The stacks of shame, Ringsend, Dublin.
Part of who we are.
Or grim blots on the landscape?
ESB YOU decide!
Raze or praise: Should we save the Poolbeg chimneys from being knocked down? (Irish Times)
Meanwhile…
Andy writes:
“Poolbeg, without the iconic towers…as potentially seen from Clontarf…”
Sponsored Link
Lads I’m not sure but I think that second picture might be copyrighted by Andy Sheridan. Although it’s a bit hard to make out.
No the picture is of Andy Sheridan, it’s copyrighted by Dublin Bay
They are iconic dublin images, it would be stupid to get rid of them.
Sure.
But they are also serving no purpose at all, so it would also be stupid to maintain them.
We maintain plenty of buildings around the city for their iconic value and the site could be used for other things while maintaining the iconic towers.
How about a science museum? Even one focused on energy and power generation.
The Science Gallery is a fantastic initiative but we have no scientific equivalent to the National Gallery or Collins Barracks.
It’d be an interesting addition to our list of attractions, help foster interest in science in the young and help push the message of Ireland as a place with a long history of sicentific achievement (Boyle, Walton et al.) rather than merely drinking, fighting and writing.
Cluster that is an amazing idea.
Fantastic idea!
(It’ll never happen)
Thank you. What next then?
Get me Pascal Donohoe, Alan Kelly and Sherlock on the blower.
Good idea! they could have a look at what was achieved at Battersea power station.
What is wrong with drinking,fighting and writing?
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with those activities. I only suggested that they do not constitute the totality of what we do & have done.
It’s sort of like our Royal family so…
Brian and Amy?
What a great idea! Maybe we should name both towers.
Will give a nice personal feel to them.
*seanad*
Icons serve a purpose in their own right
Often that purpose is no more than being iconic, no?
The dictionary definition has no caveat relating to pure funtionality.
Good to see your culture levels are high this morning.
Its a complicated issue.
One could hold conflicting opinions about it.
Its quite easy to pick opposing positions, and in fact that makes it really easy to point out how silly it is to use absolutes in ones arguements. Kind of like playing devils advocate.
But being as you took my post as evidence to pass judgement on…..something about my relationship with culture, not to mention the fact that you have so poor a grasp of any concept of culture as to think it can be measured in levels on any given morning, I don’t expect you will understand that.
not everything must have a function. ars gratia artis an all that..
http://m.rte.ie/news/touch//2013/1005/478516-live-referendums/
that’s not what you said about the place you used to lay your eggs in….
Many icons serve no useful purpose. Almost all castles for example, or how about the Spire. It serves no useful purpose but has become something of an iconic structure, not least because it’s been trounced around on all mentions of Dublin. All over the world, industrial landmarks, no longer in use, Ironbridge Gorge bridge, The Harland and Wolfe cranes, the Forth on the Firth (which I know is still in use, but really is not fit for purpose). These are probably the most iconic structures in Dublin, and much could be made of them (I’m spit balling, but having coloured low watt LEDs and having them dancing together with colour patterns at night would be amazing).
This argument reminds me of the Eiffel Tower. For most of it’s history it was reviled, and many wanted to scrap it, but radio communication and later TV saved it, and of course now it’s is the most recognised symbol of Paris and to a lesser extent France.
Also really surprised they aren’t listed.
The hotel is, I think.
Yea, think you’re right C. I know one of my mates who worked there for a time was telling me just that.
Can we demolish the Spire?
Anything can become an Icon, within reason.
But being iconic doesn’t make it less of a waste of money maintaining something that is useless. I would say its way more stupid to maintain a pair of chimneys that aren’t being used than to knock them down.
You will note that I agreed with Drogg.
It would also be stupid to neglect them and let them fall down.
A waste of money? hummm, not sure I agree with ye C that it’s a waste of money. They are part of our industrial archaeological heritage. Would you consider the National Art Museum or Newgrange a waste of money? Just because something doesn’t serve a tangibility useful purpose doesn’t mean it’s existence isn’t useful in itself. Many people (myself included) enjoy looking at the chimneys and feel they somehow epitomise Dublin in a sense.
Ah look, you can include me.
But I would have reservations with sinking millions into it like, I do feel that its a waste of money, yes.
Particularly when so many people don’t have gaffs.
But at the same time, its not the only thing.
I dont think newgrange is, but the OPW manage newgrange and get money from it.
I do think the national museum wastes lots of money but that is a completely different conversation. That said they provide employment and attract tourists and supply a service and education.
The chimneys don’t do sh1t but sit there and make people from this neck of the woods feel good.
There is a lot of context here, I’m just saying, its very easy to say demolishing them is stupid when you could argue that any course of action in relation to them could be called stupid.
I think something that makes you feel good these days, is invaluable.
“I’m just saying ya might miss de chimneys.”
Yup they are an important example of our industrial heritage.
Maybe they could something cool with them – put a lift inside and put a viewing platform on top.
That would be iconic
Dontcha think?
A little bit too iconic, yea I really do think
Even the monster PDs were opting to save the chimneys:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8tTVmvXtTWU/Rn2DGGMcKsI/AAAAAAAAACk/Ce67_e-qCms/s400/heart_for_dublin.jpg
Save them – although I’m not adverse to the suggestion in that GAA ad circa late 1990s of re-painting them in the Dublin colours!
Yes, keep them and paint them as they were in the ad.
Keep them. That is all.
Some filtered imagery to keep the broadsheet peeps happy*
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsQPOLXIQAAbu9m.jpg
*by happy I mean happy moaning about too much filter :)
Candy Sheridan is a great name for a photographer.
I will really, really miss these if they go.
It’s not like Dublin’s coastline is a green and verdant wilderness punctuated by two towers. Removing them is not going to return the landscape to a natural vista. Dublin bay is a city bay, and the Poolbeg towers are one of the more pleasant aspects of that character.
Sure haven’t ye got a big feckin spike????
Whole damn city is a phallic symbol.
But there is two of them. More likely they are a likeness to two erect nipples in the cites tribute to the womanly art that is breast feeding. Just saying.
Two dicks?
They should paint them rainbow colours.
I’d like to distance myself from this comment.
I thought it was a bit beneath you alright.
the spire, to me, represents a big fekn hypodermic needle. a symbol of our perpetual addiction and everlasting self-induced slavery.
A symbol of our addiction to land.
I wouldn’t miss them to be honest.
Me neither… I was looking forward to them going, think they’re an eyesore. I actually find this nostalgia for them depressing.
Get rid, and in their place have a hot air baloon, where tourists can pay to get great views of the city. The balloon could be sponsored by Coke, as part of their plans to own Dublin by 2018.
They could get “hot air” from the adjacent poo power plant.
I think we’re on to something here C!
Or from the Dáil…Heh!…Am I right, am I right? I’m right…You know, from all the “hot air” those clowns produce…
*shakes head, looks skyward, smiles ruefully*
Better day now…..
Ah Mick, low hangin’ fruit, but I’ll forgive you.
What do yous think lads ? http://tinyurl.com/lmfyjbp
+well done
Keep them! They’re part of the city’s landscape
This is just a silly summer column-filler for the IT.
The chimneys are going nowhere.
I agree with Navy_Blue that a slap o’ paint is needed.
They are owned by ESB who’ll have to pay for the upkeep and safety maintenance of them.
So, I reckon an additional 1% to 2% on the ESB bills of Dubliners should pay for the upkeep of these young structures. It’d only be fair. They’ve only been there 40 years like.
Why not the ESB bills of people nationwide?
No gratitude for the way the denizens of Dublin helped pay for rural electrification and the continued extra cost of providing rural dwellers with leccy even today.
Fair enough… add them ESB customers in too.
knock em down and replace them with a gigantic bronze statue of Garth Brooks, straddling the bay like the C&W collossus that he is.
Never forget.
We have a spire to remind us of massive “spire-like” people like him.
Semper fudge.
Why bronze….Sure didn’t they build the tower of belfast-ylon out of pallets.
Plus we are €50 mil out of pocket.
I personally would be saddened to see them go, always great to see them from the airpplane when you’re coming home. My Grandad worked for the ESB there and all the Grankids in our family call them “Grandad’s Chimneys”
They are part of Dublin iconography. I’d be more in favor of knocking down the Papal Cross
Aw ‘Grandad’s Chimneys’! That’s lovely :)
I’m very fond of them, I can see them from the work canteen. During the bad weather there last week they were flickering, probably reflections from other lights but it looked marvellous. They should be kept and illuminated from time to time.
This cracks me up.
If these towers weren’t there and the ESB even muted the idea of building them there would be uproar!
Yeah, people hate censorship.
True
Sorry grammar gods. *mooted
Muting an idea sounds like it could be a phrase – to cover up or to quell.
Dublins twin towers……
nuke them, sell the debris as souvenirs to tourists.
keep them
upkeep provided for via paid-in climb to the top, basejumps or maybe a massive bungee catapult oh yea
We should commission enormous bobble heads of Enda and Joan and pop them on top.
We could update them after elections.
Be great.
Keep them, ESB should transfer ownership to Dublin, redevelop as a public amenity. The People’s Pidgeon House
There is a massive sewage treatment works with methane harvesting power plant beside it.
That said, it doesn’t in anyway affect the frankly lovely park amenities which are 2 min walk away.
Can we just keep one? we could paint it so it looks like a tower from lord of the rings, the spire could be the other.
What about the other five?
DCC will only allow three.
WAHEY!
if you’ve got 25mins… check this video out…Dublin would be a very different place without them!
http://vimeo.com/33969866
The ESB just cannot be trusted at all.
They should pay for the upkeep, without complaining as partial compensation for ruining the Georgian mile.
+1
Mutterings about a structure being ‘unstable’ usually predicates people waking up in the morning to some diggers and a pile of rubble with shrugged shoulders and a “Well health and safety” excuse from builders.
Keep them for heaven’s sake. Imagine flying into Dublin and no towers. They are part of the fabric of the place.
Anyone else think it’s a “coincidence” that this story is fomented at the same time as the plans for redevelopment of ESB’s head office are being lodged?
My money says that if planning is granted then ESB will miraculously find the loot to refurb them. Pillars of the community.
I find it embarrassing that one of our cities supposed iconic landmarks are two dirty old chimneys. What must tourist’s think for starters. They ruin the view across a beautiful bay. They would be missed like a scar on your face. They drag the city down. Get rid of them and let’s construct something we can be proud of on the site
+2
You have a rather bizarre view of what is or isn’t iconic and of how ‘tourists’ as a group see the city around you.
There are numerous examples of industrial-style icons which define different cities or city districts – windmills, gasworks, dock cranes, telecommunications towers etc. The grittiness of former docklands/industrial districts has been perceived as a desireable quality in successful city district redevelopments from New York to Hamburg.
There is nothing appealing about these chimneys. They are a long way from being unique.
Appealing is arguable since it is subjective. Countless postcards, artistic prints of the city, le Cool illustrations, a quick browse of Flikr, and framing shots in TV/films suggest that many don’t agree with you.
On the unique, perhaps you could give an example of a similar set of twin chimneys at the mouth of a bay close to the centre of reasonably large sized city. And one which has been adopted as an asthetic feature by so many artists.
I can’t but I can give you the fact that most other cities have icons that are not crappy chimneys.
Brilliant, so you admit they are unique, then?
Where is the semtex when ya need it? Iconic,heritage,Flying in to dublin after a city break in new york, blah! blah! my arse.
I wonder what Jane Ruffino thinks? She used to live in the area before leaving for Sweden.
Just googled Jane Rufino. You’re a piece of work aren’t you.
Gobshyte
Let me get this straight. We have destroyed the remains of the early settlement at Wood Quay, but we want to save 50 year old chimneys.
Let me get this straight, we did one big thing wrong, and now we’re trying to do one small thing right?
No. Let’s preserve some old castles, or old estate houses, not ugly industrial eye sores.
Could use them to provide about half the water cooling capacity required for a 2Gw nuclear power station. Just build another two towers and we’re sorted!