Liberty Hall to be demolished

[JD47]

I think Hawkins House is worse looking then Liberty Hall. I would like to see that one go more then Liberty Hall if I am honest.

[Keano]

Originally Posted by thebig C

Keano, whilst I don't agree with your carpet bombing suggestion!!...I do think you have made a very cojent point. Mature European cities such as Rottdedam, Amsterdam, Paris etc recognise that cities must evolve to thrive.

I am not sure about Rotterdam but I know in the other Cities I have mentioned a pragmatic decision was made to protect historic buildings by specially designating areas where unrestricted skyscrapers could be built. In Rome its the EUR, in Paris its La Defence. You may be able to tell us the name but on the outskirts of Amsterdam there is a district with numerous skyscrapers which has the effect of soaking up much of the commercial demand leaving the historic centre intact.

This SHOULD have been the purpose of the docklands....but of course the buildings were given a maximum parapet height of 6 floors resulting in pent up demand forcing the development of historical areas......of course An Taisce or ABP didn't bat an eyelid once the developments were lowrise.

I might have been a bit rash with that comment but the only triumph in the Docklands is Santiago's bridge, but maybe that's just me.

Indeed Amsterdam sets a good example of building high-rise next to transportation hubs. The most obvious is the World Trade Centre (WTC), next to Amsterdam Zuid (Amsterdam South) station. Also, the tallest office blocks in the city are next to Amstel Station and there is also a cluster of high-rises next to Sloterdijk train station. None of them are visibally prominent from Amsterdam's historic centre yet are only 5 mins away by train.
Rotterdam uses the open expanse of its waterfronts to build large high-rise projects, which includes the tallest building in the Netherlands, the Maastower. There are also large offices next to Central station. The Hague has recently built a cluster of high-rise buildings next to its Central station.

I'm also pretty sure that the high restriction in central Paris is less than the Eiffel tower. Tour Montparnasse was about as high as they were allowed to build, which is 100 metres less than the ET.

[Catmalojin]

Shock/horror.

Liberty Hall plans appealed
Updated: 15:26, Wednesday, 21 March 2012


Dublin City Council granted the union planning permission for the 22 storey building

Plans by SIPTU to demolish Liberty Hall and rebuild a 22 storey building on the historic site have been appealed to An Bord Pleanala.

The board will decide in the coming weeks if it will hold a oral hearing on the proposal or whether the case will be decided in private.

An Bord Pleanala has confirmed that it has received an appeal from Irish Life.

It is understood they have raised issues about the proximity of the proposed tower to their building at Beresford court.

They have also raised concerns about the increased width of the new building.

In their appeal they say the proposals would represent 'an overdevelopment of the site in the context of the surrounding urban fabric'.

The deadline for appeals is this evening.

Last month Dublin City Council granted the union planning permission for the 22 storey building which would be 35% higher than Liberty hall.

The permission is subject to 19 conditions, including a further alignment of the north side of the building, particularly at the upper levels.

Proposals for the site also include a four storey heritage centre at the top of the building, with a public skydeck accessible by a glass fronted sky lift.

A conference centre and theatre have also been proposed with 17 storeys of offices. It was SITPTU's second proposal for the site.

Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0321/libertyhall.html

[mmcn90]

Did An Taisce appeal it as well? I would assume given their history in such matters that they were the second appeal.

[Edward-Lovett Pearce]

what makes Dublin so unique compared to most European cities is that it has not been vandalised by sky scrapers. If they plan to build skyscrapers, let them do it outside the city (like what they in Paris, La Defense) and don't taint the history the city encapsulates.

[JD47]

Originally Posted by Edward-Lovett Pearce

what makes Dublin so unique compared to most European cities is that it has not been vandalised by sky scrapers. If they plan to build skyscrapers, let them do it outside the city (like what they in Paris, La Defense) and don't taint the history the city encapsulates.

Thats what the docks was for and many other places around Dublin but low rise buildings were built instead.

Oh and welcome to SSC.

[dubshee]

Originally Posted by Edward-Lovett Pearce

what makes Dublin so unique compared to most European cities is that it has not been vandalised by sky scrapers. If they plan to build skyscrapers, let them do it outside the city (like what they in Paris, La Defense) and don't taint the history the city encapsulates.

...but it has been vandalized by years of poor planning, ugly architecture and dismal policies regarding the protection and conservation of the bit of architectural heritage that we do have. Building a couple of low to mid rise buildings of high quality to replace some nasty eyesores won't do any harm at all to a city such as Dublin. Paris is in another league altogether.

[oneborneveryminute]

I'll be happy to see Liberty Hell demolished.
But they shouldn't stop there.
Everybody involved in the planning, design, and building of this carabuncle should be arrested and slung in jail.

[dubshee]

Originally Posted by oneborneveryminute

I'll be happy to see Liberty Hell demolished.
But they shouldn't stop there.
Everybody involved in the planning, design, and building of this carabuncle should be arrested and slung in jail.

Like

[JD47]

Originally Posted by oneborneveryminute

I'll be happy to see Liberty Hell demolished.
But they shouldn't stop there.
Everybody involved in the planning, design, and building of this carabuncle should be arrested and slung in jail.

We can lock them up in the new Liberty Hall.

[Dvblvnia]

Originally Posted by oneborneveryminute

I'll be happy to see Liberty Hell demolished.
But they shouldn't stop there.
Everybody involved in the planning, design, and building of this carabuncle should be arrested and slung in jail.

I would disagree. Liberty Hall in its original incarnation was an elegant and light-filled edifice which brought le Corbusier's works to mind. What damaged Liberty Hall's visual amenity was the replacement of the translucent windowpanes with the current horrible reflective panes. Moreover, these panes have not been well-maintained and are broken in a number of places. On a purely aesthetic level, Liberty Hall would be well-served by a renovation like Cork County Hall. Restoration of the original windows, a cleaning of the brickwork, a re-opening of the viewing platform and a general paintjob would do wonders for the building. While it isn't an oil painting at the minute, it is far from a carbuncle. That honour goes to Hawkins House across the river.

Furthermore, Liberty Hall serves as an excellent counter-point to the Custom House. The contrast in styles, plot ratio and proportions is excellent and the two buildings complement each other.

All this being said, something more fundamental needs to be done with Liberty Hall than a face-lift. SIPTU needs more office space in a better building and Dublin needs a building of real height. New Liberty Hall would serve these functions well.

[thebig C]

Whilst I honestly wouldn't shed any tears if Liberty Hall were to be demolished, I do feel some sympathy for it. I honestly think it draws so much negative press simply because it is so visible. Other structures such as Hawkins House, D'Olier House, Telephone House, Setanta Centre Apollo House etc have done alot mure damage and are much uglier but get no attention simply because most people can't name them wereas everybody knows Liberty Hall. It is probably the most elegent 1960s/1970s building in the City but gets unfairly tarnished by all the rubbish built after it.

Dvblvnia, thanks for mentioning its original translucent quality. The reflective panes were added in 1972 after a bomb placed on thw Quay outside shattered most of its glazing.

C

[Catmalojin]

From today's Irish Times:

Liberty Hall plan will not harm Custom House view, says Siptu

GENEVIEVE CARBERY

Wed, Jun 27, 2012



THE NEW Liberty Hall development would not negatively impact on the character of Dublin’s historic Custom House, an architect for trade union Siptu told the first day of An Bord Pleanála’s oral hearing yesterday.

The impact of the proposed 22-storey building on architectural heritage was one of the main themes of yesterday’s hearing.

The hearing follows the lodgment of an appeal by objectors to the approval by Dublin City Council of Siptu’s plans to demolish the existing 16-storey Liberty Hall on Eden Quay.

The new building includes office space, a conference auditorium and a rooftop heritage area.

The “visual wall” created by the combination of Butt Bridge and the Loopline railway bridge “far outweighed any visual impact” of Liberty Hall on the Custom House, architect for Siptu David Slattery told the hearing.

Views of the Custom House were “sufficiently robust” so as not to be dominated by the Liberty Hall proposal any more than by the existing building, architect for Siptu Richard Coleman said.

Peter Sweetman, representing one of the objectors, Ian Lumley, asked why was there a need in the development plan for a bigger building on the site.

The new building would block light into the atrium of the Irish Life Assurance building at Beresford Court, said John Sheehan, a planner speaking on behalf of the company. The oral hearing continues today.

© 2012 The Irish Times

[JD47]

I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't get built the way they want it to. It will be a joke if ABP do something stupid at this point. They just will never let a building of little height be built here. This building isn't even big compared to others. I mean they are calling this a skyscraper when you would see a building in London almost twice the size and it wouldn't be called a skyscraper. This city is a joke and its really sad that we have fools like ABP in charge.

[Dvblvnia]

Originally Posted by JD47

I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't get built the way they want it to. It will be a joke if ABP do something stupid at this point. They just will never let a building of little height be built here. This building isn't even big compared to others. I mean they are calling this a skyscraper when you would see a building in London almost twice the size and it wouldn't be called a skyscraper. This city is a joke and its really sad that we have fools like ABP in charge.

SIPTU should be able to get at least some traction with ABP. They're well trained negotiators in labour disputes so they should have the capacity to put their case to ABP and get it through. Maddening stuff about "blocked light" from Irish Life. If you have an office block in the middle of the city you should be prepared to lose a little light if a neighbouring site gets re-developed. Besides, it would happen only during a certain time of day - shadows move around as sundials demonstrate.

SIPTU are quite correct to say that the real inhibitor of views of the Custom House is the Loopline Bridge. Liberty Hall now and in its future guise will not prevent Dubliners from seeing the Custom House. The Loopline Bridge will. In any case, we have to balance these imaginary losses with the real benefits of the building. It will be more environmentally and economically efficient, provide an aesthetic tonic to Eden Quay, generate employment, deliver a viewing platform for the people of Dublin and provide SIPTU workers with a better working environment.

[CelticCub]

Going against the grain slightly but I would be against this development - in a perfect world/Dublin there would be no Liberty Hall. In my mind it is poorly positioned as a stand alone 'sky scraper'...I am not against high rise and I think the proposed building is well designed but imo developments like this should be in an area where there is sufficent development land around the building to have a cluster of similar sized buildings...the current location means this will never happen given the volume of historical sites and listed buildings, meaning the new build (much like the old) will stick out and dominate the skyline. We all know the DDDA missed the boat on this one but I still believe buildings such as this should be in areas such as the IFSC, or alternatively perhaps around Heuston station....still leaves us with the problem of the old ugly Liberty Hall though!

[Dvblvnia]

Originally Posted by CelticCub

Going against the grain slightly but I would be against this development - in a perfect world/Dublin there would be no Liberty Hall. In my mind it is poorly positioned as a stand alone 'sky scraper'...I am not against high rise and I think the proposed building is well designed but imo developments like this should be in an area where there is sufficent development land around the building to have a cluster of similar sized buildings...the current location means this will never happen given the volume of historical sites and listed buildings, meaning the new build (much like the old) will stick out and dominate the skyline. We all know the DDDA missed the boat on this one but I still believe buildings such as this should be in areas such as the IFSC, or alternatively perhaps around Heuston station....still leaves us with the problem of the old ugly Liberty Hall though!

Also, in a perfect world, I would be in agreement with you. The IFSC/Docklands area and the vicinity of Heuston station would be my preferences for areas of high rise with medium rise buildings elsewhere. However, given the utter intransigence of An Taisce and the other NIMBYs who have fought each and every high and indeed mid rise development in this city on the basis of an opposition to height alone, I am therefore in favour of any high rise proposal which could possibly break the logjam and get Dublin to start moving vertically rather than horizontally. It's gone beyond a joke that Dublin has no critical mass of taller buildings. Belfast and Cork - cities which are several times smaller than us - each have a number of buildings which are taller than anything found in Dublin. Further afield, cities like Des Moines, Dayton Ohio and Buffalo all have high rises which put ours in the shade. These places aren't global cities like Dublin yet, from the air, they look and feel much more important. While looks aren't everything, I think it's an embarrassment to see my home city with such a bland and undistinguished skyline. Along with a metro, it's one of the big city aspects Dublin lacks at the moment. Take Auckland, for example. New Zealand is a lot like Ireland in terms of population, culture and economics. Auckland is its premier city and is virtually equal in population with our premier city, Dublin. Dublin's tallest building, Montevetro, wouldn't even make the top 40 tallest buildings in Auckland. If the DDDA had done its job properly, there would be at least 20 buildings in the Docklands to compare with the Auckland edifices in terms of height. New Liberty Hall would register at a 15th in the Auckland list.

High rises do work best in a cluster, and I do agree that there's limited scope to build taller buildings around the Liberty Hall site however I don't think that's a good enough reason to block this development. It promises to be a much more efficient building in terms of floor plates, energy efficiency and so on. New Liberty Hall would also be more aesthetically pleasing and I think it could, hopefully, usher in a wider acceptance of the need to build upwards and that higher buildings are not necessarily bad buildings.

[thebig C]

Dvblvnia, I share your sentiments. Back in the 1990s I was fairly strongly in favour of conservation as opposed to new developments. However, the scaremongering, lowest common denominator arguements and sheer anti modernist dogma of the likes of An Taisce have pushed me to the other extreme. I am now prepared to have a highrise constructed almost anywhere (within reason) in Dublin just so the legions of nimbys naysayers can see that it isn't the end of the world, and well designed skyscrapers can if anything enhance a cityscape.

[JD47]

If this gets built, do you think the area around it would be next to get developed? Lets be honest, its a kip around there and I just wonder if a new fancy building there would give the area a boost or would we have just a nice building in a run down area. I was down there on Sunday and I got started on by a bunch of 6 year olds. I hope this building goes ahead and gives a massive boost to that area.

[JD47]

Originally Posted by Dvblvnia

Also, in a perfect world, I would be in agreement with you. The IFSC/Docklands area and the vicinity of Heuston station would be my preferences for areas of high rise with medium rise buildings elsewhere. However, given the utter intransigence of An Taisce and the other NIMBYs who have fought each and every high and indeed mid rise development in this city on the basis of an opposition to height alone, I am therefore in favour of any high rise proposal which could possibly break the logjam and get Dublin to start moving vertically rather than horizontally. It's gone beyond a joke that Dublin has no critical mass of taller buildings. Belfast and Cork - cities which are several times smaller than us - each have a number of buildings which are taller than anything found in Dublin. Further afield, cities like Des Moines, Dayton Ohio and Buffalo all have high rises which put ours in the shade. These places aren't global cities like Dublin yet, from the air, they look and feel much more important. While looks aren't everything, I think it's an embarrassment to see my home city with such a bland and undistinguished skyline. Along with a metro, it's one of the big city aspects Dublin lacks at the moment. Take Auckland, for example. New Zealand is a lot like Ireland in terms of population, culture and economics. Auckland is its premier city and is virtually equal in population with our premier city, Dublin. Dublin's tallest building, Montevetro, wouldn't even make the top 40 tallest buildings in Auckland. If the DDDA had done its job properly, there would be at least 20 buildings in the Docklands to compare with the Auckland edifices in terms of height. New Liberty Hall would register at a 15th in the Auckland list.

High rises do work best in a cluster, and I do agree that there's limited scope to build taller buildings around the Liberty Hall site however I don't think that's a good enough reason to block this development. It promises to be a much more efficient building in terms of floor plates, energy efficiency and so on. New Liberty Hall would also be more aesthetically pleasing and I think it could, hopefully, usher in a wider acceptance of the need to build upwards and that higher buildings are not necessarily bad buildings.

Great post C. I agree with everything you said. I really liked the part about Auckland. I never knew any of that. I was shocked when you said that our tallest building would not rank in their top 40. That is a joke. New Zealand has a smaller population then us and thats not even the capital of New Zealand. People are brainwashed in this city when it comes to highrise. A lot of people dont know why we need it which is unbelievable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why we need highrise