22 storey 'skyscraper' approved for Tara Street

lawred2 · 10-04-2019 10:16am

seamus wrote: »

Taller buildings with a stone look tend to take on a very brutalist appearance, and are much harder (read: more expensive) to clean.
Look at Wood Quay. Ugly, Ugly rubbish.

What sounds nice on a smaller building, ends up looking really dominating and ugly on a tall one.
The glass/metal look is intended to be minimalist and not make the building look imposing when you're beside it. It also reduces the light-blocking impact of the building.

It can also reflect light as well

lawred2 · 10-04-2019 10:17am

Mac-Chops wrote: »

Just realised I got that reversed, fixed now to avoid further confusion.

9670m2 of office space 5th-20th and 4349m2 hotel (107 rooms) 1st-4th.

that makes much more sense

Mac-Chops · 10-04-2019 10:25am

lawred2 wrote: »

seeing it in those images - I can begin to maybe understand concerns regarding its design..

presume that those images were not part of the marketing material or planning material?

Part of the planning docs anyway! Available here

is_that_so · 10-04-2019 10:35am

seamus wrote: »

Taller buildings with a stone look tend to take on a very brutalist appearance, and are much harder (read: more expensive) to clean.
Look at Wood Quay. Ugly, Ugly rubbish.

What sounds nice on a smaller building, ends up looking really dominating and ugly on a tall one.
The glass/metal look is intended to be minimalist and not make the building look imposing when you're beside it. It also reduces the light-blocking impact of the building.

Well those things were designed as bunkers! The new IL building is a good effort in stone, but it's not that tall. The design on this new one looks like a glass-covered equivalent of them.

Mac-Chops · 10-04-2019 11:14am

is_that_so wrote: »

That sounds like an excuse. If it is going to be the first it needs shows why it is or should be, not just something that wins ugly building of the year. I'm going with bleedin' ugly myself. Are there any N/S views of it?

Not too bad >> ugly >> bleedin' ugly

Got it

North (from Tara St) & South (from Custom House)

And that's what it is.. an excuse, to get it built! Multiple compromises made. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the initial design was far more in line with pushing architectural boundaries but ultimately lost out I guess to keeping within those constraints.

is_that_so · 10-04-2019 11:19am

Mac-Chops wrote: »

Not too bad >> ugly >> bleedin' ugly

Got it

North (from Tara St) & South (from Custom House)

And that's what it is.. an excuse, to get it built! Multiple compromises made. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the initial design was far more in line with pushing architectural boundaries but ultimately lost out I guess to keeping within those constraints.

Man, that's a whole lot worse. Really bleedin' ugly!

Given the money that would be made from it Ronan really should be fronting a whole lot more money on aesthetics for this eyesore.

loyatemu · 10-04-2019 11:19am

The current tallest building in the city Capital Dock is also probably the blandest. The Tara St. tower is better though still quite generic.

Idbatterim · 10-04-2019 11:28am

No other developer here would have fought that fight against dcc. He is the only developer here with any ambition! People absolutely fcuked by this crisis and in the early twenty twenties , we will have Dublin’s highest mid rise block. It’s absolutely pathetic and disgraceful. Dublin port should be moved. Can possibly keep ferry traffic there and cruise ships. The land would be worth a fortune. Could build residential there for hundreds of thousands... hotel , student accommodation and homes...

happyfriday74 · 10-04-2019 11:54am

Unless you want Dublin to sprawl out to the middle of Leinster or build houses all over the Dublin mountains we need high rise in Dublin.

Every other capital city has high rise and so should we.

So long as its built well and isn't thrown up.

Lumen · 10-04-2019 12:16pm

happyfriday74 wrote: »

Unless you want Dublin to sprawl out to the middle of Leinster or build houses all over the Dublin mountains we need high rise in Dublin.

Every other capital city has high rise and so should we.

So long as its built well and isn't thrown up.

Need to be a bit careful about equating high rise with high density. Many high rise developments don't have particularly great dwellings-per-hectare values.

edit: for example, Manhattan has about 28,000 residents per square km. Core Dublin city centre is about 10,000 per sq km. So there's a big difference, but not of the order that you'd expect from the skyline.

yermanoffthetv · 10-04-2019 12:48pm

Lumen wrote: »

Need to be a bit careful about equating high rise with high density. Many high rise developments don't have particularly great dwellings-per-hectare values.

edit: for example, Manhattan has about 28,000 residents per square km. Core Dublin city centre is about 10,000 per sq km. So there's a big difference, but not of the order that you'd expect from the skyline.

Manhatten has 1.6 million people living in 59.km² Dublin has 527 thousand in 115km² theres a bit of a difference in fairness. Roughly 3 times the population in half the space.

lawred2 · 10-04-2019 1:03pm

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

Manhatten has 1.6 million people living in 59.km² Dublin has 527 thousand in 115km² theres a bit of a difference in fairness. Roughly 3 times the population in half the space.

urm

28,000 residents per square km. Core Dublin city centre is about 10,000 per sq km

yeah that's what he said

is_that_so · 10-04-2019 1:50pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

No other developer here would have fought that fight against dcc. He is the only developer here with any ambition! People absolutely fcuked by this crisis and in the early twenty twenties , we will have Dublin’s highest mid rise block. It’s absolutely pathetic and disgraceful. Dublin port should be moved. Can possibly keep ferry traffic there and cruise ships. The land would be worth a fortune. Could build residential there for hundreds of thousands... hotel , student accommodation and homes...

Yep, let's overlook his scarpering to the UK for bankruptcy and the whopping debts that Treasury clocked up in their hubris and that he got a loan to get out of NAMA. The right type of guy OK.

Eric Cartman · 10-04-2019 2:09pm

between this and that office building being done down at the point, it might start to adjust the skyline so we can start having 25-30 storey buildings and eventually work our way to 40-50

10-04-2019 2:17pm

can't stay in the stone ages forever.

usually cities designate an area of a city for high-rise initially - this hasn't happened in Dublin but really needs to happen.

somewhere like Dublin port as another poster has mentioned would be ideal

yermanoffthetv · 10-04-2019 2:18pm

lawred2 wrote: »

urm
yeah that's what he said

I know, but the way it was phrased seemed to diminish the fact its quite a lot more. Add to that there is also 52 square km worth of office space in Manhattan, in Dublin its 0.3 square km. That kind of explains why the skyline is the way it is.

lawred2 · 10-04-2019 2:23pm

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

I know, but the way it was phrased seemed to diminish the fact its quite a lot more. Add to that there is also 52 square km worth of office space in Manhattan, in Dublin its 0.3 square km. That kind of explains why the skyline is the way it is.

Surely it's more than 0.3 square km of office space in Dublin?

Hoboo · 10-04-2019 2:29pm

lawred2 wrote: »

Surely it's more than 0.3 square km of office space in Dublin?

Theres more than that in my office.

is_that_so · 10-04-2019 2:31pm

glasso wrote: »

can't stay in the stone ages forever.

usually cities designate an area of a city for high-rise initially - this hasn't happened in Dublin but really needs to happen.

somewhere like Dublin port as another poster has mentioned would be ideal

Already a plan there for tall buildings(50m+).
The North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock SDZ planning scheme provides for a limited number of tall buildings at Boland’s Mills, the Point, Spencer Dock Square and Britain Quay.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-planning-city-development-plan/dublin-city-development-plan-2016-2022

yermanoffthetv · 10-04-2019 2:44pm

lawred2 wrote: »

Surely it's more than 0.3 square km of office space in Dublin?

364,000 square metres at 94% occupancy last year is what I saw so even if there is a lot office space thats private owned/not recorded, its still substantially less.

happyfriday74 · 10-04-2019 3:25pm

Yep, let's overlook his scarpering to the UK for bankruptcy and the whopping debts that Treasury clocked up in their hubris and that he got a loan to get out of NAMA. The right type of guy OK.

He didn't go bankrupt in the uk. He did a lot of companies put in receivership/liquidated though but so did a lot of other people.

Marcusm · 10-04-2019 3:49pm

reg114 wrote: »

The historic resistance to high rise buildings in Dublin at the 'expense of the Dublin skyline' needs to thrown out at this stage as far as Im concerned. Every other developed capital city has long since embraced building upwards in an attempt to combat lack of innercity space. However, My only worry would be from a fire safety standpoint.

In March of 2018 there was a fire in the Metro Hotel in Ballymun, a building which is a mere 16 storeys tall. At the time Dublin fire brigade said their 2 turntable ladders (stored in Tara Street Fire station) were unable to reach the uppermost part of the building. So this highlights the total lack of fire safety capability by Dublin fire brigade as things currently stand. To build an even taller building in the absence of suitable firefighting equipment would be negligent in the extreme. Quite frankly no planning permission should be granted for any buildings taller than the scope of the tallest turn table ladder owned by Dublin fire Brigade.

The highest aerial platform in London, a city with many high buildings, is 32m, ie a third the height of this building in Dublin. It is simply fallacious to believe that you can fight fires externally in such buildings. This is why other measures are needed.

Idbatterim · 10-04-2019 3:57pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Yep, let's overlook his scarpering to the UK for bankruptcy and the whopping debts that Treasury clocked up in their hubris and that he got a loan to get out of NAMA. The right type of guy OK.

please go onto skyscrapercity, endless threads on different bland, farcical joke proposals for the docklands, he is the only one trying to push the bar higher!

10-04-2019 4:22pm

happyfriday74 wrote: »

He didn't go bankrupt in the uk. He did a lot of companies put in receivership/liquidated though but so did a lot of other people.

correct he didn't go bankrupt. paid off his NAMA loans in full.

must be seriously pissed off about the Battersea power station loan which was taken and sold by Nama

huge profits for the people that bought that from NAMA

https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/nama-in-spotlight-as-2bn-battersea-profit-predicted-35923449.html

handlemaster · 10-04-2019 4:45pm

The only way is up.... now I think I have a song there

Supercell · 10-04-2019 4:51pm

About feckin time we moved out of the dark ages, should have given permission for 82 stories in my opinion.

sbsquarepants · 10-04-2019 4:53pm

Hoboo wrote: »

Theres more than that in my office.

Must be some office you've got. Open plan?:D

Lumen · 10-04-2019 4:54pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Must be some office you've got. Open plan?:D

Or a farmer.

loyatemu · 10-04-2019 5:12pm

glasso wrote: »

correct he didn't go bankrupt. paid off his NAMA loans in full.

doesn't that mean he bought them back for a fraction of what he originally owed?

Dr_Kolossus · 10-04-2019 5:48pm

D3V!L wrote: »

Tara street is on the southside.

My bad, Had talbot Street in my head

22 storey 'skyscraper' approved for Tara Street

Comments