North Lotts Developments
- This topic has 75 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
October 16, 2008 at 6:26 pm #710207
johnny21
ParticipantNew thread for the sites between spencer dock and point village…..cant find suitable thread to post msgs on these sites so it deserves its own thread. Just adding a pic of whats currently under development and sites yet to be developed along the north quays…..!! liam carrolls development progressing well:D:D Render of the anglo irish bank hq development.:cool::cool:
-
October 16, 2008 at 9:09 pm #804204
Anonymous
InactiveHow does the recent court ruling affect (effect?:p) these developments?
-
October 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm #804205
Anonymous
InactiveThey’ve completely stopped construction from what I can see!
-
October 17, 2008 at 4:41 pm #804206
Anonymous
InactiveSurely the development will eventually get the ok from the court or will it……???? its a great building,one of the best in the docks if completely built. Anybody have any info on whats happening next if the development has stopped!!???:mad:
-
October 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm #804207
Anonymous
InactiveOne would assume it will prob get the go ahead eventually, but who knows? Anglo Irish may well be happy for the development to fall through given their current financial circumstances. The development itself was proposed to extend all the way down to the next (ruinous) building seen on the right hand side of the picture. To the left spencer dock block d, e and g are proposed by treasury holdings, there’s pictures of these elsewhere on the forum.
-
October 17, 2008 at 5:31 pm #804208
Anonymous
InactiveAttached is a few pics of what’s proposed next door! It would make for a very good vista if all was constructed.
-
October 17, 2008 at 5:51 pm #804209
Anonymous
InactiveAlong with a few high rises it would be a great vista!!
Recent pic of the north docks, pity you only barely see the ncc roof from this angle. If the ncc was positioned to the edge of dock and pwc HQ pulled back from the dock, you be able to see the complete front of the ncc from the east of the docklands.:(
-
October 17, 2008 at 7:01 pm #804210
Anonymous
Inactive@donalbarry7 wrote:
One would assume it will prob get the go ahead eventually, but who knows? .
A new masterplan is currently being drawn up, it’d be a shock if it doesn’t include buildings of the height Carroll was building
-
October 17, 2008 at 9:38 pm #804211
Anonymous
Inactivejohnnny21: doesn’t the fact that you can’t ‘see’ ncc from where you suggested just demonstrate what an uncoordinated mess it all really is? If anybody thinks this is what passes for townscape in a prestige area, then it’s not just a financial crisis we have. Whoever proposed that mis-shapen lump behind those period buildings should be done for sub-prime design!
-
October 17, 2008 at 10:00 pm #804212
Anonymous
InactiveYes it is a bit of a mess!!!The ddda masterplans for docks were constantly changed because they realised they made mistakes everywhere from poor architecture, heights and landmarks etc etc!! But lets hope they learn from mistakes in future sites/developments. There 2008 masterplan might help sort some of the the mess out…!!!
-
October 18, 2008 at 12:41 pm #804213
admin
Keymaster@johnglas wrote:
johnnny21: doesn’t the fact that you can’t ‘see’ ncc from where you suggested just demonstrate what an uncoordinated mess it all really is? If anybody thinks this is what passes for townscape in a prestige area, then it’s not just a financial crisis we have. Whoever proposed that mis-shapen lump behind those period buildings should be done for sub-prime design!
It confirms that STW paid no attention whatsoever to what would adjoin their PWC fortress. That building is absolutely devoid of context.
-
October 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm #804214
Anonymous
InactivePeter you are correct on the PWC building but now that most of the glass has been added to the front of the conference centre there is no doubt what the most dominant building is on this part of the liffey
-
October 19, 2008 at 12:27 am #804215
Anonymous
InactiveGaaaaaaaaaaah.
The pics shown are lovely.
But put another 10 storeys onto it ffs.
It just look pathetic to have these squarish building’s built all the same height. They just wouldn’t have this crap shits blocks in other cities. They wouldn’t spend millions on designing low rise city centre redevelopment plots. They just wouldn’t build this low on the city riverfronts anywhere else in the world in this day and age.Look at many examples.
Rotterdam
Auckland
Sydney
London
BarcelonaEven cities in Eastern Europe are building high rises.
Many cities even smaller on Dublin are capitlising on building gleaming high rise towers on their grand riverfronts.
It was first all square box buildings in the first ,masterplan. After a few years, of the DDDA going, oh we’ve made mistakes on our first masterplan of the Docks. it’s was then changed to square box buildings with a few landmark towers. Oh great…………
NOW the DDDA are finally going ok, we’ve made mistakes again. We need proper high rise cluster towers in order to create a proper urban framework for this area within the city.
bla bla bla. Its like highracknaphobia in this country.
The buiildings are bland all being 6- 9 storeys ffs.
-
October 19, 2008 at 1:18 am #804216
Anonymous
Inactivedave123: you’re just dead wrong and high-rise equates with neither high-density nor ‘modern’; I think you’re thinking of Oz as the ideal modern city (as in ‘The Wizard of…’) – it’s all fantasy and make-believe. The Docklands are (in part) depressing because of the badness and blandness of much of the design, but you can get bad and bland high-rise, and they tend to kill the street-life around them stone dead.
-
October 19, 2008 at 4:08 pm #804217
Anonymous
InactiveThey’re not evil you know, high rises. If you stay perfectly still, they wont fall on you.
-
October 19, 2008 at 4:24 pm #804218
Anonymous
InactiveJust like constuction cranes? Oh, yes they do (eventually). And you know, if you lift your eyes somewhere between pavement level and infinity, non-highrises can be interesting.
-
October 19, 2008 at 11:13 pm #804219
Anonymous
InactiveOf course they can, NCC is beautiful, as is the GPO. I’ll just invert and reiterate the statement.
Cranes are not to be trusted, you know this john. -
October 20, 2008 at 1:16 am #804220
Anonymous
InactiveSuperb photo – Thats a superb sky in that photo Johnny21
-
October 20, 2008 at 2:19 am #804221
Anonymous
Inactive“NCC is beautiful”
I never thought I see that. After my previous attack on this lump of shite and the abuse I got in return, I really should let it go, but I’m afraid I can’t, the NCC is a crime against all the sensibilities I hold dear, it’s nothing short of a travesty. I’m not a conservationist by any stretch, and I’m not against big buildings, but I saw this from Merrion Square recently and it’s a fucking disgrace, Kevin Roche has done nothing of interest since he won the Pritzker Prize in ’82, it’s like something a 1st year architecture student might present as their first house design, but it’s been blown up to the point where it ceases to be funny, and the fact that it then gets built, is like a bad dream.
If a crude, overblown, glorified, gimic by a has-been is now what passes as architecture then I want out.
But, yes nice photo Johnny21… photomerge CS3? -
October 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm #804222
Anonymous
Inactivenot sure if this is in the right thread as I’m not that familiar with the Docklands…but the Sean O’ Casey Community centre is looking great
-
October 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm #804223
Anonymous
InactiveAlrady posted on the “East Wall Community Centre” thread.
-
October 20, 2008 at 5:49 pm #804224
Anonymous
Inactive@spoil_sport wrote:
“NCC is beautiful”
I never thought I see that. After my previous attack on this lump of shite and the abuse I got in return, I really should let it go, but I’m afraid I can’t, the NCC is a crime against all the sensibilities I hold dear, it’s nothing short of a travesty. I’m not a conservationist by any stretch, and I’m not against big buildings, but I saw this from Merrion Square recently and it’s a fucking disgrace, Kevin Roche has done nothing of interest since he won the Pritzker Prize in ’82, it’s like something a 1st year architecture student might present as their first house design, but it’s been blown up to the point where it ceases to be funny, and the fact that it then gets built, is like a bad dream.
If a crude, overblown, glorified, gimic by a has-been is now what passes as architecture then I want out.
But, yes nice photo Johnny21… photomerge CS3?Tastes vary I guess, I do not know how you are not more offended by PWC, there’s a travesty. Maybe you’d feel better about the ncc if it wasnt in such a crap context?
-
October 20, 2008 at 9:12 pm #804225
Anonymous
Inactivespoil_sport wrote:Ah s_s, you know you’re going to get burned, yet you are strangely drawn to this, like a moth to the flame.
Photos from last Friday evening.On the issue of what may be wrong with this building, to me it’s that glass entrance lobby that is, potentially, going to kill it.
If the design of the NCC had one thing going for it, it was the purity of the idea, two simple shapes (sorry volumns) intersecting each other, nothing else. Very few major buildings are that uncluttered, that free of prevailing trends, coloured panels, angular stuck-on bits, ‘eco’ grills, etc. etc.
I could be wrong, but isn’t sticking a curved glass lobby onto the bottom of the tilted glass drum just going to weaken the whole thing and kill the purity?
Then again maybe we won’t even notice it.
-
October 20, 2008 at 10:15 pm #804226
Anonymous
Inactiveno cranes to be seen i see,they have gotten use to walking around the fair city on there own now
-
October 22, 2008 at 6:40 pm #804227
Anonymous
Inactive@johnny21 wrote:
New thread for the sites between spencer dock and point village…..cant find suitable thread to post msgs on these sites so it deserves its own thread. Just adding a pic of whats currently under development and sites yet to be developed along the north quays…..!! liam carrolls development progressing well:D:D Render of the anglo irish bank hq development.:cool::cool:
Great pic up top.:)
-
October 24, 2008 at 2:45 pm #804228
Anonymous
Inactivei agree, in about ten years time you should go back to that point and take another photo.It would be great to match the two and see the changes
-
October 25, 2008 at 7:44 am #804229
Anonymous
InactiveLatest picture of the ncc and north lotts
-
October 25, 2008 at 10:11 am #804230
Anonymous
Inactive:eek::eek::eek:
-
October 27, 2008 at 2:02 pm #804231
Anonymous
InactiveGod that PWC building is an absolute disgrace… How could the “designers” have thought that a fire escape core was an appropriate facade to the public space in front of the NCC?? Revolting…
-
October 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm #804232
Anonymous
InactivePwc HQ is horrible and sticks out like sore thumb.Ruins the spencer dock and north lotts area……. Cut off all the chimney stacks, might make it look at bit better!!!!!!:eek::eek:
The height between the ncc and citigroup building(and the rest of the buildings along the docks of the ifsc) is stupid……why so low???answer; the ddda’s great plan:rolleyes:.:mad::mad:
-
October 28, 2008 at 2:03 pm #804233
Anonymous
InactiveDUBLIN’S CITY HIGHRISE PLAN
Dublin City Council will have new principles for locating high-rise buildings in Dublin put before them at a meeting tomorrow. Earlier this month, council planners published a review of densities and heights in the city, detailing 15 locations where high-rise buildings are permitted. The review lays out the criteria for developers seeking to build in each of the 15 locations.The council’s strategic planning committee will vote on a draft variation to the development plan as the first step to including these locations into the Dublin City Development Plan. The principles dictate that buildings of 16 storeys or more will be permitted in only five areas of the city, including the Docklands, Connolly Station area, George’s Quay, the Digital Hub and Heuston Street area.
Buildings of eight to 15 storeys will be permitted in a further 10 locations, including, Phibsborough, Grangegorman, the ‘north fringe’, Clonsaugh Industrial Estate, Ballymun, Pelletstown, the Dublin Industrial Estate near Cabra, Ballyfermot, Parkwest/Cherry Orchard, and the Naas Road near the intersection of the Long Mile Road.
From architecturenow.ie
-
October 28, 2008 at 2:11 pm #804234
Anonymous
InactiveShouldn’t that go in the Highrise thread?
Also, could you cite your sources in future, please?
-
October 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm #804235
Anonymous
Inactive@johnny21 wrote:
Pwc HQ is horrible and sticks out like sore thumb.Ruins the spencer dock and north lotts area……. Cut off all the chimney stacks, might make it look at bit better!!!!!!:eek::eek:
The height between the ncc and citigroup building(and the rest of the buildings along the docks of the ifsc) is stupid……why so low???answer; the ddda’s great plan:rolleyes:.:mad::mad:
Can you elaborate on this please? Do you have more details about why the skyline exists in its current form?
-
October 28, 2008 at 2:24 pm #804236
Anonymous
Inactive@ctesiphon wrote:
Shouldn’t that go in the Highrise thread?
It relates to this dockland area thats why i put it in this thread.I could put in highrise thread…….if needed.
-
October 28, 2008 at 2:37 pm #804237
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
Can you elaborate on this please? Do you have more details about why the skyline exists in its current form?
If you look in the picture above you see the height difference between the buildings on the left of the NCC/PWC HQ. Buildings on the left only 4/5 storeys(why when its in such a prime area should the height be restricted to 4/5 storeys high, 8 or 9 storeys should be more appropriate for that area, should it not??) and the NCC and PWC are 8 storeys plus. The reason why the skyline is like this because of ddda’s plan for ifsc area was wrong in terms of height!!!
-
October 28, 2008 at 2:45 pm #804238
Anonymous
InactiveWhich plan do you refer to? Have you done any research in to the economic or social context in which the IFSC was constructed? Also, I am not sure that they are all 4 to 5 storeys. Clarion Quay apartments are about eight storey’s aren’t they?
-
October 28, 2008 at 3:02 pm #804239
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
Which plan do you refer to? Have you done any research in to the economic or social context in which the IFSC was constructed? Also, I am not sure that they are all 4 to 5 storeys. Clarion Quay apartments are about eight storey’s aren’t they?
The plan is the Custom House Docks Development Planning Scheme. All im saying is that the ddda got the heights wrong, the height difference between the custom house docks and north lotts is wrong, as you can see from the photo the two areas dont blend. Yes the Clarion Quay,Mayor Square and other apartment buildings are 8 storeys high but are more or less the same height as the office buildings.
-
October 28, 2008 at 3:50 pm #804240
Anonymous
InactiveDoes this mean that the height difference between the new Spencer Docks buildings and the retained rail freight buildings don’t blend either? I am failing to see why you use words like ‘wrong’ and ‘stupid’ in relation to the heights of these buildings when you don’t seem to have any real background information on the planning context of this area.
-
October 28, 2008 at 8:55 pm #804241
Anonymous
InactiveI have to say the PWC building is a real shocker, dull and grey, blends into the sky on a cloudy day, depressing really…and blocks views of NCC from east.
Regarding the height of IFSC I & II its obviously too low in urban design terms fronting the reiver given its width and the greater height that will undoubtedly be achieved at Spencer Dock wil unbalance the whole stretch as it suddenly steps up, albeit not by much.
-
October 29, 2008 at 8:36 am #804242
Anonymous
InactivePersonally I love the PWC building. Those cut off chimneys give it a wonderful zoomorphic quality – somehow reminds me of a fox. Great sense of movement too – it seems to be moving out towards the river every time I see it. It’s certainly better than the other STW building across the river which is very blocky, static and lacks any sort of character.
If you want bland look at the building to the left of the NCC. Looks like it was designed in the 50s
-
November 5, 2008 at 12:11 am #804243
Anonymous
InactiveNcc Pic!!!
-
November 5, 2008 at 12:26 pm #804244
Anonymous
Inactive@PTB wrote:
Personally I love the PWC building. Those cut off chimneys give it a wonderful zoomorphic quality – somehow reminds me of a fox. Great sense of movement too – it seems to be moving out towards the river every time I see it.
Can I have some of whatever youre on PTB? 🙂
I guess it shows how everyone sees things differently. Personally I think that the entire Spencer Dock development including PWC is utterly devoid of any architectural interest and ranges from bland at best to downright ugly and opressive at its most visible. The STW scheme across the river is at least a unified and elegantly resolved building, not a collection of disparite facade treatments like PWC. Even the little white building to the west of NCC doesn’t shout out it’s shortcomings in quite the manner of the PWC monstrosity.
-
January 8, 2009 at 4:55 pm #804245
Anonymous
InactiveCarrolls office on the north wall quay is to go ahead.
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/carroll-can-keep-block-1595578.html cool: -
January 8, 2009 at 7:34 pm #804246
Anonymous
InactiveIts probably one of the better looking ones in the area.
-
January 8, 2009 at 8:53 pm #804247
Anonymous
Inactive@archipig wrote:
Its probably one of the better looking ones in the area.
YES,by far in the whole docklands area…..!:D
-
January 8, 2009 at 9:17 pm #804248
Anonymous
Inactiveany pics?
-
January 9, 2009 at 9:34 am #804249
Anonymous
InactiveRetention order for office block
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0108/1230936761667.html -
January 10, 2009 at 10:48 am #804250
Anonymous
Inactive@alonso wrote:
any pics?
Architects are Traynor O’Toole, details on project page under office development. http://www.totarch.ie/ Thats the only pic i have but more detail on website.
-
January 10, 2009 at 2:17 pm #804251
Anonymous
InactiveI don’t think Ms Justice Geoghegan will take kindly to that to be honest.
-
January 10, 2009 at 2:26 pm #804252
Anonymous
Inactiveis Anglo Irish even still around? aren’t they in serious financial trouble?
-
January 10, 2009 at 4:51 pm #804253
Anonymous
Inactive@johnny21 wrote:
Architects are Traynor O’Toole, details on project page under office development. http://www.totarch.ie/ Thats the only pic i have but more detail on website.
Surely thats speculative whether it will turn out like that now?
The city council gave Mr Carroll’s North Quay Investments a retention order for the building which means the structure can be kept as it is but that planning permission is needed for further work needed to finish the building
-
January 11, 2009 at 1:02 am #804254
Anonymous
Inactive@jdivision wrote:
I don’t think Ms Justice Geoghegan will take kindly to that to be honest.
Why do you say that? From what I remember reading, she expressed the opinion that Caroll is entitled to apply for retention permission.
-
January 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm #804255
Anonymous
InactiveOn the NCC center, love or hate its design – and it seems people will only do one or the other – I myself am rather disappointed with the stuff they have chosen for the cladding of the main block. I work on SJRQ and have it opposite me all day, and when it rains, that pinky-beige stone looks like it has massive sweaty armpits… The whole thing looks really awful in the rain and I can already see it aging quite disgracefully. Will try to get a pic next time there’s some rain – not that that ever happens in Ireland, right? 😀
-
January 23, 2009 at 10:58 am #804256
Anonymous
Inactive@poukai wrote:
On the NCC center, love or hate its design – and it seems people will only do one or the other – I myself am rather disappointed with the stuff they have chosen for the cladding of the main block. I work on SJRQ and have it opposite me all day, and when it rains, that pinky-beige stone looks like it has massive sweaty armpits… The whole thing looks really awful in the rain and I can already see it aging quite disgracefully. Will try to get a pic next time there’s some rain – not that that ever happens in Ireland, right? 😀
Indeed, very true Poukai. I dunno why architects choose meterials that don’t weather very well in this damp Irish climate.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:00 pm #804257
Anonymous
Inactive@JoePublic wrote:
Why do you say that? From what I remember reading, she expressed the opinion that Caroll is entitled to apply for retention permission.
But there’s another case before her in relation to the building. In addition, the DDDA basically lobbied for the retention and Dublin CC broke its own planning guidelines to allow it. They rejected the original plan, which is still the current plan, based on a DDDA objection don’t forget.
-
February 16, 2009 at 7:06 am #804258
Anonymous
InactiveHere ya go, forgive crappiness of photo, but it gives you a pretty good idea of how horrible the cladding looks… Reminds me of a 1960’s school look.
-
February 16, 2009 at 2:08 pm #804259
Anonymous
InactiveSean dunne has appealed the go-ahead from DCC for liam carroll’s anglo development.
-
February 17, 2009 at 12:59 pm #804260
Anonymous
InactiveActually, I have only just noticed the tiny garden shed that seems to have been erected on the roof (on the right on pic), I’m guessing for the workers to have a cuppa in. Love it! Wish they would leave it as a permanent feature 😀
-
February 17, 2009 at 6:29 pm #804261
Anonymous
Inactive@jdivision wrote:
Sean dunne has appealed the go-ahead from DCC for liam carroll’s anglo development.
Did it receive go-ahead permission, wasn’t it just retension permission of the existing skeleton?
-
February 18, 2009 at 10:54 am #804262
Anonymous
InactiveRetention plus completion was granted
-
March 14, 2009 at 8:39 pm #804263
Anonymous
InactiveTreasury holdings have revised plans for spencer dock buildings DE,PQ and interesting highrise plan for north wall quay beside the 02, Designed by Pritzker prize winning architect, Zaha Hadid!!!
-
March 14, 2009 at 8:53 pm #804264
Anonymous
InactiveTo coin a phrase… she canNOT be serious!
-
March 14, 2009 at 10:55 pm #804265
Anonymous
Inactive@johnglas wrote:
To coin a phrase… she canNOT be serious!
Haha, true that.
please excuse my language, but fuck that looks cool:D
Even if it wont be built!
-
March 14, 2009 at 11:41 pm #804266
Anonymous
Inactiveholy lamplight batman!!! that is one amazing looking tower. Are they serious about it? conjsidering these difficult times? Sure would be a giant leap forward for Dublin kind.
-
March 15, 2009 at 12:45 am #804267
Anonymous
InactiveIs it really supposed to resemble a pint ?
-
March 15, 2009 at 10:21 am #804268
Anonymous
InactiveUmm, they just ripped it from the other side of the river:confused:
-
March 15, 2009 at 10:41 am #804269
Anonymous
InactiveIs it just a nice mock-up plan or what might be done, or have they been asked to draw up designs for it as they’re willing to go ahead and build a high rise at this time?
-
March 15, 2009 at 11:46 am #804270
Anonymous
Inactive@archipig wrote:
Is it really supposed to resemble a pint ?
to go with the keg;)
and the tap otherwise known as the bridge -
March 15, 2009 at 12:41 pm #804271
Anonymous
InactiveImpressive.
-
March 15, 2009 at 12:55 pm #804272
Anonymous
InactiveAll renders were taken from treasury holdings website in development and investment section. Wether they get planning permission or not is another thing, but in line with ddda plans for 7/8 100m highrise buildings at the docklands!!!!!:cool: Highrise plan is Replacing there old plan for the site.
-
March 15, 2009 at 2:21 pm #804273
Anonymous
Inactivewasn’t a fan of the old proposal just a big glass block basically but the pint glass thing is definately impressive. Hope it goea ahead
-
March 15, 2009 at 4:52 pm #804274
Anonymous
InactiveThe ‘Pint-at-the-Point’?
Sorry, couldn’t help it.
-
March 16, 2009 at 5:13 pm #804275
Anonymous
Inactive
(c) Gerrit Gillespie Photography – Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTen years of bullshit proposals for ‘Landmark’ towers around the city. Why couldn’t we just have allocated one area in the North Lotts for highrise? So much bickering has left us with nothing but low density business parks.
-
March 16, 2009 at 5:22 pm #804276
Anonymous
InactiveTen years of bullshit proposals for ‘Landmark’ towers around the city. Why couldn’t we just have allocated one area in the North Lotts for highrise? So much bickering has left us with nothing but low density business parks.
Maybe its not too late Morlan, there is still alot of land on the north lotts for future high rise development!!!
-
March 16, 2009 at 8:04 pm #804277
Anonymous
InactiveLol, love archipig’s pint allusion, and missarchi’s keg which the nat convention centre does resemble in such context.
In fairness folks, this is never going to be built and we know it. Worse actually than realising it’s not going to be built would be to grant it permission knowing this, which would up the speculation value of the land – and nothing at all would get built, as an unrealisable price gets fixed to the site.
Still, the drawings looked nice 😉
-
March 16, 2009 at 8:59 pm #804278
Anonymous
InactiveDie pessimist -_-
Tbh though, the market here is not forever dead, odd to see so many people reacting the way they are when recession is such a natural part of the capitalist philosophy, it even serves a purpose – an important one. This recession may be worse than others, but in the long term its just part of the process. This may be hard to accept when your job is on the line, but when we’re talking about shiny pint-objectified runner-up jewels as above, its not totally inconducive to their development which is long term also. Might not be built soon, but the market will inevitably recover and with it will developers appetite for profit-making ego-boosters, which is a sure thing, and this tower just happens to cover both bases.
Dont get me wrong, I am not a proponent of the ultra-capitalist model, I believe in Europes semi-socialism. I also use too many hyphen-words 😛
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.