paul h
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Apologies for staying slightly off topic but-
Also another 130m building approved, in Rome of all places……..
Expected to be completed 2010
When will the rest of the planet listen to us in Ireland, high rise just doesnt work 😀
http://www.skyscrapernews.org/news.php?ref=1378ps i would post picture but the link is less ‘in yer face’
Seville ,Spain – they recently held an skyscraper competion, not unlike our u2 debacle,
Winner is a 178m tall 40storey Cesar Pelli design, nothing amazing in my non-expert opinion
BUT, what are the odds this WILL be built roughly on time:D, its scheduled for completion c2010
http://www.skyscrapernews.org/news.php?ref=1375@tommyt wrote:
I would imagine and hope the acoustic engineering necessities dictated the form, wouldn’t a dome be a nightmare sound wise?. Dublin’s never had a purpose built arena sized venue for concerts so hopefully it’s a marked improvement soundwise…
if i’ve learned anything (and i probably haven’t), its that there is no limit to what can be achieved – engineering wise…
Yes hopefully (dear god) it will be a marked improvement.
It certainly does not look too hot from the outside but as your Grandmother would say – it matters what your like on the insidei love the contrast of the cold, barren, sterility of the Irish Aid centre with the warm traffic (both pedestrian and motor) filled ‘busy-ness’ of O’Connell St in the above pictures
Yea, great big glass dome would be sweet, but the high cost would be a factor im sure
Great pictures Overworked thanks, any shots of the planned interior??
damcw ,
Someone stated earlier the u2 building was ‘straightened’ to make it look more like the sydney design
anyhoo………
Heres another picture and it looks nothing like u2 building, the comparison is quite lame
[ATTACH]6296[/ATTACH]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 giantsMaybe you’ll need a magnifying glass:p
[ATTACH]6267[/ATTACH]
I thought the dda was commisioned to avoid the inevitable, endless , unproductive planning hurdles??
Also i was wondering why was a new thread about this same topic created today?
Seems kind of suspect to me:)@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?
@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@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]
I think the new point is the best part of this, it sounds good – purpose built14000 seater,
Thank god someone out there is thinking big!!Is there any drawings available of the plans or layout or the building itself??
Thanks for the link
Had a quick skim over it
WOW!!!! Thoroughly under-whelming, almost apologetic,
DCC have gone above and beyond to NOT offend anyone….except people who may want a visually stimulating, exciting city quarterLooks like another DDDA docklands snoozefest
Although some interesting info about the bay area,
i couldnt believe the amount of landfill that makes up the port areaAs much as i like to see high rise going up around Dublin
maybe this would not be the most ideal place……
Is seems a little too close to boi building and trinity, and the O’Connell st/Westmoreland St access?But , im sure the outrageous value of the site will probably mean the only way is up
I’m a fairly liberal person with most issues,
but its preposterous to think that any group of people can set up and move in,
anywhere,on any piece of real estate
Especially a prized chunk of land like in docklands
Why should i have to work my ass off saving and working?
Maybe i should head to woodies or somethin pick up some ply wood and nails
and build my own little house in Stephens greenWhat a bunch of morons at the DDDA
Absolute lack of any vision whatsoever
They should prosecuted for holding back the development of a nation….It certainly is very sad
I couldnt explain what it is, but i know that most other places /cities
people dont throw rubbish on the street with impuinity esp city centre streets
It could be a lack of respect for the law , the knowledgde that they most certainly will not be prosecuted
by our inept garda. It may be connected to petty vandalism that 99percent of the time goes unprosecuted
There is quality of life crimes – ie graffiti, loitering, drinking on streets etc that if were ruthlesly cracked down on by the garda would go a long way to clean the streets -as they sayps apologies for taking this off topic
@newgrange wrote:
………………If you surround people with ugliness and ugly buildings and pepper the streets with ugly signage and ugly ‘civic information sites’, it can come as no surprise if they act and behave in ugly ways.
Im sorry but i dont agree with this, it doesnt matter about the so called ugly buildings,
and as for ugly signage? get a grip!!
The usual reasons are poor family life, poverty etc
Its the same ridiculous argument blaming the tower blocks in ballymun for all antisocial behaviour
It may sound like a pretty broad statement but i really think most dubs in general have very poor civic prideIf you want to talk about blaming architecture for dulling someones pride of their surroundings
Maybe if there was more buildings that ‘excite the senses’, or make people take a second look
rather than the same dull shit that is being built everywhere.
