Vertigo? U2 tower to be taller
- This topic has 628 replies, 101 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Yes, Fosters have an office above Habitat…
Personally I really like the new scheme, much more distinctive and dynamic than the stumpy twisting tower. This will have real presence and will certainly put the deadly dull “watchtower” across the river to shame. Great to hear that the developers arent trying to squirm out of their responsibilities to provide social and affordable units – apparently 30 or more will be included in the development according to a story in this evening’s herald.
@BTH wrote:
Yes, Fosters have an office above Habitat…
Personally I really like the new scheme, much more distinctive and dynamic than the stumpy twisting tower. This will have real presence and will certainly put the deadly dull “watchtower” across the river to shame. Great to hear that the developers arent trying to squirm out of their responsibilities to provide social and affordable units – apparently 30 or more will be included in the development according to a story in this evening’s herald.
Harsh on the wathtower tbh. Renders can be misleading.
@BTH wrote:
Great to hear that the developers arent trying to squirm out of their responsibilities to provide social and affordable units – apparently 30 or more will be included in the development
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
It’s a condition of the GCD Planning Scheme that all developments must include the 20% S&A provision if they want to get Section 25 Approval, so I don’t think too much praise should be directed at the developers / architects in this case.
What remains to be seen is whether the 20% S&A will remain when the authorities realise that the building is not compliant with the GCD PS- if they have to apply for regular PP owing to the height exceeding the maximum specified in the GCD PS (as I’ve argued they must), will they take it as an opportunity to quietly remove the 20%?
Does anyone know what materials are being used for the bumpy textures on the side of the building. It could either look great or awful..depending on what is used. As has been said renders can be misleading and a night time view of this doesnt ive much detail. Its an ok design but will depend hugely on the materials used. It could look very out of place and out of scale if it is not done right..just curious..i won;t have to look at it every day but would hate to see something built for the sake of building a “skyscraper” for Dublin
cstephion wasn’t there an amendment to the GCD scheme last year that allowed increased height. As others have said, the 20 per cent was a requirement, no getting out of it. Watchtower looks awful in fairness but what’s being built is a massive improvement on the STW proposal.
jd-
See my previous posts earlier in the thread on this subject- the amendment allowed for a building up to 100m to the ‘shoulder’, up to a maximum height of 120m.
Also, I think the ‘others’ you refer to was me. 😉
My first mention of the S&A matter: https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=72463&postcount=248
My first mention of the height issue: https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=72466&postcount=249
My restatement of the height issue: https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=72814&postcount=316
I note also that, since I posted the last of those linked comments, Paul amended this post to include mention of the extra 50 metres. That info wasn’t there when I replied. It (the extra info, not Paul’s amendment) makes the whole thing even more farcical. Not that I’m surprised…
Aha, so this energy centre thingy is not in the render we have I take it, 50 meters of windmills, sounds pretty wacky! Want to see a picture of it…
But if they want to increase the height let them just apply for planning permission or amend their scheme (again), no need to get all hung up on it.
If there is any difficulties, they will amend the GCD scheme as this conveniently papers over the planning cracks. They have in fact done this already. DDDA will not under any circumstances open this project to even the remotest possibility of conventional planning and resultant 3rd Party appeals, An Taisce, high court actions etc. As long as they can make up the rules, and keep changing them accordingly, they will.
Yes, exactly.
But it’s the fact that it’s been done already that concerns me. Makes a nonsense of the whole concept of a Planning Scheme, really, doesn’t it?
@" wrote:
As long as they can make up the rules, and keep changing them accordingly, they will.
@ctesiphon wrote:
effectively re-writing the rules as it goes along to suit… to suit what? Or who?
Great minds… 😉
Well the height that was set in the planning scheme was set because of the height they wanted to build at the time. Now they’ve changed their minds and they want to go bigger again, I say let them.
There’s no point being too strict with disallowing amendments to the planning scheme: the worst outcome for the remainder of the docklands is if they DON’T amend it! – Otherwise we’re going to just get more of the same 6/7 storey boxes until all the available land is used up.
Most builders in the Docklands have been quite successful at removing the 20% social/affordable requirement by negotiating to build almost exclusively affordable to meet obligations. Affordable does not have the stigma attached that exists with social. DDDA is very happy to accomodate as they are very nervous about social.
As I said in a previous post, the DDDA were trying to direct the social and affordable into the Graving Docks development – this will be the most likely depository for this. They wouldn’;t want their precious facade festooned by tri-colours when Ireland are back playing at Lansdowne, or think of the various guises of santa clauses, raindeers abd all twinkly things festive that would festoon some of the apartments circa Christmas 2011….:) .
It’s also amazing that the DDDA went to such great lengths to ensure the BCDH design remained within the boundary of the SJRQ road – this is afterall owned by DCC, not DDDA, and also has the LUAS / RPA to contend with. There may also be potential title issues with the properties directly above the road way. Looks good on an architect’s drawing board, but good old Irish red tape will soon scupper that.
A bridge at the 7th floor from the BCDH U2 tower to the then MCA designed Britain Quay building was considered earlier but discounted for many of the reasons outlined above. How they change their tune when the starchitect rolls into town…..
@ctesiphon wrote:
But it’s the fact that it’s been done already that concerns me. Makes a nonsense of the whole concept of a Planning Scheme, really, doesn’t it?
TBH, it’s not just through amending the planning scheme that they will get their own way – they have already used their influence to have the Watchtower redesigned, which would certainly be sailing close to the wind in terms of their planning remit. This, as well as the block on Liam Carroll’s development at the site adjacent to the U2 tower, was instigated by DDDA at the most senior level. So the goal posts will be changed and changed again to make sure they stay getting their way….
Right, finally, ive dug deep and come up with something (every little helps) although the scale looks a little off:rolleyes: :
I dont think that render truly reflects its height and scale though amd its obviously hastily put together and the detail is not there.
Quite different from the original render – implying that it slenders down to nothing … quite like it, in fact it looks a lot better from that angle …
It also suggests that the regular floor glazing pattern ends quite a way short of the top so I wonder does this render include the elusive ‘energy centre’, if so surely it is well underscaled, as said above.
The render I posted is wrong obviously from a height perspective. They have squeezed about 30 floors into the height of Liberty hall so there is no way its a proper reflection of its height. I agree with you that that could be the idea for the energy center. Looks a little odd if its not. The difference with the energy center (if thats what its meant to be) actually looks to improve the general look of the building on that render,
The scale is completely off. Look at the 6 storey block to the right and then count the floors on the tower: 10.
They must be trying to make it look smaller in the renders so that people don’t throw a fit.
I’ve examined the render and scaled it up in Photoshop to match the surrounding buildings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
