Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Peregrine · 13-08-2013 3:05pm

It's better but it still only allows 5-7 story stumpy blocks in certain areas.

Reuben1210 · 11-03-2015 2:36pm

So to revive this thread a little....anyone hear the news today about the tara street station high rise redevelopment? Due to soaring office rents, ianroid eireann has decided to try to cash in on this and is searching for a partner to develop a plan...

cgcsb · 11-03-2015 2:59pm

Fantastic, the 60's-70's planners done some damage to Tara street, let's hope it can be undone. Hawkins house will be the key for the whole street though. A narrowing of the road to two lanes and some cycling facilities would also be helpful.

crushproof · 11-03-2015 3:46pm

Reuben1210 wrote: »

So to revive this thread a little....anyone hear the news today about the tara street station high rise redevelopment? Due to soaring office rents, ianroid eireann has decided to try to cash in on this and is searching for a partner to develop a plan...

This has been ongoing for at least 15 years now, I can remember these plans floating about in the early 00's.
Hopefully the plan they have is more modern version of what was planned previously, it is a vital transport artery and therefore large scale development should be allowed.
Alas, it will be appealed, and shot down. You can't seriously think that you can have a monstrous 22 (Yes, that's right, 22!!!) skyscraper in a 21st century capital city?!

*then again, it is a state company so maybe it will get the go ahead

Peregrine · 11-03-2015 3:53pm

Hopwfully they can get it through the planning process without getting too many stories chopped off but I won't hold my breath.

As for the docklands, I'm just going to quote this post from SSC.

Purple: Landmark
Orange: 8 commercial / 10 residential
Pink: 6c/7r
Blue: 5c/7r

I'm not even shocked anymore.

Anyway, let's recap on the "lankmark" building sites. They're the purple sites.

12 storeys max/10 storeys min commercial on the second block from the Royal Canal north of Mayor Street.

11c/13r (54m) on the site between the Convention Centre and Mayor Street. The site has planning permission for a 13 storey hotel.

22 storeys commercial on the Watchtower site. The Watchtower still has planning permission.

22c/29r on the North East corner of the U2 site.

15 storeys max at Boland's Mill. Something about a line between the Montevetro and Millenium Tower.

And this is what Stumpville will look like:

Purple: Landmark
Orange: 8 commercial / 10 residential
Pink: 6c/7r
Blue: 5c/7r

Reuben1210 · 11-03-2015 4:00pm

Yeah and the tara street/george's dock area is one of those areas designated as a SDZ with permission for a possible 22 storey tower!!....
yeah the watchtower might try to change permission to commercial primarily, because as far as I know, it is permitted for mostly residential? maybe someone can confirm this? Also, all the foundations are built under it, complete with underground car park and everything, at a cost of over €32....so it makes sense to bring this project back to life soon imo

loyatemu · 11-03-2015 4:25pm

the existing permission is for 9 storeys @ Tara St.

Reuben1210 · 11-03-2015 4:51pm

9 storeys on top of a three storey concourse, but since the permission was granted, the LAP model has come into effect!!
So I guess they might try to go for more height as that means more rental return!
Here is the link:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ci%C3%A9-seeks-partner-to-build-office-block-in-tara-street-dublin-1.2133771

cgcsb · 11-03-2015 5:29pm

It's interesting to note that the children's hospital at the matter was refused permission because of it's height, in spite of the fact the LAP allowed for up to 15 storeys on the site. So it seems that LAP are not worth the paper they are printed on, you will still get tiny minds with tiny ideas running things.

monument · 11-03-2015 6:48pm

cgcsb wrote: »

It's interesting to note that the children's hospital at the matter was refused permission because of it's height, in spite of the fact the LAP allowed for up to 15 storeys on the site. So it seems that LAP are not worth the paper they are printed on, you will still get tiny minds with tiny ideas running things.

Was the LAP actually in place?

monument · 11-03-2015 7:53pm

cgcsb wrote: »

It's interesting to note that the children's hospital at the matter was refused permission because of it's height, in spite of the fact the LAP allowed for up to 15 storeys on the site. So it seems that LAP are not worth the paper they are printed on, you will still get tiny minds with tiny ideas running things.

I had a read on the LAP (both on heights and other things that interested me given I used to live in the area of it and just outside of it, and commute via it for even longer than that).... This is the LAP on heights:

The bottom box was the now scrapped children's hospital location:

And this is what they were planning on that site:

I think most reasons behind rejecting the site were nonsense, but I don't think the plan fits into the LAP.

Aard · 11-03-2015 8:36pm

It's easy to say "let's build tall buildings" when it's somebody else's money they're talking about. There is at least one Dublin developer not taking full advantage of SDZ permitted storeys due to financial considerations. The rule of diminishing returns means that tall buildings only get built when the financing is cheap and the property market bubbly. Those extra few storeys on top are *very* expensive. Gotta be certain you can rent/sell them at a price that will cover your costs+profit.

monument · 11-03-2015 8:50pm

Aard wrote: »

It's easy to say "let's build tall buildings" when it's somebody else's money they're talking about. There is at least one Dublin developer not taking full advantage of SDZ permitted storeys due to financial considerations. The rule of diminishing returns means that tall buildings only get built when the financing is cheap and the property market bubbly. Those extra few storeys on top are *very* expensive. Gotta be certain you can rent/sell them at a price that will cover your costs+profit.

When we go down to the single developer level there's other factors at play such as if the developer has the means to think big.

Single houses or semi-detached houses are relivilty easy because you can sell them off one-by-one and fund them off the backs of sales, you'll find it harder to do that with an apartment block which needs to be pritty much fully finished before anyone can move in.

hfallada · 12-03-2015 12:30am

Aard wrote: »

It's easy to say "let's build tall buildings" when it's somebody else's money they're talking about. There is at least one Dublin developer not taking full advantage of SDZ permitted storeys due to financial considerations. The rule of diminishing returns means that tall buildings only get built when the financing is cheap and the property market bubbly. Those extra few storeys on top are *very* expensive. Gotta be certain you can rent/sell them at a price that will cover your costs+profit.

Ireland doesnt have a functioning banking system. It doesnt matter if interest rates are super low, as they are. When you dont have banks willing to lend. Plus most of the big developers are now gone. There is very few developers that would be in the position to build a high rise building at the moment.

With QE and the weakening Euro. Billions are flowing into the eurozone at the moment. Look at how the DAX has soared in the last month. Expect money to start flowing into development projects here. Most existing returns on commercial property is about 4% here. Meaning high rise commercial property development is highly desirable. Plus rents are soaring in Ireland. You are certain you will be able to rent/sell your development if its built.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ci%C3%A9-seeks-partner-to-build-office-block-in-tara-street-dublin-1.2133771

CIE wants to build Tara and get a poor deal for it. Either lease the site or get 10% of rent return. They want someone else to build it. Realistically the national pension reserve fund should bank roll it and keep it, as an asset. Its a safe investment with a good return. Which is something that should be in a portfolio of a pension fund.

Idbatterim · 12-03-2015 2:19am

the docklands are an embarrassment, it honestly looks like something you would see in some british etc backwater city. Not in the silicion docks, Irelands "canary wharf" according to noonan. there should be nothing permitted under 10 stories where there is a massive demand for housing, where people actually want to live! there should be a minimum, rather than maximum density! Nothing has been learned from the boom anyway, I wouldnt expect any different, rocketing rents, low density, unimaginative, rubbish architecture for the docklands... I came across the below image and it simply highlights how brutal it is down there!

AngryLips · 12-03-2015 10:07am

crushproof wrote: »

This has been ongoing for at least 15 years now, I can remember these plans floating about in the early 00's.
Hopefully the plan they have is more modern version of what was planned previously, it is a vital transport artery and therefore large scale development should be allowed.
Alas, it will be appealed, and shot down. You can't seriously think that you can have a monstrous 22 (Yes, that's right, 22!!!) skyscraper in a 21st century capital city?!

*then again, it is a state company so maybe it will get the go ahead

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Kermit.de.frog · 13-03-2015 4:52am

Don't forget the shinners make up a good portion of dublin city council so they will side with the "community" against high rise.

Yes, believe it or not, there are consequences to your local vote.

hfallada · 13-03-2015 12:14pm

There is still tons of low density social housing in the city. That should be knocked and replaced with high density office/residential. Like the DCC flats beside St Stephens Green should be offices and would be offices in any other major city in Europe.But they are social housing here.

There will be tons of sites/buildings coming up within the next few years when DIT is moved out to Grangegorman.

Carawaystick · 13-03-2015 3:50pm

hfallada wrote: »

There is still tons of low density social housing in the city. That should be knocked and replaced with high density office/residential. Like the DCC flats beside St Stephens Green should be offices and would be offices in any other major city in Europe.But they are social housing here.

And where would these residents live then?

And how is 5 story housing low density?https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.339273,-6.264374,3a,75y,82.88h,90.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siR9iIA4vG8QCddkZOm7aAg!2e0?hl=en

There's only 4 main DIT sites in the city centre, Bishop st, Kevin st, Bolton st and Cathal Brugha St.

Not far from St Stephen's Green you have surface car park and unused land between Cuffe's lane and York St
Then there's Hume St Hospital - abandoned
Further away you've surface carparking on Great Ship street; a whole virtually unused block on St Grt Georges st from Stephens st lower to Exchecquer st; a vacant office block on Peter st, a vacant site beside Kevin st garda station; loads of surface carparking off Pembroke lane, and behind the buildings on Merrion Square South.

monument · 15-03-2015 12:05am

Carawaystick wrote: »

And where would these residents live then?

And how is 5 story housing low density?https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.339273,-6.264374,3a,75y,82.88h,90.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siR9iIA4vG8QCddkZOm7aAg!2e0?hl=en

Not sure of the ownership (ie if council owned or not), by maybe he was talking about here: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.338365,-6.263676,3a,75y,211.71h,82.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sG_Klf_PXKk_dVcoD6TNgYQ!2e0?hl=en

Two storey houses 80 meters from St Stephens Green.

Aard · 15-03-2015 1:03am

In fairness, I doubt anybody would defend the retention of those terraces on Cuffe Lane. There are, however, many single- and two-storey houses in and around Heytesbury Street that would be contested by some if they were proposed to be redeveloped.

hfallada · 15-03-2015 2:24pm

monument wrote: »

Not sure of the ownership (ie if council owned or not), by maybe he was talking about here: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.338365,-6.263676,3a,75y,211.71h,82.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sG_Klf_PXKk_dVcoD6TNgYQ!2e0?hl=en

Two storey houses 80 meters from St Stephens Green.

They are privately owned. I have actually viewed them before when one was for sale. Im talking about the generic DDC 5 Storey rough red brick apartment blocks with the stairs outside. There is no reason why they should be within in the CBD in 2015. They are too low density. The residents should be moved out to the suburbs. I personally know that part of Stephens green close to the flats, has a high rate of crime. It might be a coincidence, but I highly doubt it.

DDC should help with the housing shortages in the city by demolishing their low density, City Centre housing and replace it with high rise residential apartment blocks for people working in the city. They would get a cheap bond to finance it or use a REIT floated on the stock exchange (therefore they still retain control). They could rent the apartments and use the profits to constantly fund their social housing. They could move the existing residents into the new buildings(like the way NYC encourages high rise luxury developments to house low income people. But there is strict vetting of tenants to reduce social issues and they must have a job).

Pete_Cavan · 15-03-2015 10:14pm

hfallada wrote: »

They are privately owned. I have actually viewed them before when one was for sale. Im talking about the generic DDC 5 Storey rough red brick apartment blocks with the stairs outside. There is no reason why they should be within in the CBD in 2015. They are too low density. The residents should be moved out to the suburbs. I personally know that part of Stephens green close to the flats, has a high rate of crime. It might be a coincidence, but I highly doubt it.

DDC should help with the housing shortages in the city by demolishing their low density, City Centre housing and replace it with high rise residential apartment blocks for people working in the city. They would get a cheap bond to finance it or use a REIT floated on the stock exchange (therefore they still retain control). They could rent the apartments and use the profits to constantly fund their social housing. They could move the existing residents into the new buildings(like the way NYC encourages high rise luxury developments to house low income people. But there is strict vetting of tenants to reduce social issues and they must have a job).

Not sure why you keep referring to council blocks of flats as low density, they are higher density than most of the city and probably represent Dublins first move towards higher densities. If they were replaced with modern buildings, I doubt the density of the site would substantially increase given our planning restrictions.

Not sure why you want to move the residents out to the suburbs either, do you only want high density for certain classes of people? We should be aiming for a good social mix in any such new developments, particularly those in public ownership. You are right in that there are numerous large central sites with huge development potential which needs to be realised (Dominick Street flats, Pearse House, Tom Kelly Road flats, etc.). The PPP model failed so we need to examine other methods of getting private sector investment as DCC wont have the funds for redevelopments. The last thing that should happen is for sites to be sold off for apartment blocks for people working in the city while creating sprawling ghettos in the suburbs.

Aard · 15-03-2015 11:37pm

The Docklands SDZ will house tens of thousands of people in a plan led manner where infrastructure is in place from the start. The redevelopment of a few innercity social housing blocks is a comparative drop in the bucket. Plus look at fiascos like O'Devaney Gardens. These things are not easy.

I won't comment on “moving people out to the suburbs”. But suffice it to say that that is not within the remit for planners, and for good reason.

D.L.R. · 16-03-2015 5:26pm

Aard wrote: »

In fairness, I doubt anybody would defend the retention of those terraces on Cuffe Lane. There are, however, many single- and two-storey houses in and around Heytesbury Street that would be contested by some if they were proposed to be redeveloped.

And rightly so, Heytesbury St area is a gem.

Zebra3 · 16-03-2015 7:37pm

hfallada wrote: »

The residents should be moved out to the suburbs.

Nothing like a spot of class cleansing.

Any other parts of the city you'd like to see people who aren't up to your social standing turfed out from?

Maybe bang through some legislation to stop them returning just to be on the safe side.... :rolleyes:

Aard · 16-03-2015 8:14pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

And rightly so, Heytesbury St area is a gem.

There you go. I'm sure a lot of people, most even, would agree with you. And it's that sentiment that allows single-storey buildings within a stone's throw of the most expensive land in the country.

D.L.R. · 16-03-2015 10:43pm

Aard wrote: »

There you go. I'm sure a lot of people, most even, would agree with you. And it's that sentiment that allows single-storey buildings within a stone's throw of the most expensive land in the country.

Its pretty expensive land in its own right because of its heritage and well planned layout. And its a living neighbourhood.

Can't say that for any of the corpo flats in the centre really, well past their sell by date.

Carawaystick · 17-03-2015 12:43am

hfallada wrote: »

They are privately owned. I have actually viewed them before when one was for sale. Im talking about the generic DDC 5 Storey rough red brick apartment blocks with the stairs outside. There is no reason why they should be within in the CBD in 2015. They are too low density. The residents should be moved out to the suburbs. I personally know that part of Stephens green close to the flats, has a high rate of crime. It might be a coincidence, but I highly doubt it.

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?

Ben D Bus · 17-03-2015 12:59am

Does anyone have some numbers that compare the density of central Dublin (roughly within the canals/circular roads) to other European cities?

Same question for the city proper (DCC area?) the 4 Dublin Local Authorities combined and the Greater Dublin Area?

hfallada wrote: »

The residents should be moved out to the suburbs.

How did that work out last time it was tried?

Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Comments