Forum Replies Created
You obviously didn’t see Prof.Eogan’s letter in Yesterdays Irish Times about Tara.
Forget your conspiracy theory.
Bears a resemblance to the Deutshe Bank in Sydney, also designed by Norman Foster.
Probably one of the least successful new high rise buildings in Sydney
Let me get this right, the previous “winning” design was rejected because it’s author “could not be identified” and the previously announced winning design (the Twisting Tower) has now been rejected because “it was not economical to build”.
The promoters are also telling us that no planning permission is required (because they are their own planning authority) and there are no third party rights of appeal.
Why do Architects, world renowned or otherwise, allow themselves to be exploited by Clients or Sponsors who promise juicy commissions but yet cannot deliver. Not just once but again and again. In this case the Client, who is also the Sponsor believe that they are also an unaccountable Planning Authority. But they are not the final arbiter. Public derision and the High Court beckon! How many wasted man/woman hours are involved in this farce?
This debate sends an apalling message to anbody who is remotely interested in planning and development in Dublin.
Here we have a situation where one Planning Authority (Dublin City Council) have refused permission for a development that they approved a number of years ago (lets call it the Carroll’s Tower for the sake of simplicity even though it predates Liam Carroll’s involvement in that company).
The second Planning Authority (Dublin Docklands Develoment Authority) are trying to develop their own tower, by means of an international architectural competition and a subsequent developer’s competition(?). In between times they are attempting to increased the height of the Tower (let’s call it The Twisting Tower for the sake of simplicity).
They are also attempting to persuade the first developer not to develop the Carroll Tower. Furthermore, they can proceed to build the Twisting Tower without recourse to third party appeals to An Bord Pleanala, but they will require the approval of the Minister of the Environment.
The third planning authority, An Bord Pleanala, who approved the Carroll Tower a number of years ago on appeal can do so again but have no jurisdiction over the Twisting Tower!!
Cowboys, Ted, a bunch of fecking cowboys!!
What’s The point?
One of your correspondents ask why the Inspector seemed to suggest another site rather than Lansdowne Road.
I don’t believe An Bord Pleanala should ever refuse an application because “there is a better site” for a national facility as you are now definitely into the realm of politics. In this case the Government had already indicated that they were prepared to put money into Lansdowne Road, nothwithstanding some of their earlier preferences for Abbottstown. These debates (on the relative merits of a stadium location) should be set aside once a commitment is given. Unless of course there is a case for a bigger stadium which is not dependent on Government money for day to day financing!
According to this Tender Notice “CIE intend to modify the existing Scheme & submit a new application for planning Permission with the assistance of its consultant team; the revised design will facilitate the construction of the project without the necessity for closure of Tara Street Station”. Presumably this will involve either reducing the “footprint” of the building or coming up with a new design that can satisfy the health and safety and insurance interests. Best of luck!
This is an ambitious idea that incorporates a vision of a Dublin which wishes to make a statement about where it wants to be, and be seen to be, in the 21st century. It is certainly more Boston than Berlin but with a sprinkling of a SanFrancisco or a Sydney to try and raise the City profile even higher. The City and the Bay should complement each other and not turn their backs on each other as largely happens at present. The Loop Line bridge and the development of the Port of Dublin have effectively separated the City from the Bay for the last 200 years. While recent docklands developments have retaken possession of part of the Port, the Port itself is relentlessly expanding.
The Bay should return to being the lung of the City rather than the bladder.
Yes I know some of the images are crude and to many Planners the whole idea is presposterous. However, look what the island of Singapore has achieved in less than 40 years in an island state with no resources of its own. It can be done. It’s a question of belief!
The William Smith O’Brien statue started it’s life at the intersection of D’Olier St and Westmoreland St., on the othe side of O’Connell Bridge (see the Lawrence Collection photographs). Another case of “moving statues”. A very Irish thing!
The structure that you are referring to was known as the Gasholder. The Gasometer is the other one that is currently being converted to accommodation.
The Gasholder had a subroof which went up and down within the structure depending on the amount of gas within. The operators used to keep a canary in a cage (just like in the mines) in the void between the two roofs to monitor gas leakage.
An external lift ran up outside the structure to give access to the roof and it was from this roof that movies of the ferries coming in to the north wall were used in the 1960s (?) film “Rooney-O”.
It says something for the (lack of) townplanning of the day that they allowed it to be constructed at the end of the Fitzwilliam St. vista but I think you would have seen the Kevin Roche Conference centre from this vista also ( the Conference Centre building bore a striking resemblance to a Dyson vacuum cleaner!)
Have you noticed that all the statues in O’Connell St. face South (including the floozie while she was there)? Consideration was given to erecting the O’Connell Monument facing up the Street to the North but was rejected because Daniel could not be seen to be looking up to Nelson on his Pillar!