daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Irish Architecture Forum > Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland For projects and construction in Dublin and the South



Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
Old May 4th, 2012, 01:28 AM   #81
Rapter
Advanced
 
Rapter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vilnius/ Limerick
Posts: 296
Likes (Received): 14

Alright so, the visualization became from this:



to this:


And a bonus picture of our response to that decision made:

the picture says it all...
Rapter no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old May 4th, 2012, 09:10 AM   #82
Viking74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dublin
Posts: 441
Likes (Received): 25

Pathetic. Another fucking slab of a building without any architectural merit whatsoever. A desperate quick fix measure to please the ridiculous demands of an organisation terrified of allowing anything new or radical to be built in the city. Surely some vertical elements should allowed to at least make it appear more interesting? An absolutely pathetic farce from start to finish.
Viking74 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2012, 11:40 AM   #83
Catmalojin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,878
Likes (Received): 217

I hope An Taisce are proud of themselves. Sad thing is they probably are.
Catmalojin está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2012, 01:06 PM   #84
thebig C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,571
Likes (Received): 125

The gas part is, to accommodate the lower building they will have to move ceratin ancillary functions such as labs etc into the "old" 1800s Victorian Mater building.....which is listed!!! So, a historic building will inevitably have to have its inards ripped apart to ensure a low-rise City.

But of course the historic facade will be retained.....showing that the outrage of the likes of An Taisce really is only skin deep!!!!!!!!!
thebig C no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2012, 05:15 PM   #85
CraigKingOfireland
Registered User
 
CraigKingOfireland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebig C View Post
The gas part is, to accommodate the lower building they will have to move ceratin ancillary functions such as labs etc into the "old" 1800s Victorian Mater building.....which is listed!!! So, a historic building will inevitably have to have its inards ripped apart to ensure a low-rise City.
I thought it was the current hospital (i.e. the big ugly brown building) that they meant, when the services from there move into the new building just opened. How can they fit six stories worth of facilities into the really old one?
CraigKingOfireland no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 09:24 AM   #86
dubshee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 61
Likes (Received): 5

Dublin has already had its architectural integrity decimated over recent years by countless examples of bad and forgettable sub-quality apartment and office blocks dereft of any merit whatsoever. Pure crap was unforgivably allowed to be built on the lower quays and throughout the city just to replace vacant lots and derelict buildings.

Today, at least the quality and design of what´s being built and proposed across the board is much improved. Yet for no good reason, we´re still destined for banality, since it seems that little or nothing that´s bold nor visionary is allowed to be built in this city (and it shows). Now here we are again with another wasted opportunity to change that, but instead we´re left with another hack job being forced into a constricted site and another plan sent to the guillotine. What is this fear of height that seems to permeate throughout the planning and "conservaion" powers that be? It´s unjustifiable. I mean I could perhaps understand if there was something to protect, but most of the area surrounding the Mater site has little to be concerned about architecturally and if anything it badly needs something to look up to.

So here we are with another lobbed off, half of something or other project in the place of something that was intended to bold and daring.

How very sad.
dubshee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 03:37 AM   #87
Dvblvnia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,128
Likes (Received): 215

That new proposal typifies all that is wrong in planning in Dublin city at the minute. Instead of producing a bold, beautiful and impressive design for a major public amenity - the national children's hospital - they propose a bland, featureless grey box simply because of some busybody nuisances who can't rationalise with the fact that because we're a city of 1.5 million that sometimes tall buildings are going to be built. Instead they'll wave through this abomination which threatens to do real damage to our urban fabric, namely by interfering with a listed building on the Mater site. Indeed the area around the Mater would benefit from having a nice tall building in it to act as a focal point and to inspire further developments and densification. Notwithstanding this, the main objective of this hospital is to treat and cure sick children. Everything should be geared towards facilitating that objective and if that means putting in a few extra storeys then so be it - sick children are more important than sightlines and cityscapes. As far as I can see An Bord Pleanála's main, indeed only, problem with the original proposal was its height and its imagined impact on Dublin's skyline (such as it is). In my view that is not a good enough reason to stop this project if it means the sick children of this country will get a new hospital which gives them a far better chance of recovery than the Dickensian Our Lady's, Crumlin and Temple Street Hospitals. The Minister of Health, in concert with the Cabinet, should have over-ruled An Bord Pleanála and ordered the diggers in. If it was just some apartment block, hotel or other ego-driven project by a developer, ABP would have had a case, they don't when it's the place which can give the nation's youth a world class standard of healthcare.

People may say the Mater is the wrong site, they may be right, I'm not a medical professional or a hospital administrator so I'm not qualified to make that judgement. What I do know is that our children deserve quality treatment in their own country and anything which stops them from getting that better have a very good reason to do so. ABP et al. don't so the original proposal should be the one which is given the go ahead.
Dvblvnia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 05:37 AM   #88
odlum833
Registered User
 
odlum833's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 8,326
Likes (Received): 579

Important to note that is NOT the end design. It's only an indicative drawing. It won't be that bland.

O'Connell Mahony are architects for this project.
__________________
Ireland forum is here

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1596

Last edited by odlum833; May 6th, 2012 at 03:12 PM.
odlum833 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 06:46 PM   #89
JD47
Registered User
 
JD47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 3,689
Likes (Received): 189

That really makes me feel sick. I cant believe that. Such a disgrace. The worse thing about it is that once it gets built then there is no going back and thats it. Even if we get a new bunch of lads in who are up with highrise, the hospital will still be small and there will be a shortage of beds and the same problems that already have. That area needs a lift and this could of done it. The children of this country are the one who are being affected the most here. I am actually worried now about the future success of our childrens hospital and this city for that matter.
JD47 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 06:47 PM   #90
JD47
Registered User
 
JD47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 3,689
Likes (Received): 189

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvblvnia View Post
That new proposal typifies all that is wrong in planning in Dublin city at the minute. Instead of producing a bold, beautiful and impressive design for a major public amenity - the national children's hospital - they propose a bland, featureless grey box simply because of some busybody nuisances who can't rationalise with the fact that because we're a city of 1.5 million that sometimes tall buildings are going to be built. Instead they'll wave through this abomination which threatens to do real damage to our urban fabric, namely by interfering with a listed building on the Mater site. Indeed the area around the Mater would benefit from having a nice tall building in it to act as a focal point and to inspire further developments and densification. Notwithstanding this, the main objective of this hospital is to treat and cure sick children. Everything should be geared towards facilitating that objective and if that means putting in a few extra storeys then so be it - sick children are more important than sightlines and cityscapes. As far as I can see An Bord Pleanála's main, indeed only, problem with the original proposal was its height and its imagined impact on Dublin's skyline (such as it is). In my view that is not a good enough reason to stop this project if it means the sick children of this country will get a new hospital which gives them a far better chance of recovery than the Dickensian Our Lady's, Crumlin and Temple Street Hospitals. The Minister of Health, in concert with the Cabinet, should have over-ruled An Bord Pleanála and ordered the diggers in. If it was just some apartment block, hotel or other ego-driven project by a developer, ABP would have had a case, they don't when it's the place which can give the nation's youth a world class standard of healthcare.

People may say the Mater is the wrong site, they may be right, I'm not a medical professional or a hospital administrator so I'm not qualified to make that judgement. What I do know is that our children deserve quality treatment in their own country and anything which stops them from getting that better have a very good reason to do so. ABP et al. don't so the original proposal should be the one which is given the go ahead.

I agree with you 100%.

I like you Dvblvnia because you talk a lot of sense
JD47 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2012, 12:07 PM   #91
PeteC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 144
Likes (Received): 18

Posters here are too obsesed with tall buildings and want to see them built anywhere for, well, for the sake of having a tall building somewhere. ABP decision to reject the building was based on "its height, scale, form and mass", which, when you look at the proposal, is fair enough. The proposed building was too big, and not just too tall, for its location, as demonstrated by odlums post earlier in the thread. The sheer scale of the proposal is not appropriate. If the site was in the Docklands you might have a point, but not in Phibsborough.

I hope they can use the original Mater building. It is such a beautiful building, keeping it in practical use would be great. There is a large area availabe within the existing structure and it would be great to give the old girl a new lease of life by incorporating the labs, research and education facilities, etc. into it.
PeteC no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2012, 10:31 PM   #92
thebig C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,571
Likes (Received): 125

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubshee View Post
Dublin has already had its architectural integrity decimated over recent years by countless examples of bad and forgettable sub-quality apartment and office blocks dereft of any merit whatsoever. Pure crap was unforgivably allowed to be built on the lower quays and throughout the city just to replace vacant lots and derelict buildings.

Today, at least the quality and design of what´s being built and proposed across the board is much improved. Yet for no good reason, we´re still destined for banality, since it seems that little or nothing that´s bold nor visionary is allowed to be built in this city (and it shows). Now here we are again with another wasted opportunity to change that, but instead we´re left with another hack job being forced into a constricted site and another plan sent to the guillotine. What is this fear of height that seems to permeate throughout the planning and "conservaion" powers that be? It´s unjustifiable. I mean I could perhaps understand if there was something to protect, but most of the area surrounding the Mater site has little to be concerned about architecturally and if anything it badly needs something to look up to.

So here we are with another lobbed off, half of something or other project in the place of something that was intended to bold and daring.

How very sad.
Welcome to the forum mate

Good post, I would find it hard to agree with much of what you say!
thebig C no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2012, 10:46 PM   #93
thebig C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,571
Likes (Received): 125

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvblvnia View Post
That new proposal typifies all that is wrong in planning in Dublin city at the minute. Instead of producing a bold, beautiful and impressive design for a major public amenity - the national children's hospital - they propose a bland, featureless grey box simply because of some busybody nuisances who can't rationalise with the fact that because we're a city of 1.5 million that sometimes tall buildings are going to be built. Instead they'll wave through this abomination which threatens to do real damage to our urban fabric, namely by interfering with a listed building on the Mater site. Indeed the area around the Mater would benefit from having a nice tall building in it to act as a focal point and to inspire further developments and densification. Notwithstanding this, the main objective of this hospital is to treat and cure sick children. Everything should be geared towards facilitating that objective and if that means putting in a few extra storeys then so be it - sick children are more important than sightlines and cityscapes. As far as I can see An Bord Pleanála's main, indeed only, problem with the original proposal was its height and its imagined impact on Dublin's skyline (such as it is). In my view that is not a good enough reason to stop this project if it means the sick children of this country will get a new hospital which gives them a far better chance of recovery than the Dickensian Our Lady's, Crumlin and Temple Street Hospitals. The Minister of Health, in concert with the Cabinet, should have over-ruled An Bord Pleanála and ordered the diggers in. If it was just some apartment block, hotel or other ego-driven project by a developer, ABP would have had a case, they don't when it's the place which can give the nation's youth a world class standard of healthcare.

People may say the Mater is the wrong site, they may be right, I'm not a medical professional or a hospital administrator so I'm not qualified to make that judgement. What I do know is that our children deserve quality treatment in their own country and anything which stops them from getting that better have a very good reason to do so. ABP et al. don't so the original proposal should be the one which is given the go ahead.
As per usual, great post Dvblvnia.

I must confess, I was one of the people who thought the Mater site was wrong. However, when numerous medical experts concluded that it was best practice to co-locate Childrens hospitals along with teaching and maternity hospitals I was willing to put my misgivings aside in the hope that this would be built and provide children with the care they deserve. Many people took the same view.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think there may have been a deliberate attempt to end all highrise proposals in Dublin with this refusal.

Firstly, ABPs decision focused entirely on the height issue to the exclusion of all other factors....including the issue of parking/transport which many felt was the most contentious!

An Taisces submissions to the ABP Hearing along with their statements afterwards ammounted to a manifesto against all forms of highrise construction. Significantly, in recent years ABP and An Taisce have been very much on the same hymnsheet!

Furthermore, ABP could take comfort in the fact that however unreasonable they were, most of the attention and criticism would fall on the Minister!!!!

Now, think about this for a second....most of the publicity following the decision was as follows: Miriam O'Callaghan challenged Minister Reilly by asking "Surely you must have known An Bord Pleanala would never allow this" Ivan Yates was fairly vitriolic about proceeding with a scheme that "soared 74 metres into the sky".....in other words, it has already filtered down into the consciousness that ABP will NEVER allow tall buildings in Dublin.

With that in mind, I believe this decision served to hammer home the message that if ABP will refused to allow a hospital for sick children.....don't bother applying for an office block, apartment scheme etc!!!

C
thebig C no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2012, 11:17 PM   #94
thebig C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,571
Likes (Received): 125

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
Posters here are too obsesed with tall buildings and want to see them built anywhere for, well, for the sake of having a tall building somewhere. ABP decision to reject the building was based on "its height, scale, form and mass", which, when you look at the proposal, is fair enough. The proposed building was too big, and not just too tall, for its location, as demonstrated by odlums post earlier in the thread. The sheer scale of the proposal is not appropriate. If the site was in the Docklands you might have a point, but not in Phibsborough.

I hope they can use the original Mater building. It is such a beautiful building, keeping it in practical use would be great. There is a large area availabe within the existing structure and it would be great to give the old girl a new lease of life by incorporating the labs, research and education facilities, etc. into it.
Hey Pete

Actually, you do make some cojent points here.

I have often asked myself the same question, am I just supporting various highrise proposals just for the sake of it?! To an extent, yes, I am. But, here is my reasoning;

Back in the early 1990s I would have been firmly in the anti-development camp. The only modern architecture was from the 1960s and 1970s and with a few exceptions was awful in terms of quality and effects on the City. Then with the advent of the Custom House area there was an appreciable improvment in quality and context. The development of the Docklands, I felt, presented a unique opportuinity. If you were interested in Dublin, it was no longer a choice of new vs old....we could have both. Much like La Defence in Paris and the EUR in Rome, the Docks provided a blank canvas to allow modern buildings which wouldn't have to be constrained by their historic neighbours. Moreover, the taller they soared the more they could soak up demand and thus ease the pressure to build in the historical areas of the City.

That is how it should have been, but no, An Taisce and a certain coterie of individuals had other ideas. They were not merely happy with objecting to Georgian and Victorian buildings being demolished, they didn't want and modern buildings to be visible from historic buildings. In objecting to Kevin Roches original Spencer Dock scheme certain groups wanted it refused on the basis that it "is so tall, when viewed from a distance people will think Spencer Dock is the centre of Dublin rather the O'Connell Street"!! In other words, they were no basing judgement on context or individual architectural quality but rather solely on height!

It has contined in this fashion ever since, with ABP actually aiding and and subscribing to this one particular viewpoint. The proof is in the fact that despite having one of the greatest building booms in European history only a handful of buildings over 10 floor were constructed. And, Liberty Hall far from being dwarfed, was only pushed into second place in 2010 and then by all of 3metres!!

Frequently, to arrive at such an outcome ABP have taken very arbitary approaches. For example, in numerous schemes, ABP ruled that 12/15/20 story elements must be omitted whilst in the very same scheme allowing hundreds of 4/5/6 story slab blocks to sail through planning. Likewise, they have often given buildings "crewcuts"....simply ruling that a 15 storey building proposal must be constructed minus the top 7 floors....with little regard that it was designed to be a 15 storey structure and culling floors would destroy its integrity. Architecture, design etc counted for nothing.....it was all about height!

Having seen this time and time again, buildings rejected solely on the basis of height, and, witnessing anybody who questioned this policy being arrogantly told that if ABP make a decision then THAT and that alone is proper planning. Seeing anybody who wanted the City to grow and develop being labled a Celtic Tiger wannabe property developer, and worst of all seeing anti-everythings like Richard Boyd Barrett building a career out of objecting to every development proposal....gradually I just began to support highrise on the basis that if some are built people will realise that they aren't the end of the world and who designed properly can actually be quite striking!

C
thebig C no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2012, 11:20 PM   #95
thebig C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,571
Likes (Received): 125

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
Posters here are too obsesed with tall buildings and want to see them built anywhere for, well, for the sake of having a tall building somewhere. ABP decision to reject the building was based on "its height, scale, form and mass", which, when you look at the proposal, is fair enough. The proposed building was too big, and not just too tall, for its location, as demonstrated by odlums post earlier in the thread. The sheer scale of the proposal is not appropriate. If the site was in the Docklands you might have a point, but not in Phibsborough.

I hope they can use the original Mater building. It is such a beautiful building, keeping it in practical use would be great. There is a large area availabe within the existing structure and it would be great to give the old girl a new lease of life by incorporating the labs, research and education facilities, etc. into it.
As I stated above, using the existing magnificent Mater building just so a lower building can be accomodated highlights all thats wrong with the usual anti-development lobby. They constantly use historic buildings as an excuse as to why highrise can't be built....but are quite happy to have historic buildings gutted if it means no highrise construction.
thebig C no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2012, 01:55 AM   #96
thebig C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,571
Likes (Received): 125

Hey PeteC....just thinking about it afterwards...my post above was intended as a general point ........didn't mean to have a dig at you
thebig C no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2012, 05:03 PM   #97
dubshee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 61
Likes (Received): 5

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebig C View Post
Welcome to the forum mate

Good post, I would find it hard to agree with much of what you say!
Hey at least you´re being nice about it. (Did you mean disagree?)
dubshee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2012, 06:28 PM   #98
JD47
Registered User
 
JD47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 3,689
Likes (Received): 189

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebig C View Post
As I stated above, using the existing magnificent Mater building just so a lower building can be accomodated highlights all thats wrong with the usual anti-development lobby. They constantly use historic buildings as an excuse as to why highrise can't be built....but are quite happy to have historic buildings gutted if it means no highrise construction.
Nice point C. I totally agree with you on that. They dont want highrise and want to keep Dublin historical but yet they would allow a hidtoric building be turned into a hospital. It does'nt make sense
JD47 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2012, 07:12 PM   #99
dubshee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 61
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebig C View Post
Hey Pete

Actually, you do make some cojent points here.

I have often asked myself the same question, am I just supporting various highrise proposals just for the sake of it?! To an extent, yes, I am. But, here is my reasoning;

Back in the early 1990s I would have been firmly in the anti-development camp. The only modern architecture was from the 1960s and 1970s and with a few exceptions was awful in terms of quality and effects on the City. Then with the advent of the Custom House area there was an appreciable improvment in quality and context. The development of the Docklands, I felt, presented a unique opportuinity. If you were interested in Dublin, it was no longer a choice of new vs old....we could have both. Much like La Defence in Paris and the EUR in Rome, the Docks provided a blank canvas to allow modern buildings which wouldn't have to be constrained by their historic neighbours. Moreover, the taller they soared the more they could soak up demand and thus ease the pressure to build in the historical areas of the City.

That is how it should have been, but no, An Taisce and a certain coterie of individuals had other ideas. They were not merely happy with objecting to Georgian and Victorian buildings being demolished, they didn't want and modern buildings to be visible from historic buildings. In objecting to Kevin Roches original Spencer Dock scheme certain groups wanted it refused on the basis that it "is so tall, when viewed from a distance people will think Spencer Dock is the centre of Dublin rather the O'Connell Street"!! In other words, they were no basing judgement on context or individual architectural quality but rather solely on height!

It has contined in this fashion ever since, with ABP actually aiding and and subscribing to this one particular viewpoint. The proof is in the fact that despite having one of the greatest building booms in European history only a handful of buildings over 10 floor were constructed. And, Liberty Hall far from being dwarfed, was only pushed into second place in 2010 and then by all of 3metres!!

Frequently, to arrive at such an outcome ABP have taken very arbitary approaches. For example, in numerous schemes, ABP ruled that 12/15/20 story elements must be omitted whilst in the very same scheme allowing hundreds of 4/5/6 story slab blocks to sail through planning. Likewise, they have often given buildings "crewcuts"....simply ruling that a 15 storey building proposal must be constructed minus the top 7 floors....with little regard that it was designed to be a 15 storey structure and culling floors would destroy its integrity. Architecture, design etc counted for nothing.....it was all about height!

Having seen this time and time again, buildings rejected solely on the basis of height, and, witnessing anybody who questioned this policy being arrogantly told that if ABP make a decision then THAT and that alone is proper planning. Seeing anybody who wanted the City to grow and develop being labled a Celtic Tiger wannabe property developer, and worst of all seeing anti-everythings like Richard Boyd Barrett building a career out of objecting to every development proposal....gradually I just began to support highrise on the basis that if some are built people will realise that they aren't the end of the world and who designed properly can actually be quite striking!

C
Great post!

I´ve seen many posters here being challenged for appearing to support anything that´s highrise with no regard for context or quality. But when you´ve grown up in this city and taken a passing interest in urban planning and design and architecture, it´s easy to become obsessed to some extent with the fact that no tall buildings (bar a handful of low-mid rise) have been built. Still, over the years, designers, architects and even some starchitects have thrown their hat in the ring to try and break through Dublin´s planning glass ceiling because they obviously believe Dublin can and no doubt eventually will accomodate at least some tall and perhaps a handful of much taller buildings.

Dublin - once the second city of the British Empire whether some like it or not, possessed the architecture to go along with it. Had most of that been preserved and respected over the years, I could then see why many would argue against height. But much of what we inherited was destroyed and we´ve spent most of the last century and the start of this one.....continuing to do so or at the very least failing to preserve and to restore the legacy that was left with us. Save a few lauded conservation projects here and there over the years, the overall approach to conservation in this city has been dismal. And yet ABP and An Taisce and the rest, continue this seemingly carte blanche protest - preventing the construction of tall buildings - many of an extremely high quality and spec, exercising a form of architectural censorship on the misguided basis that they are protecting the integrity of a Venice or a Prague or even an Edinburgh.

"Ellen" did a roving report on Dublin for Paddys Day and they cut to a skyline view of Dublin from the Guinness Storehouse or some other mid rise viewing point and I have to say it looked nothing short of dreadful and far from what you´d expect from supposedly one of the most popular small cities in the world. Thankfully we still have Georgian Dublin and the beautiful Edwardian and Victorian inner suburbs and much more be proud of, but there´s plenty of forgettable dross and crap and plenty of ugly shoddy buildings on every corner especially in the north inner city. There´s also an unsustainable lack of density. It´s about time the planning process reflected this.

The original plan for the Mater Childrens Hospital would have juxtaposed nicely against the old original hospital building. Was it the most amazing avant garde building design I´ve ever seen? No. But for a childrens' hospital I thought it was bold and refreshing and literally just what Dublin needs, and to add to that Dublin is growing and expanding whether we like it or not and we can´t use outdated notions of what Dublin was....as a yard stick to govern what future developments will be built. There is an architecturally bland smog that permeates through parts of this city. There is also an emperors new clothes attitude to the notion of conservation and the protection of a quality of architecture that in some cases no longer exists or that has long since been allowed to decay beyond saving.

The next time you park on the top floor of a multi-storey car park in town (it´ll probably be the tallest building in it´s vicinity) take a look at the cityscape and ask yourself what are we protecting that decades of poor planning along with a multitude of carparks and bland building developments hasn´t already ruined.
dubshee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2012, 09:12 PM   #100
thebig C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,571
Likes (Received): 125

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubshee View Post
Hey at least you´re being nice about it. (Did you mean disagree?)
hahaha...I actually meant to say "I'd find it hard to DISAGREE with anything you said"....meaning I agreed with you

Sorry about the misunderstanding buddy....not sure what I was saying.....looooonnnngggg day!
thebig C no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu