JoePublic
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@ctesiphon wrote:
1) My point, made recently enough in this thread and elsewhere, is that darkman has a relatively casual approach to the facts, especially when it comes to attacking An Taisce, and if his targets can be made of straw, then so much the easier.
2) The tower categorically does not have planning permission. And there was no earlier time at which An Taisce could have kicked up a fuss, as the planning scheme for the area never included plans for this building or for one of an equivalent height- even the amended version of the scheme.
Please re-read my earlier posts in this thread regarding this topic. In essence (because I know you’re a busy man) I said that this building does not comply with the provisions of the relevant DDDA planning scheme and should not therefore be construed to have de facto planning permission.
Also, I find it instructive in debates such as these to distinguish between a Section 25 permission and a standard local authority planning permission.
1) I think you’re misrepresenting what Darkman said. I thought he was saying that the building would need to be twice as high to impact on merrion square (I don’t know whether that’s the case or not). It’s splitting hairs anyway
2) Not a busy man, on a career break for December, so writing this from my bed as I read some books :-). I thought it was clarified that the amended planning scheme allows architectual features over 120m up to a height of 130m. So the Foster design does comply with the amended scheme, and has de facto planning permission. Anyway we’re talking about 10 meters here, will it really satisfy you or An Taisce if they reduce the overall height to 120m?
@ctesiphon wrote:
Nope.
Two things:
1)
“An Taisce fears it will blight the Georgian cityscape on the southern side of the Liffey.”does not mean the same thing as
“Our biggest concern is that the U2 Tower will stick out of the skyline from parts of Georgian Dublin like Merrion Square.”
There is a small matter of journalistic interpretation at play here.
2)
What does this mean?
1) The full context of the article made it pretty clear I thought
2) It means the 130m U2 tower already has planning permission. Why didn’t An Taisce kick up a fuss at the time?
Interesting. So they are planning a number of tall buildings with a decent amount of floor space and large areas of open space and parks. Sure we don’t need that in Dublin, we can accomplish the decent amount of floor space by just putting 7 storey buildings everywhere and leaving out the parkland.
From the front page of http://www.barangaroo.com:
Potzdammer Platz, Berlin
Bilbao, Spain
Southbank, LondonNo mention of Dublin’s docklands. Funny that.
@adhoc wrote:
I presume you’re referring to Barangaroo (http://www.barangaroo.com/), the new docklands development in Sydney Harbour under the planning authority of a body not unlike the DDDA, the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority: http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au/
They are planning yet more tall buildings in the harbour. There’s a video presentation showing the past, present and future of the development site: http://www.barangaroo.com/downloads/061005_EDH_conceptanimation_V1_WEB.mpg
Article on Barangaroo from Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/developers-given-green-light-to-think-wide-or-tall/2007/11/30/1196394622474.html@ctesiphon wrote:
I agree- that comment in the context of the Docklands is a bit silly- Georgian? But you appear to be taking An Taisce to task for someone else’s lazy journalism- don’t blame AnT for the failings of The Guardian.
Hold on a sec, that’s exactly what An Taisce are saying – with regards its potential impact on Merrion Square. Which if there is an impact should have been brought up at the time of planning permission.
Seems to me An Taisce is talking a load of nonsense in relation to the U2 tower.
I mean, come on, rising sea levels? How is this an issue that affects the U2 tower but not every other building in the docklands and ringsend. Why don’t they invoke the threat of tsunamis and earthquakes while they’re at it. What are they suggesting, all development in the docklands be halted? That the developers of the U2 tower be responsible for building flood barriers across Dublin bay that will probably never be needed?
As for the height impact, the 130m U2 tower already has planning permission, are an taisce now saying they’ve missed the boat in objecting to it? I’m sure they must have been consulted on the alteration to the grand canal docks masterplan to allow the 130m U2 tower. As for the 180m tower, there is no planning permission so they can object away at that point if it is ever applied for (Given the current property market and downturn in the economy, looks like the watchtower will be the only half of our “gateway” we’ll ever see anyway)
Building plans give U2 hometown blues· Critics say Foster design will ruin Dublin skyline
· Band accused of ignoring impact of rising sea levelHenry McDonald in Dublin
Monday December 3, 2007
The GuardianAbroad, the biggest rock band on the planet are lauded as the champions of the poor and the conscience of rich nations normally indifferent to global poverty.
But at home in their native Dublin, U2 have become embroiled in a row with Irish environmentalists over two building projects, with Bono and co accused of arrogance.
U2 have also come under fire for moving their music publishing company from the Irish Republic to the continent in order to pay a lower rate of tax on their royalties.
Article continues
Ireland’s equivalent of the National Trust – An Taisce – has denounced U2’s plans to partly demolish and redevelop a hotel they own by the river Liffey in Dublin. An Taisce has also demanded a public inquiry into the new “U2 Tower”, which, at 32 storeys, would be the highest building in Ireland.Sited at the mouth of Dublin Bay, the U2 Tower will be designed by Norman Foster. An Taisce fears it will blight the Georgian cityscape on the southern side of the Liffey.
“Our biggest concern is that the U2 Tower will stick out of the skyline from parts of Georgian Dublin like Merrion Square. It could potentially be an incongruous blot on the skyline on the south side of the city,” said Ian Lumley, An Taisce’s national heritage officer.
Lumley claimed there was no proper environmental impact survey carried out for the proposed project. Nor, he said, had U2 or the planners taken into consideration one of the band’s global concerns: the impact of climate change.
“From the limited information we have seen about the proposed tower there is no consideration being taken into the impact of rising sea levels,” he added. “This tower is at the mouth of Dublin Bay and yet no provision has been made as to the effect of rising sea levels on an entire area earmarked for more residential living as well as businesses. For all these reasons there has to be an independent public inquiry before this project is allowed to go ahead.”
Further down the Liffey there is more controversy about another U2-owned property, The Clarence hotel, which the band revitalised thanks in part to a tax-exemption scheme in the 1990s aimed at reviving the entire Temple Bar district.
U2 plans a €150m (£100m) revamp of The Clarence, which Bono has promised will turn it into one of the most spectacular hotels in Europe. This project has been criticised by An Taisce and veteran environmentalist Mike Smith.
Smith accused U2 of acting arrogantly over the Clarence plan. He warned that if Ireland’s planning authority, An Bord Pleanála, allowed the scheme to go through he would go to court to halt it.
“Since 2000 Ireland has had strong protection for listed buildings which are now called ‘protected structures’,” Smith said. “In the case of The Clarence the developers’ belief that there is an exceptional need to pander to international five-star punters’ alleged insistence on underground parking and swimming pools is unlikely to pass muster … If An Bord Pleanála say yes I will go straight to the high court to block what U2 are planning.”
He was also scathing of U2’s decision to move part of its music operations out of Ireland to the Netherlands, and added: “The common good is not served by allowing the richest people in Ireland to build with the benefit of tax incentives, which is what happened to Temple Bar and The Clarence, only to demolish when they get bored,” Smith added.
A spokesman for The Clarence hotel project said that it would encourage investment in the city. “It will help the Irish economy to retain its reputation as progressive and sustainable by providing facilities and services to business and tourism clientele as well as local residents,” he added.
But the real question here, why are Tasmanians so interested in Dublin transport? What’s the metro like in Hobart?
@shamrockmetro wrote:
well I’ll put this to you 6 minutes to get to the platform 4 minutes waiting ( is it a metro or a luas im confused ? Thats 10 minutes twice a day
= 20 minutes a day
more than 3 days of your life a year
say 10 million people a year
30 million days a year
1100 human lives a year assuming life expectancy of 75 years
if you house is worth 500,000 and 2 people live in it
1100 divide by 2
550 x 500,000
275,000,000 million euro…
im not mad!! just taking the piss
but im guessing you have a 1990’s mobile phone with no screen because its only to make calls and it weighs like a brick…
http://www.mic-ro.com/metro/metrocity.html?city=187
the rpa may be 90 years behind london!!!!
@DGF wrote:
The ‘stripped back’ style of the stations is very reminiscent of the Copenhagen Metro which I saw last year. I thought the overall feel was minimal but sleek and modern also. Certainly did not feel cheap/tacky or in any way dangerous.
From what I recall of the media coverage of the cost-cutting measures a while back in terms of station finish, it was said that the Dublin metro WON’T have high quality finishes like the Copenhagen metro – personally I haven’t been on it.
We’re not really talking about buckets of paint here, it’s the architectural quality of the stations in general. Personally I think it would be ok to scrimp on all but four stations – St. Stephen’s green, O’Connell, Parnell square and the airport.
@Rory W wrote:
What were you expecting from the Institute of Engineers – pretty pictures?
If those are supposed to be representations of what the stations will look like, then that’s exactly what I would expect.
@notjim wrote:
as pointed out on the p11 site this interesting ei document is now available, features pictures of the o’connell st metro station and other stuff too:
So a first glimpse at what our bare bones concrete walled stations might look like – looks crap.
How much will they actually save by not buying all those paint brushes and tins of paint does anybody know?
Also interesting to see that St. Stephens Green looks untouched, trees and all, in their after photos: hopefully the truth!
@Cute Panda wrote:
Most likely, but more disturbing it has now been confirmed that there will be 5 empty trains each way a day between Claremorris and Athenry before then, and this is without a doubt the greatest scandal regarding the T21 project. Irish Rail managers and engineers are standing in the bogs of Mayo when they should be everywhere else instead. It’s partly political, but also partly cowardice on behalf of IE engineering. That like nice easy gigs. It’s a disgrace.
I spoke to a someone recently and asked why the Interconnector was last on the T21 timetable. I was assuming that part of the reason was waiting for uncle arthur to sell up shop and move. But she said no. It’s down to two things. CIE are completely out of their depth with this project and for this reason the Government is holding off on the chequebook. CIE bit off way more than they could chew pushing the Interconnector alighnment – they simply do not have the experience nor team to build it. They also widly underestimated the cost of building it. 5-8 billion is a number which is being thrown around. The government want to build the Interconnector, but they have no faith in CIE/Irish Rail to pull it off.
I feel it is very unlikely the Interconnector will ever be built and I suspect a east-west metro line will replace it at some point and Irish Rail may have no choice but to use the PPT. I would nearly bet money RPA will take over the Interconenctor concept as soon as Metro North is near completion and the CIE Interconnector ends up are MetroCentral or something. Even though I am a huge fan of Metros, I would be sad to not see the DART Underground go ahead, but it would be better than nothing.
another interesting side note is that a train station is included on the draft development plan for Glasnevin Jct and Croke Park which suggests that CIE are working on the PPT line behind the scenes. Smells of a hidden defeat to me.
Bottom line: The Interconnector as proposed by CIE is looking terminally ill. Claremorris will be “the Grand Central Station of the Irish railway network” and not Stephens Green.
What use would an East-West metro be, the point of the interconnector is to free up capacity on the rest of the irish rail network.
Who is this lady you were talking to, on what is she basing her opinions?
But wasn’t the watchtower redesigned by some British ‘fenestration’ company? Replacing the even blander uglier stw design.
DCC should have sent them back for a fourth redesign I reckon.
@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.
@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.
@CC105 wrote:
I wonder how difficult it would be to accomodate the twisting tower in another docklands location.
Yeah there’s nothing about the twisting tower design that makes it only suitable for that location (unlike foster’s which is pretty tailored for that particular site). The DDDA own the design I assume, could they use it elsewhere?
I’d love to see it built where the Boland’s mill silos are opposite Alto Vetro, that land isn’t owned by the DDDA though of course.
Or maybe there’s still time to spice up the watchtower with a twist 🙂
The Irish Times has pictures of the Hadid and Vinoly proposals, Don’t think it’s on their website though.
Here’s a solution to all the problems: build all of the competition designs in a nice little cluster down there 😎
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.
