Capital Dock

Tusky

This building is almost finished and will be Dublin's tallest. But does anyone else think it looks painfully bland?

I have been watching it going up and kept expecting them to clad it with something. I just looked up the plans and it seems like the way it looks now is how it's going to look.

It looks like a boring office block from the 80s. Very disappointing considering the location.

garhjw

Totally agree. I pass it every day going to and from work. It’s very plain

lawred2

It's grand. It'll look even better when the exo tower on the other side is a counterpart for it. Frame the mouth of the river almost

vrusinov

I think it's quite future-proof. It may look bland now but it will look equally ok-bland in 50 years. Same can't be said about many other modern buildings.

Peregrine

It looks awful. I don't know how DCC approved it as one of two big 'landmark' buildings in the docklands. Same goes for the Exo. Boring ****e.

Those two are the only tall buildings allowed in the docklands SDZ so this is it. This is what DCC has delivered.

loyatemu

AFAIK it was given permission years ago, then they applied for a taller more modern looking tower which was rejected, so they reverted to the monument to blandness that has now been built.

Something similar happened on the opposite side, a better looking building was rejected.

Peregrine

loyatemu wrote: »

AFAIK it was given permission years ago, then they applied for a taller more modern looking tower which was rejected, so they reverted to the monument to blandness that has now been built.

Something similar happened on the opposite side, a better looking building was rejected.

It was given permission around 3 years ago. The Exo was not long after that.

The Capital Dock site had permission for the U2 Tower and the Exo site had permission for The Watchtower. Both before or during the crash. Neither were built.

loyatemu

Peregrine wrote: »

It was given permission around 3 years ago. The Exo was not long after that.

The Capital Dock site had permission for the U2 Tower and the Exo site had permission for The Watchtower. Both before or during the crash. Neither were built.

did the U2 tower actually get permission though?

Tusky

I don't see how anyone can say it's anything other than an eyesore. 

downtheroad

Tusky wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can say it's anything other than an eyesore. 

What would you prefer?

Tusky

Something with a bit more architectural merit? Maybe something that looks like it was designed in the last decade? Look at its location.

(it actually looks significantly better in the renders. Still boring, but not as ugly as the finished product)

vrusinov

It's all very subjective.

I think Liberty Hall was considered to have architectural merit at some point?
Many brutalist buildings as well. We are happy today that Fitzwilton House is being rebuilt, yet it was featured on Failte Ireland postcards in 60s.

Thanks, I'll take boring Capital Dock.

wakka12

Architects thought they had merit but I don't think brutalism or functionalism was ever popular with the public

And I think its sad to produce bland designs on prominent locations just in case the style its built in becomes unpopular in the future, a building of good quality will usually be appreciated throughout its lifetime
Berkeley library is of the same era as liberty hall and is a popular building that nobody wants to see demolished, liberty hall is just a bad building

Personally I think capital dock is painfully unimaginative and as another poster said it wasn't even finished to a high standard or with nice materials, they could have at least constructed it well

VonLuck

I think the Exo Building is an absolute travesty that should never have gotten planning. Just look at it, a giant tetris block:






I do wonder how these things get planning when pretty much everyone finds them terrible. Is there something the planning department sees in these buildings that we don't?

wakka12

The problem is they simply do not see
They don't care what it looks like (other than height), they only consider practical things like parking , fire safety, drainage etc, so horrible designs get through planning regularly , they should really hire architects as part of planning committees to assess the merits of these buildings, especially such prominent commercial buildings

Personally I agree it looks bad in the renders but I think it will look better in person because scott talon walker are a very competent firm so it'll be high quality finish and the external ground floor with the 3 big columns is an interesting feature, and many of the renders were of the building as viewed from the sea towards dublin bay when in reality nobody will see it from that view

lawred2

VonLuck wrote: »

I think the Exo Building is an absolute travesty that should never have gotten planning. Just look at it, a giant tetris block:





I do wonder how these things get planning when pretty much everyone finds them terrible. Is there something the planning department sees in these buildings that we don't?

Don't see much wrong with that. Sure aren't most office blocks some variety of a tetris block.

I think the three columns look pretty cool personally.

What is it you expect to see?

This is Dublin and these blocks are small by international standards. It's unlikely you're going to see architectural inputs beyond what's needed to design a practical sustainable office block.

downtheroad

lawred2 wrote: »

VonLuck wrote: »

I think the Exo Building is an absolute travesty that should never have gotten planning. Just look at it, a giant tetris block:





I do wonder how these things get planning when pretty much everyone finds them terrible. Is there something the planning department sees in these buildings that we don't?

Don't see much wrong with that. Sure aren't most office blocks some variety of a tetris block.

I think the three columns look pretty cool personally.

What is it you expect to see?

This is Dublin and these blocks are small by international standards. It's unlikely you're going to see architectural inputs beyond what's needed to design a practical sustainable office block.

Completely agree, what is wrong with that? It is modern, bright and looks a lot better than the buildings around it.
VonLuck maybe you could draw something as an example that you would prefer to see built?

Marcusm

Tusky wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can say it's anything other than an eyesore. 

Functional (maximising space) and bland is how I would see it; an architectural nothing. It’s not a particularly important site. While there is a theoretical mirroring with the other side of the river, so few people actually travel down the river that I think it’s largely theoretical. The site at Tara St is more important. Personally I think a well designed tall building would be an excellent counterpoint to Liberty Hall as well as being sensible at a transport hub. The loop line bridge has already obliterated the Custom House at that point so I don’t see the argument.

wakka12

Going off topic but on that note I wish that something could be done with the loop line to make it less visually obtrusive, its really such an eyesore. Why do the railings on either side of the train track have to be so tall seeing as nobody walks on the bridge? They are not structural, literally just an iron lattice attached to the bridge , its not like the trains going to fall off the bridge, is it just to keep maintenance men safe from falling?

Pretty much every building built after ww2 in that area is absolutely hideous and contribute to making the area so ugly but the bridge is the worst offender

Why does it the X shape fence have to go 3 metres below and above the actual depth of the train track?
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3482858,-6.2550733,3a,34.4y,86.31h,96.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNsDjPOgaqqIhoY_Nktswsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This part of the bridge doesnt have the exaggerated metal structure on it, literally just the bridge, why do they have the bigger part blocking the waterway? Why couldn't it be reduced to the size at this part of the bridge?
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.348494,-6.2548911,3a,75y,91.14h,89.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYV0NHKXpq9QKALTBfDijuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Dublin used to look so good before it was built


What used to be liberty hall there at the corner

LiamoSail

Tusky wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can say it's anything other than an eyesore. 

The state of it, it looks horrendous. Particular mention to the unfinished concrete structure on the side of the upper floors.

It's a real shame they give no consideration whatsoever to aesthetics

loyatemu

I'm not an engineer, but the latticework on the sides looks structural to me. The trackbed rests on crossbeams, which in turn attach to the bottom beams of the lattices, and the latticework and top beams hold the whole thing rigid.

wakka12

loyatemu wrote: »

I'm not an engineer, but the latticework on the sides looks structural to me. The trackbed rests on crossbeams, which in turn attach to the bottom beams of the lattices, and the latticework and top beams hold the whole thing rigid.

good point but why wouldn't the lattice be necessary further down the track too? Maybe just needed more support because its spanning further over the water ?

loyatemu

wakka12 wrote: »

good point but why wouldn't the lattice be necessary further down the track too? Maybe just needed more support because its spanning further over the water ?

possibly - there's a couple of long spans where it goes over the Quays.

VonLuck

downtheroad wrote: »

Completely agree, what is wrong with that? It is modern, bright and looks a lot better than the buildings around it.
VonLuck maybe you could draw something as an example that you would prefer to see built?

It looks very much out of proportion. The tower section should be much taller. This isn't an argument for high rise buildings (which I do agree with, but is another discussion altogether), but merely an aesthetics issue. It just looks stubby.

I found someones attempt at an improved version which I think looks much better, even with the low rise element:

tricky D

loyatemu wrote: »

I'm not an engineer, but the latticework on the sides looks structural to me. The trackbed rests on crossbeams, which in turn attach to the bottom beams of the lattices, and the latticework and top beams hold the whole thing rigid.

I am and they absolutely are structural. Notice the lattice work is thicker near the columns so as to take on shear stresses in particular.

skelly22

Tusky wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can say it's anything other than an eyesore. 

Now that's ugly!!

Arthur Daley

wakka12 wrote: »

Dublin used to look so good before it was built


What used to be liberty hall there at the corner

Given that Irish Rail regard the track over the river as a major limiting factor on their operations and expansion, how much would it cost ballpark to tunnel under the river, open up twice the number of tracks and then once there is a switchover, dismantle the loop line bridge? I don't know a couple of billion?

Not insurmountable if people had vision, but no doubt any figure it would cost would be considered laughable from the usual quarters, like trying to host the Olympics etc.

whiskeyman

I agree with the OP.
Such a boring and bland building. It looks washed out.

However, I really like the look of the Exo.
I think it fits into the style of the Port nearby well. It almost looks like a ship / tanker.
I presume that inspired the design.

loyatemu

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Given that Irish Rail regard the track over the river as a major limiting factor on their operations and expansion, how much would it cost ballpark to tunnel under the river, open up twice the number of tracks and then once there is a switchover, dismantle the loop line bridge? I don't know a couple of billion?

Not insurmountable if people had vision, but no doubt any figure it would cost would be considered laughable from the usual quarters, like trying to host the Olympics etc.

Dart Underground would have doubled the number of tracks but there was no proposal to dismantle the loop line. It's been there for over 100 years, I don't see it being removed to improve the view.

subpar

whiskeyman wrote: »

I agree with the OP.
Such a boring and bland building. It looks washed out.

However, I really like the look of the Exo.
I think it fits into the style of the Port nearby well. It almost looks like a ship / tanker.
I presume that inspired the design.

Have to agree .

Tne north quays looks superior for a number of reasons - the buildings are more pleasing to the eye , the quay is wider and most importantly it faces south and is therefore brighter and warmer.

Dufflecoat Fanny

Videos going around on WhatsApp shows capital dock flooding