Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

U2 Still haven't found what they are looking for...

1356

Comments

  • #62
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Talking of booms, there is a 150 year correlation between tall buildings and signals of property and economic busts. Ireland's tallest building included.

    As you are cheerleading China I note:
    "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.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/05/business/china-sky-city-skyscraper-index

    You gotta love skyscrapers, they tell you where the next economic crash will be.


  • #63
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    bizmark wrote: »
    good christ 1007 meters tall ? what is it with the middle east and giant buildings o0

    Gives you something to look at as you sweep up the shattered remnants of your economy.


  • #64
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    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.

    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?


  • #65
    pabloh999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭pabloh999


    double post


  • #66
    pabloh999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭pabloh999


    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.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=113

    Ok. Dream on.

    London only just finished the shard
    France just completed their tallest ever in 2011 - 56 floors
    Bloomberg is finalising massive plans to transform midtown from a tall to a supertall district, and have never stopped building skyscrapers
    Moscow have massive buildings going up with tonnes more planned
    user_online.gifreport.gif progress.gif


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Also this will be nowhere close to the tallest building in Dublin


  • #68
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    MadsL wrote: »
    Gives you something to look at as you sweep up the shattered remnants of your economy.

    Now MadsL.I'm a fan and contributor to SSP,and that is not the truth and the whole truth,on 57th st in NYC alone they have a topped out supertall (1000 ft) and 3 more in preparation in that street alone.

    Dublin could have a highrise area,just not in the historic quarter,and really,with the boom we had,we found no time to do something about the(iirc) telecom eireann building that defaces a whole georgian row.

    Truth is,Dublins historic core isn't that scenic (and I have helped restore some of it),Last time I was there,came in via Drumcondra on the bus and it was just tacky looking chinese take-aways all the way to the city centre,and lots of litter on the pavement.:(


  • #69
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Jester252 wrote: »
    So where do they build these new building in the city centre?
    Plenty of brownfield sites that need infill.
    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.
    You fill in and renovate empty buildings in the city centre; endless empty building and spaces in need of renovation in Dublin.
    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?
    The Clarence is a heritage protection issue in my view; it is entirely ignorant of its surroundings.
    How come this limited was not in affect when the spire was build?
    The Spire is a sculpture not a building.
    Are we to continue destroying the countryside and towns around Dublin in order to develop the city?

    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)


  • #70
    Vita nova
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    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.


  • #71
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Also this will be nowhere close to the tallest building in Dublin

    Because context and location don't matter, right?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    pabloh999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭pabloh999


    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.
    .

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83473108&postcount=113

    So are you dishonest or forgetfull? ;)


  • #73
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    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)

    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.


  • #74
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    pabloh999 wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83473108&postcount=113

    So are you dishonest or forgetfull? ;)

    Or maybe s/he doesn't like U2 and has not issue with height.


  • #75
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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.

    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.


  • #76
    pabloh999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭pabloh999


    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.

    I like the Clarence, but even the Clarence itself (7/8 floors?) looks a little out of place where it is
    Im not a fan of the proposal , but is really annoys me when serial objectors (Madsl :D) object to anything and everything they deem "out of context" with their narrow vision on things.


  • #77
    pabloh999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭pabloh999


    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.

    Says the person who lives in America.

    You say docklands so why do you object to every tall proposal for that area?


  • #78
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    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.

    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.


  • #79
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    pabloh999 wrote: »
    Says the person who lives in America.

    You say docklands so why do you object to every tall proposal for that area?

    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.
    "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."


  • #80
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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.

    It more makes me wonder why every vanity building project by rich men is penis shaped!


  • #81
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    MadsL wrote: »
    It more makes me wonder why every vanity building project by rich men is penis shaped!

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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.

    You pointed it out.


  • #83
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,755 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    MadsL wrote: »
    Green space?

    Dublin probably hasn't granted PP on a greenfield site in Dublin in years.

    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.


  • #84
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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.

    None of those areas are DCC's areas to grant PP.


  • #85
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    MadsL wrote: »
    You pointed it out.

    :rolleyes:

    Do yourself a favour and try stop looking at building in a sexual way.


  • #86
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,755 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    MadsL wrote: »
    None of those areas are DCC's areas to grant PP.

    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.


  • #87
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Jester252 wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Do yourself a favour and try stop looking at building in a sexual way.

    Because that's the issue under discussion. Useful diversion from my response to your posts.


  • #88
    bizmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,895 ✭✭✭bizmark


    Jester252 wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Do yourself a favour and try stop looking at building in a sexual way.

    Or a ideology way. Sometimes a large building is just a building not a reason to sound like a bitter germaine greer


  • #89
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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.
    If you think DCC has had ridiculous planning restrictions in the past 10 years I really don't know what to tell you, DCC is currently under investigation for systematically GRANTING permissions for highrise in Dublin in breach of the Development Plan. Developments that were then appealed to An Bord Pleanala, including a 51 story granted permission at one of the highest points of the city. At one, laughable now, point DCC gave permission for a 12 story to cantilever over the Liffey Quays in an upside down L shaped building. Bizarre, but true.


  • #90
    pabloh999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭pabloh999


    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.



    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
    Sorry but it was only completed last year
    Buildings like that, in places like London (like it or not) raise its global profile

    The tallest building in the city where i live now is 22 stories
    Taller than the tallest building in the entire country of Ireland;)

    "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."

    Sure he would say that.
    Now that America cannot compete against Asia, but NYC disagrees - see plans for Midtown and beyond


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    MadsL wrote: »
    Because that's the issue under discussion. Useful diversion from my response to your posts.

    How is that under discussion. You seem to think that building over 7 stories. In this case an eight story build is some way a phallus object? Dublin is just a mass of low rise building sprawling into nearby country side and towns. The city is full and the only way to build is up. This building will have little impact on the skylines as its would only be approx. 3 meters higher. It will no where close to Dublin highest building. Don't go on about the dockland because as another poster pointed out your against high building there. FWI an eight story building is not a sky scrapper so try and keep your tabloid journalism in check.
    Don't kid yourself Dublin is not the nicest city in the world or Ireland and that an extra 3 meter will destroy this. From that area you can see much more eye sore than an extra 3 meters


Advertisement
Advertisement