Bord Pleanala blocks demolition of Ireland’s first skyscraper Liberty Hall

Nippledragon · 21-11-2012 01:36PM

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Irish architects of the last 50 years have a hell of a lot to answer for.

I'd say engineers/draftsmen etc.. who claimed to be architects have a hell of a lot to answer for too if you ask me... look at the countryside ffs.

Blisterman · 21-11-2012 02:41PM

Is the replacement really that different to what's there already?
http://archiseek.com/wp-content/gallery/news-2012/libertyhalldecision.jpg

And there's nothing remotely modern or innovative about plonking random tall buildings in a city. They've been doing that in Britain for 50 years, and look how that turned out:

http://skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1451HennikerPoint_pic1.jpg
http://fields.eca.ac.uk/gis/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/l-28.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v173/Robdann/Tower%20Blocks%208/TowerBlocks12thJan200897.jpg

That's not to say I'm advocating only building pastiche mock Georgian and Victorian buildings within Dublin city centre, that would be almost as bad, but it is indeed possible to design modern buildings which respond to the context in which they sit.

If, and that's a big if, Dublin really needs skyscrapers, then they should be sited in a cluster the Docklands in my opinion.

bb1234567 · 21-11-2012 02:58PM

Blisterman wrote: »

Is the replacement really that different to what's there already?
http://archiseek.com/wp-content/gallery/news-2012/libertyhalldecision.jpg

And there's nothing remotely modern or innovative about plonking random tall buildings in a city. They've been doing that in Britain for 50 years, and look how that turned out:

http://skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1451HennikerPoint_pic1.jpg
http://fields.eca.ac.uk/gis/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/l-28.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v173/Robdann/Tower%20Blocks%208/TowerBlocks12thJan200897.jpg

That's not to say I'm advocating only building pastiche mock Georgian and Victorian buildings within Dublin city centre, that would be almost as bad, but it is indeed possible to design modern buildings which respond to the context in which they sit.

If, and that's a big if, Dublin really needs skyscrapers, then they should be sited in a cluster the Docklands in my opinion.

Whats wrong with mock georgian/victorian buildings? Id be all for them..dublin needs a few mocks to replace some of the horrid 1960's buildings. Like Id love for esb HQ to be knocked down and the gorgian houses be restored to hwo they were before it.

Blisterman · 21-11-2012 07:59PM

The thing is back in the 60's, many of those Georgian terraces were run down, and dilapidated, and the majority of people hated the look of them. Rows upon rows of plain buildings which look the same. Where's the merit in that? It's only in the 70's that attitudes towards them really changed. The 60's replacements were a breath of fresh air for a lot of people. They were something contemporary and exciting. Of course, now that style of architecture is widely hated.

Architecture goes through fashion, just like anything else. It's been that way throughout most of history, and I guarantee, give it 10 or 20 years, the tide will have changed, and that style of architecture will be better appreciated, and today's sleek glass and steel buildings will be right out of fashion.

Incidentally, most of Georgian Dublin was built as the result of a speculative housing boom, which saw the demolition of most of the city's medieval buildings and streets.

omega man · 21-11-2012 08:19PM

ted1 wrote: »

How does a union have the money for the development, could they not buy a near finished building from the NAMA books which would be a lot cheaper. Look what google got for 99m.

Is it not an insult to the members that the unions ego is so big they have to build this and squander members money.

Exactly what i was thinking. how would they fund such a project?

Peregrine · 21-11-2012 09:59PM

That part of the city is run down and dull looking, it was about time it got some modernisation. I would've liked to see them knock over that pile of crap and replace it with the new tower, it wouldn't look so out of place if Tara Street was given permission - but it wasn't because of it's height and apparent effects on the Customs House and if Georges Quay was a bit taller.

Why anybody is in favour of keeping it as it is beyond me:

How can we ever have highrise in a sprawling European capital if we moan about the first midrise building being out of place? That way it will never happen, that's almost paradoxical.

ABP is in need of serious reform, they have to stop thinking about the height of a proposed mid rise building in 2012 in a European capital with over a million people.

patrickbrophy18 · 21-11-2012 11:00PM

flutterflye wrote: »

Is Lansdowne supposed to look like a rugby ball?! :eek:

It looks like a bed pan!:D

As for Liberty Hall. As Dublin's only "skyscraper:rolleyes:", it's an absolute eyesore. If a skyscraper is to be built, we should be looking abroad for inspiration from elegant designs. For example, the Chrysler Building is beautifully designed and very majestic looking in it's own right. Then again, what would the city council of New York know being in charge of the most iconic city scape in the world?:rolleyes:

The New York skyline is also an iconic symbol of progress and an example of how a city can fulfill it's true potential. I mention the word iconic because of the collective feats of engineering excellence that went into many of it's buildings. The city has also been featured in countless high end movies as well. Where as, Dublin has probably been given a brief mention.

Don't get me wrong. Dublin City is, for the most part, beautiful. However, a lot of parts are run down with architecture that would depress even the most optimistic person. Having said that, every city in the world including New York has their fair share of grubby areas. Nevertheless, the standard of architectural style and quality in many of Dublin's buildings is laughable to say the least. Look no further than the needle (The Spire In The Mire/The Binge Syringe/The Erection By The Intersection/The Poker Near Croker) on O'Connell Street!;)

CrabRevolution · 22-11-2012 12:34AM

New York didn't become a massive icon of politics, culture, finance, population etc. because it has impressively engineered tall buildings. Those buildings were built to cater for the business created by having a massive financial scene, industrial and cultural centre, population etc to fit into a tiny area.

I really dont see why people reckon Dublin has failed in terms of skyscrapers, if thats even possible. We just don't need them. New Yorks Gross Metropolitan product is 1.3 Trillion Dollars, the entirety of Irelands gdp is about 200 Billion Dollars. Dublin is probably the majority of that but still an utterly massive gap. There is no demand, be it financial, industrial or political for skyscrapers in Dublin. They also look awful standing alone, so demand for one just wouldnt be enough.

Every morning on the way to college I pass dozens and dozens of empty shop units and offices, most to let/for sale. These would need to be filled with business, trade unions or whatever people intend to put in these skyscrapers we supposedly need, before any high rise building be even considered.

Dublin has some bad features of design that should be looked at (not as many as most here claim) but a lack of skyscrapers is in no way, shape or form a problem.

ted1 · 22-11-2012 09:06AM

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

That part of the city is run down and dull looking, it was about time it got some modernisation. I would've liked to see them knock over that pile of crap and replace it with the new tower, it wouldn't look so out of place if Tara Street was given permission - but it wasn't because of it's height and apparent effects on the Customs House and if Georges Quay was a bit taller.

Why anybody is in favour of keeping it as it is beyond me:

How can we ever have highrise in a sprawling European capital if we moan about the first midrise building being out of place? That way it will never happen, that's almost paradoxical.

ABP is in need of serious reform, they have to stop thinking about the height of a proposed mid rise building in 2012 in a European capital with over a million people.

We don't need high rises we a small population and already have plenty of empty units in the city.
Besides high rises are allowed just not in this location. Remember the U2 tower got permission as did the one opposite it.
Thus is right beside the custom house, butt bridge and is a poor location choice.

Bullseye1 · 22-11-2012 09:17AM

The failure to permit high rise in Dublin has lead to sprawling housing estates to the west of the city with inadequate public transport. High rise was needed but not permitted. Now we have people in their cars taking up to 1 hour on a journe which shouldn't take any more than 20 minutes.

Bullseye1 · 22-11-2012 09:18AM

ted1 wrote: »

We don't need high rises we a small population and already have plenty of empty units in the city.
Besides high rises are allowed just not in this location. Remember the U2 tower got permission as did the one opposite it.
Thus is right beside the custom house, butt bridge and is a poor location choice.

But a high rise already exist at that location. An ugly one at that.

Blisterman · 22-11-2012 11:54AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The failure to permit high rise in Dublin has lead to sprawling housing estates to the west of the city with inadequate public transport. High rise was needed but not permitted. Now we have people in their cars taking up to 1 hour on a journe which shouldn't take any more than 20 minutes.

No it hasn't. Demand for semi detached suburban houses with gardens has.

If there was a strong demand for city centre apartments, there wouldn't be half empty blocks in the docklands.

Peregrine · 22-11-2012 06:36PM

ted1 wrote: »

We don't need high rises we a small population and already have plenty of empty units in the city.
Besides high rises are allowed just not in this location. Remember the U2 tower got permission as did the one opposite it.
Thus is right beside the custom house, butt bridge and is a poor location choice.

Small population? How can people be so oblivious?
Dublin has well over a million people..deal with it. This has caused Dublin to sprawl out in all directions and now there's literally nowhere else to sprawl out to

This isn't a highrise for Christ's sake, it's 23 floors, barely midrise. Few buildings at 70m+ around Customs House isn't going to do anything other than liven up those dilapidated quays.
Oh yes highrise was allowed, in the docklands but instead we build bulky 6 storey apparments there when we had the money to build highrise.

ABP's and some Irish people's idea of preservation of the past seems to be ignoring the present and halting the future

Peregrine · 22-11-2012 06:43PM

Blisterman wrote: »

No it hasn't. Demand for semi detached suburban houses with gardens has.

If there was a strong demand for city centre apartments, there wouldn't be half empty blocks in the docklands.

This is an office block, there was a demand for office blocks but we seem happy to stuff that demand into ugly buildings like this and Hawkins house. This is a demand for an office tower, why reject it when there's already a building there? An ugly eye sore too and we can have it replaced with a fairly modern and decent looking building

Blisterman · 22-11-2012 07:09PM

I honestly can't understand how people can hate Liberty Hall, yet think this is a high quality piece of architecture.

I think they're being seduced by the romantic renders of it glowing warmly against the dusk sky.

Here's a more realistic image of what it would really look like. Can anyone honestly say it looks appropriate in that location?

ted1 · 22-11-2012 07:19PM

As cities go 1million is nothing. Ireland's population is about that of Manchester's. So yes we are a small city, there is no need for high density.

What there is a need for is better transportation.

Peregrine · 22-11-2012 07:30PM

Blisterman wrote: »

I honestly can't understand how people can hate Liberty Hall, yet think this is a high quality piece of architecture.

I think they're being seduced by the romantic renders of it glowing warmly against the dusk sky.

Here's a more realistic image of what it would really look like. Can anyone honestly say it looks appropriate in that location?

I would rather that than the current one and if SIPTU is paying for it, it's their land and it replaces the ugly sad excuse of architecture that's there now..I don't see why anyone should object. It's not hurting anyone.

That's one side of the quays, it doesn't look so bad with Georges Quay in the backdrop, which is the same height as the current Liberty Hall. Tara Street Station was rejected for similar reasons, if that had gone ahead in 2009 Liberty Hall wouldn't have looked out of place at all.

Cork and Belfast both have modern buildings taller than 80m. Dublin despite being a primate city has nothing over 67. Now that I think about it, wasn't Montevetro made shorter before they agranted permission? What happened there? It's well in the Docklands

9 of the country's top 10 tallest buildings are churches.
They should know they failed as a planning bord if you can't even allow buildings taller than churches.

22-11-2012 07:43PM

i vote for new taller building with observation deck for the public.

and ice cream... i want ice cream.

Peregrine · 22-11-2012 07:50PM

ted1 wrote: »

As cities go 1million is nothing. Ireland's population is about that of Manchester's. So yes we are a small city, there is no need for high density.

The same Manchester that has 11 buildings taller than that of Dublin, 4 of them over a 100m and one of them being Beetham Tower at almost 170 metres?

Manchester's population is 500,000, it's not the same as Ireland's population it's actually around 10% of Ireland's population and half of Dublin's.

Blisterman · 22-11-2012 07:52PM

They have allowed tall buildings. The 120m tall U2 Tower was approved, but it turned out not to be economically feasible, and wasn't built. Which I guess disproves your theory that Dublin has reached such a capacity that the only option is to build up.

I've nothing personally against tall buildings. I've helped design a 400m tall tower in China. What I have a problem with is inappropriately sited architecture, and this notion of building tall buildings for the sake of it, whether to act as a status symbol, as Siptu want, or for some strange idea of modernity.

It's been possible to build 80m tall towers for over a century. There's nothing remotely modern about them. Most urban design theory in fact has mostly moved away in the past 50 years from the ideas of building skyscrapers in low rise historic city centres.

22-11-2012 07:52PM

Blisterman wrote: »

I honestly can't understand how people can hate Liberty Hall, yet think this is a high quality piece of architecture.

I think they're being seduced by the romantic renders of it glowing warmly against the dusk sky.

Here's a more realistic image of what it would really look like. Can anyone honestly say it looks appropriate in that location?

I think that new design actually looks a lot better! Also, more to the point, it most certainly isn't worse. Looks like it would bring a nice bit of economic activity to the city.

bb1234567 · 22-11-2012 07:57PM

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

The same Manchester that has 11 buildings taller than that of Dublin, 4 of them over a 100m and one of them being Beetham Tower at almost 170 metres?

Manchester's population is 500,000, it's not the same as Ireland's population it's actually around 10% of Ireland's population and half of Dublin's.

He probably means thhe metropolitan population of manchester, which is about 4.5 million. Though its unfair to compare machesters metropolitan population to just dublins city population proper. Dublins metropolitan population is almost 2 million. So dublins about half the size of manchester.
Dublin has about 500,000 people in the city proper, 1million city plus suburbs, almost 2million including sattleite towns, villages, counties etc.

CrabRevolution · 22-11-2012 08:26PM

Despite our own tourist board giving us the rather derogatory name of 'Dublins doorstep'. Counties surrounding Dublin don't really count as just being part of greater Dublin.

The large commuter towns to the east of Meath and Kildare are very Dublin orientated alright, but you cant lump the more distant places like Trim, Kells, Athy, Arklow etc. in with Dublin to try justify building things for the city.

Blisterman · 22-11-2012 08:40PM

I'm not sure if I'd put forth Manchester as an example of good town planning.

Peregrine · 22-11-2012 08:44PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Despite our own tourist board giving us the rather derogatory name of 'Dublins doorstep'. Counties surrounding Dublin don't really count as just being part of greater Dublin.

The large commuter towns to the east of Meath and Kildare are very Dublin orientated alright, but you cant lump the more distant places like Trim, Kells, Athy, Arklow etc. in with Dublin to try justify building things for the city.

In that case, Manchester city actually has less people than Dublin city, yet it has 11 buildings taller than Dublin and a building almost 3 times taller than Dublin's tallest and Dublin thinks it's a town in the 12th century.

Actually now that I looked into it again, planning permission for Tara Street Station was later granted in 2010 but they were forced to shorted it to 50m from 60m
So a miniature version of this has planning permission until 2020

It's weird why they asked it to be shortened by 10 metres when all the buildings surrounding it is 60 metres

Irish and Proud · 26-11-2012 11:34PM

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

In that case, Manchester city actually has less people than Dublin city, yet it has 11 buildings taller than Dublin and a building almost 3 times taller than Dublin's tallest and Dublin thinks it's a town in the 12th century.

Actually now that I looked into it again, planning permission for Tara Street Station was later granted in 2010 but they were forced to shorted it to 50m from 60m
So a miniature version of this has planning permission until 2020

It's weird why they asked it to be shortened by 10 metres when all the buildings surrounding it is 60 metres

Actually, that building is a big improvement over what's there now (and I'd actually make it a little bit taller) - there's nothing really wrong with a tall building there - it seems the clean up the area quite well IMO. I also like the Alto Vetro building - nothing wrong with that either! We really need an architectural/planning revolution in this country! No more low rise urban sprawl!

LivelineDipso · 26-11-2012 11:50PM

ted1 wrote: »

As cities go 1million is nothing. Ireland's population is about that of Manchester's. So yes we are a small city, there is no need for high density.

What there is a need for is better transportation.

Greater Manchester is 5 millon that includes several surrounding cities. The city of Manchester is 500,000.

Dublin is nearly 3 times bigger and has a far greater economic base.

Dublin is mid sized European city with more population density that several others. Including Amsterdam and Copenhagen.

We need an underground rail system.

26-11-2012 11:51PM

LivelineDipso wrote: »

We need an underground rail system.

So that the scumbags and junkies have somewhere new to hassle people and shoot up?

Peregrine · 27-11-2012 12:03AM

Blisterman wrote: »

They have allowed tall buildings. The 120m tall U2 Tower was approved

Been meaning to say this ever since people started bringing it up, the U2 tower was never approved by An Bord Pleanála

That's right, U2 Tower along with all the other Skyscrapers that was appoved in the Docklands weren't approved by ABP, it was approved by DDDA.

You see, in 1997 the government made a slight move in the right direction by establishing the Dublin Docklands Development Authority(Not saying all their practices were right). They oversaw all the proposals and future development of the Docklands area and all the plans were put through to them rather than DCC and ABP. Which means when these skyscrapers were approved, ABP had to sit there and keep it's mouth shut like a good boy cos they couldn't touch it.

DDDA is being abolished at the moment but Dublin City Council wants to retain the powers DDDA had over the docklands once they're gone, which means there could still be hope

Blisterman · 27-11-2012 12:13AM

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Actually, that building is a big improvement over what's there now (and I'd actually make it a little bit taller) - there's nothing really wrong with a tall building there - it seems the clean up the area quite well IMO. I also like the Alto Vetro building - nothing wrong with that either! We really need an architectural/planning revolution in this country! No more low rise urban sprawl!

Why does everyone resort to the false dichotomy of towers v sprawling estates?

One of the densest city centres in Europe is Amsterdam, which has barely any buildings over 6 or 7 storeys. Instead, what they have is an efficient use of space, with buildings located close together, with little wasted space while maintaining a human scale. That should be our model. It's one of, if not the most pleasant city to walk around in.

Bord Pleanala blocks demolition of Ireland’s first skyscraper Liberty Hall

Comments