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

Bullseye1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

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

and ice cream... i want ice cream.

Peregrine

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

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.

Blisterman

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

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

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

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

Peregrine

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

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

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.

LivelineDipso

LivelineDipso wrote: »

We need an underground rail system.

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

Peregrine

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

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.

davet82

another vile building has to be the revenue building in dublin castle, surrounded by nice architecture is this disgusting 'modren' 70's building, although i hear they are doing some work on it now, hopefully dismantling it!

LivelineDipso

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

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

No, because they city needs a decent transport system more than tabloid and Indo editorials.