Point Village
- This topic has 558 replies, 100 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Well you do have to take certain ‘risks’ in building tall – but to blankly refuse to build a ‘landmark’ building because of the ‘risk’ is very unambitious don’t you think? Though saying that, given the record thus far I certainly see what you mean Jimg.
Hi Rjajc, sorry but again it seems you’re advocating height for height’s sake – that height is ‘better’ whilst low-rise is mediocre.
I can deduce little else from what you’re saying.I can vaguely see where you’re coming from though, from the perspective that most cities that are low-rise and have protected skylines like Prague or Tallinn etc have very good reasons to be so with their spires and crenellations and all the rest of it – whilst Dublin is well – yeah….:a modernised, westernised, bland-from-a-distance provincial British city by design.
From that perspective yes it is capable of aborbing tall buildings, but still in a designated area, and in a restricted manner.
If one thing makes Dublin so different (and lucky) in comparision with its UK neighbours, or even up the road in Belfast, is the lack of nasty inappropriate towers from the 1970s, and not just in it’s core, but anywhere around its centre.
We’re very lucky that we have something of a blank canvas to work with.An eight-ish story density is a very satisfying type of development to see, especally what limited examples there are at the moment in the Docklands. Low-rise does not equal bland: low quality certainly does.
hmm, didnt check this for a while… i never meant to say that dublin is not “21st century” just its planning towards high rise, high rise which is definetly needed. sprawl is very problematic and is eating up country round dublin. i am not adamant about high rise because i say wow when looking at new york or the like but becase this would solve so many problems in dublin, it would be great for public transport and solve congestion, communting times and deal with that nasty endless sprawl of ugly housing estates. i like the low rise skyline of dublin and the ocasional high rise cluster would only complement it if designed well, this dosnt mean i want a “audio metre” skyline, just a more capable inner city. btw, dublin is definetly not the equivalent of a birmingham suburb! birmingham has a population of 991,900 as of last cencus and thats it, dublin with “the greater area” included is over 1.2 million – larger than birmingham
Everybody that proposes skyscrapers here is being accused of wanting them just for the sake of it from what I can tell. I don’t want them just for the sake of it. Tell me, why do other countries build them anyway? Big countries and very small.
All this jumping between the ‘Dublin Skyline’ and ‘Point Village’ threads has me all dizzy of a friday evening. But the (ahem) more intelligent debate seems to be taking place here (so it’s obviously where I fit in best 😉 ).
It has been mentioned in passing by other posters, but it bears reiteration- tall buildings are generally uneconomical to build. Their positives are relatively few- international profile, landmark role (nothing to do with quality, I mean simply acting as a geographical landmark)- compared to their negatives. Further, their role in a city in providing residential accommodation is questionable, given the open space requirements, our national love affair with the private car (I’d love to believe it, but I can’t see ownership dropping appreciably just because we live closer together) which must be stored somewhere, etc. There is more of a case to be made for their use as office accommodation, but I wonder how we’d view them in 20 years when the office market has outgrown its suburbanisation phase and we’re all teleworking from our personal think-zones, and emails are automatically generated by our subconscious… Sorry, I’m getting carried away. But you get my thrust- would we be faced with the issue of what to do with all those obsolete towers?
What gets me is that there seems to be two camps arguing for height here- the densification lobby, with which I have a good deal of sympathy, and the ‘height-for-height’s-sake’ lobby, with which I have no sympathy.
Everybody that proposes skyscrapers here is being accused of wanting them just for the sake of it from what I can tell. I don’t want them just for the sake of it.
Linda- may I ask why you do want them, then?
Rjajc- I can’t agree that we should be trying to compete with the big world-players. An anecdote, if I may: a few years ago, when the Caravaggio ‘Taking of Christ’ was on display in the NGI, an American tourist was vox-popped on the radio for his opinion, and he said that while he liked the painting, he could see many more Caravaggios in Rome, and the same went for other artists who were far better represented in US galleries than they often were in their home countries. He said that the reason he visited national (and other) galleries in cities not renowned for their standing in international art circles was to see the art that local painters had painted, the kind of regional variations that, say, MOMA or the Met in NY can’t provide. He saw this regionalism as the very strength of these second tier galleries, rather than something to be ashamed of.
I think this has an application to the current debate. Dublin has a character peculiar to the city, as does Cork, Waterford, etc etc.- it can be seen even in the varieties of Georgain architecture they each have. However, it can’t be seen in the different tall buildings approved/proposed for each place. Anything that undermined the individuality of each should be resisted.
Two other things:
1) One of the things I liked most about Edinburgh when I lived there was the quality of the flats in the tenements buildings- ours had four bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, sittingroom and small study, with 14 ft ceilings. There is nothing in Dublin remotely like them, more’s the pity.
2) Lexington:
in fairness to Cork City Council
Didn’t you mean “in fairness to Cork City Council, like“?
(Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😮 )
Eh, to tackle urban sprawl for a start. Do you want to see our beautiful countryside destroyed by urban sprawl? Field after field being taken over? Ireland has been described as one big building site. Dublin is growing out all the time and our population is growing too. So many people coming into Ireland. To remove traffic off the roads. To provide more employment in a way. To move along with the changing times. To provide more space in a small area so I can work where I live… I would much prefer to live in a highrise building in the city and work in that same area. The higher the building the more people you can fit in. A commute of 2ish hours to work AND back every single day is a pain and believe you me I know. I have lived in another country by the way. I lived on the 45th floor and found it a lot easier to travel down in a lift than sit in a car all day. I have better things to be doing. Having said that if a 100 storey building were to be built in Dublin somewhere resembling that of Hawkin’s House, Apollo House or Millennium Tower I would be furious. I like buildings to look well whether they are big or small. I am a firm believer of good architecture. That is just my opinion which I am entitled to. Everybody is entitled to their opinion ctesiphon just like you. I have never single out a person and knocked them for expressing their opinion. The people that propose highrises are really being knocked though. Nobody has answered my question. Why does any counrty go highrise??? If highrises don’t work out they can be torn down. It is not the end of the world building up. I have said it before and i will say it AGAIN, I do not want them just for the sake of it. Urban sprawl is obviously a big issue as we have a thread on it. I am not trying to upset anybody here. Someone did mention that Dublin takes up a huge area. It does. So many buildings are on hold. All the ones I have mentioned before. I can’t understand why. They aren’t even large highrises. These delays at building between 16 to 19 storeys is crazy. A few people have said that 8-10 storeys with the odd 20ish storey building would be ok but we can’t even seem to do that. So many buildings delayed. It is very frustrating. We shouldn’t delay on these. I also agree with proper context and location. Enough said. 🙂
interesting to note that the ddda has an edge over everywhere else in the country seeing as how permission can be granted by the ddda once a proposal seems to fulfil all their criteria. a good thing definetly if handled well but potentially disastrous!!!
the fact remains ireland is a small island, dublin a mushroom that continues to swell and going up is essential to the future sustainability of not just dublin but all major cities in ireland. and making better use of land and promoting sensible projects is vital. density is definetly an issue and unfortunately the point village seems to be a 32 storey tower surrounded by the standard 5 storey stuff. i guess a case of wait and see.
the urban plan is interesting with their ideas for tall buildings near heuston. perfect spot for a few tall buildings and high density living and i still maintain having tall feature towers around the city is a better idea than a glut in one spot. i am still a fan of the idea of denis o brien’s tower on morehampton road and glad to the sandyford tower going ahead (the 26 storey one) but we have to be wary of accepting every tower proposal as the way to go. last thing we need is a collection of cookie cutter bollocks making a balls of the docks!!!
one last thing when is the u2 tower project supposed to get under way or is that delayed because they have decided to push that one to 100 metres as well!!?!!To be honest I really don’t know why people are getting so hot under the collar with each other. It does seem rather trivial. We are all friends here.
is playing around with the u2 tower’s height a good idea? they had a competition and that entry won so why not leave things as they are? i can see it slipping through the net as a result. we could end up with no u2 tower if this playing around continues.
@linda wrote:
Eh,
- to tackle urban sprawl for a start…
- To remove traffic off the roads. …
- To provide more employment in a way…
- To move along with the changing times…
- To provide more space in a small area so I can work where I live…
Apologies for summarising your post. These are the main points you have made.
1. to tackle urban sprawl for a start…
Density is determined by floor area ratio, and height is just one factor in floor area ratio. Floor area ratio is determined by the total floor area of buildings in a given area divided by the total land area occupied by those buildings. High rise buildings are built as detached spires. Each building width between them reduces the FAR by 50%. So a 50 storey building with a footprint of 100m2, built on a site of 1000m2 has the same FAR as a terrace of 5 storey buildings built up to the roadway.This is how Paris achieves approximately the same density as Manhattan and has far higher densities than Hong Kong or Monaco. Height gives the illusion of high density.
Now high-rise buildings can’t be built too close together, let alone terraced. So, high rise building tend to result in low average densities compared to terraces of mid height buildings.
2. To remove traffic off the roads. …
This point assumes that high buildings result in dense living which they don’t. And even if you did achieve the density it would mean there are more people available in a given area to congest the roads. Look at the streets in Hong Kong or Manhattan. Even when sufficient public transport is provided, a proportion of people continue to drive until the roads fill up. Of course these cities could just ban people from driving in the city but they don’t (though London and Paris are heading in that direction). I guess when you talk about removing traffic from the roads you weren’t including yourself.3. To move along with the changing times…
Building high rise as a means of densifying a city is not a current trend]4. To provide more space in a small area so I can work where I live…[/B]
This point again assumes that tall buildings densify a city.Sorry but I am not trying to cause tension. I was just thinking that if you were to build say a 100 storey skyscraper in place of Liberty Hall just an example mind, you would be able to squeeze in just as many people, if not more than a much wider building. Take the Irish Life Centre, if that were taller there would be more space to put in another building of lesser height beside it if not several. Building out all the time seems to be causing problems. I am not trying to agrivate anyone. I am just stating a viewpoint. My comments on highrise have certainly cause a stir. I am so new to this site and have obviously said wrong. I would hate to see a building of that height here in Ireland though. Our island is too small for that. It gives me great comfort to see that the likes of Luxembourg and Iceland are the same as us in a way. :confused:
Ah, poor linda.
“some” of the buildings that have gone up in this country over the past several years are terrible. bland and boring. no style whatsoever. i hate this use of red brick and timber along with grey in colour. box, box, box. where are all the decent architects? what ever possessed them to build these eyesores anyway? it makes me so annoyed. and yes they are eyesores no matter what anyone says.
Indeed I agree, we are very lucky. There was a time when this country was not in a position to debate such investment – the sight of a tower crane in the skyline was a topic of citywide discussion (“What’s going in there?” “Did you see what they’re building over there?” etc etc) and I do think that sometimes we may forget that the investment taken by developers is positive for jobs, renewal, the economy etc. We shouldn’t forget the importance of that, and in our on-going criticisms of developers etc, we should remember that the willingness of such to take an investment risk in this country all those years ago was generally a issue of welcome.I think it is important to also remember that now, given the position we are now so lucky to occupy, it is important to make sure that it is used wisely. It is important to see that our country and urban landscapes benefit as many positives as possible that we can obtain from such a position and that the marks those efforts leave on our nation long-term are ones we can look back on and say ‘we did our best’. Websites like this may not exist – or be as successful – had we not our current economic and social climate to enjoy – but given our circumstances, it’s important to allow for debate. Not everyone is going to agree on a particular project – even though some projects may sometimes generally feel better than others (e.g. regarding high-rise for example – I believe SJR by OMS for Dunloe Ewart felt right, as does the U2 Tower by Craig Henry, Eglinton Street & Water Street in Cork and Riverpoint in Limerick), we should allow for debate to explore all the options.
@ctesiphon wrote:Didn’t you mean “in fairness to Cork City Council, like”?
No bother boy! 😉
@lexington wrote:
I do think that sometimes we may forget that the investment taken by developers is positive for jobs, renewal, the economy etc. We shouldn’t forget the importance of that, and in our on-going criticisms of developers etc, we should remember that the willingness of such to take an investment risk in this country all those years ago was generally a issue of welcome.
Lexington, your little piece reminds me of Pat Gallagher’s famous spiel in c1980 – “Building a better Ireland…better” 😀
i hate this claim that everyone who wants high rise wants new york, the fact is it WOULD solve alot of problems – economy damaging problems. urban sprwal as linda and other thread say is a very bad thing and is destroying our countryside, congestion is slowing the city considerably and communting times of two hours is something no one should have to live with. i think a jouney to cork is a big deal 🙂 and thats two hours, so what can you do with two hours? u can travel halfway acros the country to another city or you can go to work in dublin. footprints on high rise buidlings are smaler but once a certain height is reached higher density than a low rise building can be acheived to an almost limitless exetent, low rise building can be wide, but their width is limited. dublin will keep growing and once low rise buidlings have spread over every inch of grass in the city we will be left in the same sprawling mess as we are in now. i am not willing to accept high rise at any cost, as the others arguing the same point are not. we want good architecture and nothing less but high does not mean ugly. the best possible step dublin can take now is designate an area for a large high rise cluster and serve it well with public transport… this kind of thing would allow countess more to live in-city and bring an end to problems mentioned
Well let some proposals of real quality emerge in the right locations and I will be the first to promote them. Graham is absolutely right in what he says; the model is outside the City core to have high density developments at 8-10 storeys (once there is no important built/Natural heritage too close) punctuated by tall buildings.
@ihateawake wrote:
i think a jouney to cork is a big deal 🙂 and thats two hours
My God, how fast do you drive??? 😀
Linda- In essence, what I’m saying is that densification is the issue and I don’t see high rise as the answer. I won’t try and improve on Frank’s summary of the rationale or on Graham’s preferred strategy above.
PS I don’t mean to sound patronising, but if you’re going to hold a strong point of view, you just have to be prepared to defend it (and the tone of the defence is important too if you want to get your message across). Differences of opinion aren’t meant as personal attacks. It would be a dull site if we were all here just to confirm our prejudices and congratulate each other on our impeccable taste.
Now if you’ll excuse me, there’s a pint in town with my name on it and a half hour cycle between it and me, so I must away.
@lexington wrote:
My God, how fast do you drive??? 😀
Do you bill your clients for only two hours, I thought the train at two hours 50 minutes was doing well
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
