theman
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
TBH, the feasibility of the original design were on a knife edge, that was in the good ole days when people qued up to spend €1m plus on an apartment. Given that the scheme is now an over-blown ego project, twice the size of the original scheme, and the fact the arse has fallen out of residential property, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that it would be shear madness to develop this. End of July – project will be quietly dropped.
Other than demolishing the hailing station, nothing done on U2 tower to date. Ok – some site investigations as well. The work adjacent is Liam Carroll’s building – the one that was to have the rival tower in the days of Dunloe Ewart’s involvement. Planning for this tower was secured from DCC circa 2002, and expired in 2007 AFAIK. And, sespite what DDDA say, they do need some of Liam Carroll’s land to realise the full footprint. This was the case with the BCDH tower, which was pretty modest. The new Foster design looks like it requried half the Grand Canal Basin to accommodate it….
yeah, nearly 10 years of talking about this project, and €10m wasted in design fees on a tower that was never to be built (never mind how much Ballymore spent on their bid) and it’s still an empty site…they did knock the hailing station, though, so not like they haven’t done anything on the project….:D What a bunch of incompetents that are running this project..farsical….
Courtesy of http://www.independent.ie, 8th May 2008:
After years of planning, wrangling and rowing, it finally looks like the landmark U2 tower is finally set to get off the ground. Plans for the Liffey highrise remain on course even though a formal agreement with the developers has still not been struck.
The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) said negotiations between it and the preferred bidders – a consortium including U2 members – “are due to be completed shortly”. The DDDA expects “construction of the tower to begin by the end of this year or early next year”, a spokesman said.
Geranger Ltd was chosen by the DDDA as the preferred bidder for the €200m project on Britain Quay in October, beating off competition from Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes. Geranger, a consortium consisting of Ballymore Properties, developer Paddy McKillen and the members of U2, plans to build a skyscraper soaring 60m higher than the Spire.
ENERGY
The scheme contains a design for an egg-shaped recording studio suspended beneath a battery of vertical wind turbines and a huge solar panel at the top. This “energy centre” will raise the overall height from 130 metres to 180 metres.
The Geranger project, a tilted triangular tower designed by Foster & Partners, will include a public viewing platform offering panoramic views over the city and Dublin Bay.
This will be located just below U2’s “pod” studio, which will be separated from the structure for acoustic reasons.
Norman Foster’s practice is best known for the Swiss Re or “Gherkin” tower in the city of London.
DDDA director of architecture John McLaughlin said that the Foster scheme “had the edge because its public spaces were really well handled” and it provided a gateway to a bridge over the Dodder where it joins the Liffey.
In addition to the tower, which will largely comprise luxury apartments, the scheme includes a five-star hotel in a flanking building, and a block of 34 social and affordable apartments.
The DDDA are being shown up for the bunch of incompetents they are – you really have to question the quality of leadership and over all cop-on that is going into this project from the DDDA. The whole process has been a fiasco from the word go. It must sicken them to see the Watchtower going up, knowing that they’ll be sipping cocktails when they top it out, while theres not even a hole in the ground at Britain Quay. 2011? Dream on. A total yawn fest that everyone seems to be losing interest in….
@tfarmer wrote:
ffs its not an ancient druid council meeting, its a skyscraper you .
It’s actually something far worse – the DDDA. The thing is, the planning couldn’t be simpler – 6 weeks turnaround, no appeals, off you go. But with the DDDA involved, they have made a mockery of this project.
@theman wrote:
@darkman wrote:
I think its time to get on with it or we will be here in 2012 with a new design:rolleyes:
Yeah, but the DDDA won’t – this is going down the road of the DDDA wasting €10m plus on three different designs, without a sod being turned and DDDA dissappearing into oblivion. The CEO will be happily back in DCC when all the fuss has blown over….
darkman wrote:I think its time to get on with it or we will be here in 2012 with a new design:rolleyes:/Quote:Yeah, but the DDDA won’t – this is going down the road of the DDDA wasting €10m plus on three different designs, without a sod being turned and DDDA dissappearing into oblivion. The CEO will be happily back in DCC when all the fuss has blown over….@SOC wrote:
It’s very simple: bid less, build cheaper. It’s a double whammy.
As well as making sure you entertain the CEO at every given opportunity, including trips to Manchester and London. The pre-qualification document from Ballymore was actually based around Pan Penninsula project, they didn’t demonstrate how they were going to build the tower in Docklands. And they still managed to get through. But I suppose a well aimed FOI request would reveal this.
@shadow wrote:
Does the “new” tower oversail Dublin City Council property – the River and as such does it not fall outside the DDDA juridiciton? At the very least there is a case for a thorough EIS study which encompasses the need to assess the impact from a wide area around the city. Remember the Spire/Spike/Needle embarrasment….
Yes it does, DDDA engaged an EIS consultant on the BCDH tower, so I guess the same is needed on the new proposal. As I said in a previous post, they took great care to ensure the BCDH tower was properly framed so as not to oversail any one else’s property. Oversailing th river will also invoilve potential Foreshore Licences, again another body to deal with.
A portion of SJRQ has to be purchased from Danninger – this is requried to realign the road to go under the tower. Not sure how receptive Liam Carroll may be to this request.
@ctesiphon wrote:
But it’s the fact that it’s been done already that concerns me. Makes a nonsense of the whole concept of a Planning Scheme, really, doesn’t it?
TBH, it’s not just through amending the planning scheme that they will get their own way – they have already used their influence to have the Watchtower redesigned, which would certainly be sailing close to the wind in terms of their planning remit. This, as well as the block on Liam Carroll’s development at the site adjacent to the U2 tower, was instigated by DDDA at the most senior level. So the goal posts will be changed and changed again to make sure they stay getting their way….
As I said in a previous post, the DDDA were trying to direct the social and affordable into the Graving Docks development – this will be the most likely depository for this. They wouldn’;t want their precious facade festooned by tri-colours when Ireland are back playing at Lansdowne, or think of the various guises of santa clauses, raindeers abd all twinkly things festive that would festoon some of the apartments circa Christmas 2011….:) .
It’s also amazing that the DDDA went to such great lengths to ensure the BCDH design remained within the boundary of the SJRQ road – this is afterall owned by DCC, not DDDA, and also has the LUAS / RPA to contend with. There may also be potential title issues with the properties directly above the road way. Looks good on an architect’s drawing board, but good old Irish red tape will soon scupper that.
A bridge at the 7th floor from the BCDH U2 tower to the then MCA designed Britain Quay building was considered earlier but discounted for many of the reasons outlined above. How they change their tune when the starchitect rolls into town…..
If there is any difficulties, they will amend the GCD scheme as this conveniently papers over the planning cracks. They have in fact done this already. DDDA will not under any circumstances open this project to even the remotest possibility of conventional planning and resultant 3rd Party appeals, An Taisce, high court actions etc. As long as they can make up the rules, and keep changing them accordingly, they will.
