developer Paddy McKillen and U2's Bono and The Edge, applied to Dublin City Council to extend the duration of the planning permission. The multi-million euro refit would include a flying saucer-like roof known as a 'skycatcher' on the Temple Bar hotel. However the Council refused their planning application on the ground that the current city development plan has a 7-storey restriction on non-residential buildings. The High Court today gave permission to the Clarence Partnership to bring a legal challenge to try and overturn that decision.
"The Skyscraper Index has a good 150-year correlation between the world's tallest buildings and economic slowdowns and recessions," says Andrew Lawrence, pioneer of the Skyscraper Index and head of Hong Kong and China property research at CIMB Group. "For China, there is no reason that correlation will change."
According to the Skyscraper Index, the opening of every single "world's tallest" building in the past century has coincided with an economic downturn in that country.
bizmark wrote: » good christ 1007 meters tall ? what is it with the middle east and giant buildings o0
MadsL wrote: » Green space? Dublin probably hasn't granted PP on a greenfield site in Dublin in years. I'd say Grangegorman DCU project is about the only large-scale greenfield development within the city centre in years. Perhaps, the Phoenix Park Racecourse. What 'green space' specifically? The obsession that Dublin must have skyscrapers to be 'modern' is very sad and somehow smacks of penis inadequacy. Increasing the height of a building without slimming it makes for an oversized mass, not a pleasant aesthetic. However the footprint of taller buildings requires a plaza or public space at the base to avoid canyoning. All of which makes skyscrapers actually not terribly efficient at densification of cities. Practical and careful infill works much better.
MadsL wrote: » Boom? More like the realisation that skyscrapers are overpriced and unsustainable.Look at this diagram for buildings under construction. No-one in the developed world is building one other than the US replacement for the twin towers. Why? Because they are a too-much cash, showy, look-at-us waste of money. China; that is who is building them. Prague? Budapest? Zagreb? Washington, D.C? Athens? Montreal? Vancouver? I have always supported the DEGW study in 2000 that identified Heuston and Docklands as suitable for height, I have never made any post or planning objection in relation to height in these areas; my post history will confirm that. (search DEGW) - you are wrong on that score. And tell me about the shortage of office space in Dublin that these wonderful skyscrapers will address. There are numerous mid-rise office blocks in Dublin completely empty.
MadsL wrote: » Gives you something to look at as you sweep up the shattered remnants of your economy.
Jester252 wrote: » So where do they build these new building in the city centre?
If they is no green spaces? Do we just make the centre larger thus increasing the amount of urban sprawl into the local country side.
Is this more acceptable than stopping the development of a building already located in the city because is one story more than the heigh limited?
How come this limited was not in affect when the spire was build?
Are we to continue destroying the countryside and towns around Dublin in order to develop the city?
Jester252 wrote: » Also this will be nowhere close to the tallest building in Dublin
MadsL wrote: » I have always supported the DEGW study in 2000 that identified Heuston and Docklands as suitable for height, I have never made any post or planning objection in relation to height in these areas; my post history will confirm that. (search DEGW) - you are wrong on that score..
MadsL wrote: » Plenty of brownfield sites that need infill. You fill in and renovate empty buildings in the city centre; endless empty building and spaces in need of renovation in Dublin. The Clarence is a heritage protection issue in my view; it is entirely ignorant of its surroundings. The Spire is a sculpture not a building. Hopefully not. It was high prices and corruption and greed that fueled that not population pressure. Meath rezoned massively over actual requirements (90 times over IIRC)
pabloh999 wrote: » http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83473108&postcount=113 So are you dishonest or forgetfull?
Jester252 wrote: » So we go back into the city and develop all the building to 7 stories. Until we have just a flat even skyline? What is wrong with 3 meter more?. Is it not better to have the planing in place before major issues occur? This building will not be near the tallest building in Dublin. I fail to see why you have issues with 3 meters? I guess we continue the urban sprawl.
Vita nova wrote: » The Clarence is a lovely old building, and the proposed development is totally out of character. If there were a petition against this development, I'd gladly sign it. I stayed there as a child in the early 70s and have fond memories of it.
MadsL wrote: » It is not an either/or choice. Heuston is a well laid out highrise cluster, and there is scope in the Docklands. Dublin needs planned sensible development; not mad money ego-driven phallus wherever rich men feel the need.
pabloh999 wrote: » Says the person who lives in America. You say docklands so why do you object to every tall proposal for that area?
"We build tall buildings because it has to do with symbolism — the bigger the building, the more prosperous the community," said John Mullin, an urban planner at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "Are we beyond that now? My feeling is yeah. I don't think cities like New York need any symbols now to prove their might."
Jester252 wrote: » Which it doesn't have with a height restriction. We could have some sort of committee that judges if a building that is planed to be build in a certain location is an assist to the city. Also with all your talk of phallus makes me wonder if someone is a bit bitter at what they got.
MadsL wrote: » It more makes me wonder why every vanity building project by rich men is penis shaped!
Jester252 wrote: » You should go to a doctor if you think the proposed building is penis shaped. Beside what is your deal with penises you seem to be the only person here to be hung up on them.
MadsL wrote: » Green space? Dublin probably hasn't granted PP on a greenfield site in Dublin in years.
Cookie_Monster wrote: » rubbish, Cherrywood, Carrickmines and Ballyogan were all green fields 15 years ago until the sprawl claimed them all. They offer nothing that could not have been built in the city centre. That's only my locality, multiply that all around the M1 M50 M11 ring.
MadsL wrote: » You pointed it out.
MadsL wrote: » None of those areas are DCC's areas to grant PP.
Jester252 wrote: » :rolleyes: Do yourself a favour and try stop looking at building in a sexual way.
Cookie_Monster wrote: » So? Do you think all the local authorities exist in bubbles by themselves? They are all parts of the one city. If DCC didn't have such ridiculous planning restrictions they wouldn't need to be developing on the fringes.
MadsL wrote: » I don't and haven't. I have noted in one post (read the whole thread for context) that the majority of the proposed developments you linked in that post are massively overscaled for the context. I would support reasonable high rise in dockland, but there is simply no need for Dublin to have a 100m+ building at present; it would serve no purpose. The grandiose schemes you linked to are not built because they simply weren't economically viable. It is the skyscraper lobby who are the dreamers. The Shard you say? Just six of its 72 floors in use and the only occupants are 32nd floor restaurant and a viewing gallery on the upper five floors. An economic failure - that is what you want Dublin to emulate? Your links above don't work by the way. And "Says the person who lives in America." An ad hominem attack tut tut. The tallest building in the city where i live now is 22 stories. We prefer the views of the mountains. I spent 15 years in Dublin, living in the city centre. Tell me. What would be the advantages of a 100m+ building in Dublin? Why is it urgently needed? And spare me the sprawl nonsense, it is a myth. Densification is the way to combat sprawl, not vanity projects.
MadsL wrote: » Because that's the issue under discussion. Useful diversion from my response to your posts.
