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

kowloon

Knock it down, build another giant spike.

Red Hand

kowloon wrote: »

Knock it down, build another giant spike.

Have a giant Rugby ball on the southside.:P

randylonghorn

henryporter wrote: »

It's probably the best building in Dublin after Busarus.

That kinda says it all tbh.

bb1234567

I die a little inside every time I look up at that building..please demolish it...PLEASE

Run_to_da_hills

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

I really can't imagine anything uglier than that sh*theap of a building that looks like a council flat.

Why can't we design nice things?

Great to see this iconic Dublin skyscraper preserved.

Hopefully it will be restored to its mid 1960's glory with recessed windows..

Next

..........a campaign to preserve Hawkins House. :pac:

keith16

An Bord Pleanálas modus operandi would appear to be: "leave everything, it's grand".

WhatNowForUs?

pabloh999 wrote: »

Detract from Custom House or some such ****e
DCC had already approved this, then an bord pleanala came in and stopped it.
Why are DCC even involved in the process when they have no power at all?
So it goes through normal planning process with DCC, gets approved.
Grand.
But then it goes through another process with an bord pleanala, what a total waste of time/money.

checks and balances

TheUsual

That 'skyscraper' is in such bad condition, a good auld winter storm would probably knock it down.

flutterflye

Red Hand wrote: »

Have a giant Rugby ball on the southside.:P

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

johnr1

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Is that with Siptu inside or outside?

Hopefully inside, - their brylcreemed beards would aid the conflagration.

keith16

flutterflye wrote: »

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

No, it's supposed to look like a stadium. Instead it looks like two thirds of a stadium / rugby ball. They could have turned the pitch 90 degrees and had an actual stadium.

Ah no, shure tis grand, we will leave it as it is and one end will just be small. 55,000 is grand. Shure why would you want to ever bring the champions league final to Dublin? And if there's less seats, shure we'll just charge more for the tickets. Say, 100 quid a pop?

Only 35,515 turned out to see Ireland lose 23-21 to South Africa in the first Test at the Aviva Stadium on Saturday, leaving 16,000 empty seats at the newly-redeveloped Lansdowne Road.

Peregrine

They're a joke. Skyscraper? for Christ sake :mad:
The docklands would've been the best place to have these "skyscrapers" or around Heuston, but they bloody ruined that too! Instead it's now full of bulky 6 storey apartments.

We'll never get anything built in this country with them. Who choses these idiots anyway? Surely after years of this crap the people must have a say in our all seeing, progress phobic overlords

flutterflye

keith16 wrote: »

No, it's supposed to look like a stadium. Instead it looks like two thirds of a stadium / rugby ball. They could have turned the pitch 90 degrees and had an actual stadium.

Oh okay, good. I thought this was one of those really obvious things that everyone 'gets' but me (happens a lot).


On the topic of Liberty Hall - Get rid of the ugly monstrosity, and while we're at it, get rid of all of Bord Pleanala, and re-establish the whole thing.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Reminds me of a friend from Union New Jersey. The first time he came over to Dublin he kept asking me where's the high rise. Funny how Americans associate cities with tall buildings. When I showed him Liberty he thought it was a piss take.

kowloon

Planning in this country is a bit mental. Don't want tall buildings in the middle of the city but an apartment complex in a village is fine. There seems to be no system. There's no plan behind the planning.

SHOVELLER

henryporter wrote: »

Clueless Philistines:

http://docomomo.ie/2010/03/liberty-hall-docomomo-observation-irish-times/

It's probably the best building in Dublin after Busarus.

Not even funny. I've been in both buildings and worked in the latter and they are hideous insdie and out. There is NO justification for either of them to be standing.

And I just passed it and there are no lights on which is apt.

keith16 wrote: »

No, it's supposed to look like a stadium. Instead it looks like two thirds of a stadium / rugby ball. They could have turned the pitch 90 degrees and had an actual stadium.

Ah no, shure tis grand, we will leave it as it is and one end will just be small. 55,000 is grand. Shure why would you want to ever bring the champions league final to Dublin? And if there's less seats, shure we'll just charge more for the tickets. Say, 100 quid a pop?

Actually it is grand as it is a fantastic stadium. Also there was a very valid reason why the pitch was not turned around. We had the Europa League final there last year. And I dont think its a coincidence that the FAI Cup finals played there have all been exciting.

Conmaicne Mara

An Bord Pleanala were never any use.

Not only should it be knocked down it should be sent into friggin orbit God awful monstrosity that it is.

BlaasForRafa

Liberty Hall is a nice example of the International style of architecture. It has pure lines and isn't as bland as most of the buildings put up during the celtic tiger period. If they sorted out the windows and restored the non-reflective type it would improve it.

randylonghorn

Ah jaysus Blaas! Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, ofc, but as far as I'm concerned it's shoite, international or not!! Way out of place and shoite! A monument to ego.

Mind you, the proposed replacement would have been no better, having researched it, so I guess I'll have to go with ABP on this one, despite disagreeing with the basis on which they took the decision.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

can we put the lights back on it.

i like the lights.

randylonghorn

Can't sleep without an illuminated erection to soothe you? :pac:

bbam

I think it should stay. Yes it's no gem as regards how it looks but it does have historical significance.
And I wouldn't let the unions build anything like that again. They are using it as a signal of their power and that really sickens me.

Then again I hardly ever go to Dublin so I rarely see the damn thing.

keith16

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Not even funny. I've been in both buildings and worked in the latter and they are hideous insdie and out. There is NO justification for either of them to be standing.

And I just passed it and there are no lights on which is apt.



Actually it is grand as it is a fantastic stadium. Also there was a very valid reason why the pitch was not turned around. We had the Europa League final there last year. And I dont think its a coincidence that the FAI Cup finals played there have all been exciting.

The Europa league is a second tier competition for a distinctly second tier stadium.

expectationlost

its the inside of the building that the issue not the outside

Capt'n Midnight

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

if there was more high-rise development in the city centre, there wouldn't be such an urban sprawl all around. A more compact city means less issues with providing public transport, utilities etc. etc.

The problem is not the height, it's that there is no mix of residential and commercial in most areas so you'd still have to commute to work.

For example only a tiny fraction of the people in Lucan / Clondalkin work locally. Almost everyone else has to cross the M50 at a few chokepoints.

RobbingBandit

What do Siptu need a "Skyscraper" for, wouldn't a nice hole in the wall do for them, seeing as they are rats and all.;)

MaxSteele

Demolition ?

Not if this man has something to say !!

r600x600.jpg

bnt

As a piece of "International Modernist" architecture, I suppose Liberty Hall is OK, but it's in the wrong place. Architecture (as opposed to Buildings) doesn't just come in to existence when you plonk a building on a spot. It's also about how buildings react with each other and their surroundings.

If you look at Chicago or New York, for example, you rarely see one skyscraper by itself. They are built in clusters, such as in two areas on Manhattan: Midtown (Empire State, Chryster, Seagram etc.) and Lower Manhattan (WTC, NY Plaze, buildings on West St. & Wall St.).

I think Dublin should adopt the model that Paris did: keep the central areas for "cultural" buildings, and zone a separate area where all the skyscrapers and modern buildings can go. In Paris this area is called La Défense, while Docklands and/or City West could serve the same role in Dublin. Liberty Hall might not look as ugly if it wasn't right next to Custom House.

ChippingSodbury

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The problem is not the height, it's that there is no mix of residential and commercial in most areas so you'd still have to commute to work.

For example only a tiny fraction of the people in Lucan / Clondalkin work locally. Almost everyone else has to cross the M50 at a few chokepoints.

From what I remember, development was originally only supposed to take place inside the M50. If you put more high-rise/ increase the density of office space in the city centre, it can be more compact and thus allow the residential areas to be closer to the centre. If the residential areas are no so far from the centre, they are easier to service with a good public transport systems. Commuting isn a problem, if it's relatively short &/or can be undertaken using public transport.

As a previous poster mentioned, the high-rise stuff can be clustered and kept away from areas where they would not fit in.

Capt'n Midnight

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

If the residential areas are no so far from the centre, they are easier to service with a good public transport systems. Commuting isn a problem, if it's relatively short &/or can be undertaken using public transport.

Most of our public transport system was destroyed during the War of Independence and subsequent lack of investment.

If jobs are within walking / easy cycling distance fine. But once people need to take road transport you have the problem of the last few miles taking most of the time.

Yes in theory you could invest in more rail but we've ripped up far more than we've replaced.

You just have to LOL at the LUAS going to the Point Depot - how long did it take and how much did it cost to bring a tram to a former rail station ??

It would cost billions to replace even part of the infrastructure we had in Dublin in 1922. And most of that was between the canals.

B.A._Baracus

This is bullshit!

Siptu owns that building right? So that means they can do what ever they want to it. Conservation laws are messed up. You can legally own something but the government can also legally stop you from doing what you will to your own property. Its madness.

Run_to_da_hills

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

This is bullshit!

Siptu owns that building right? So that means they can do what ever they want to it. Conservation laws are messed up. You can legally own something but the government can also legally stop you from doing what you will to your own property. Its madness.

No conservation laws are there for a reason, anything larger than the current Liberty Hall would stick out like a sore thumb.

There is enough monstrosities and hideous buildings about the capital without constructing another one,

randylonghorn

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

This is bullshit!

Siptu owns that building right? So that means they can do what ever they want to it. Conservation laws are messed up. You can legally own something but the government can also legally stop you from doing what you will to your own property. Its madness.

So if you own a farm in the middle of Meath, you can turn it into an open toxic dump, by that logic.

Madness is right ...

MrMischief

Pass by it on the commute to work and its one big eye-sore!! That whole part of the street is in need of a bit of regeneration and I for one would be glad to see it fall.

Always thought one or a small cluster of high rise buildings would be good for Dublin (in the IFSC for example) as a Tourist attraction if nothing else. That Spire thing was and still is the biggest waste of money since the Millenium clock!

mikemac1

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

This is bullshit!


You can legally own something but the government can also legally stop you from doing what you will to your own property. Its madness.

Any objections if I buy the land upwind of your house and open a waste meat rendering factory?

toexpress

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Is that with Siptu inside or outside?

It is focking horrendous like.

It could have a 9/11 type accident with one of those glider things .... With SIPTU inside

cournioni

Rigol wrote: »

"national historic and social significance"

kick these cnts out.

Probably because it's in the intro to fair city or something like that... :rolleyes:

ted1

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.

gobnaitolunacy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Most of our public transport system was destroyed during the War of Independence and subsequent lack of investment.

Civil War you mean, we did a great job of wrecking it.

WoollyRedHat

I've been up a skyscraper before. I've seen things.

Nippledragon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.