Vertigo? U2 tower to be taller
- This topic has 628 replies, 101 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Foster in firing line over U2 Tower…
Published on http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/dailynews/foster_in_firing_line_over_u2_tower.html
02 November 2007 11:46 Author: Richard WaiteThe never-ending controversy surrounding the proposed U2 tower in Dublin has taken yet another twist after conservationists warned of potential legal action over the latest plans by Foster + Partners. An Taisce, the National Trust of Ireland, said it had ‘serious concerns about the behind-the-scenes process’ adopted by landowner Dublin Docklands Development Agency (DDDA), which picked the 120m-tall scheme by Foster following a developer-led contest last month. The trust is claiming that neither itself nor the public has been consulted on the new tower, and that it has not seen any environmental impact assessment reports – even though the scheme could have a detrimental impact on a key Georgian area of the city and is 40m-taller than previous ditched proposals by Dublin-based Craig Henry Architects and Burdon Dunne Architects. Such reports had been supplied to support the DDDA’s original masterplan for the area, however a trust spokesman told the AJ he feared the ‘dramatically different’ proposals could be given the go-ahead without either renewed consultation or a revised environmental statement, because of the authority’s special planning powers. The trust did not rule out instigating legal proceedings to force the DDDA to carry out a new environmental report which could hold up the development, backed by Ballymore Properties. Ian Ritchie’s Spire on the other side of the city was similarly delayed to allow for a full environmental impact assessment.
An Taisce’s heritage officer Ian Lumley said: ‘We were taken completely by surprise by this dramatically different scheme. We are not getting the information and the city is being kept in the dark. We welcome the likes of Foster but there is a right way to do things and there has been a lack of explanation of the legal process.’ He added: ‘We were happy with height of the previous scheme, but we see this as deviating from the DDDA’s original masterplan and so these proposals must be subject to an environmental impact assessment.’
However a spokesman for the DDDA rubbished the claims, saying: ‘The development of the Docklands masterplan and the planning schemes included extensive consultation and the public and local residents had plenty of opportunity for involvement in the process. ‘There was a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) report on the U2 Tower conducted as part of the recent amendment to the Planning Scheme for the Grand Canal Dock area. This was made available during the public consultation process and was submitted with the amended Planning Scheme by the Docklands Authority to the Minister for approval under Section 25 of the Dublin Docklands Act 1997.’
@fergalr wrote:
Hancock Centre anyone?You are not actually comparing u2 building to the john hancock building in Chicago??
Stay off the drugs mate
Its one thing for it to be compared to his previous design in Sydney as it is vaguely similarPoor effort jumping on the bandwagon ‘knocking the successful person’
[ATTACH]6219[/ATTACH]
@Mick wrote:
[img]
Spot the difference!
I wonder if anyone in the Ballymore/U2 team realised that they were being sold a second hand pup?
Foster’s design for Deutsche Bank in Sydney is ten years old. Did no-one at the DDDA or any one of the eminent architects on the judging panel notice the remarkable similarity?
Hardly the breath-taking innovative design we were told we were getting, more a case of here’s one I prepared earlier.
You know you’d swear every other building built in Dublin in modern times were complete originals, architectual masterpieces, and here was Foster daring to come here and fob this unoriginal on us. Yes both buildings are skyscrapers. Yes they have a similar angle on the roof. Yes both buildings are by the same architect.
Woopdeefeeckindoo
Not to mention how you doctored the image to straighten the U2 tower – you forgot the shadow mind.
@Mick wrote:
[img]
Spot the difference!
I wonder if anyone in the Ballymore/U2 team realised that they were being sold a second hand pup?
Foster’s design for Deutsche Bank in Sydney is ten years old. Did no-one at the DDDA or any one of the eminent architects on the judging panel notice the remarkable similarity?
Hardly the breath-taking innovative design we were told we were getting, more a case of here’s one I prepared earlier.
Pathetic, and if you did doctor the the image then doubly so
Does this type of crap make people feel big or clever? because i dont understand it, to me you look small and petty, not you mick in particular , but anyone who pulls this spot the difference shite
Its a fantastic looking building, the ddda chose it, now build it
And everyone else get over yourselvesIt is tiresome but very true that success breeds enemies
and the fact that this is a foster design AND a high rise building is too much for some people to stomach and that is the sad factThis whole ‘controversy’ is so predictable, is there anyone out there that didnt see this coming?
And dont tell me the ddda didnt follow some guideline parameters, SO WHAT , sometimes life just isn’t fair:D@paul h wrote:
Pathetic, and if you did doctor the the image then doubly so
Does this type of crap make people feel big or clever? because i dont understand it, to me you look small and petty, not you mick in particular , but anyone who pulls this spot the difference shite
Its a fantastic looking building, the ddda chose it, now build it
And everyone else get over yourselvesIt is tiresome but very true that success breeds enemies
and the fact that this is a foster design AND a high rise building is too much for some people to stomach and that is the sad factThis whole ‘controversy’ is so predictable, is there anyone out there that didnt see this coming?
And dont tell me the ddda didnt follow some guideline parameters, SO WHAT , sometimes life just isn’t fair:DI agree………also who did not predict an Taisce would stick their grubby noses in too, no doubt, to launch yet another idiotic complaint against a major project in the courts (and the taxpayer will pay for it of course):rolleyes:
i dont know how anyone can conclude that this is a great design from the images seen so far. I kind of like it in many ways but i kind of also think it will look like a giant heap of crap in a few years time..it really all depends on the finer details..none of which anyone can tell from the images released to date.
In a city which is predominantly lo-rise it quite possibly could turn out to be the most dominant heap of junk you will see anywhere.Tall does not automatically mean great design and some people just want it built so that Dublin can have a tall building..plenty of “just build it already ” comments and that would be a serious mistake imo. In a city like New York or maybe even London you might get away with it but in Dublin if its poor it will stick out like a very big sore thumb on a very small handMaybe we should start a “U2 tower rant thread” for all the moaners. If you pick out nearly any skyscraper in the world and look hard enough one will pop up thats similar in some way, Architecture itself is becoming more globalized unfortunately. As for an taisce its sad enough that this organisation is even taken seriously in this country.
@cubix wrote:
As for an taisce its sad enough that this organisation is even taken seriously in this country.
It’s very important we have an organisation looking out for our heritage (where were an taisce when Dunnes Stores/DCC were knocking part of an intact 1920s terrace on Henry street?).
But they lose credibility in my mind when they oppose and attempt to further delay a development like this for spurious reasons.
And as for buildings looking similar to each other, I have discovered that the GPO, the Custom’s house, the old Parliament on College Green AND the Four Courts are suspiciously similar: we better demolish three of them before the rest of the world finds out.
It’s very important we have an organisation looking out for our heritage (where were an taisce when Dunnes Stores/DCC were knocking part of an intact 1920s terrace on Henry street?).
An Taisce serve an important role as you say. It’s only too bad that their public funding was seriously reduced a number of years ago because they were perceived as being too effective in fulfilling that role.
Funny how we’ve become so inured to originality that a little resemblance is enough to enrage us. Remember the 50s,60s and 70s when cities were full of the same old office buildings straight of the old-as the Americans would say-Cookie Cutter.
@cubix wrote:
As for an taisce its sad enough that this organisation is even taken seriously in this country.
Why?
@darkman wrote:
I agree………also who did not predict an Taisce would stick their grubby noses in too, no doubt, to launch yet another idiotic complaint against a major project in the courts (and the taxpayer will pay for it of course):rolleyes:
Your post is so misinformed as to be laughable. What do you mean by ‘yet another idiotic complaint… in the courts’? Let me ask you, how many ‘idiotic complaints’ are you aware of An Taisce having taken to the courts with the associated expense to the taxpayer? A simple list will suffice, thanks; even one for, say, the last 10 years.
As for an taisce its sad enough that this organisation is even taken seriously in this country.
Most other countries have national heritage organisations who have input into the development process and most are taken seriously indeed.
Ireland is the only country I know of where it’s seen as fashionable, witty or clever to blindly follow the ignorant outbursts of gombeen local councillers and grubby vested interests and vilify the only statutary organisation in the country which has any regard for our built heritage. I know I’m going to insult you but casual An Taisce bashing is a sure indicator of ignorance in this country. I’ve never heard anyone present an informed case against An Taisce with real examples of it’s unreasonable interferance with development. Yet I’ve heard countless people, sometimes usually intelligent, casually denigrate An Taisce. If ever challenged, they express mild surprise and assume it’s taken for granted but never manage anything more convincing than vague muttering about tree huggers or D4 types before tailing off into silence.
In this case, An Taisce have explicitly said they do not have a problem with the height of the building but are raising questions about the process the DDDA have used. They are not a lonely voice in this – all the recent newspaper articles have raised this as an issue so I don’t know what is so unreasonable about their input.
Please put up or shut up when it comes to An Taisce bashing.
An Taisce have explicitly said they do not have a problem with the height of the building.
And you take their word for it,you obviously dont know how these organisations work.your naivety is pathetic. If an taisce got there way we would have no 21st century architecture in our capital,@jimg wrote:
Most other countries have national heritage organisations who have input into the development process and most are taken seriously indeed.
Ireland is the only country I know of where it’s seen as fashionable, witty or clever to blindly follow the ignorant outbursts of gombeen local councillers and grubby vested interests and vilify the only statutary organisation in the country which has any regard for our built heritage. I know I’m going to insult you but casual An Taisce bashing is a sure indicator of ignorance in this country. I’ve never heard anyone present an informed case against An Taisce with real examples of it’s unreasonable interferance with development. Yet I’ve heard countless people, sometimes usually intelligent, casually denigrate An Taisce. If ever challenged, they express mild surprise and assume it’s taken for granted but never manage anything more convincing than vague muttering about tree huggers or D4 types before tailing off into silence.
In this case, An Taisce have explicitly said they do not have a problem with the height of the building but are raising questions about the process the DDDA have used. They are not a lonely voice in this – all the recent newspaper articles have raised this as an issue so I don’t know what is so unreasonable about their input.
Please put up or shut up when it comes to An Taisce bashing.
Im sure you are correct and conservation of our heritage is no doubt of the highest importance
But as i was reading that it occured to me you could replace ‘an taisce’ with ‘high rise’ and it could also be a fairly accurate statement
It is quite obvious that no one could, on any rational grounds, object to the height of the proposed building in this particular location, so objectors must attack from a different angle.
What a puke inducing angle it is, questions about the process?? come on , get a life people
But alas it is so petty that it may actually stick and no doubt will delay the inevitable for another year or soDo the anti high rise brigade ever feel like they are pissing into the wind?
Anyone who is a regular reader of this forum knows the number of threads dedicated to the rants about the destruction of of various aspects of Dublin and the wider country. If anyone here with a solely An Taisce bashing agenda cannot see the disconnect between such discussions on this forum and the purpose they serve, or the purpose they would better serve with greater Government intervention, then this aspect of the conversation on this particular thread is fairly pointless to begin with.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Your post is so misinformed as to be laughable. What do you mean by ‘yet another idiotic complaint… in the courts’? Let me ask you, how many ‘idiotic complaints’ are you aware of An Taisce having taken to the courts with the associated expense to the taxpayer? A simple list will suffice, thanks; even one for, say, the last 10 years.
Some noticable ones:
The M7 motorway
The M4 motorway
The M50 motorway
The M11 motorway
The M3 motorway
The M1 motorway particularly at Lissenhall – they thought the Swans would die this time.
Every single motorway ever built here was objected to by An Taisce
Dublin Port Tunnel
Spencer Dock development
Intel expansion at Liexlip – now that was unbelieveable! – only 5000 people work there!
I could go on and on and on – and there only some of the ones I remember off the top of my head.Should I go on?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
