Anthony Cronin (I think) was writing in the paper over the weekend about the issue of skyscrapers in Dublin. He asserted that the reason we are enamoured right now with the prospect of building skyscrapers is because we no longer want to be seen as a small country and we need skyscrapers in order to make that statement. I have a different reason for wanting skyscrapers (not grimy apartment blocks, but proper high rise with a good mix of uses) and it is the whole idea of high-density spaces where you don’t have to go very far in order to live and work. I have spent a lot of time abroad and I quite like many manifestations of high-rise. I worked in a high-rise bank block in San Francisco and it had everything under one roof right beside an underground station (the muni in SF). I also would like the idea of living in a nice high-rise. No garden to look after, nice views of the city/bay, hopefully close to the centre of Dublin, maybe out the Docks.
I really, really think “why not?” I know the current Jury’s site is giving the locals heart attacks, but I think from what I have seen, that it would be a great thing to have, if it is done right (traffic being the main issue for me). I know there have been objections about architectural merit, to be honest, I know nothing about architectural merit, so maybe I am not the best person to ask.
BTW - I don’t have any vested interest in this and don’t own shares nor am I friends with any property developers (at none have admitted to me that they are property developers).
Comments welcome.
1 user commented in " Skyscrapers in Dublin "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackJames,
Like many people you have jumped to a naïve conclusion. You are absolutely right to embrace high density living; although absolutely wrong to posit skyscrapers as the (only) solution. It seems odd that you would use the Mountbrook plans for Ballsbridge as an example, as it is littered with contradictions.
High density living as you rather casually point out requires people to live and work in proximity. The Mountbrook group plans to incorporate ‘a 232 bedroom luxury hotel’. Now how many workers for the hotel, (and other service workers likely to be employed in the offices, consumption quarter etc) do you think will be able to afford the ‘generous family sized apartments’ also incorporated into the development or anywhere else close by (since the development will inevitably drive up nearby land prices) . My point is that this development will generate on the one hand relatively low paid service industry employment (majority) and on the other high end apartments. An ‘invisible’ disparity commonly found in high rise mixed use developments.
What I find most interesting is that the Mountbrook group try to validate their development by highlighting the failure of ‘modern office space in the 1960s and early 1970s’ brandishing the buildings ‘outmoded and ugly’. What is to stop their development suffering the same fate? In this case I feel it is impossible for low and high rise buildings to be incorporated successfully. Assuming the development goes ahead this leaves two options; height triumphs and breaks the back of character, or character wins and as what happened before once contemporary buildings become ‘outmoded and ugly’.
I urge you to follow your rational thought process the next time you look at the city, ‘look’ at the functions and flows the development will create, for the form can be slippery and deceptive. High rise does not equal high density.
Peter