats fine in that a journalist is under some obligation to provide friendly coverage so as not to bite the hand that feeds him/ her.

O’Donoghue’s piece on the other hand masqueraded as quasi-analytical, while sticking the boot into critics yet not giving them a right of reply. Apart from very basic facts being mis-reported, ie the application made out to DCC with the DDDA lobbing in an objection, I return to my point as to the fact that were it not for DD that area simply wouldnt exist. Were a reader unaware of the situation to read the piece, they would come away seriously misinformed. That she didn’t even bother to get/ convey the other side of this coin, and instead ripped into reputations, which is factually wrong, is imo a crass badly written piece of guff pretending to be journalism….If she’s going to put the boot into others in a publication that has a 100,000+ readership, then surely she should be able to take some flak on a site such as this, which tends to have a specialised limited readership.

I suggest that O’Donoghue should go back and study as an underling of the journalist who wrote the story at the head of this thread 🙂

@hutton wrote:

I suggest that O’Donoghue should go back and study as an underling of the journalist who wrote the story at the head of this thread 🙂

Eh that’s a press release:) Anyway, before we go around in circles, the piece was an opinion snippet in a column she does. It doesn’t have to be balanced because it’s her opinion. If it was an article I would hope it would have dealt with issues you raised.

@jdivision wrote:

Eh that’s a press release:)

I thought that might amuse you alright

@jdivision wrote:

Anyway, before we go around in circles, the piece was an opinion snippet in a column she does. It doesn’t have to be balanced because it’s her opinion. If it was an article I would hope it would have dealt with issues you raised.

Fair enough – I think weve probably established some common ground + agree to disagee on other points… Btw “snippet” is a most apt phrase considering it really was a bitchy snipers shot at other peoples reputations 🙂

@jdivision wrote:

Cliodhna broke some good stories in her time

Hmmmm her name does ring a bell – did she break the belusconi / caravaggio story for the Indo a few years back? if so i’m with hutton 😉

Don’t think so Paul. What people aren’t aware of also is that the Indo sometimes put bylines on stories that the journalists didn’t actually write so it mightn’t have been her who wrote that housing piece at all.

does anybody know when the completion date is for the conference centre? I know they have a booking for 2011 but will it open before then?

September 2010

thanks. that’s reliatively soon just over two years

@cgcsb wrote:

thanks. that’s reliatively soon just over two years

Nope – – by then it will be over a decade since this current design was first displayed, god only knows when a conference centre for dublin was first mooted!

i think he was referring to the construction timetable rather than the planning

yes considering it only began construction in 2007. There seems to be a void or rather lack of information on the internet about this project

@cgcsb wrote:

does anybody know when the completion date is for the conference centre? I know they have a booking for 2011 but will it open before then?

Just thought I’d post up a snap of the current state of construction. The framework for the glass drum is starting to take shape.

It doesn’t strike me as the most ecological building going up in Dublin at the moment, but it should be impressive. All the renders I’ve seen are a bit vague about how the glazed entrance joins the bottom of the drum. If there’s not some clear design break here, surely it’s going to compromise the purity of the concept big time.

its not a drum its a keg of guniness that floated down the liffey the right way without a barge and it got beached here

@gunter wrote:

It doesn’t strike me as the most ecological building going up in Dublin at the moment,

Its supposed to be the first (in Ireland) to use only recycled cement or some such … thanks for pic !

Ecocem – Concrete made with leftover slag from blast furnaces. I think the stuff has been around for a while now but the Conference centre is the first to use carbon neutral concrete.

I didnt like it when I first saw the design and I still dont like it. In fact I think its awful.

The latest appearance.

God I hate PWC’s HQ, Riverside One is a much nicer job.

starting to look good:)

Standing in front of it, the NCC is a big beast of a thing!

Have you taken the river taxi, it gives a great view of this and of the river; the only problem is it leaves you on the wrong side of the river relative to where you were.

Two things about the NCC:

1) Isn’t it a bit worrying that they need to put in all that extra support, the rusty bits, will the , um, glass, really provide that much extra support.
2) What are those shafts being erected behind, are they part of the NCC in which case where will the hotel go, or are they part of the hotel, in which case, aren’t they taking something of a punt on the planning permission.

i very much doubt it’s part of that highrise hotel. if it was, we’d never hear the end of it. according to a recent article, dubliners don’t want this sort of thing.

Looks good so far but were not gonna know for certain till the facade/cladding appears,i hope its not too dark,in fairness the hotel propasal was atrocious,it needs something sleeker,maybe the same width as the barrel rising from behind.

The cladding is already up the sides of the 2 cores at the front.:)

New image of the convention centre hotel on Treasury website BTW.
Any word on whether this is going ahead??
Also new images of Barrow street office developement & another proposed highrise for Spencer Dock for all highrise enthusiast

Haven’t said much here in a long while….I do have it on good authority that the hotel at the Conference Centre is to be a Ritz-Carlton!! And they(Ritz-Carlton) are keen to see this building built as a tall, landmark structure within the Docklands/Dublin.

A render I hadnt seen before,

Its nice.

@electrolyte wrote:

Haven’t said much here in a long while….I do have it on good authority that the hotel at the Conference Centre is to be a Ritz-Carlton!! And they(Ritz-Carlton) are keen to see this building built as a tall, landmark structure within the Docklands/Dublin.

It’s been in the papers already, the Ritz Carlton in Powerscourt was part of the same deal

ihateawake, that render’s on Treasury’s website

@jdivision wrote:

ihateawake, that render’s on Treasury’s website

meh, not exactly one of my regulars…
When is the decision on this expected? After having recieved “more information”, and will construction be immediate?

Found this on Sisk’s website for those who are interested
http://www.sisk.ie/sisk/sisk/www/default.asp?magpage=28&id=274&wid=2.It’s a bit out of date, but hey.

That’s a bit presumptuous, isn’t it?

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

That’s a bit presumptuous, isn’t it?

Decided to adopt some constructive optimism 😉

There’s definately something being built in behind the conference centre, it looks like it’ll be a bit of a squeeeze, unless it actually is the hotel!

Is it not possible to just stop at a certain height pending the planning decision? I was also wondering, its probably not possible now considering the tower (nice to be able to use the word in its proper context), but was there ever a helipad planned on the ncc? Is there one based on a building anywhere in dublin?… A useless fact I wish to know.

@ihateawake wrote:

Is it not possible to just stop at a certain height pending the planning decision

*scratches head, amidst vague memories*

Oh yes – you mean like the Central Bank? 🙂

@Bago wrote:

There’s definately something being built in behind the conference centre, it looks like it’ll be a bit of a squeeeze, unless it actually is the hotel!

I’d hazard a guess and say that it’s the rear lift and service cores – don’t think the project could cope with just the front ones

Yeah, they’re definitely building a hotel on site but which one? Maybe they’re starting with the one they’ve already got permission for and then will modify if they get new permission for the taller version.

The latest grant / certificate of exemption by the DDDA is for 13 floors (DD374) and they’ve gone for modifications on that under DD493.

The FI on the tall slab proposal (planning ref: 6469/07) was received on the 24th June and apparently the Council’s decision is due on the 24th July so we’ll know in a few days time. The FI decision included a lot of stuff to overcome though…

national conference centre website. http://www.theccd.ie/

Few pics of ncc and liam carrolls adjacent development beside spencer dock.And how it will look after completed.

I hadn’t seen renders of that Liam Carroll scheme before.

There’s not a lot wrong with that. Sharp, good scale, nice variety, throws a few shapes.

There’s no way you’re goin’ to improve that by piling 20 storey towers into the river in front of it.

I like these, I have been noticing this, corporate modernist with, well-chosen, extra angles, as the contemporary style for non-landmark buildings here in New York city.

Two more developments planned by Treasury, a corporate highrise on Spencer dock and an office building on North Wall Quay.

I do like the the tall building on the left, it has a nice shape

@cgcsb wrote:

I do like the the tall building on the left, it has a nice shape

If you refer to this one:

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

As well as being of arbitrary shape and height and bulbous lumpen form, devoid of contextual consciousness, it’s clearly a bum note in the rhythm of the Quay front. This would be like Les Dawson playing the piano, only not funny.

Did we not have this conversation before?

no don’t believe we’ve had this conversation before. yes I’m talking about that one. The other one is awful it’s all blocky and stubby. Buildings in the Docks should be taller if the DDDA is serious about combating urban sprawl. Would you be the type of person that favours something like the National Conference Center hotel? a shoe box shape?

@cgcsb wrote:

no don’t believe we’ve had this conversation before. yes I’m talking about that one. The other one is awful it’s all blocky and stubby. Buildings in the Docks should be taller if

We have had this conversation before; it had its own thread.

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=7010

I think it is a terrible building; I have no understanding of how anyone could like this and dislike the NCC proposal and I find it really weird that this weirdness is so particularly prevalent among the high-rise boasters, who you’d expect to have well developed tastes in high-rise buildings.

Yea i like the shape and design of the liam carrolls building.it looks great!! carroll has a big site, plenty a room for more high rises if the architecture of the low rise building is anything to go by i cant wait to see the plans he has for the rest of his site.:D

We all like to see high rises built in the docks!! But would we rather see high rises built that doesnt agree with everyone or none built at all….!!!? The point is no matter what architects design there always going to be a difference of opinion. I think the spencer dock high rise building is OK, hopefully it might get a few nip tucks but in general i rather see it built than another low rise building

Why? What is the inherent superiority of high-rise (apart from height)? The DDDA has adopted a mid-rise strategy, which is generally correct, although I too find the Spencer Dock stuff stodgy and lumpen, which is not an argument for high-rise but better-quality mid-rise (and no more glass, PLEASE). When I was 121/2 or so (well, in the early 60s), I found high-rise exciting, but it’s been downhill – or down-storey – ever since. It’s become essentially a contest in penis size (look how TALL mine is) and makes no contibution to either higher density (a different argument entirely) or an improved design aesthetic. The odd ‘landmark’ high-rise is OK, but a high-rise city, with a few exceptions, is essentially not about human beings but about big business and megalomania.

@cgcsb wrote:

Would you be the type of person that favours something like the National Conference Center hotel? a shoe box shape?

Sorry, I was distracted there by having to do a bit of work.

‘Shoe box shaped’ ! cgcsb, I think you’ll find that the NCC hotel is headstone shaped.

To answer your question, I’m normally against slab shaped high rises, because I feel that’ they are inherently flawed in an urban context. The whole point of a high rise is that it can be seen equally from multiple points in the city, yet the slab block deliberately sets up one orientation. Cities have had towers, and clusters of towers, for a thousand years, but the slab block high rise was a creation of the modern movement and, to the best of my knowledge, very few slab block examples would make it into the top twenty of the world’s great high rises.

Having said that, I do think the NCC Hotel is a decent proposal. Having one defined orientation is not inappropriate here because it addresses the orientation of the river and it provides depth of field to the quay-scape, which, as everyone keeps saying, is lacking a certain wow factor. Being attached to the NCC, (a significant civic building) is another justification that the various random high rise proposals we’ve seen recently don’t have. I did prefer the earlier renders of this scheme, that hinted at a varied modular design with a bit of 3D modeling in the facades, than the more recent, night time, render from the Treasury web site, which looks more like the slicked-up, double skin, glazed treatment that we’re getting very used to, but without any of the prism angles that make this approach interesting.

johnglas: Can you throw any light on Glasgow’s Russian Connstructivist tower (must have been for an exhibition) I saw a photograph once and it looked stunning. Everyone’s into slick these days, nobody does gritty 3D anymore.

gunter: it’s not something I’ve heard of, but I’ll certainly look into it – any more clues? In my invective against high-rise, I was not intending to demean the real greats like the Chrysler or the Woolworth or the Empire State, but these and a few others were the classics and I’m not sure we’ve kept up that quality – good point about tower vs slab.

@cgcsb wrote:

The other one is awful it’s all blocky and stubby

Adequately describes the high rise you favour i would have thought.

@gunter wrote:

As well as being of arbitrary shape and height and bulbous lumpen form, devoid of contextual consciousness, it’s clearly a bum note in the rhythm of the Quay front. This would be like Les Dawson playing the piano, only not funny.

+1 ! 😀

Devoid of context sums it up. Its only fit for an unfortunate business park somewhere, which are well accomplished in dismissing local context as a rule.

Has anyone seen the very slick renderings of the Conference centre hotel proposal in the City Council? Glossy prints and high quality renderings obviously aid the presentation but I really like it. Its a really compelling presence in the views taken and its massing is elegant and refined. I agree about the cladding. it would be nice to see something which departs from the smooth, slick, double skin and provide, rhythm and scale to a building this size.

On the constant moans re the mid rise docklands. I really don’t agree.

Obviously variety in height is important – many of the blocks appear lumpen and short and we have failed to create an interesting and varied streetscape by being altogether too restrictive in planning guidance, but using the density issue as an argument is I feel thoroughly flawed.

High rise does not equate with high density. We will never solve our sprawl issue if we create residential quarters which alienate people and further convince the buying public that city living and apartment living is not an attractive alternative to a house in the suburbs.

If you look to cities like London, Paris, Copenhagen and Barcelona much of the high density cores are the same height as Georgian Dublin. Medium height development can support quality services, amenities and infrastructure,and deliver quality urban environments in compact neighbourhoods where people will choose to live.

Linear park set for construction jan 2009.New public park with floating gardens, pavilions, playgrounds, cafes, cycle path, sports pitches and boating activities. landscape architects website http://www.agenceter.com

the Irish times today,
“Construction of phase one – from the river to Sheriff Street – is due to begin in January 2009 and finish in 2010. It will fit in around other construction in the area, including canal excavation and restoration at Spencer Dock, the National Conference Centre, a Luas canal bridge by Future Systems, and the Calatrava bridge on the Liffey, due to finish at the end of next year.The design competition – with a construction budget of €15 million – was for the complete 1.4km park to ensure “an overarching vision”, said Mr McLaughlin. The first phase is being built on land provided by CIÉ and the Spencer Dock Development Company. The land purchase in the second two phases has yet to be negotiated.”

Slick rendering of NCC hotel?

I completely agree with Reddy’s point above…the criticisms in relation to docklands and density don’t stack up. the density is high, the criticism is really about visual interest. I think less monotony would be a good thing but excessive / random height is not justified. This is what the masterplan is all about and maybe some alterations to it would be justified.

Paris is a good example of a high density city at a general height of six storeys.

This has been refused per the Irish Times website this evening

What a city this is. We must be the only city in a country on the planet that has had an economic boom for 16 years and not managed to build any taller buildings in that period. We dont have any tall buildings at all. Well, these decisions will haunt the economy because quite honestly we no longer have the luxury of being this choosey about everything. Lets just stay as a little back water Paddyland if thats what most wish. Lets have no ambition at all. Why do we even bother anymore? The Perochial, small, backwater mentality is here to stay it seems.

It angers me the numbers of missed opportunities thanks to serial objectors like An Taisce – who do these people claim to represent. They dont represent me.

Backer says €300m docklands project rejected
TIM O’BRIEN, Regional Development CorrespondentPlanning permission for a new 35 storey, €300 million hotel to be built beside the National Conference Centre in Dublin’s docklands has been refused, the project backers said today.

The planning application for the 440-bedroom hotel was lodged last December and described by backers Treasury Holdings and CIE as an an integral part of National Conference Centre.

It was however opposed by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA), the Railway Procurement Agency and An Taisce, among others.

According to John Bruder of development company Spencer Dock Hotel Limited, the refusal of permission was “an extremely disappointing decision on a project that is of huge importance to Ireland, the success of the Convention Centre Dublin, and north Dublin

IMO the developers should immediately halt the NCC construction. There should be consequeces for these decisions and these objectors should account for them. Stand up and tell us all why its so great that nothing remotely ambitious gets built in this country.

So no U2 tower, no Point Village tower, no Heuston Gate etc etc……..what a bunch of morons, the whole lot. Im fed up. Lets look at a real city like Belfast – Belfast ffs! – even they are more ambitious and they have a grand skyline emerging to prove it.

Here we go again with you equating the number of high rises to the success of a nation.

Aside from your obsession with anything over 10 stories, this was a decent proposal & i am disappointed to see it refused.

The decision was from the CC right ? it hadn’t gone to ABP had it ?

@Peter Fitz wrote:

Here we go again with you equating the number of high rises to the success of a nation.

Aside from your obsession with anything over 10 stories, this was a decent proposal & i am disappointed to see it refused.

Most cities are judged on their skyline as to their success. Thats a fact of life. Its not the number of highrises im talking about or the quality which must be good – we now have NO highrises going ahead after 16 years of economic boom! What do we have to show for it? Like I said we should look to Belfast now. The money and wealth has left our shores. Belfast has become the proper city on this island and tbh always has been. They are making a show of us – they are suppose to be the perocial city. Dublin is merely a town in a backward looking country. Wats new? Can you not understand or even feel as annoyed as I do about the opportunities that we will never have again that been blown in this city? I had ambitions for my city and every single building or structure that dares to be different or ambitious is shot down constantly. I use to be so enthusiastic and excited about what we could have made out of the city in better times. How foolish I was.

darkman: you’re just ranting on – who ‘judges’ cities? This obsession with high-rise has nothing to do with quality; just come here and look at our high-rises – we’re gradually blowing many of them up! As has been said often enough before, the odd high-rise of genuine quality can add to townscape, but a bad high-rise is just a bad building. Full stop.
It’s a while since I’ve been in dear old Belfast, but my recollection of the Laganside was of a lot of lumpy buildings on steroids masquerading as townscape (apart from the Odyssey, and that’s not high-rise). I’m quite excited though by what’s proposed for the Titanic quarter – does anyone from ‘up North’ have any news/pics?

Darkman, I don’t know if you have ever been to Belfast or when you last visited it, but Dublin will never, ever be in it’s shadow. Belfast is a SHITEHOUSE! Dublin need never look to it for inspiration.

I do agree with you to some extent on tall buildings. The relocation of the port cannot come soon enough for me. My experience of tall buildings or skyscrapers is that they are very rarely individually attractive or beautiful. It is the composite image of them together in one area that makes them appealing. This should be done at the port and finally give Dublin bay the international focus that it deserves.

the frustration is not so much that this building has been refused but more that all we hear is that highrise should be located in the docks – when it is then a new set of reasons to refuse comes up!
apparantly the DDDA see 35 stories as untenable -they are looking for 13, let the market decide who is correct.

While I don’t agree with any of Darkman’s post as most cities are “judged” on, if anything, the quality of their urban realm ie ground floor environment not the amount of phallic symbols they erect in the landscape.

But i think this was an ok proposal and I firmly believe height should not be an issue east of the Customs House

also you sohould never blame objectors for a rejection. It’s judged on its merits, objections or not. And a grant would in this case have made a mockery of the forward planning system as the Masterplan did not envision a high rise at this location (that;s not to say the Masterplan is perfect, far from it)

It should be interesting to read the final Planner’s report on this.

The initial planner’s report, in recommending a request for Additional Information, stated:

There’ wasn’t much in that to suggest that DCC were uncomfortable with the proposal. This rather blows my theory that the Additional Information procedure is just a piece of choreography en-route to an inevitable Decision to Grant Planning Permission.

One possible clue: under heading; 2 (Enonomic Impact), paragraph (v)

That’s the argument that I didn’t think they understood! but is this the right application of it?

Same senior planning officer (Paul Kearns) as Motor Tax Office tower and Carlton site, btw.

Darkman, where to start…

@darkman wrote:

Well, these decisions will haunt the economy because quite honestly we no longer have the luxury of being this choosey about everything. Lets just stay as a little back water Paddyland if thats what most wish. Lets have no ambition at all. Why do we even bother anymore? The Perochial, small, backwater mentality is here to stay it seems…
So no U2 tower, no Point Village tower, no Heuston Gate etc etc……..what a bunch of morons, the whole lot. Im fed up.

Well we all like a rant but this is a bit tired & emotional darkman…over a slab!

I’d like a few signature high rises too, and we’re getting them, the U2 Tower and Watchtower and maybe more.

FYI they already have permission for a 13 storey hotel on the site which they’re currently building so your micro economic argument doesn’t stand up. as for your argument about tall buildings being required for successful economies, you’re mixing up cause and effect.

Interesting article below:

Skycrapers and building cycles

http://mises.org/story/3038

At present, there is more than adequate hotel room and office space supply in Dublin (that is not an argument against building more, people are free to take that risk if they want). There is a lot of vacant office space for example. An economy that is producing goods and services demands floorspace in which to work, not the other way round.

If you build something to support the economy (e.g. construction / hotel jobs) fine, but there has to be actually a demand for the service. so don’t tell me that building a high building causes an economy to expand!

I personally welcome the refusal, we might be getting more high rises anyway, in a planned way, in the amended planning scheme for the South Lotts…we’ll see what happens.

@darkman wrote:

Well, these decisions will haunt the economy because quite honestly we no longer have the luxury of being this choosey about everything. Lets just stay as a little back water Paddyland if thats what most wish. Lets have no ambition at all. Why do we even bother anymore? The Perochial, small, backwater mentality is here to stay it seems…
So no U2 tower, no Point Village tower, no Heuston Gate etc etc……..what a bunch of morons, the whole lot. Im fed up.

Well we all like a rant but this is a bit tired & emotional darkman…over a slab!

I’d like a few signature high rises too, and we’re getting them, the U2 Tower and Watchtower and maybe more.

FYI they already have permission for a 13 storey hotel on the site which they’re currently building so your micro economic argument doesn’t stand up. as for your argument about tall buildings being required for successful economies, you’re mixing up cause and effect.

Interesting article below:

Skycrapers and building cycles

http://mises.org/story/3038

At present, there is more than adequate hotel room and office space supply in Dublin (that is not an argument against building more, people are free to take that risk if they want). There is a lot of vacant office space for example. An economy that is producing goods and services demands floorspace in which to work, not the other way round.

If you build something to support the economy (e.g. construction / hotel jobs) fine, but there has to be actually a demand for the service. so don’t tell me that building a high building causes an economy to expand!

I personally welcome the refusal, we might be getting more high rises anyway, in a planned way, in the amended planning scheme for the South Lotts…we’ll see what happens.

I’d like a few signature high rises too, and we’re getting them, the U2 Tower and Watchtower and maybe more.

Your having a laugh, right SD ??
Not a chance of getting the U2 tower now thanks to the incompetence of the DDDA!!
Pls tell me what ‘more’ highrises we’re getting… maybe the Point village but thats it.

I fully agree with darkman’s post. Belfast looks a more modern progressive city and withe Obel building finished will really leave Dublin in the shade.
What have we got? Liberty hall and Hawkins house… FFS!

What really annoys me is when useless bodies like An Taisce come out and say they are not opposed to highrise in certain locations i.e docklands & Heuston and then they object to a decent proposal.
Sure lets keep our mediocre office park along with its 3* budget hotel rather than have ambitious plans for a CBD like any other modern international city :rolleyes:

As much as i don’t want to say it,we have to partially agree with what darkman is saying,Not many people here including me believe that massive buildings are everything.But most other country in the world do,because they have had there economic booms,and everytime one of those countries has there boom they start building highrise buildings.They all go down the same path showing off there skyscrapers as a symbol of power and wealth,as if to say i have a bigger fucking cock then you do!!well i think its bullshit,i recently went down to the docklands and i honestly couldn’t believe my eyes its fucking beautiful down there on a par with any major european city!so although skyscrapers would be a nice addition fuck em!!

@SunnyDub wrote:

Well we all like a rant but this is a bit tired & emotional darkman…over a slab!

I’d like a few signature high rises too, and we’re getting them, the U2 Tower and Watchtower and maybe more.

FYI they already have permission for a 13 storey hotel on the site which they’re currently building so your micro economic argument doesn’t stand up. as for your argument about tall buildings being required for successful economies, you’re mixing up cause and effect.

Interesting article below:

Skycrapers and building cycles

http://mises.org/story/3038

At present, there is more than adequate hotel room and office space supply in Dublin (that is not an argument against building more, people are free to take that risk if they want). There is a lot of vacant office space for example. An economy that is producing goods and services demands floorspace in which to work, not the other way round.

If you build something to support the economy (e.g. construction / hotel jobs) fine, but there has to be actually a demand for the service. so don’t tell me that building a high building causes an economy to expand!

I personally welcome the refusal, we might be getting more high rises anyway, in a planned way, in the amended planning scheme for the South Lotts…we’ll see what happens.

I totally agree with SunnyDub. Darkman’s arguments simply don’t stand up. In case you’re already forgotten, two high rise buildings have already been approved for the Docklands and one is already under construction. So, there is clearly no absolute ban on high-rise in this area. And clearly a city’s success or desirability cannot be judged by the height of its buildings — that is just preposterous!

While I agree that the design of the proposed Convention Centre Hotel was quite appealing, it’s height was totally inappropriate for its location. As someone who has recently moved into a Spencer Dock apartment, I was shocked to discover that the same people who sold me my apartment were planning to build a 35-storey building right beside me. The proposed hotel would have TOTALLY blocked sunlight from my living room for hours every day, especially in winter when the sun is lower in the sky. It would have cast a huge shadow. The planners did their job. Thank goodness that economic factors have not yet become the key criteria for planning approval. I would welcome this hotel somewhere further down the docks where there are no residential buildings nearby. Well done Dublin City Council! (and DDDA, RPA and others for appealing the application for planing permission!)

Maybe I am a bit over emotional about these things but just to correct points rebutting my view…

1. The Watchtower has stopped construction at ground level – in current market circumstances I cannot see them restarting at least for the forseeable future and most probrably it will be scrapped.

2. On the 31st of October, for the same reasons, the U2 tower is going to be abandonded – most probrably quietly. Its a residential tower and cannot possibly go ahead in the current residential climate. The fact they had to extend ‘negotiations’ tells me all I need to know about the viability of the project. They have not even bothered putting renderings on Foster and Partners website yet – What does that tell you? Not confident about this one at all.

So atm as far as im concerned we have no highrise gaurenteed to go ahead!

I’m happy to see it refused. The footprint of the building was too small for such height. The new vetro building in GCD is an example of a tall building with too narrow a footprint. However, I do think that high rises are over scrutinised in Ireland but the govt. has a solution to this problem:

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=6885

Airport city will no doubt have a few high rises outside the city where nobody can object. This way we can have a CBD without nay sayers and moeners complaining about height and impact on the Georgian sky line rabble rabble rabble. They did something similar in Paris. Their CBD, Lá Defence is at the ring road:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_D%C3%A9fense

@P O’Carr wrote:

I And clearly a city’s success or desirability cannot be judged by the height of its buildings — that is just preposterous!

I dont believe this for one second.

@darkman wrote:

I dont believe this for one second.

So, Amsterdam is not a desirable city then. While they have high-rise outside the ring road, I don’t think there’s anything in the city centre area. What about Vienna? They also have some high-rise in a special new district beside the UN, well away from the centre of town. Don’t tell me that they are not desirable cities. Dublin has always been and will continue to be much lower-rise than most other European cities. That’s just the way it is. We should be aiming to increase average heights of new builds outside the immediate city centre to a range of about 12 to 15 storeys but anything higher is just out of characer.

I’m all for skyscpers beside Dublin airport or perhaps around Poolbeg, where it can be properly planned, but sticking towers into low-rise residential areas is not only unfair on the residents but is out of keeping with European planning.

Im disappointed to see it refused!!! So where from here for treasury holdings, 20 storey proposal?????:(

@P O’Carr wrote:

I’m all for skyscpers beside Dublin airport or perhaps around Poolbeg, where it can be properly planned, but sticking towers into low-rise residential areas is not only unfair on the residents but is out of keeping with European planning.

Agree with you in general that skyscrapers change the cityscape and, as such, they should be planned strategically, but we can’t start calling the North Wall Quay ‘a residential area’.

PO’C: agree with you up to a point, but it’s a dangerous argument to plead ‘residential area’ to avoid ‘skyscrapers’ (define). As gunter points out, North Wall is a mixed-use, city centre area which can sustain a range of building heights. I would argue (strongly) that 5-6 stories should be the norm, but individual buidings or features can go higher if there’s some point to it. The ‘residential area’ argument is the justification for nimbyism, and anything over 2 storeys is seen as ‘overbearing’ or some such euphemism for ‘I’m cosy and I don’t want anything I don’t like here’.
My main gripe against the high-rise fanatics is that they have no notion of townscape, no historical memory of the 60s and 70s and no feel for the European urban tradition; they want cities to look like downtown Hong Kong, where ‘historic’ is anything over 20 years old. The proposed hotel was just a slab block tacked on behind the Confcentre (itself a bit of a bulky fright?) – a bit reminiscent of the Soviet-era hotel block in Riga, where you get great views of the old town, but the problem is you have to look at it from everywhere else.

Hong Kong never fails to impress me, historic centres are nice and all, but i live in the 21st century

So, in order to achieve it, you’d knock down most of the inner city? Not so much the 21st C as the Third Reich (Berlin as Germania).

@Keen wrote:

I live in the 21st century

WOW, so do I. Isn’t that a great coincidence. Imagine the odds at meeting somebody else on this forum who also lives in the 21st century. I wonder is their any more people on this forum also live in the 21st century. 🙂 I’ll tell you one thing, I’d hate to be somebody who lives in the 7th Century. I hear that stuff and everything is all dark and gloomy there. 🙁
No thank you. I’ll stick with me virtual reality suit, gloves and head set playing an early 20th century War game in my apartment on the 4123rd floor of the 32nd Coca-Cola Skytower building that was built on some stupid old building. I think it was called the GPO or something silly like that.
😉

@gunter wrote:

Agree with you in general that skyscrapers change the cityscape and, as such, they should be planned strategically, but we can’t start calling the North Wall Quay ‘a residential area’.

Well I realise that it wasn’t traditionally a residential area but it’s become a very mixed area, and it just happens that the same developers who want to build this very high hotel have recently completed 500 apartments on a site just behind it and are planning more further back. I happen to have bought one of the apartments right behind the Convention Centre, but would certainly not have done so if I thought that my daylight would be obstructed by a 35 storey building. I know this is nimbyism but I think I had every right to object to planning permission for this hotel and I’m sure lots of other Spencer Dock residents would have done so if they had known. Anyway, the key point, as you said, is that “skyscrapers” need to be planned strategically, and DDDA’s master plan did not provide for one on the site in question.

On a slightly separate point, I don’t think developers should be able to pick and choose between DDDA and DCC, when they don’t get permission from DDDA. This undermines what DDDA is trying to do. Anybody know why this dual track is possible?

@P O’Carr wrote:

Anybody know why this dual track is possible?

It may have changed but it used to be that any single use building had to go through the planning process i.e. DCC and then ABP but if you presented a mixed use scheme that was no less than 40% Residential and no less than 40% commercial with the remaining 20% being either then you had the choice between the DDDA who were perceived as softer than the normal planning process or the same planning process as elsewhere.

It may have changed since 2005 you would hope that it would have as although some developments such as the Liebskind and Airies designed schemes are very good some of it was really very poor.

How do you get planning permission to build sky-scrapers beside an airport??Is that not a contradiction in kind??I’m sure they’ve done it in endless other countries, but this is Dublin!We tend to be a bit backward about these things!:confused:

:p:p

I assume the appeal has been lodged with AnBP already. This is a Treasury proposal afterall, and they get their value of their sites.

@weehamster wrote:

WOW, so do I. Isn’t that a great coincidence. Imagine the odds at meeting somebody else on this forum who also lives in the 21st century. I wonder is their any more people on this forum also live in the 21st century. 🙂 I’ll tell you one thing, I’d hate to be somebody who lives in the 7th Century. I hear that stuff and everything is all dark and gloomy there. 🙁
No thank you. I’ll stick with me virtual reality suit, gloves and head set playing an early 20th century War game in my apartment on the 4123rd floor of the 32nd Coca-Cola Skytower building that was built on some stupid old building. I think it was called the GPO or something silly like that.
😉

In case you didn’t notice we live in Ireland!!so no we don’t live in the 21st century……

Developer Treasury Holdings has made a final appeal to An Bord Pleanala for permission to build the €152 million hotel on Dublin’s Docklands.

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/231005.htm

And there’s a actual possibility it could get permission on appeal; that recent DCC ‘Maximising …’ city height study has gone back to the drawing board after getting a universal public thumbs down, so the only real official height guidelines for the city are still the 2000 DEGW study which were incorporated into the City Development Plan, and which of course identified (broadly) the Docklands and Heuston areas for height but protected the city centre. If you analyse An Bord Pleanala’s pattern of decision making on height, they have kicked out every high/mid-high building DCC has tried to slip through for the city centre, but have upheld DCC’s decisions to grant permission for them in designated areas – i.e. appeals against the 32-storey building at Heuston and the 16-storey one at Clancy Barracks in the Heuston Area.

In other words, An Bord Pleanala are implementing the DEGW study to the letter. So, being located in an area designated for high buildings – the Docklands – there’s a real possibility this 35-storey hotel could get permission on appeal. Still, there are other factors to be considered. The DDDA came out strongly against this hotel on their own lands, plus the earlier appeal decision removed the high parts of the original Kevin Roche scheme …

Darkman, Equating high rise with the success of a city is absolutly ridiculous.

Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen, Rome, the list goes on,
All very succesful cities with very little high rise in them. All attract millions of tourists, and have high GDPs and succesful industry.

Have you ever been to Beijing? Millions of people living in poverty in endless arrays of concrete tower blocks. It’s depressing.

While, I do like well designed skyscrapers in appropriate locations, there is absolutly no need for them in Dublin. And to say that Ireland is backwards for not having skyscrapers is stupid. You could say that having random tall buildings in poorly chosen locations is backwards. Did we not learn anything from Britain’s post war reconstruction? There are so many places, particularly in the suburbs of London which are otherwise low density, low rise, houses everywhere, and then suddenly big massive concrete eye sores poking up out of nowhere.
I’m sure these were considered pretty cool in the day, just like glass and steel buildings are now, but it’s been well aknowledged that they should never have been built, and you rarely see schemes like that under construction in London these days. They have a bit more sense. And we should too.

“They all go down the same path showing off there skyscrapers as a symbol of power and wealth,as if to say i have a bigger fucking cock then you do!! well i think its bullshit…”

But believe it or not, there is truth in this. This is the fundamental basis of human innate thinking. From the dawn of civilization this attitude made the great cities and great buildings of the world. Most folks in suits in the business world with big bucks and a dog eat dog attitude could identify with this attitude, (and are probably not aware of it however!) We gained plenty of them here in Ireland with the Celtic Tiger, kinda obnoxious folks with an attitude, the cafe mocha generation etc…Money , greed, corruption…..etc..the essential ingredients. We’ve had plenty of that too in Ireland within the last few years, but our deep conservative attitude (and ignorance) of the visual arts and architecture held us back. Hence the docks looks the way it does now that the boom is over. Probably looks as good as any provincial city of Britain.

Probably all irrelevant now given the present ‘credit crunch.’

@GregF wrote:

“They all go down the same path showing off there skyscrapers as a symbol of power and wealth,as if to say i have a bigger fucking cock then you do!! well i think its bullshit…”

But believe it or not, there is truth in this. This is the fundamental basis of human innate thinking. From the dawn of civilization this attitude made the great cities and great buildings of the world. Most folks in suits in the business world with big bucks and a dog eat dog attitude could identify with this attitude, (and are probably not aware of it however!) We gained plenty of them here in Ireland with the Celtic Tiger, kinda obnoxious folks with an attitude, the cafe mocha generation etc…Money , greed, corruption…..etc..the essential ingredients. We’ve had plenty of that too in Ireland within the last few years, but our deep conservative attitude (and ignorance) of the visual arts and architecture held us back. Hence the docks looks the way it does now that the boom is over. Probably looks as good as any provincial city of Britain.

Probably all irrelevant now given the present ‘credit crunch.’

It’s not just the lack of skyscrapers that makes the docks mediocre. Go to berlin for an example of how fairly lowrise building can look magnificent. They rebuilt the whole city centre of Berlin in the last 15 years and it is stunning.

It’s not just the lack of skyscrapers that makes the docks mediocre. Go to berlin for an example of how fairly lowrise building can look magnificent. They rebuilt the whole city centre of Berlin in the last 15 years and it is stunning.

Ye, but hang a second, the design of the national conference centre hotel is not what I would call stunning. :rolleyes:

@weehamster wrote:

Ye, but hang a second, the design of the national conference centre hotel is not what I would call stunning. :rolleyes:

And why is that I wonder. Why is this country unable to produce stunning and breath-taking architecture. There are some fine modern buildings in Dublin and the rest of the country, but there’s little worthy of the word “stunning”. Is it all down to planning? Is it funding? Do our developers care enough to raise the bar when it comes to architecture? Anyway……..as it’s my first post I’ll not harp on too much about it as it seems there’s plenty of you feel the same way.

Oh I agree with you. Its a point I’ve been making now and again at how really poor designs are here.

“Why is this country unable to produce stunning and breath-taking architecture“

What about the National Conference Centre by Kevin Roche?

Well if everything was stunning then nothing would be stunning. But what’s so great about Berlin is that the whole thing fits into a beautiful master plan that makes it look magnificent. The most important aspect of this is that standard run of the mill buildings have a certain consistency and a certain monumental grace, and these are punctuated by great buildings. Whereas in the docks you just have a bunch of some mediocre and some ok buildings thrown together. Doesn’t look like there was much of a plan.

Read the article in the Irish Times today about Potsdamer Platz … I think it’s broadly true, there’s nothing much of any interest there late at night. However this article would be compelling if it were written in any country other than Ireland, where a huge portion of the capital city was similarly redeveloped and was infinitely more mediocre than Potsdamer Platz.

shanekeane: I’m a great admirer of Berlin, but I think you’re talking it up a bit; there’s still an awful lot of ‘in between’ space left in Berlin (which is still losing population) and much of what has been built is mediocre, with the big stuff often good but not always. Der Hauptbahnhof, great; Der Reichs (sorry, Bundes…) tag, great apart from Foster’s abortion of a dome; der Berliner Dom, an overelaborate operahouse of a church; Museuminsel, wonderful and unique; Alexanderplatz, what some posters would like Dublin to be like. What makes Berlin is the buzz; Prenzlauerberg has no great architecture but oozes character. Oddly, some of the best new stuff in Berlin is in the Government Quarter by the river (which is busy with tourist traffic in the summer, though it’s no Seine). OK, the Docklands can be dull, but I think we need to get over it; it’s commercial architecture and look where commerce has got us.

I think the lack of decent “wow” architecture in Dublin has been due to the mayhem in construction in Dublin up until recently. Developers were jaded and didn’t care about anything bar the massive profits they would make from building a box. If you build it, no matter how bad, they will come, to badly paraphraze. Its a shame. Maybe with this slowdown people and developers will sobre up and think more about things. When it is a struggle to sell anything maybe design will become more important.

Ok, where has commerce got us? Hmm? Ok, let me see. Bigger gap between rich and poor. The deterioration of society. The sacrifice of depth for surface. The annihilation of our culture. The globalisation of every aspect of our lives. Retail parks. The worship of money. A generation of people who can’t afford a decent house. The collapse of the economy. A new depression. Four euros for a cup of coffee. The importation of the American talent for combining stupidity with over-confidence. And the docklands. WOW!!!

commerce rocks.

Ok, where has commerce got us?

As opposed to what …the relentless poverty, dole queues, emigration and mass dereliction of the years before the boom and the Celtic Tiger!

“A generation of people who can’t afford a decent house”. ….

It was folk behaving like headless chickens who were willing to sign up for exorbitant motgages and spend their few bob on overpriced substandard dogs boxes of homes who helped contribute to the whole probelm as well!

You sound like De Valera!

And you sound like someone who’s slightly overreacted; and who was in the queue waiting for people to ‘sign up for exorbitant mortgages’, etc.? How many of the fatcats will take the hit? Gey few and they’re all in Marbella.

@shanekeane wrote:

Ok, where has commerce got us? Hmm? Ok, let me see. Bigger gap between rich and poor. The deterioration of society. The sacrifice of depth for surface. The annihilation of our culture. The globalisation of every aspect of our lives. Retail parks. The worship of money. A generation of people who can’t afford a decent house. The collapse of the economy. A new depression. Four euros for a cup of coffee. The importation of the American talent for combining stupidity with over-confidence. And the docklands. WOW!!!

Would you like some fish, to go with that massive chip on your shoulder?

This article on Potsdamer Platz in Berlin from Saturday’s Irish Times might be of interest to some:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1004/1222959350431.html

@Blisterman wrote:

Would you like some fish, to go with that massive chip on your shoulder?

Har de har har … oh how sidesplittingly hilarious.

@shanekeane wrote:

Ok, where has commerce got us? Hmm? Ok, let me see. Bigger gap between rich and poor. The deterioration of society. The sacrifice of depth for surface. The annihilation of our culture. The globalisation of every aspect of our lives. Retail parks. The worship of money. A generation of people who can’t afford a decent house. The collapse of the economy. A new depression. Four euros for a cup of coffee. The importation of the American talent for combining stupidity with over-confidence. And the docklands. WOW!!!

Even prehistoric people conducted commerce. No-one is is forcing you to conduct commerce (the exchange of goods and services). You (and any other likeminded folk you can find) can disengage anytime you want. Just cast off all your modern accouterments aquired by “commerce” (for example underwear and shoes) and take yourself to the middle of a bog in a suitably isolated spot the west. There are some very remote spots in the middle of Mayo far from any roads. There – free from the jackboot of “commerce” – you can enjoy an idyllic existence living in semi-naked, mud-encrusted luxury under a lean-too of branches and leaves, drinking water from a bog hole, eating grubs and bits of roots and wiping your arse with thistles. Admittedly things can get testing during the winter cold and damp but it’d worth it surely to escape the miserable existance of the modern world.

@shanekeane wrote:

Ok, where has commerce got us? Hmm? Ok, let me see. Bigger gap between rich and poor. The deterioration of society. The sacrifice of depth for surface. The annihilation of our culture. The globalisation of every aspect of our lives. Retail parks. The worship of money. A generation of people who can’t afford a decent house. The collapse of the economy. A new depression. Four euros for a cup of coffee. The importation of the American talent for combining stupidity with over-confidence. And the docklands. WOW!!!

Slightly, ahem, hysterical there. Where have you paid €4 for a coffee? A fool and his money… Oh yeah the whole annihilation of our culture – care to expand?

@shanekeane wrote:

Ok, where has commerce got us? Hmm? Ok, let me see. Bigger gap between rich and poor. The deterioration of society. The sacrifice of depth for surface. The annihilation of our culture. The globalisation of every aspect of our lives. Retail parks. The worship of money. A generation of people who can’t afford a decent house. The collapse of the economy. A new depression. Four euros for a cup of coffee. The importation of the American talent for combining stupidity with over-confidence. And the docklands. WOW!!!

Actually commerce allows for specialisation of labour, economic efficency and progress. Without commerce and the specialisation of labour we would all still be in a period prior to the stone age which by the way also had commerce.

The poor but happy arguement doesnt wash either, thats why half the population left. Annihilaiton of our culture how? A generation that cant afford a house point taken but that doesnt have to leave to get work like others previous ly.

As for commerce leading to the current crisis thats bullshit as well. The US living beyond its means and the Asians willing to lend them the money to do it is the problem.

Dublin is a rip off I agree but as for commerce being destructive thats clearly daft!

If anybody read what I was replying to, we were referring to the last twenty years.

@shanekeane wrote:

If anybody read what I was replying to, we were referring to the last twenty years.

Which makes it all the worse. According to you the country, in the space of a generation, has been left in a mess, it’s culture decimated and all thanks to commerce. Either you weren’t born 20 years ago or you just don’t remember how bleak it was here. Culturally speaking, It’s quite a while since maidens danced at the cross-roads. I still want to know about the €4 coffee, though.

@Seanoh wrote:

Which makes it all the worse. According to you the country, in the space of a generation, has been left in a mess, it’s culture decimated and all thanks to commerce. Either you weren’t born 20 years ago or you just don’t remember how bleak it was here. Culturally speaking, It’s quite a while since maidens danced at the cross-roads. I still want to know about the €4 coffee, though.

Last week i got charged four euros for a cup of coffee at dublin airport. You can also pay four euros for coffee at several places in dublin. I saw a large latte priced 3.85 in a cafe in a dingy shopping centre in limerick the other day. Bleakness comes from the soul. If your life is now happy and carefree because of all the wonderful new consumerism then you are a rather shallow person.

I know it’s anathema to most of the creatures on this board, but you should travel out of dublin 4 for a while and go to the northside of dublin and find out how much better life has gotten for people.

@shanekeane wrote:

I know it’s anathema to most of the creatures on this board, but you should travel out of dublin 4 for a while and go to the northside of dublin and find out how much better life has gotten for people.

if you’re just gonna act the prick i suggest boards,ie. That sort of ignorant childish bullshit has no place here. Fine i’ll travel to Sutton and Clontarf and have a look at de northsoide, or raheny or Howth? Is that de nortsoide yer wafflin about? seems nice but not as nice as Castleknock. But still nicer than Ballyfermot, Inchicore, West Tallaght, Sallynoggin and Neilstown. Stick your north-south divide up yer ****

Shane in the early 90’s unemplyment was pushing 20%. In Ballymun it was 80%, in Mounttown it was 60%. Even in those 2 once-damned and condemned sink estates things are better now than then.

what this has to do with a boring, plain, monoithic slab of crap on the Liffey I just don’t know

i think both sides of this argument are going to extremes to prove the other wrong. I dont think shanekeane was suggesting that commerce/capitalism is the root of all societies current woes but rather the recent catalyst that has thrust the shallow, money worshipping “bling” culture into the limelight.
These people have and will always exist but lie dormant (relatively) in times of economic hardship. I think trying to sum up irelands current economic and social problems in one paragraph is an impossible task. Not knowing much about economics i’ll leave that aside but from a social point of view some of what shanekeane is saying is correct.
Personally i cant stand the “Oh My God” celebrity fixated nonsense culture which can be partially attributed to the economic success, but its hardly a reason to scrap capitalism.
And as regards “The importation of the American talent for combining stupidity with over-confidence.”…while this is of course a vast generalisation and an unneccessary slur on the the world’s whipping boy, in some cases its spot on and just bloody funny

Good to see that my original innocent remark about ‘commerce’ has spawned such a (vitriolic) debate; you can’t go back 20 years and, yes, Ireland has progressed enormously (by many important definitions), but our consumerist, get-rich-quick, celebrity-oggling, look-at-how-much-my-house-is-worth era has, mercifully, hit the buffers. Now is the time to reflect (assuming some posters are capable of doing that or know what it means) and think on what the effect has been on architecture and design and on urbanism in general.
The neo-liberal analysis has been exposed as a sham and an exercise in voodoo. Now we might get some social democracy and a return to emphasising the public realm and good social-housing design and lose building what you can because you can, including some of the megalomaniac stuff being proposed for Ballsbridge for example.

Regarding consumerist culture, but isn’t TV3 a fucking awful TV station that panders to all this celeb (like, oh my god) bullshit culture. Non stop X Factor, Britains Got Talent, Expose, wall to wall Coronation Street, Soapstar Super fucking Star, Britany, Paris, Brad, Angeline etc…..thank god for the ‘off’ button!

Makes the license fee well worth it too!

I know I sound like a grumpy auld bastard….but isn’t it true folks!

Irish people deserve better, and of course, deserve better architecture in our towns and cities.

Agree 100%, total shite.

When a news caster call someone a bi*ch live on air, theres a problem.