July 17, 2014 at 2:38 am #711606
For fun and frolics… any suggestions for future uses?July 17, 2014 at 9:19 am #817952
An observation tower at the top of one of the towers would spoil the undeniably elegant lines of the chimneys, to say nothing of how unfeasible it surely must be to install a 200m elevator! Ditto the sky bridge? Can we not just pay for their upkeep, clean them and leave them be? Dubliners have derived great satisfaction from the chimneys for 40 years now without any bells or whistles. The surrounding docklands will be redeveloped before too long. Demolish the surrounding power station and leave the tip of the southside docks as a beautiful new park in the geographic heart of Dublin’s sprawl. The chimneys will still need a little bit of “splendid isolation” for maximum effect.July 17, 2014 at 12:42 pm #817953
All for the power station being removed and the land around what remains of the fort, the Pigeonhouse Station, and the hotel reverting to a park. My only concern is that the former Pigeonhouse Power Station has been sitting derelict for 40 years already and I can see the chimneys being left for similar and eventually demolished as the ESB and DCC argue over who should pay for their upkeep.July 30, 2014 at 8:21 pm #817954
I want to hear from the engineer who designed the second one to be thicker than the first one. Specifically, if he feels a bit silly now that the first one has never blown over, as he clearly anticipated it would.July 31, 2014 at 12:38 am #817955
I didn’t realise they were different thicknesses
wasn’t the second chimney built 8 years after the first? Assuming that the second chimney was built for a bigger output i.e. a bigger power plant than that of the first chimney it may be that the second chimney had to be wider in order to deal with the greater output / heat and yet still remain the same height as the first chimney which was, presumably, a givenJuly 31, 2014 at 9:00 am #817956
I understand resonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance) was an issue once a decision was taken to build a second tower.
The possibility of both towers swaying in sequence in heavy winds could have lead to their (self) destruction, without corrective design.July 31, 2014 at 9:59 am #817957
Those are plausible theories, maybe, but I’m sticking with engineering over-design for now.
I probably have the newspaper cutting from the 1970s, somewhere in the attic, that gives the full engineering explanation why the new chimney couldn’t be as slender as the old chimney, but, as I already regret commenting on the difference, we won’t be going the attic route.
You do realize that this Poolbeg chimneys debate has been perfectly timed by the ESB to distract attention away from its planning application for Fitzwilliam Street. A strategy that is, so far, working a treat.July 31, 2014 at 1:28 pm #817958
gunter, you have hit the nail on the head. It was mentioned to me twice only the past few days, so it’s slowly dawning like a decent April Fools prank. A brilliant strategy on the part of ESB. Needs to be aired more publically.July 31, 2014 at 2:46 pm #817959
I thought that too, but discounted it on the grounds that I am becoming too cynical.September 10, 2014 at 12:36 pm #904717
I am of the opinion that they should be demolished – their useful life is over – and can you expect the ESB to maintain them 40 or 50 years into the future. It’s not like maintaining a listed building, you can derive income or use from.November 20, 2014 at 2:30 pm #924778
I suggest that both chimneys are cleaned and possibly some artistic abstract painting on the outside, flood lit at night. Perhaps also with moving spot lights on the top of both at night time. I would see them having an aesthetic purpose rather than a functional one. The down side of course is that this would have to be public/council funded rather than being an opportunity for a private investor.November 21, 2014 at 5:19 pm #924820
But isnt their power the simplicity of their form and the red and white banding. If you replace that with “artistic abstract painting”, surely they lose their iconic-ness?November 22, 2014 at 4:46 am #924846
They’re not iconic. They are mistakenly thought to be so because they are literally almost the only things of any height in the city. They’re a pair of ugly chimneys – no more of less significant than those at Moneypoint or any other power station. The discussion surrounding them is a testament to the blandness of Dublin’s skyline.June 30, 2015 at 5:48 am #939764
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.