The failure of Ireland

On BBC news tonight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6660000/newsid_6663800/6663809.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm

this is the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit

http://www.nycclimatesummit.com/

more general info at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/15/tech/main2804711.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2804711

I see Copenhagen is at the table. Why has Dublin not gate-crashed this if they weren’t invited? Or does anyone know are they participating in any other such gatherings?

Is there a ‘normal’ category? You’re right though, what I understand of the economics of Dubai just sounds bonkers to me and beyond comprehension.

Very good chapter about the development of high rise in NY in the book ‘Cities in Civilisation’ by Peter Hall. A very complex coming together of many factors at one time – interesting story, especially when talking about the differences between Chicago and New York skyscrapers.

http://www.amazon.com/Cities-Civilization-Peter-Hall/dp/0394587324

Even in the US though, outside Chicago and New York the skyscraper appeared to be more of a cultural phenomenon than economically driven. With NYC the entry point for the majority of immigrants, the skyscrapers they encountered were hugely influential, and spread as immigrants and ideas filtered across to other cities.

There are for the moment powerful reasons for large commercial high rises – New York and London have to build them in order to compete globally. But do companies want to occupy them for reasons solely of property economics? I think it is the value added by prestige which makes companies want icons. Enormous tracts of open floorspace could be built anywhere at much lower heights, but global businesses want to be high up, be seen and they want to be in the heart of cities, it seems.

In terms of the American Dream it is arguable that the most influential US invention (neck and neck with the mass-produced car) is the skyscraper. It still has a mesmerising mystique for people in far flung cities who want to announce their arrival as world players. I think it is amazing that people are still competing to build the highest skyscraper. Without a pwerful economic argument it looks like insecurity.

The interesting bit about Chicago vs NY was that as most companies had headquarters in Manhattan but Chicago was more regional offices, the New York ones were a lot more sculptural. The Chicago buildings were more often built speculatively and were incredibly efficient space machines.

I am not at all against high rises, it’s just that a) they are only one small part of the vocabulary that can make a great places and b) they do signify the worst and most embarrassing top-o-the-world-ma insecure small-willy tin-pot dicator aspirations to announce to the world that you’ve arrived. They can be good, but they are by far the most visible and easiest things to latch onto. Obssessing about height is to miss so much more that can be done to make cities great.

The other reason that I am not particularly keen on them to be used to signify a city is the nature of their use. Compare a skyscraper to say a public square. Whereas the square is public, open space offering amenity to all, a hgih rise is private, enclosed space which offers amenity only to leaseholders. The contribution to public space of a high rise is pretty limited in my opinion.

I would rather have a completed street, filled with activity, variety, characters, stories, hidden shops, places to hang out than a high-rise apartment building enclosed, as is frequently the case, within a private residential development.

I think that the leading edge of urban design is more at creating places where people love to be and researching and deploying the most innovative sustainable techniques and technologies.

Have to watch the end of suburbia – thanks!

Thanks. It’s interesting – porb says as much about the shock everyone was feeling after 9/11 as anything about the future of towers. Since the article was written it seems towers are booming as never before – in New York there’s the rebuilding of the WTC site and a new high rise district planned for the West Midtown, in London height is only constrained by technical capabilities as far as the GLA is concerned. And as for China Shanghai or Beijing…

I remember there were also a lot of predictions that big companies would abandon city centres and decamp to dispersed suburbs – another prediction that was wide of the mark!

I don’t think any of this ever affected Ireland though – towers are really beginning to happen now it appears.

FFS how many times do I have to point this out:

This thread is NOT about highrise

FFS:rolleyes:

Darkman are you trying to take the piss ? practically every contribution of yours references high rise.

Darkman’s posts on this thread

The Docklands is a failure – a failure of enlightenment of highrise development – a sympthom of failure of Irish attitude to change. Our tallest building after the Celtic Tiger is 70m high

***************

This is exactly the attitude im talking about. Its always why should we do this or why should we do that. Never why we can do that and we will. This is the problem.

Its not your fault of course. Its an Irish thing. Whatever we do – make sure we build it too friggin small – thats the mentality.

***************

Its not about whether Dublin has tall buildings or not – well actually it is in a way because it’s a sympthom of a strange attitude we have of thinking too small.

Im not arguing for Skyscrapers or to turn Dublin into Shanghai or anything like that. What im saying is we build too small. Even the most rose tinted spectacles of some contributers would see this is the case.

***************

Go to Dubai (a city in a small country) and look at their ambition. It puts us to shame. Ive every right to be angry at our failure to create a capital to be proud of and dont go on with the bullsh*t that small is beautiful- its not. Its pahtetic and shows us in a bad light. Where is the ambition and the intent to make a statement in Dublin architectularly? Yet again another 32 storey spectacular building rejected in Ballsbridge. Im sorry but we are being f**ked over of opportunity by stupid people in DCC.

The first skyscapers were buit in Chicago I understood. They represent male phallic supremacy and were built to flaunt the endowment of their builders. Every city in the US looks so alike and although I’m a keen admirer of a lot of the thrusting monuments to wealth, I feel a more feminine approach to architecture would be more apposite to the 21st century.

Are all you architects in here men? Ever heard of Eileen Gray? If not, why not?

JL.- surely not in the postmodern era.

Darkman I am not talking about high-rises per se, but signifiers of progress or success. You brought up high-rise in the context of judging Ireland a success or failure – as was pretty eloquently pointed out above.

If we can’t get off the topic of morbidly discussing Ireland and (in my opinion simplistically) declaring it a success or failure, then perhaps let’s talk about success/failure in respect of other countries. Which countries are ‘successful’ and which are ‘failures’. Come on, don’t be shy, name names!