Portals of Darkness Protest

Looks good in the picture – what is the objection? Any more details on the proposal (pref. on the web)?

Ahhhh c’mon Celfi, its poor 70 / 80s dross with little or no style. The SOM building was a thousand times better than this. Unfortunetly they do not have to go for planning permission to build this.

budgie wharf

I noticed some groundworks going on there the other Saturday (22nd January) so it looks like its going ahead.

Ah well, there goes the neighbourhood.

Rory W

PS Ceilfi, are you mad? It’s by far the worst piece of late eighties crap that this city should never have (hopefully). Please let someone stop this rubbish. Lets face it the SOM building could have been the new Busaras (I know its cliched but hey), now all we get is Canary Wharf Jnr.

canary wharf junior?
budgie wharf ! goddam you !!

This really is a story of bad planning again. While I quite like the buildings themselves, I think that maybe they should be down by the proposed Spencer Dock development sight. I also think that the Ulster Bank itself is out of place.

On a more genral comment about Dublin city. I think that more effort should have been made down through the years to keep building heights similar throughout the city (say between 5 and 6 stories). This has been done in cities such as Munich and Paris with great results. They are much more pleasing to the eye that Dublin. Here, on the other hand we have only managed to do this in the very centre of the city. After this building height seems to be a free for all.

Sometimes I wonder why we have not succeeded in making Dublin into a truly nice city. I feel that now it is too late.

I like high rise – aren’t uniform building lines kind of boring?

Our problem is that we aren’t getting any decent proposals. The SOM scheme (while the high rise parts looked a lot better than this) appeared to fall down very badly on the design at ground level.

Definitely too late now

New design for landmark city scheme on Georges Quay site
The Irish Independent

The high-rise scheme mooted by international architects Skidmore Owings & Merill which was rejected by An Bord Pleanala has been substituted by the Keane Murphy Duff design which has previously acquired planning permission. The current Keane Murphy Duff design has had the glazing of the original design changed. The dark windows initially proposed have been replaced by lighter colour glazing, resulting in a much more transparent effect. The development is scheduled to be completed in 18 months.
http://www.independent.ie/2000/67/p98k.shtml

It is good to see work resuming on this neglected site. I think it is right to proceed with the original intended design despite what one says negatively about the scheme.
If you consider the original scheme was designed collectively. In comparison to the proposed Skidmore, Merril & Ownings (SOM) proposed addition, it appears neater, fits better and addresses the riverside and streets better.
The SOM buildings (despite their sensous curves) appear quite large and clashes in style with the original scheme. It adds to a very cluttered and un-uniform appearance overall from the riverside,especially with the railway bridge to the right.This would look like a random piecemeal development.
The vertical towers of the original design are centrally placed and somewhat mirror their isolated neighbour Liberty Hall,yet the streeline (Moss Street)is re-installed and uniform.
The shiny glass of the original scheme will age rather better than the multiple ledges of the SOM buildings(what one could term a dirt collector).In the long term the SOM buildings would appear rather shabby in comparison to th glass leading to a further distinctive clash.
I think these points when considered are blatently obvious. Any objections.

Portal of Darkness vs SOM
It is good to see work resuming on this neglected site. I think it is right to proceed with the original intended design despite what one says negatively about the scheme.
If you consider the original scheme was designed collectively. In comparison to the proposed Skidmore, Merril & Ownings (SOM) proposed addition, it appears neater, fits snugly and addresses the riverside and streets better.
The SOM buildings (despite their sensous curves) appear quite large and clashes in style with the original scheme. It adds to a very cluttered and un-uniform appearance overall from the riverside,especially with the railway bridge to the right.This would look like a random piecemeal development.
The vertical towers of the original design are centrally placed and somewhat mirror their isolated neighbour Liberty Hall, yet the streeline (Moss Street) is re-installed and uniform.
The shiny glass of the original scheme will age rather better than the multiple ledges of the SOM buildings (what one could term a dirt collector). In the long term the SOM buildings would appear rather shabby in comparison to the glass, leading to a further distinctive clash.
I think these points when considered are blatantly obvious. Any objections

What have I missed?

I was sure that the tallest of these blocks would still be shorter than Liberty Hall. How could they possibly be the tallest buildings in the state?!

The residents knew that the pp for the ’91 scheme hadn’t withered, and I am personally glad to see construction finally going ahead on this derelict lot.

Im not expert, but if you live in a row of houses just across the street from even a 5 or 6 storey building, you are going to be in shadow [depending on aspect of course].

I hope this latest appeal fails.

To the best of my knowledge, the tallest building in the development is smaller than Liberty Hall (but not my much). The residents appeal is 9 years too late and whilst i preferred the SOM scheme I am happy that the glazing on the ‘portals’ scheme has been redesigned.