Poolbeg chimneys to be knocked down?

ScumLord

Zulu wrote: »

Are you an engineer or something?

That's a broad term, I could be an engineer and still be completely ignorant of how buildings work.

Drop the Ball

ScumLord wrote: »

That's a broad term, I could be an engineer and still be completely ignorant of how buildings work.

Very broad...Or if he is not an engineer he's could be "something".

Drop the Ball

Drop the Ball wrote: »

Very broad...Or if he is not an engineer he's could be "something".

Sorry...she could be "something".

Balmed Out

I would have expected campaigns to tear them down, blight on the landscape.

Davarus Walrus

I've heard they could restore and maintain the chimneys for the same price it costs the ESB to pay their lowest paid employee.

Xlaxeo

"Mr O’Doherty said a review of the site, currently under way, will be completed by the end of the year."

The ESB review will no doubt overestimate the cost of retention by several million € and indicate that there is no economic alternative but demolition.

The farcical legitimacy of an internal process will no doubt trump the obvious public opinion in favour of saving them.

Many famous landmarks in private hands have been demolished for similar reasons - Theatre Royal, Dublin (27 years old when demolished) and Penn Station NYC (53 years old when demolished).

Those who will destroy our heritage are those who as Oscar Wilde said - 'know the price of everything and the value of nothing'

Muahahaha

Xlaxeo wrote: »

Many famous landmarks in private hands have been demolished for similar reasons - Theatre Royal, Dublin (27 years old when demolished) and Penn Station NYC (53 years old when demolished).

Those who will destroy our heritage are those who as Oscar Wilde said - 'know the price of everything and the value of nothing'

C'mon I don't think you can really call them heritage. They have no architectural merit. It's not like we're knocking down Viking ruins or a terrace of Georgian Houses.

Aongus Von Bismarck

Xlaxeo wrote: »

"Mr O’Doherty said a review of the site, currently under way, will be completed by the end of the year."

The ESB review will no doubt overestimate the cost of retention by several million € and indicate that there is no economic alternative but demolition.

The farcical legitimacy of an internal process will no doubt trump the obvious public opinion in favour of saving them.

Many famous landmarks in private hands have been demolished for similar reasons - Theatre Royal, Dublin (27 years old when demolished) and Penn Station NYC (53 years old when demolished).

Those who will destroy our heritage are those who as Oscar Wilde said - 'know the price of everything and the value of nothing'

Those chimneys aren't heritage. They exist. They served a purpose. While they may be iconic, it doesn't mean they have any inherent aesthetic or cultural value. The ESB headquarters are iconic. Yet few will mourn their demolition.

The ESB aren't a monopoly anymore. They have to compete in generation and supply on an open market; a market that will soon be open to competitors from Britain. Throwing money at maintaining these towers isn't a good use of their money. If the people of Ireland feel so strongly about their upkeep then I'd suggest their ongoing maintenance be placed in the hands of a trust; paid for by donations by members of the public.

Zulu

ScumLord wrote: »

That's a broad term, I could be an engineer and still be completely ignorant of how buildings work.

It is, but I was crediting you with the intelligence to understand what I meant. Ill try not to make that mistake in future. :rolleyes:

That said, it appears you did understand what I meant but chose to remain obtuse. I'll take it from that you are neither a structural engineer, or an engineer that has anything to do with construction of large chimneys.

In light of your previous post, let me simplify for your benefit: you're talking out of your arse.

rockbeast

Need this to happen

stateofflux

Muahahaha wrote: »

C'mon I don't think you can really call them heritage. They have no architectural merit. It's not like we're knocking down Viking ruins or a terrace of Georgian Houses.

They are a part of Dublin heritage.

conorhal

ectoraige wrote: »

Change resistance is a pretty natural reaction to anything like this, the thing to ask yourself is would you do it in reverse? If they didn't exist, and somebody proposed building two giant red and white chimneys for no reason than to add to the Dublin skyline, would you be in favour?

Having said that, I will miss them if they go, they were the only landmark I could see from my bedroom window growing up in a nondescript Dublin suburb, and I've always looked out for them the times I've been on a ferry back to Dublin.

Aye, it is a bit like being nostalgic about a hemorrhoid that's been a pain in your arse so long that you'd miss it when they slice it off....

Maximus Alexander

If this thing is worth saving then I don't see how the Poolbeg chimney stacks aren't.

rockbeast

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

If this thing is worth saving then I don't see how the Poolbeg chimney stacks aren't.

Ah, here, that could be a postcard!

mikeym

Will they ever hurry up with the incinerator.

Maximus Alexander

rockbeast wrote: »

Ah, here, that could be a postcard!

Not if you ignore the bridge.

RobertKK

Sure it is a symbol of pollution.

Dublin can do better than a pair of chimneys.

dj jarvis

riffmongous wrote: »

Isn't there a Dublin forum on Boards?

there is , but no Vienna forum :rolleyes:

so only Dublin people should have an opinion as to what happens to them?


paint them blue and white , light them up so they can be seen from anywhere in the city at night , lifts to the top

some joined up thinking could make them an tourist attraction ,
but keep in mind , we will have a Dublin only admittance policy , seeing the boggers have no interest on debating it :rolleyes:

YellowFeather

No! I remember being fascinated by those chimneys as a child. Loved driving by them and tormenting my parents about why one was taller than the other.

Now, if I go for a walk along Clontarf, it's lovely to see them waving at me from across the water. When I'm away, and I'm not exactly delighted about coming back to real life, I still get a bit of 'here I am home' when the plane first comes over land and one of the first things I can see is those two red and white friendly landmarks.

They have a bit of personality. Or sure we could knock them down and paint everything grey Grafton Street style.

smellmepower

Would rather look at those two aging,rusty chimneys then any of the poxy new identikit buildings that have been thrown up around the city. Skyline would be very empty without them too,hope they're kept.

Gosub

I'm also biased here. My late father was a consultant engineer on the construction project, so they remind me of him.

I remember going on site as a lad and thinking how fricken amazing the project was.

They aren't too pretty, but they just seem to fit where they are.

My €0.02.

rockbeast

Borrowed this from Tabnabs post on Dublin forum - credit to him for finding it. It's my new screensaver.

http://bula.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/739994_833416796685945_3333123871385331142_o.jpg

Cheers Tabnabs

darkpagandeath

rockbeast wrote: »

Borrowed this from Tabnabs post on Dublin forum - credit to him for finding it. It's my new screensaver.

http://bula.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/739994_833416796685945_3333123871385331142_o.jpg

Cheers Tabnabs

Have we just travel back to the mid 90s ??? :pac::pac::pac:

rockbeast

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Have we just travel back to the mid 90s ??? :pac::pac::pac:

It's certainly not the mid-90s in that photo;)

Donkey Oaty

rockbeast wrote: »

It's certainly not the mid-90s in that photo;)

The Dublin Wheel is the giveaway - it was there 2010-2011.

rockbeast

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Have we just travel back to the mid 90s ??? :pac::pac::pac:

Sorry- slow today - screensaver, I get it...now;):D

Dave!

I think he means – who has a screensaver these days?

It's my desktop background image now though

ScumLord

Zulu wrote: »

It is, but I was crediting you with the intelligence to understand what I meant. Ill try not to make that mistake in future. :rolleyes:

Ah now, I was only pulling your leg.

That said, it appears you did understand what I meant but chose to remain obtuse. I'll take it from that you are neither a structural engineer, or an engineer that has anything to do with construction of large chimneys.

The fact is a chimney is not designed to hold up the weight, I'm not an engineer but anyone with a bit of knowledge of buildings would know that you can't just simply plonk another building on top of another and expect it to work.

It possibly could be done, if you constructed another support structure inside the chimneys. It would have to be pretty advanced given the diameters it's restricted too by the chimney, and I don't know how you'd get the base inside. You'd also have to make a new foundation for this internal structure, which can be done, the English redid the foundation under big ben but it's extremely expensive and dangerous.

It would be wildly expensive to the point it might as well be impossible. I'd bet money it would be cheaper to knock the lot and build a replica with the restaurant on top. Still hugely expensive and there's no way it would make enough money to justify its construction but much cheaper than trying to put a building on top of the existing chimneys.

rockbeast

ScumLord wrote: »

Ah now, I was only pulling your leg.


The fact is a chimney is not designed to hold up the weight, .

I was about to say Quit Blowing Smoke Up My Ass on that one but then...

Did someone really suggest building something on top of the chimneys?

A restaurant?

Now, twin restaurants at the bases with an exhibition of lighting and reflection, via the use of mirrors, down to the bases would be an awesome, and achievable and unique slant/angle(:)) to take BUT

on top of them???

PS a connecting walkway between the two is, I think, achievable engineering-wise too. EDIT - At about 20m height

Zulu

Or you know, like I suggested, a viewing platform. (Not a multistory carpark or office block, but a VIEWING PLATFORM) And you know you wouldn't have to make it out of lead...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

As a landmark for Dublin they should be kept but, as they are useless to ESB and any spend to keep them right would certainly not be in the interests of ESB or their customers , the expense of keeping them should be borne by the state/Dublin.

rockbeast

Issac Tangy Silk wrote: »

As a landmark for Dublin they should be kept but, as they are useless to ESB and any spend to keep them right would certainly not be in the interests of ESB or their customers , the expense of keeping them should be borne by the state/Dublin.

As long as all profits stay in the city, preferably the postcode, then we have a deal;)

Ranchu

Issac Tangy Silk wrote: »

As a landmark for Dublin they should be kept but, as they are useless to ESB and any spend to keep them right would certainly not be in the interests of ESB or their customers , the expense of keeping them should be borne by the state/Dublin.

If Garth Brooks agrees to put up the money to save the chimneys he can play his gigs.

rockbeast

Ranchu wrote: »

If Garth Brooks agrees to put up the money to save the chimneys he can play his gigs.

He can stick 'em up his Fe***** ***

:pac::pac::pac:

miss no stars

Issac Tangy Silk wrote: »

As a landmark for Dublin they should be kept but, as they are useless to ESB and any spend to keep them right would certainly not be in the interests of ESB or their customers , the expense of keeping them should be borne by the state/Dublin.

In fairness, there's feck all real difference between the two...

rockbeast

miss no stars wrote: »

In fairness, there's feck all real difference between the two...

Ì agree. Both chimneys look very alike

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

rockbeast wrote: »

Ì agree. Both chimneys look very alike

They are actually quite different! One is taller and thinner than the other.

rockbeast

Issac Tangy Silk wrote: »

They are actually quite different! One is taller and thinner than the other.

The short stumpy one has a nicer personality:D

Capt'n Midnight

RobertKK wrote: »

Sure it is a symbol of pollution.

Dublin can do better than a pair of chimneys.

Dublin could do better, but it hasn't. What wondrous new additions to our cityscape have there been since independence ?


Anyway we could use them for WiFi or mobile phone masts,

setup a zip line back into town


you'd get maybe a 10MW wind turbine on top of them

Capt'n Midnight

ScumLord wrote: »

The spire was designed to be an art installation. It doesn't really take up much space and does it's job of being an interesting landmark signifying something particular

What does it signify ?

I'm just surprised it hasn't been stolen for scrap yet

Fox_In_Socks

They're really ugly in my opinion.

I always wondered whether they were supposed to be a symbolic 2 fingers to the UK being at the edge of the Irish Sea?

Tarzana

Drop the Ball wrote: »

Recognisable Landmark…Yes.
Aesthetic value…None

Totally disagree. They are long, thin and oddly elegant. Not sure where this idea comes from that industrial = ugly. Look at Boland's Mill. Another beautiful industrial building with great proportions and interesting features.

visual

Rather see chimneys kept than the spire

Who pays for their up keep is another discussion maybe we can have slightly less modern art that no one can relate to other than the artist and their bank manager.

ScumLord

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What does it signify ?

Something to do with the millenium and how we're all going to be rich from building houses.

Capt'n Midnight

visual wrote: »

Rather see chimneys kept than the spire

Who pays for their up keep is another discussion maybe we can have slightly less modern art that no one can relate to other than the artist and their bank manager.

That call to do an art competition for them scares me



The 200m chimney in Port Kembla weighed 12,000 tonnes.

So should take a small restaurant / platform easily, especially if you took off 10m from the top and replaced with lighter construction.

or put a rope bridge between them / bungie jumping at the middle

light show from the top ?

we could have the worlds tallest light house, it's even painted white and red


forget what I said about wifi, optical is where it's at , you could have lots of gigabit links at different heights, and there's even a backup tower


Height is an asset, they are twice as high as RTE's tower in Donnybrook - be interesting to see how they'd compare with renting space on Three Rock

AdamD

Why do they have to be important for tourism?

Is being important to Dubliners not enough anymore?

Fratton Fred

Knock down the buildings where the 1916 rebels made their last stand and no one gives a ****. Demolish an ugly throwback to the seventies and people become angry.

Strange.

anncoates

I've always loved the way they unexpectedly catch your eye and rise above the skyline from so many parts of Dublin, whether within, above or entering the city.

They've been a part of the Dublin skyline for a long time and are as shabbily endearing as the city itself.

I'd hate to see them pulled down under some cockeyed nostrum of progress or taste.

Potatoeman

Thargor wrote: »

I hike the Wicklow mountains a lot and without the chimneys there will be nothing to orient yourself from the peaks and say "Wow you can see all the way to Dublin from here", there isn't a single other interesting feature on the Dublin skyline from far out (or in close) to look at, which is really quite an achievement in incompetence for the planners/architects of a modern capital city in the year 2014, the whole city is just random sprawl. I say keep them.

Bring a compass. :-)
The reason we have no new skyline features is that people object to most new tall buildings.
Isn't there a group that fight buildings over a certain height as they will disturb the 'iconic view'.

Rough Sleeper

Hootanany wrote: »

They are only Chimneys no loss.

Right, and the Empire State building is just a really big tower, and Elizabeth Tower's just an enormous clock when you think about it.

I'm not saying that the Poolbeg chimneys are any near as iconic as the aforementioned, but using your autistic, reductionist style of logic doesn't help you form a convincing argument for their removal. It's like saying rock music is just a bunch of guys hitting strings, or football's a load of blokes trying to kick a ball into a net. It doesn't go any way towards explaining their significance or the value they have to people.

ectoraige wrote: »

Change resistance is a pretty natural reaction to anything like this, the thing to ask yourself is would you do it in reverse? If they didn't exist, and somebody proposed building two giant red and white chimneys for no reason than to add to the Dublin skyline, would you be in favour?

Again, you could sway this about pretty much anything. I doubt that if the French government proposed they built a hulking twisty metal thing in the middle of their capital people would be particularly enamored with the notion.

I like the way that the chimneys were built for industrial reasons, but have since transcended that purpose to become something else, even when they're obsolete in an a practical sense. Gives them a bit of character.

imitation wrote: »

While they are a recognizable land mark for the Irish, I dont think its worth spending a lot of public money keeping two defuct industrial chimney standing forever more. I can't see them being much of a tourist draw either, they probably belong more in an Al Gore video than a failte Ireland one.

We're not living in Libertopia, man. Everything that exists doesn't necessarily have to have a definite economic purpose. The existence of some things can be justified on the grounds that it's, like, kinda nice. I can't imagine all those fancy new publically funded playgrounds in working-class areas are raking in the tourists, yet there they are anyway. Probably because they make people happy and that.

miss no stars wrote: »

I think what gets missed is that not all parts of a city must be pretty. They aren't pretty, but neither are they ugly. However, they certainly are dublin. They are the single most distinctive feature of dublin bay. When you tear stuff down because someone declares it ugly and an eyesore, and you replace it with pretty glass and steel, yeah, you get rid of some grittyness. But it's a city with history, it's supposed to be gritty in parts

This. I don't actually think gentrification is inherently bad, but a city ain't much of a city without some grit and grime. If you want somewhere pristine and shiny then go to Dubai. It's a place without roots, built by the best modern architects money can buy, and is a disconcerting, soulless shell as a result.