Poolbeg twin towers- should they stay or should they go

Spiritoftheseventies

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

Ideally, I'd agree with you. This area would offer the best waterfront location for a skyscraper district in any European capital. Obviously the horrendous port would have to move too.
However, realising that this may have lots of opposition I'd rather have the area turned into a recreational park than leave it in the decrepit industrial state it's in now.
The Poolbeg peninsula and Dublin port truely are a blight on our city I'd be more than happy to see the back of.
Hopefully the city will connect with the sea at some point in the future, and some kind of vision, ambition and slightest bit of pride will return to Dublin.

Yes was any imagination put into the development of this country. Putting up one apartment block after another without any research has left us up the creek. And now there are going to pull down this landmark for what. To fill it with yet more propertly?.

nordisk celt83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes was any imagination put into the development of this country. Putting up one apartment block after another without any research has left us up the creek. And now there are going to pull down this landmark for what. To fill it with yet more propertly?.

All one has to do is look around them in Dublin, and realise there was some imagination and vision in the 18th century. Unfortunately, later generations have ruined the legacy left to them.
I also suggested returning the area to the people of the city as a recreational area if building properties isn't favourable.
However, it would be more visionary to build dense properties located less than a mile from the city centre than building ghost estates 50miles away, which will be required if the port and poolbeg aren't reclaimed in the future!

John_Rambo

I think this might have been an April's fool.

It's a cool area to wonder around, I guess housing or apartments would be nice, but the smell might be a problem. I think the chimneys should stay. It would be great as a tourist attraction, maybe high speed glass lifts going up and down.

thewitloof

join the good people here http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=113697908646587 in saving them (:

RandolphEsq

RandolphEsq wrote: »

There are fields there completely empty that are not even used as pitches. Look at all that space! I'm sure the 'businesses' you refer to could relocate. Imagine if all that area was a budding, modern, chic metropolitan area, right in the heart of Dublin City. I would love it!

That green space is actually a nature reserve.

And the Poolbeg Peninsula is hardly in the heart of Dublin City.

(I voted to keep them)

loyatemu

i was about to post (having voted "No") when I realised I had already posted on the thread linked above - this is what I thought in 2008 and its pretty much how I still feel:

loyatemu wrote: »

i quite like em, but if they can't be put to any sort of new use (and I don't think they can) then let em go. You can't keep everything thats ever been built just for nostalgic purposes. They'd probably have to be demolished eventually for safety reasons anyway (any engineers know how long they might last?)

In London they reused the Bankside power station to become the Tate Modern.

Battersea Power Station (the one on the Pink Floyd cover) though a listed building is falling apart because they can't find a suitable use for it

Poolbeg doesn't have the architectural merit of either of those, and besides it will still be a power station. The chimneys on their own have no re-use potential and keeping them upright will cost money. I like them, but I'm not paying extra for my leccy just to keep them standing.

Spiritoftheseventies

loyatemu wrote: »

i was about to post (having voted "No") when I realised I had already posted on the thread linked above - this is what I thought in 2008 and its pretty much how I still feel:



In London they reused the Bankside power station to become the Tate Modern.

Battersea Power Station (the one on the Pink Floyd cover) though a listed building is falling apart because they can't find a suitable use for it

Poolbeg doesn't have the architectural merit of either of those, and besides it will still be a power station. The chimneys on their own have no re-use potential and keeping them upright will cost money. I like them, but I'm not paying extra for my leccy just to keep them standing.

How much would it cost to maintain them to do you reckon?

Joey the lips

honestly... could not care less... whats the cheaper option.....

Spiritoftheseventies

Joey the lips wrote: »

honestly... could not care less... whats the cheaper alternative option.....

Preserving them. If it can be proved that they are of historic and cultural value then they should be maintained. But lets not forget the whole Wood Quay debacle. If they can erect civic offices on such a historic site the Chimneys have as such zero chance of staying up.

Joey the lips

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Preserving them. If it can be proved that they are of historic and cultural value then they should be maintained. But lets not forget the whole Wood Quay debacle. If they can erect civic offices on such a historic site the Chimneys have as such zero chance of staying up.

striking out my question is not answering it and its antagonistic to tell someone what to think,rather than ask them an opinion as the poster did.

Why preserve them?

Will we be organising daily visits....

Will the fact that they can be seen all along the piers and sea fronts of dublin bay make them a lovely eye catcher.?


To me they have no more cultural astetics then the spike.

Thats why I say the cheapest option should be the prefered option...


However.... Put them into a visitors trust for 5 years... if the trust shows a profit then they stay... if it shows a loss then they go. Simple.

Spiritoftheseventies

Joey the lips wrote: »

striking out my question is not answering it and its antagonistic to tell someone what to think,rather than ask them an opinion as the poster did.

Why preserve them?

Will we be organising daily visits....

Will the fact that they can be seen all along the piers and sea fronts of dublin bay make them a lovely eye catcher.?


To me they have no more cultural astetics then the spike.

Thats why I say the cheapest option should be the prefered option...


However.... Put them into a visitors trust for 5 years... if the trust shows a profit then they stay... if it shows a loss then they go. Simple.

Sorry didnt mean to be antagonistic there. Was merely pointing out what the options were IMO. For anyone from the Dublin Bay region they are an integral part of our skyline. They are iconic at this stage.
Structurally if they can be maintained they should be maintained. I assume their is a budget for perserving old momuments if they can be reclassified as such.
And as for the Spike dont believe for a minute the two should be compared. Chimneys have been there for far longer.

Joey the lips

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Sorry didnt mean to be antagonistic there. Was merely pointing out what the options were IMO. For anyone from the Dublin Bay region they are an integral part of our skyline. They are iconic at this stage.
Structurally if they can be maintained they should be maintained. I assume their is a budget for perserving old momuments if they can be reclassified as such.
And as for the Spike dont believe for a minute the two should be compared. Chimneys have been there for far longer.

This is what I said. Put them into trust...and if the trust cant show a profit it shows they are not worth saving.

Unfortun it is not sufficent to say that something 1 km out in the bay should be saved because it looks good. There has to be practical reasons. As the structure decays mainly due to lack of use it will become a health and savety risk. All asbestos will have to be removed... All hazardous chemicals and soot will have to be removed. In fact the cost of making it safe will compare to the cost of knocking it and making it safe.


If your a local and feel it should be made safe it will take a lot more than an artists impression to light it up to save it...

Spiritoftheseventies

Joey the lips wrote: »

This is what I said. Put them into trust...and if the trust cant show a profit it shows they are not worth saving.

Unfortun it is not sufficent to say that something 1 km out in the bay should be saved because it looks good. There has to be practical reasons. As the structure decays mainly due to lack of use it will become a health and savety risk. All asbestos will have to be removed... All hazardous chemicals and soot will have to be removed. In fact the cost of making it safe will compare to the cost of knocking it and making it safe.


If your a local and feel it should be made safe it will take a lot more than an artists impression to light it up to save it...

Agreed but the chimneys have as such have been emitting fumes for years now. Im sure people would be loathe to put a feasablility study in place over the health risks of maintaining the chimneys given everything is about costs now.
But given the controversy over the incinerator which is not a million miles away I would need more evidence just how big a health risk it would prove to keep the pots up. But yes peoples health comes first absolutely in this instance.

Joey the lips

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Agreed but the chimneys have as such have been emitting fumes for years now. Im sure people would be loathe to put a feasablility study in place over the health risks of maintaining the chimneys given everything is about costs now.
But given the controversy over the incinerator which is not a million miles away I would need more evidence just how big a health risk it would prove to keep the pots up. But yes peoples health comes first absolutely in this instance.

All you have top do is think about it.... If your house was left unoccupied for years even though it is locked up eventually it will start to get damp and corrode quite badly. Soon it will be unsafe to inhabit or go into.

This area will be the same. Somthing will have to be done. If its left it becomes dangerous. If its saved it must show a profit otherwise it becomes an expense then you have the opposition asking why 10million was spent preserving the towers when the heaalth service is so bad.

However if a trust can be established and it generates 1 million a year then it can be shown as a profit making venture.

However...My person opinion that with the bull island trust already operating a poolbeg towers one would not be a runner so I reckon it will be a good day out to see them getting blownup. The resulting tsumanmi might flood england.

joeperry

Was having a look at them the other day,i think they could do with a lick of paint.

Spiritoftheseventies

joeperry wrote: »

Was having a look at them the other day,i think they could do with a lick of paint.

Yeah can really seeing that happening

Flamed Diving

They are horrible, and spoil the scenic view from Dun Laoghaire, etc.

Joey the lips

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yeah can really seeing that happening

I imagine thats a legal requirement.... For low flyinging planes etc...

Spiritoftheseventies

Flamed Diving wrote: »

They are horrible, and spoil the scenic view from Dun Laoghaire, etc.

Beauty in the eye of the beholder

Spiritoftheseventies

Joey the lips wrote: »

I imagine thats a legal requirement.... For low flyinging planes etc...

I think if there was a problem with it, air traffic control would have been on them straight way. Not sure what trajectory planes come in at to or from airport but do many of them fly near the chimneys?

Raytown Rocks

I voted yes.

As a local resident I love these towers, they really are a focal point of the landscape. Maybe not the most architectural, but none the less stunning in my eyes.
Also as a 1 time traveller to foreign fields, I will never forget the plane banking around the towers on the return home, It really was a welcome sight.

Further to those saying knock them rebuild the whole area, at this point in time thats a no go. Too much money has been invested in the area for the " treatment works", "the incinerator", "the ESB". No one in their righ mind will
A. Build an apartment block beside these business.
B. Want to live beside these businesses.
The peninsula will stay close to what it is for many years to come.( IMO)

That said I was speaking to an ESB employee who worked in the Pigeon house station and he tells me the towers will not be kept if the ESB has its way....

RandolphEsq

chef wrote: »

I voted yes.

As a local resident I love these towers, they really are a focal point of the landscape. Maybe not the most architectural, but none the less stunning in my eyes.
Also as a 1 time traveller to foreign fields, I will never forget the plane banking around the towers on the return home, It really was a welcome sight.

Further to those saying knock them rebuild the whole area, at this point in time thats a no go. Too much money has been invested in the area for the " treatment works", "the incinerator", "the ESB". No one in their righ mind will
A. Build an apartment block beside these business.
B. Want to live beside these businesses.
The peninsula will stay close to what it is for many years to come.( IMO)

That said I was speaking to an ESB employee who worked in the Pigeon house station and he tells me the towers will not be kept if the ESB has its way....

Excellent news

Flamed Diving

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Beauty in the eye of the beholder

Indeed, and my eyes see no beauty in industrial smokestacks.

filthymcnasty

I voted No because 1) grimey smoke stacks from power stations hold no nostalgic or aesthetic value for me and 2) they look hideous.
What next, preservation orders on Liberty Hall and Hawkins House?

super_furry

They're an iconic Dublin landmark, can't believe they're thinking of getting rid of them.

Osgoodisgood

They are ugly. They have no cultural merit or worth in my opinion and I'll be delighted to see them blown to bits.

And I have an idea or two for the land afterwards. Grass. A park. Playgrounds. Bike track. Stuff that people might use and enjoy and that won't bankrupt the country to build.

stop

People calling for them to be used as a tourist attraction must not have been down there lately.
Between the stench of the water treatment plant, and the presence of what looks like an illegal halting site, it isn't the most appealing place.

PaulieC

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

And I have an idea or two for the land afterwards. Grass. A park. Playgrounds. Bike track. Stuff that people might use and enjoy and that won't bankrupt the country to build.

all of which is down there already...plus a beach and a long walk out to the lighthouse

Flamed Diving wrote:

Indeed, and my eyes see no beauty in industrial smokestacks.

So it should be all glass, steel and concrete to be beautiful? That's how we ended up with Liberty Hall and Hawkins house. And that's what all 'modern' architecture seems to consist of.

It seems to be a moot point anyway if the ESB and trying to get shut of the land, then they will do what they need to do, including knocking these. It will be a shame when they go, but such is the price of 'progress'

Econoline Van

I'd vote to keep them. I really love them, love seeing them returning to Dublin every time. Also, I have an Italian friend who lives in Sandymount for the last year and she's equally enamoured by them. They're a Dublin landmark in a city that's turning into a boring replica of any modern glass building city.

Flamed Diving

Very rarely, can industrial buildings be pretty. But Battersea Power Station is quite striking. Complete with flying pig: