Vertigo? U2 tower to be taller

Spot on Darkman, you can add nearly every building they deem highrise in Dublin over the past decade or more, current article from todays IT as an example of all that is wrong with them.
Didnt the wide streets involve dramatic change – would they have objected to that project?

Plan for former ESB shop in Temple Bar criticised
An Taisce has criticised a proposal to redevelop the former ESB showrooms at the entrance to Temple Bar on Fleet Street, Dublin 2, saying the design is trying to cram-in too many floors and is out of scale in an area of great historic sensitivity.
The building adjoins Westmoreland Street to the east “which is part of the great north/south Georgian axis developed around 1800 by the Wide Streets Commissioners”.
Aztec Properties, controlled by Wexford-based Stafford Holdings, bought the 1960s building for €33 million and plans to demolish it for a six-storey block with two further storeys set back. An Taisce says the height is “over and above” the five-storey scale of Westmoreland Street and, while Fleet Street has larger structures at its eastern end (“notably the leaden 1990s Fleet Street multi-storey car park”), the planned building is of greater scale than anything in the immediate area. If it goes ahead the development would have 1,313sq m (14,133sq ft) of retail space at street level and a further 1,299sq m (13,982sq ft) in the upper basement.
Office space on floors one to seven will extend to 8,188sq m (88,135sq ft). The Fleet Street premises was one of a small number of ESB buildings excluded from the sale of its retail network to Bank of Scotland (Ireland).
© 2007 The Irish Times

@darkman wrote:

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?

I’ll repeat my question, as you appear to have misunderstood me. Whether by design or through simple ignorance, I wouldn’t presume to guess.

How many ‘idiotic complaints’ are you aware of An Taisce having taken to the courts with the associated expense to the taxpayer?

Some of the cases you listed above certainly went to the courts, but I don’t think they all did. And of those that did, are you certain that An Taisce was the instigator of the legal proceedings? Furthermore, I don’t see you mentioning any examples where the case was successful. But I suppose that doesn’t bolster your argument. Also, it’s very telling that you seem to be focussing primarily on motorway and other road schemes.

Of course, I might be wrong. Perhaps An Taisce did take all of those cases to the courts and lose. Any chance you could provide links to the judgements from the relevant courts? That’d be a great help, thanks.

Also, thanks for answering. While we seem to disagree fundamentally on this issue (or at least seem to have a different understanding of the facts – or even what constitutes a ‘fact’ in the first instance), at least you responded, which is more than can be said for cubix up there whose tactic seemed to be to blithely ignore my simple (what’s more simple than a single-word question?) request for a bit of substance to back up his sweeping generalisation.

Lastly, please don’t presume to speak for all taxpayers. You do not.

(As an aside: is there anyone left who knows the difference between their, there and they’re any more?

Some may say that this is off-topic, but while I’m up to speed with the their-there-they’re dilemma, I’ve never been confident of the use of apostrophes e.g. it’s / its’.

Maybe we could campaign for a linguistic An Taisce, dedicated to preserving the traditions of our language…

Secondly – I dont like the tone of your post and I certainly will not justify it by answering it. If you want to put it to me in an adult manner – I will consider it.

That person asked:

How many ‘idiotic complaints’ are you aware of An Taisce having taken to the courts with the associated expense to the taxpayer?

You answered:

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.

I don’t remeber hearing of a single instance where An Taisce have been “to the courts at the taxpayers expense” and particularly I didn’t hear of it happening for any of the above developments. That’s not to say they didn’t happen but I’d be surprised as I generally follow the papers and haven’t heard of a single court case taken by An Taisce for anything in your list. So if you could provide links to newspaper stories for these court cases taken at the tax payers expense or any other evidence that these court cases happened, it would certainly clear things up for everyone.

Cubix’s “response” to a very straightforward request for any evidence to back up their claims is to avoid the question and suggest that I’m an old fart. Well, this is a public messageboard; you may be used to spouting ignorant rubbish to your mates in the pub without being questioned on it but here, if you post something ignorant, be prepared to read responses questioning what you’ve posted or asking for evidence to back it up. That’s the way these things work. If you don’t like it or can’t handle being challenged in this way, then you’re using the wrong media.

Paul h,

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

We have plenty of discussion and threads pro/anti highrise. My very first post to this messageboard was one in support of high-rise for Dublin. So don’t confuse a simple request for evidence against An Taisce with an anti-high-rise agenda. I support high-rise for Dublin and also generally support An Taisce. The organisation have made plenty of mistakes without people making stuff up about them.

The only real evidence presented against them so far is that they’ve criticised plans to build a seven story building in Temple Bar. That’s all. They’ve had the NERVE to suggest to the media that it might not be a good idea for the character of Temple Bar to have a single building completely out of scale with everything around it. In my opinion, they are dead right. If you wanted to set back the cause of taller buildings in Dublin you couldn’t do it more effectively; build complete out of scale tall buildings in historically sensitive areas. This is what happened back in 60s the last time we had a round of taller buildings and it’s taken 30 years for the public and the planners to even consider taller buildings again.

News just in:

The Irish Times

A major discrepancy between the winning scheme for the U2 Tower at Britain Quay in Dublin’s Docklands and the much taller structure intended to be built is revealed by a drawing obtained by The Irish Times. This follows a hotly contested competition involving four development consortiums for the contract to build the tower, which would include an egg-shaped studio “pod” for the U2 rock group suspended above a public observation deck. The drawing supplied by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) shows two versions of the west elevation of the tower designed by international architects Foster + Partners and chosen by the authority as its winning scheme last month. On the left is the scheme which was adjudicated on in the competition. It complied with the requirements of the DDDA’s brief and, in particular, the height limitations of the amended planning scheme for the Grand Canal Docks. The planning scheme specified that the main element of the U2 Tower should not exceed 100m in height to its “shoulder”, and any accommodation above this level was not to bring the overall height to more than 120m.

Here’s a scan of the schematic in the article: – Sorry it’s a bit -crooked-
edit: Actually, I might be better off using the Archiseek scan, but only if that’s alright with you Paul – I thought I should ask first. I think you did a better scan job!

My original photochops:

@darkman wrote:

meh, I will just put you on my ignore list. Its easier.

Any chance you could put me on there too?

I suppose it just goes to show that if a discussion on the relative merits of the very existance of An Taisce stirs up such emotion, then it’s no surprise that the actual work they do is such a sore point.

For what it’s worth, I believe they serve a crucial role as Devils Advocate in the planning process. Why not have a dedicated group that opposes every development that is proposed? I’m serious – think about it. If the development is strong enough, then it will survive; if not, it will fail and An Taisce will have served a valuable purpose.

Now the fact that these objections take months (if not years in the courts) to be decided is hardly An Taisce’s fault – it’s more a problem with our planning and legal systems. The public has no faith in the honesty of planning departments, and given what has been revealed over the last few years, I’m not surprised. So everything ends up in the High Court.

Let politicians develop area plans, and then get them out of the planning process. Why Cousin Seamus’ application for a bungalow down the road is a worthy subject for a councillor to write a letter about, I have no idea. Then let An Taisce, the developers and whoever else present their cases, and have an open and transparent decision made by the planners.

Now if only it were that simple… 😮

@Rory W wrote:

let’s leave it at that.

Seconded. This is turning into a major derail, and it’s a debate that has occurred often enough here before.

There are important things still to say about this development- for example, the similarity of its profile to the ‘Seats are not for feet’ sign on the Luas still hasn’t been remarked on.

(An Taisce debates: the Godwin’s Law of architectural discussions?)

Yea but 60 m of the building doesn’t really make much of a visual impact, perhaps improving the look as it tapers off into nothing
So its really only 130m 😀

Are you really trying to scare the children PTB!!:D
Here to put it in some actual perspective is a pic with old u2 tower
Its an old picture so im sure you could add on a few more giants

Maybe you’ll need a magnifying glass:p

[ATTACH]6267[/ATTACH]

A bunch of lies have been spouted about An Taisce in this thread

No.

This is complete and absolute bullsh*t; not a single one of the claimed court cases occurred.

Erm maybe you would want to have another look.

or else you get personal abuse

:rolleyes: I did not personally abuse anyone. Do I have to quote a part of your last post?