New height hitch for U2 Tower

Home Forums Ireland New height hitch for U2 Tower

Viewing 18 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #709674
      Paul Clerkin
      Keymaster

      A major discrepancy between the winning scheme for the U2 Tower at Britain Quay in Dublin’s Docklands and the much taller structure intended to be built is revealed by a drawing obtained by The Irish Times. This follows a hotly contested competition involving four development consortiums for the contract to build the tower, which would include an egg-shaped studio “pod” for the U2 rock group suspended above a public observation deck.

      More…

    • #794707
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Hope they didn’t set those goal posts in concrete – looks like they’re going to be uprooted and moved again….

    • #794708
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      More cannon to bombard the DDDA with

      They really are taking the biscuit this time and I’m sure they’ll capitulate to the full design in order to complete St Norman of Foster’s vision – however the following issues now arise:

      • With the watchtower we will have a lop sided gateway one ‘pillar’ being 50% taller than the other
      • Fromthe renders I have seen the access point to the main body of the tower and to the 5 star hotel in no way appears to allow access for public transport for the proposed (public transport only) bridge across the dodder/grand canal to ringsend as mentioned in their own masterplan. Is the DDDA’s own transportation plan to be abandoned?

      One final point – I believe the social housing mentioned in Frank’s article is not housed on site but rather across the docks where the former graving docks were at grand canal basin

    • #794709
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Rory W wrote:

      More cannon to bombard the DDDA with

      They really are taking the biscuit this time and I’m sure they’ll capitulate to the full design in order to complete St Norman of Foster’s vision – however the following issues now arise:

      • With the watchtower we will have a lop sided gateway one ‘pillar’ being 50% taller than the other
      • Fromthe renders I have seen the access point to the main body of the tower and to the 5 star hotel in no way appears to allow access for public transport for the proposed (public transport only) bridge across the dodder/grand canal to ringsend as mentioned in their own masterplan. Is the DDDA’s own transportation plan to be abandoned?

      One final point – I believe the social housing mentioned in Frank’s article is not housed on site but rather across the docks where the former graving docks were at grand canal basin

      Another question is that the DDDA didn’t like Hadid’s design becuase of the underpass type effect. Now from the side view we see the U2 tower has the same thing.

    • #794710
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @jdivision wrote:

      Another question is that the DDDA didn’t like Hadid’s design becuase of the underpass type effect. Now from the side view we see the U2 tower has the same thing.

      Frank MacDonald didn’t like it. I don’t think the DDDA mentioned anything about it.

    • #794711
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @jdivision wrote:

      Another question is that the DDDA didn’t like Hadid’s design becuase of the underpass type effect. Now from the side view we see the U2 tower has the same thing.

      This arch has been obvious from the imahges relaeased by DDDA – I think obne of the close ups reveals the approach from SJRQ towards Ringsend. AS with most things on this project, it seems to rethink the DDDA approach to this project again. When BCDH and MCA (Britain Quay designers) were involved in the project, there was a great emphasis on:

      1. Keeping the tower within the footprint bounded by SJRQ and the Quay Walls at Dodder / Liffey side
      2. Keeping the building within the confines of the road leading to the Dodder Bridge (SJRQ). At one stage, the twist of the tower encroached at 30m O.D. over DCC’s road – it was adjusted to keep within the DDDA site boundary
      3. A link between the MCA building and BCDH tower was considered at level 7 – this was discounted.

      Most of the issues surrounded legal / tenure difficulties with Foreshore licencing (if the building was over the water, which the DDDA (or Ballymore) do not own, questionable tenure of properties that were half over the river / road (effectively splitting properties into leasehold / licence and freehold interests – a potential mess from a conveyancing point of view). Now unless DDDA have managed to get all these bodies on side, and sorted out the possible tenure issues that weren’t considered by Fosters, then there’s a potential can of worms waiting….

    • #794712
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      what is all this bollocks? in god’s name, ud swear they were building the pyramids of giza – if they dont like the fucking thing they can knock it down in 20 years, just build it for christ’s sake. BUILD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • #794713
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Paul Clerkin wrote:

      More…

      striking similarity to my photochop … Was that image used in the Irish Times?

    • #794714
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Indeed – none of you would have it anyway if I did not spot it (in time!):p I demand commission payment or at least a mention in the ‘paper of record’ – Morlan should get something too of course:p…….:D

      Dear Frank etc etc…..

    • #794715
      admin
      Keymaster

      @RoryW wrote:

      They really are taking the biscuit this time and I’m sure they’ll capitulate to the full design in order to complete St Norman of Foster’s vision – however the following issues now arise:

      With the watchtower we will have a lop sided gateway one ‘pillar’ being 50% taller than the other

      Good ! come on Rory, the idea of two symmetrical ‘sentinels’ was a load of cak, much happier to see some variation in height and the notion of a gated entrance to the city a little more subtle. Having said that a render including the ‘Watchtower’ would be useful.

      Either way, it seems from the few interviews Paul Maloney has done lately that neither tower will be alone.

    • #794716
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @darkman wrote:

      Dear Frank etc etc…..

      The one Paul used it definitely my chop but it’s not in the paper, ah well. I was looking forward to some bitter dialogue.

    • #794717
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

      Good ! come on Rory, the idea of two symmetrical ‘sentinels’ was a load of cak, much happier to see some variation in height and the notion of a gated entrance to the city a little more subtle. Having said that a render including the ‘Watchtower’ would be useful.

      Either way, it seems from the few interviews Paul Maloney has done lately that neither tower will be alone.

      My points being that (with particular reference to this project) the DDDA are making the rules up as they go along, re the height and the public transport bridge. Thius on top of the farce that was the competition in the first place.

      But if I was Harry Crosbie I’d look for another few floors to add on.

    • #794718
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      If the height was capped in the planning scheme, there was a a reason for capping it. What has changed in the interim? One would have thought the principal reason to be that anything above the designated height would look ridiculous in the context of Dublin, and particularly the Docklands.

      For this tower to be enormously tall is one thing, as I see it, but for it to be awkwardly shaped for the site in question seriously raises eyebrows as regards its relationship with the city generally. Again, I think the twisting tower was a more appropriately shaped, suitably modest, and all-round more elegant solution for the location. Not that I ever got a truly accurate understanding of what the twisting tower would actually look like (did anyone?), but it was on the right track with its exclamation mark qualities. The new proposal is more self-absorbed; it says come look at me, not come look what’s over this end of the city.

    • #794719
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      im sure the twisting tower would look great however the only render I have seen did not do it any justice it deserved…

      foster may have also been very smart here because
      firstly he gets to call his building green…

      the ddda will make it ungreen not foster… and save some money to!… is money green?

    • #794720
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @GrahamH wrote:

      ve the designated height would look ridiculous in the context of Dublin, and particularly the Docklands. For this tower to be enormously tall is one thing, as I see it,

      Don’t forget that the montage Paul posted to his site was actually done by me, so it may not represent the height perfectly. I would have done a better job had I known it was going to be used on Archiseek. But you’re right, it does look pretty enormous in my render, it’s meant to represent 180m.

      To be honest though, I’m not really sure height is an issue at this location. A 130m tower will not be visible from O’C Bridge (.4km away) as it will be hidden behind the Loopline. Are you worried it may have an negative impact on Dublin Bay or the old city itself? Or perhaps against the low-rise blocks of the docks as a whole?

      @GrahamH wrote:

      but for it to be awkwardly shaped for the site in question seriously raises eyebrows as regards its relationship with the city generally. Again, I think the twisting tower was a more appropriately shaped, suitably modest, and all-round more elegant solution for the location.

      Definetely “awkwardly shaped”. I really don’t like the way it obnoxiously hangs over the quays.

      Has everyone forgotten about the original design? I much prefer it to the new one.

      Just compare the two; the new design looks ridiculous in comparison.

      Having said that, I strongly believe that the new design will go ahead with DDDA’s much loved “Energy Center”.

    • #794721
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      im not a fan of the energy centre it will destroy what is overwise ok design???

      are the DDDA going to give the originals another tower or something of equal importance?

    • #794722
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @shamrockmetro wrote:

      are the DDDA going to give the originals another tower or something of equal importance?

      Who are The Originals? What other tower? What?

    • #794723
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The Originals Morlan! They won Eurovision for Netherlands in Helsinki in 1974. Jeez, some people need to get with it…

      @Morlan wrote:

      Are you worried it may have an negative impact on Dublin Bay or the old city itself? Or perhaps against the low-rise blocks of the docks as a whole?

      Principally on the sprawling Docklands; it just looks ridiculous at such a scale, and particularly with such a shape. It screams building tall just for the sake of tall, bearing little relevance to its low-rise surroundings. To be honest I find it faintly embarrassing for Dublin – it looks rather immature, almost like a desperate attempt to get a skyscraper in at all costs to keep up with the Joneses before the economy bottoms out, rather than an elegant integrated statement more befitting of the Docklands’ flagship building.

      Not so much concern over the impact on the exisitng city, though now that you raise it, one would have to question what exact views this will impinge on. Presumably the 120 metre cap took account of this in the Grand Canal Dock planning scheme, but so massively altering the height turns the tables completely. Even if it could act as an interesting focal point from the city, surely a feeble fading-into-nothing triangle is the last thing one would want as a landmark?

    • #794724
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      A building that tapers off into nothing is the most elegant option for a landmark in my opinion
      much more so than a box type tower
      I was more than a little surprised by the height increase to say the least, but it looks good

      Most of your posts Graham H are very inciteful, you obviously are very knowledgeable concerning Dublins built environment, but i think your dead wrong on this.
      What if the buildings ‘shoulder’ height was , say, 60m then tapered off with a 25m crown would that not look either,good do you think?

      where would the world be without buildings that ‘fade into nothing’:D
      [ATTACH]6278[/ATTACH]
      [ATTACH]6279[/ATTACH]
      [ATTACH]6277[/ATTACH]

      [ATTACH]6276[/ATTACH]

Viewing 18 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News