Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Reuben1210 · 17-03-2015 1:01am

Carawaystick wrote: »

There's a place on St Stephen's Green North that stole 38,000,000,000 euros, so yeah, its a high crime area alright thereabouts.

None of the commercial buildings nearby are much higher than 5 storeys, so why would any re-developed building on the housing stock land be higher density?

Because there is a gradual realisation the last decade that the continuing sprawl of Dublin affects people's standard of living and economic growth negatively...
Still a long way to go though to try and convince the likes of "An Taisce", who object to everything without exception!!!

Aard · 17-03-2015 1:08am

An Taisce are a lot better than people give them credit for. Most of the time they simply act as a watchdog, making sure that development goes ahead according to how TDs/Cllrs voted. If local authorities upheld their own rules, a lage part of An Taisce's work would be made redundant.

Zebra3 · 17-03-2015 9:37am

I think people get confused when they talk about Dublin with regard to low density and other cities.

The big problem with Dublin is the sprawl in the suburbs and beyond, not so much the city centre. In Copenhagen for example, pretty much only apartments (anything from 4 -10 storeys) have been built since the 60s/70s along the 4 suburban rail lines. This means they have large population densities along the main transport corridors, with those living in housing estates further away from the train lines being fed into them by buses. Few get buses into the city centre.

Compare this with what's built around most suburban train stations in Dublin.

One only has to look at Lucan and how it was built almost equidistant between two train train lines.

JeffK88 · 17-03-2015 11:19am

This kind of development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development. Adamstown is a failed development that resembles this.

Dr_Bill · 24-03-2015 2:37pm

Sadly I suspect that this Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin debate will rattle on into the future like it has done for the previous twenty years.
I see no issue with high rise buildings and you can look for plenty of examples around the world in different cities where high rise has been successful.

For some reason, be it a lack of foresight or ambition our planners appear stone cold set against it. Increasing density makes metro's and such projects cost effective, build it and they will come other ventures will find opportunity.

Meanwhile look elsewhere as one of the highest structures in the city is a needle in the mire.

monument · 25-03-2015 11:21am

Dr_Bill wrote: »

Sadly I suspect that this Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin debate will rattle on into the future like it has done for the previous twenty years.
I see no issue with high rise buildings and you can look for plenty of examples around the world in different cities where high rise has been successful.

For some reason, be it a lack of foresight or ambition our planners appear stone cold set against it. Increasing density makes metro's and such projects cost effective, build it and they will come other ventures will find opportunity.

Meanwhile look elsewhere as one of the highest structures in the city is a needle in the mire.

The issue is made worse by some councillors, they insisted on having far more restrictive guidlines than the planners suggested.

Reuben1210 · 25-03-2015 11:41am

monument wrote: »

The issue is made worse by some councillors, they insisted on having far more restrictive guidlines than the planners suggested.

this is all for ensuring the votes from their particular communities who, for example, would not want tall buildings near them, to the detriment of the greater good of the city.

Aard · 25-03-2015 1:16pm

Planners are consistently blamed, whereas it is the elected representatives (as mentioned) who push for these things. Show me a planner who doesn't support strategic high density high rise!

FredFunk · 25-03-2015 4:51pm

Don't forget there are 10s of 1000s people who don't qualify for social housing as they have a decent job, who are forced out to the likes of Meath and Kildare to buy a house. Nobody should be entitled to live 200 yards from Stephen's green in property which is not their own.
Don't get me wrong we need to learn from the mistakes of Ballymun , Darndale and Jobstown.
There is nothing wrong in these people being moved in time to smaller pockets further out in the suburbs.

AngryLips · 25-03-2015 5:57pm

FredFunk wrote: »

Don't forget there are 10s of 1000s people who don't qualify for social housing as they have a decent job, who are forced out to the likes of Meath and Kildare to buy a house

There are no restrictions on who can apply for social housing.

D.L.R. · 25-03-2015 7:04pm

Whatever about the economic argument for/against social housing in the CBD, the current red 1960s blocks are doomed.

They use land wastefully, ruin old established street lines, and they look terrible. They kill just about every street they appear on.

The trend in that era was to offset social blocks from the street and from eachother, and have lots of empty space around them. I guess the thinking was to provide a pleasant spacious atmosphere. This strategy clearly failed and needs to be remedied.

This process has started in Charlemont and Dominick and the results will hopefully build the momentum to get rid of the other 60s blocks in the city centre. The sooner the better.

cgcsb · 25-03-2015 8:08pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Whatever about the economic argument for/against social housing in the CBD, the current red 1960s blocks are doomed.

They use land wastefully, ruin old established street lines, and they look terrible. They kill just about every street they appear on.

The trend in that era was to offset social blocks from the street and from eachother, and have lots of empty space around them. I guess the thinking was to provide a pleasant spacious atmosphere. This strategy clearly failed and needs to be remedied.

This process has started in Charlemont and Dominick and the results will hopefully build the momentum to get rid of the other 60s blocks in the city centre. The sooner the better.

At least the 60's blocks had some density worth mentioning in central locations. If you take a walk down Cathal Brugha street you'll see 1990's red brick terraced houses (HOUSES no less) complete with private gardens, back and front within eye shot of O'Connell street, thanks to the lobbying of Tony Gregory. Meanwhile Jane gets her hour and a half bus from Navan in every morning and same return in exchange for a disposable income marginally higher than a welfare recipient living in a terraced house right by O'Connell Street.

D.L.R. · 26-03-2015 12:41am

cgcsb wrote: »

At least the 60's blocks had some density worth mentioning in central locations. If you take a walk down Cathal Brugha street you'll see 1990's red brick terraced houses (HOUSES no less) complete with private gardens, back and front within eye shot of O'Connell street, thanks to the lobbying of Tony Gregory. Meanwhile Jane gets her hour and a half bus from Navan in every morning and same return in exchange for a disposable income marginally higher than a welfare recipient living in a terraced house right by O'Connell Street.

I agree on your points about density for sure, and it goes to show that even as recently as the Haughey era we still didn't care about proper urban planning.

But the 60s blocks aren't even that dense, their height isn't much more that a georgian terrace, and they take up more land. They've had their day and its time for something better.

sdanseo · 26-03-2015 12:44am

D.L.R. wrote: »

I agree on your points about density for sure, and it goes to show that even in the Haughey era we still didn't do urban planning.

But the 60s blocks aren't even that dense considering the land take and height. They've had their day and its time for something better.

In the Haughey era we did whatever the highest bidder wanted.

cgcsb · 26-03-2015 12:25pm

It's easier for developers to sell houses because they can sell one house while others are still being built and use the money to fund the construction. Where as every unit in an apartment block would pretty much have to be done before you could sell one. Also Irish psychology favours houses over apartments in general.

Reuben1210 · 02-04-2015 1:54pm

Well, here's something....hopefully this will be approved...they could have gone with a bigger tower though!

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/kennedy-wilson-and-nama-submit-planning-application-for-capital-dock-1.2162545

Aard · 02-04-2015 4:40pm

Very easy to say that the developer "could have gone with a bigger tower" when it's not you footing the bill! Don't you think they would have built higher if it were to prove financially viable? I'm pretty sure that's the site that allows up to 29 storeys of residential development. Obviously there isn't the appetite for such speculation.

Reuben1210 · 02-04-2015 4:45pm

Aard wrote: »

Very easy to say that the developer "could have gone with a bigger tower" when it's not you footing the bill! Don't you think they would have built higher if it were to prove financially viable? I'm pretty sure that's the site that allows up to 29 storeys of residential development. Obviously there isn't the appetite for such speculation.

Don't agree with you at all there. The developer is Kennedy Wilson partnering with NAMA, and they have huge financial resources for this long term investment. It would almost certainly be financially viable with the FDI coming in, which further fuels the huge shortage of high quality residentail and office space in Dublin, that it's almost reaching crisis levels, mirrored by the incessant rapid rise in rents.

Idbatterim · 02-04-2015 4:51pm

people have been making the point on this thread, that it is expensive to build the higher you go, how in sandyford business park are many of the developments substantially higher density than in the city centre?

Maybe it is the fact that there is still quite a lot of land available for development in the docklands, that means prices arent high enough to force higher density...

Is that the site of the former proposed U2 tower?

In relation to height, how in gods name do cork and belfast have higher buildings than Dublin, if the buildings in Dublin will achieve far more per square foot?

We are using a huge amount of the last remaining development land in the city centre and the density is too low and designs crap IMO... There should be a minimum density in those areas, never mind a max density! Should the government stipulate the development be built for the max density / height that it has permission for in areas of critical demand i.e. all of Dublin and particularly the city centre?

Reuben1210 · 02-04-2015 5:06pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

people have been making the point on this thread, that it is expensive to build the higher you go, how in sandyford business park are the developments substantially higher density than in the city centre?

Maybe it is the fact that there is still quite a lot of land available for development in the docklands, that means prices arent high enough to force higher density...

Is that the site of the former proposed U2 tower?

In relation to height, how in gods name do cork and belfast have higher buildings than Dublin, if the buildings in Dublin will achieve far more per square foot?

We are using a huge amount of the last remaining development land in the city centre and the density is too low and designs crap IMO... There should be a minimum density in those areas, never mind a max density!

Agreed. It's a one off opportunity with all this prime land. It will never be so cheap and plentiful. I agree with minimum density....we will regret it in future otherwise. An taisce object to every development in the state, but particularly Dublin. The SDZ's were meant to get around an taisce's influence on an bord planeala, by cutting the board out. But it looks like DCC is being conservative. Yes, it's the former U2 tower....

does anyone know what height that would put the tower at, given that it is the residential section of the proposal, and the floors are not as tall as office space?

Idbatterim · 02-04-2015 6:31pm

I was just reading the article at the below link. Surely with what Grehan etc paid, they had far higher densities in mind to justify the price they paid, v what they will realistically get permission for?

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/former-jurys-and-berkeley-court-in-d4-for-over-120m-1.2160397

Former Jurys and Berkeley Court in D4 for over €120m
Developer Sean Dunne bought hotels at peak of boom for €380m

The two Ballsbridge hotels bought by developer Sean Dunne at the peak of the property boom in 2005 for €380 million are to be offered for sale on the international market in the coming weeks.
Initial valuations suggest that the former Berkeley Court and Jurys properties, now known as the Clyde Court and Ballsbridge hotels, are likely to sell for between €120 and €150 million. Savills and the US company Eastdil Secured will be handling the sale.
The 6.8-acre site, once one of Ireland’s most expensive properties, is almost certain to be redeveloped for expensive apartments and a hotel as well as a leisure centre, restaurant and bar, cafes and a healthcare facility.

The existing hotels with almost 600 bedrooms are currently operated by the Dalata Hotel Group on behalf of a two-bank consortium – Ulster Bank and Rabobank – which took over control of the hotels in 2009 after Mr Dunne was refused permission to redevelop the site.
Dunne is currently appealing the High Court’s refusal to set aside his Irish bankruptcy.
Separately, An Bord Pleanála granted a 10-year planning permission in April, 2011, for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site involving 11 interlinked residential blocks and a separate building to accommodate a 150-bedroom hotel with a conference centre and other facilities.
The 11 blocks with arcaded walkways are to accommodate 568 large apartments aimed at the top end of the market.
Most of the apartment blocks will range in height from six to 10 storeys.
The development will also include a mixture of private, semi-private and public open spaces as well as winter gardens, a raised courtyard garden and a public plaza. The basement levels will accommodate 963 car spaces and 620 bicycle spaces.
Dalata has already completed three years of a five-year management contract at the two hotels, which is understood to include a break option for the owners.
About 18 months ago, the Blackstone investment group was reported to be attempting to position itself for a future tilt at the hotel assets by buying out the stake held by Icelandic bank Kaupthing.
That does not appear to have happened and Kaupthing’s shareholding has since apparently been acquired by Ulster Bank.
At about the same time, Blackstone paid €67 million for the Burlington Hotel which now trades as a Doubletree by Hilton.
That price is less than a quarter of the €288 million property developer Bernard McNamara paid for the hotel in 2007.
Ulster Bank, the lead financier for Mr Dunne’s purchase of the hotels, is believed to own about 65 per cent of the properties.
The high prices paid for the Ballsbridge sites at the peak of the market were topped by developer Ray Grehan, who paid €171.5 million for the 2.02-acre former UCD veterinary college – the equivalent of €84 million an acre.
The Comer Group subsequently acquired it in June 2013 for €22.5 million.
Ongoing recovery
The decision to proceed with the sale at this stage underlines the ongoing recovery in site values in the city, particularly those suitable for new office developments which are likely to be in strong demand even at inflated rents over the coming years.
The turning point for site values came in June last year when a consortium led by Johnny Ronan and Paddy McKillen paid €40.5 million for a key office site beside the former Burlington Hotel.

Aard · 02-04-2015 6:35pm

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Don't agree with you at all there. The developer is Kennedy Wilson partnering with NAMA, and they have huge financial resources for this long term investment. It would almost certainly be financially viable with the FDI coming in, which further fuels the huge shortage of high quality residentail and office space in Dublin, that it's almost reaching crisis levels, mirrored by the incessant rapid rise in rents.

Law of diminishing returns. It's bloody expensive to build a 20th floor compared to a 10th floor. The rents they'd have to charge in order to make a 20th floor viable would have to be very high. Obviously the developer isn't willing to bet on whether somebody is willing to pay such astronomical rents.

Aard · 02-04-2015 6:39pm

Reuben1210 wrote: »

[...]An taisce object to every development in the state, but particularly Dublin. The SDZ's were meant to get around an taisce's influence on an bord planeala, by cutting the board out. But it looks like DCC is being conservative. [...]

1. An Taisce do not object to every development in the state. I don't know where you get that idea.

2. SDZs do not cut ABP out. ABP approve SDZs. They're actually an intrinsic part of SDZs.

liam24 · 02-04-2015 7:29pm

Aard wrote: »

1. An Taisce do not object to every development in the state. I don't know where you get that idea.

2. SDZs do not cut ABP out. ABP approve SDZs. They're actually an intrinsic part of SDZs.

They only object to the interesting ones.

Kermit.de.frog · 03-04-2015 12:27am

There should be a minimum height imposed in certain areas like this. It's not high enough for that location. Simple as that.

Aard · 03-04-2015 2:41am

What happens if you set the minimum too high and nobody builds because the marginal costs of the top floors would make the entire building non-viable? Tall buildings only get built in a frothy, speculative market.

Kermit.de.frog · 03-04-2015 4:47am

This is not tall enough no matter what way you spin it. 40 floors could easily be accommodated on this site. Fed up with this village mentality.

crushproof · 03-04-2015 10:10am

Madness, extremely bland design and only 19 stories. For an iconic site this is pathetic.

As I said elsewhere, it looks more like a suburban airport hotel.

Carawaystick · 03-04-2015 11:22am

The existing Jury's hotel is 10/11 stories,to replace it with 6-10 stories seems odd. I know it'll be denser development but still.

Peregrine · 03-04-2015 11:34am

Aard wrote: »

What happens if you set the minimum too high and nobody builds because the marginal costs of the top floors would make the entire building non-viable? Tall buildings only get built in a frothy, speculative market.

But what happens when someone comes along who wants to and can afford to build a tall building but can't do it because there are no sites with a >10 storey limit? Do you not see how heavy these height limits are?

Once this is built, that leaves one site in the SDZ where a 22 storey commercial building can be built. If their owners don't want a tall building, that's gone too. And alas, now no one can build a tall building in Dublin.

Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Comments