Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Aard · 12-04-2015 10:13pm

hfallada wrote: »

Houses shouldnt be built within redeveloped areas of the M50. Ideally everything should be like the German way of housing within cities, which is 8 storey apartment blocks centred around a tram/u-bahn station.

You'll find that it doesn't make economic sense to redevelop land inside the M50 as houses. It's too expensive to purchase already-developed land in order to amalgamate a site, and the sale price would be astronomical. Do you know any examples of houses built on redeveloped land inside the M50?

L1011 · 13-04-2015 9:58am

Glenmalure Park for one, albeit a while ago now. Definitely some around Santry too

Godge · 13-04-2015 11:20am

Aard wrote: »

You'll find that it doesn't make economic sense to redevelop land inside the M50 as houses. It's too expensive to purchase already-developed land in order to amalgamate a site, and the sale price would be astronomical. Do you know any examples of houses built on redeveloped land inside the M50?

Phoenix Park Racecourse.

Aard · 13-04-2015 11:45am

Did those schemes involve demolishing buildings and rebuilding? That's what I was talking about. There are of course many greenfild to houses schemes.

L1011 · 13-04-2015 1:01pm

Aard wrote: »

Did those schemes involve demolishing buildings and rebuilding? That's what I was talking about. There are of course many greenfild to houses schemes.

Yes, that's why I mentioned them.

Glenmalure Park was a football stadium and associated buildings, its now townhouses.

Out in Santry there were a number of cases of large 40s to 50s industrial buildings - warehouses, car CKD assembly plants, etc - knocked and rebuilt with housing estates in the 1970s onwards

Phoenix Park Racecourse had a number of buildings demolished also, in particular at the bit that got built on first.

Wasn't one of the factories along the Grand Canal at Blackhorse turned to normal density housing also?

There's also be infill development of townhouses around D4/D6 on former commercial sites but of smaller scale.

Peregrine · 13-04-2015 1:42pm

50 houses being built on the site of a former industrial building on Farnham Drive in Finglas right now.

Godge · 13-04-2015 3:13pm

Aard wrote: »

Did those schemes involve demolishing buildings and rebuilding? That's what I was talking about. There are of course many greenfild to houses schemes.

Canada Building is one commercial example.

Aard · 13-04-2015 8:10pm

Thanks for the examples; I hadn't been aware of them.

sdanseo · 13-04-2015 8:49pm

I'm not sure that enforcing or encouraging minimum heights is something we need as far out of the city as Santry or Finglas, to be fair.

I'd be quite happy if anything within the canal ring was made to be a minimum of 6 storeys unless there's a specific reason not to, with minima of perhaps 10 and 14 storeys in selected locations like the Docklands.

The policy of low rise is something that actually keeps Dublin with some character compared to other cities and it's nice to see, it's just been too strictly enforced. There's nothing wrong with widespread 10 or 20 storey buildings with the odd landmark building higher than that, but there's no need for us to suddenly become London or New York either.

Schadenfreudia · 13-04-2015 9:18pm

Aard wrote: »

No modern transport infrastructure in central Dublin?! Central Dublin is the best connected place on the island!

Not trying to be facetious - but that is a comment on the rest of the island.

Compared to nearly any modern European system the connections between Dublin centre and it's suburbs and between different parts of the city inside the canals is poor.

There are lots of clogged, slow bus routes - no metro or light rail links except for three narrow corridors that don't even link.

Compare that to Amsterdam!

Kermit.de.frog · 13-04-2015 9:51pm

sdanseo wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with widespread 10 or 20 storey buildings with the odd landmark building higher than that, but there's no need for us to suddenly become London or New York either.

Just because there is no need does not mean it should not happen. Cities smaller than Dublin have taller buildings. Even Belfast has taller buildings.

But it's more than just the non existent skyline. It is depriving the city of the type of density and population we need to create. It's depriving us of critical mass as a city.

And I do find it absolutely galling when some idiot in either media or Dublin City Council tells us they are protecting "Georgian" Dublin:

1. This is not Georgian Dublin. We need to build for now.

2. It's absolutely hilarious given the state the Georgian houses are in.

hfallada · 13-04-2015 11:04pm

sdanseo wrote: »

I'm not sure that enforcing or encouraging minimum heights is something we need as far out of the city as Santry or Finglas, to be fair.

I'd be quite happy if anything within the canal ring was made to be a minimum of 6 storeys unless there's a specific reason not to, with minima of perhaps 10 and 14 storeys in selected locations like the Docklands.

The policy of low rise is something that actually keeps Dublin with some character compared to other cities and it's nice to see, it's just been too strictly enforced. There's nothing wrong with widespread 10 or 20 storey buildings with the odd landmark building higher than that, but there's no need for us to suddenly become London or New York either.

Places like Germany generally are 8 storeys minimum close to city. As a result its viable to have tram and U-Bahn lines throughout the whole city. German cities tend to avoid the endless sprawl like Dublin. Although cities in NRW are a different story.

I remember up until 15 years ago you used to find farms at the edge of Glasnevin/Finglas/Ballymun. These farms have been replaced with generic housing and more of the countryside will be replaced with Generic housing. Why should we lose highly fertile land to protect 'our heritage'. Most of our Georgian Dublin is featureless offices or housing that isnt much better than the tenements that used to exist.

Dublin needs more housing and the best way is up and not outwards

Peregrine · 13-04-2015 11:10pm

Georgian and Victorian Dublin needs to be conserved(much better than it's being conserved right now), there's no question about it.

But that's not an excuse to build shoeboxes in the docklands.

Kermit.de.frog · 13-04-2015 11:25pm

I think you are being unfair to shoe boxes there.

This is dreadful. Such wasted opportunity to create a skyline

Idbatterim · 14-04-2015 12:35pm

when all of the land there has been built on and there is virtually no availability, you would wonder if some of the crap that was built in the 90's the 5 story ish stuff, mainly on the northside, will be demolished and rebuilt with a much higher density...

I think you are being unfair to shoe boxes there.

This is dreadful. Such wasted opportunity to create a skyline

I couldnt even be described as bad, it is a spectacular fail! Why, why do planners here and a lot of the population, think only on the smallest scale?!

MJohnston · 14-04-2015 4:00pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think you are being unfair to shoe boxes there.

This is dreadful. Such wasted opportunity to create a skyline

Dreadful is hyperbole - the Docklands has a few distinctive landmarks - tall buildings aren't necessarily going to create any kind of memorable skyline. Most US cities are far more dreadful than anything Dublin planning has given us, even though they're full of tall buildings.

Schadenfreudia · 14-04-2015 6:19pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Dreadful is hyperbole - the Docklands has a few distinctive landmarks - tall buildings aren't necessarily going to create any kind of memorable skyline. Most US cities are far more dreadful than anything Dublin planning has given us, even though they're full of tall buildings.

Point is - docklands is further removed from the Georgian City than high rise areas in many European city centres are separated from their old centres - Amsterdam being a good example.

The Dublin Georgian core needs to be defined - it lies inside the canals and stops at Heuston and the East Link - max.

Then preserve that if you wish.

Outside that, high-rise should be liberally permitted in selected areas and f**k the nonsense about it "ruining the vista" from any point in the Georgian core.

Peregrine · 14-04-2015 6:30pm

As a rule of thumb, the Georgian core, for me, lies between the canals and west of the DART line with a few exceptions (Custom House, parts of Pearse Street) and there are one or two isolated Victorian buildings on North Wall Quay that's worth keeping (mostly the former railway station and the adjacent hotel).

MJohnston · 14-04-2015 6:33pm

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Outside that, high-rise should be liberally permitted in selected areas and f**k the nonsense about it "ruining the vista" from any point in the Georgian core.

I don't buy into the 'ruin the view' notion at all, and would love to see some higher buildings around the Docklands, I just don't think the reality as-is is anywhere near "dreadful".

Aard · 14-04-2015 9:00pm

The reason for a height limit of 43m on the Convention Centre was so that the vista of the Georgian Mile wouldn't be negatively impacted upon.

sdanseo · 14-04-2015 11:15pm

Some interesting things in the SDZ masterplan if not already posted (apologies if so):

http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/Documents/NorthLottsandGrandCanalDockChapter4prt2.pdf

Pages 130-134 specifically.

D.L.R. · 14-04-2015 11:15pm

Aard wrote: »

The reason for a height limit of 43m on the Convention Centre was so that the vista of the Georgian Mile wouldn't be negatively impacted upon.

Maybe if we had a few tall buildings the ESB wouldn't need to be ON the Georgian Mile!

Idbatterim · 15-04-2015 12:15am

I just took a read of those pages 130-134, what absolute crap. Is there any mention in that document of the massive housing shortage, urban sprawl, the effect it has on peoples quality of life or are all these secondary to the bloody georgian architecture and this obsession with building office blocks and apartment blocks to the same height the georgians were buildings the same amount of floors over 300 years ago, when the georgian period started...

The rubbish being thrown up there makes us look like a city of 100,000 not one of over 1,000,000!

sdanseo · 15-04-2015 12:26am

Idbatterim wrote: »

I just took a read of those pages 130-134, what absolute crap. Is there any mention in that document of the massive housing shortage, urban sprawl, the effect it has on peoples quality of life or are all these secondary to the bloody georgian architecture and this obsession with building office blocks and apartment blocks to the same height the georgians were buildings the same amount of floors over 300 years ago, when the georgian period started...

The rubbish being thrown up there makes us look like a city of 100,000 not one of over 1,000,000!

I agree completely. While it's somewhat positive in mentioning Spencer Dock as "more suitable" for 10-12 storeys it's still in the dark ages except for "landmark" buildings. We need to be fostering certain areas of the city for better development and, as I said earlier, imposing minimum limits of perhaps 6 storeys anywhere within the canal ring. As I also said there's no need to turn us into New York, but in GCD area 14+ storeys should be the standard.

Found it very interesting as well that it mentions 50 units per hectare as a minimum standard for the area with a preference for going above that in the SDZ. 50 units in a 10,000sqm footprint is pretty damn poor.

Schadenfreudia · 15-04-2015 8:30am

Aard wrote: »

The reason for a height limit of 43m on the Convention Centre was so that the vista of the Georgian Mile wouldn't be negatively impacted upon.

I might concede that one but I presume that means that East of the Convention Centre there isn't any comparable view to spoil? (Hopefully)

crushproof · 15-04-2015 10:15am

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I might concede that one but I presume that means that East of the Convention Centre there isn't any comparable view to spoil? (Hopefully)

Of course there is. it might be your view, or my view...but it will be somebody's view, and they will no doubt kick up a fuss about this "historic vista" which ironically used to be an industrial toxic wasteland.

The more I've travelled the more I've come to realise that Dublin's Georgian City isn't all that grand, it's just large terraced red brick. Now I they should be conserved, and appreciated but when people give out about views being ruined I would simply send them to the North Inner City and ponder why they don't give a toss about the state of the Georgian townhouses there?

You'd swear the planners have never travelled themselves and seen the vibrancy a high density neighbourhood. Either this or they just simply don't have the heart to bother - knowing that NIMBYS, Senator Norris and An Tasice will intervene.

Idbatterim · 15-04-2015 4:21pm

A pity the Pds are not around anymore on a number of front IMO. But for anyone not aware of the plans they had for Dublin port and a high rise district, check the below link...

https://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/from-2006-a-new-heart-for-dublin-progressive-democrat-proposals-for-a-new-high-rise-quarter-where-dublin-port-was-with-great-pics/

I wonder what the plans are for the Irish glass bottle site? semi d's probably...

Pete_Cavan · 15-04-2015 5:42pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

when all of the land there has been built on and there is virtually no availability, you would wonder if some of the crap that was built in the 90's the 5 story ish stuff, mainly on the northside, will be demolished and rebuilt with a much higher density...

To say that when the docklands is developed that there will be virtually no availability left is an exaggeration. There are still a large number of infill sites left in the city, industrial type buildings where the business has relocated, numerous 60s/70s blocks of flats which are in need of redevelopment. There are also whole areas such as East Wall, Ringsend, Stoneybatter etc. which are mainly poor quality single storey houses which will be redeveloped over the coming decades. They even remain right behind Googles offices! There was a lot of crap built in the 50 years before the 90s that will be demolished and rebuilt before the 90s crap comes up for redevelopment.

Idbatterim · 15-04-2015 7:01pm

Originally Posted by Idbatterim View Post
when all of the land there has been built on and there is virtually no availability

To say that when the docklands is developed that there will be virtually no availability left is an exaggeration.

I am referring to the docklands and there wont be...

There was a lot of crap built in the 50 years before the 90s that will be demolished and rebuilt before the 90s crap comes up for redevelopment.

The 90's crap is commercial (I am referring mostly to some of the rubbish on the quays) and owned by a single investor or pension fund whatever, that's pretty straightforward, what are they going to do with the single storey cottages each with a different owner, CPO them?

L1011 · 15-04-2015 8:36pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

when all of the land there has been built on and there is virtually no availability, you would wonder if some of the crap that was built in the 90's the 5 story ish stuff, mainly on the northside, will be demolished and rebuilt with a much higher density...

I'd see the 1960s and 70s 4-6 storey private apartment blocks coming down first - lots of 99 year leases that I could see the freeholder looking to buy back on those. There's a fair few of those in D2/D4/D6.

Reuben1210 · 17-04-2015 5:37pm

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/lack-of-space-and-explosive-rise-in-office-rents-could-lead-to-big-losses-1.2178534

More warnings about lack of large office blocks...

Aard · 17-04-2015 8:43pm

The article clearly states that the funding isn't there for large projects. Who's gonna pay for these tall buildings that people seem to want? The risks are high to build a lot of floorspace (unless there's a tenant from the very start). Each additional storey costs a lot more than the last to build. So for tall buildings costs are high and financing thin.

hfallada · 17-04-2015 8:54pm

Aard wrote: »

The article clearly states that the funding isn't there for large projects. Who's gonna pay for these tall buildings that people seem to want? The risks are high to build a lot of floorspace (unless there's a tenant from the very start). Each additional storey costs a lot more than the last to build. So for tall buildings costs are high and financing thin.

Investment funds will invest in them. With yields on Government bonds being so poor, they will put their money into these projects. They have been buying up most of NAMA properties with yields of 4-6% no problem. Yields on investment properties here are excellent compared to Germany.

You will always fill quality offices in Dublin city. In the last 10 years, IT companies have taken up huge amounts of Dublin office space. They are continuing to expand and come to Ireland. They need office space.

The marginal costs for building taller are lower. Its basic economics. If you buy a plot of land for 10Million with other fees such as taxes, legal fees etc. The taller you build, the lower the initial cost of purchase will be per foot. As long as the sale price is greater than marginal costs, it makes sense to build higher.

If it doesnt make economic sense to build high rise. Why does secondary cities in the US like Portland have skyscapers? These countries dont have the best rents or sale prices. But it still make economic sense to build highrise.

Aard · 17-04-2015 9:02pm

hfallada wrote: »

The marginal costs for building taller are lower. Its basic economics. If you buy a plot of land for 10Million with other fees such as taxes, legal fees etc. The taller you build, the lower the initial cost of purchase will be per foot. As long as the sale price is greater than marginal costs, it makes sense to build higher.

Once you get above a certain height, it does get more expensive to build each extra storey.

monument · 17-04-2015 9:05pm

"High rise redevelopment opportunity" -- https://www.flickr.com/photos/turgidson/17146238786/

hfallada wrote: »

If it doesnt make economic sense to build high rise. Why does secondary cities in the US like Portland have skyscapers?

Secondary to what? Portland is the largest city in the state of Oregon.

Cool Mo D · 17-04-2015 10:04pm

Aard wrote: »

Once you get above a certain height, it does get more expensive to build each extra storey.

The increase in cost per-storey is pretty small if the building is under about 20 storeys though - unless you are trying to build super-tall, the cost to add a floor to a 20 storey building is not much more than adding a floor to a 6 storey building.

There's a paper here where they measure this by looking at how much it cost to construct buildings in Hong Kong that were between 6 and 60 storeys.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yung_Yau/publication/228267863_Determining_Optimal_Building_Height/links/00b7d5295683529cba000000.pdf

1huge1 · 17-04-2015 11:32pm

Not trying to get sidetracked but why after a certain stage does the costs start getting higher again?

Specific expertise, use of cranes, need for stronger support structures etc?

hfallada · 18-04-2015 10:38am

monument wrote: »

"High rise redevelopment opportunity" -- https://www.flickr.com/photos/turgidson/17146238786/

Secondary to what? Portland is the largest city in the state of Oregon.

I meant to say its a secondary city. Its a city with a population size similar to Dublin. If its economical to have high rise in a city like that, I imagine its economical to have high rise in Dublin

Idbatterim · 23-04-2015 3:31pm

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/tech-firms-now-claiming-a-third-of-dublin-cbd-offices-31163532.html

Tech firms now claiming a third of Dublin CBD offices

Technology, media and telecoms firms now occupy more than a third of all office space in central Dublin, as the boom in the sector shows no signs of abating.

According to a new report from Colliers International, some 35pc of office space in the city centre is now dedicated to tech firms.
The boom however has helped push office rents for the sector up sharply - to the point that only London and Stockholm are more expensive among European cities.
Colliers' research shows rents are now the equivalent of between €480 and €530 per square metre in Dublin's central business district. That trails only London's Shoreditch area at €770 to €840 per sq m and Stockholm, where rents for modern office space in the most central areas range between €400-and €580 per sq m.
The rate of rent increases in Dublin shows few signs of slowing either. The shortage of space in the most desirable parts of the city has prompted analysts to forecast office rents here will head past €600 per sq m by the end of this year. The increase in rents will add to worries about Ireland's competitiveness as it tries to attract foreign direct investment.
Colliers credit Dublin's tech expansion to the strength of the Irish economy, which saw GDP grow 5pc in 2014 and is predicted to increase by four per cent in 2015. Total tech office take-up reached 75,000sqm.
Colliers' director of business space in Dublin Paul Finucane commented: "A competitive recruitment environment has emerged and in order for the majority of new entrants to compete with existing operators in securing the best talent, rivalry for the best office space in the city centre as opposed to the suburbs has emerged.
"This resulted in a dramatic increase in rental levels where prime CBD rents increased by 40pc to €530 per sq m during the past 18 months, reflecting the scarcity of prime space available. Currently vacancy rates are estimated at approximately 3pc," he said.
The firm predicts the lack of supply in the CBD is likely to drive an increase in suburban take-up where prime quoting rents also increased but not at the same rate. Suburban rents now stand €270 per sq m in the more sought-after locations.
Colliers EMEA Senior Research Analyst Bruno Berretta said demand was being fuelled by "a combination of newcomers and established occupiers expanding their business operations.
"With a significant demand from the TMT sector, a consequently high proportion of the workforce has been drawn towards the Dublin market, too," he added.
Last year, Facebook leased 11,600 sqm taking its footprint to 23,000 sqm while LinkedIn purchased a site next door to its existing HQ, which is capable of housing approximately 15,800 sqm.
Twitter (which took up 9,300 sqm), Yahoo! (7,000 sqm) and Amazon (6,500 sqm) were also active.
"New entrants arrivals in Dublin include Calypso (up to 150 jobs) Guestlogix (100 jobs), and Sidetrade (90 jobs)," Mr Berretta noted.
Indo Business

markpb · 05-05-2015 11:13am

State agencies, including the National Transport Authority, the HSE and Nama, have urged Dublin City Council to remove restrictions on the construction of high-rise buildings in the city. The agencies have made separate submissions to the council ahead of the drafting of the new Dublin City Development Plan. It will come into force next year and will govern all construction in the city for the following five years.

Then city manager John Tierney had warned councillors against caps on heights because of “severe repercussions for the city’s competitiveness”. However, the plan covered a period where there was little construction activity.

[...]

In its submission on the new plan, the HSE said current height restrictions had had a “negative impact on the delivery of hospital facilities in Dublin city”. In 2012 An Bord Pleanála refused permission for a national children’s hospital at the Mater hospital, largely because of the effect the height of the 74m building would have on the city skyline.

The National Transport Authority’s submission cautions against height restrictions on “brownfield sites” in the city centre. Brownfield sites are vacant or underused lands, of which there are more than 61 hectares in the city centre zoned for commercial or residential development.

Submissions from Nama and the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland also sought flexibility regarding height.

[...]

City councillors will this week consider the submissions at their first development plan meeting. Several councillors have submitted motions cautioning against increased height. In his report to councillors council chief executive Owen Keegan said the current plan “acknowledges the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city”. He said it was likely that emerging signs of economic recovery would result in “increased development activity including pressure for higher buildings”.

Irish Times

I'm still lost about what the "intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city" actually means. I'm absolutely in favour of protecting historic buildings and vistas, I just wonder if there's something else at play here.

Aard · 05-05-2015 12:21pm

Limiting newbuild height in the city centre inflates the price of protected Georgian stock, buildings that can't be significantly extended. Not saying this is the reasoning, but handy for such landowners nonetheless.

Idbatterim · 05-05-2015 12:41pm

if the rubbish 6/7 storey stuff they have on the quays, was built to say 10/11 stories, they could claim that, that negates the need for "high rise" If they have such an issue with it, why dont they simply allow the low rise to become medium rise and then there wouldnt be as great a need for "high rise"...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/state-agencies-seek-end-of-high-rise-restrictions-1.2198735

Godge · 05-05-2015 1:55pm

markpb wrote: »

[url=Irish Times

I'm still lost about what the "intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city" actually means. I'm absolutely in favour of protecting historic buildings and vistas, I just wonder if there's something else at play here.

It is Owen-Keegan-speak.

Idbatterim · 05-05-2015 6:07pm

I wonder what his opinions on the sprawl, outrageous home prices and the rocketing commercial rents are?

But hey, its all good, once we maintain the non existent sky line we have... Let them live miles out, drive or commute for hours... Once we dont hurt the Georgian buildings feelings :rolleyes:

Aard · 05-05-2015 6:20pm

Worth bearing in mind that Keegan pretty much has to do as councillors instruct. The reason for low-rise in the development plan is due to councillors, not planners/staff.

monument · 05-05-2015 6:36pm

Aard wrote: »

Worth bearing in mind that Keegan pretty much has to do as councillors instruct. The reason for low-rise in the development plan is due to councillors, not planners/staff.

Well said.

Here's some of the views from the last time the height limits were being set...

Council challenged on “anti-social” height limits

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Dublin City councillors were asked on Tuesday night if they intend to make the city a mausoleum with “anti-socially” low building height limits.
Challenging his fellow councillors on the city’s Draft City Development Plan, Cllr Bill Tormey (FG), also asked if they wanted to make Dublin a mausoleum.

After making similar comments at a Dublin City Council meeting, Tormey wrote yesterday: “Do [councillors] intend to fossilise the city into a theme park for perambulating geriatrics post work and the hustle and bustle of productive life? Make Dublin a mausoleum for the Ulysses Era where James Joyce could wander around his theme park forever.”

The council voted for a normal maximum height of six storeys for residential and seven storeys for offices (19m – 28m) in the inner city, and four storeys (13m – 16m) for both offices and residential in the outer city.

Areas within 500m from Dart, Metro North and other train stations will be defined as rail hubs. The heights for these areas will be set at six storeys (19m – 24m) for both offices and residential.

Mid-rise is to be set as up to 16 storeys for residential and 12 storeys for offices, or up to 50m. The mid-rise areas are Phibsborough, Grangegorman, the Digital Hub, the North Fringe, Clonshaugh Industrial Estate, Ballymun, Pelletstown, Park West, Cherry Orchard and the Naas Road. Above 50m is defined as high-rise, includes an area in the Docklands, areas around Connolly and Heuston stations, and George’s Quay.

However, all areas defined as mid or high rise are to remain low rise until a Local Area Plan is put in place which will determine the maximum height of buildings. The process of Local Area Plans is slow with heavy influence from councillors.

Voting on what was seen as a comprise plan on heights, 31 councillors voted for the proposals, 12 against and one abstained.

Meanwhile, the majority of councillors voted against a motion which wanted the rail hub heights to be reduced from six to five storeys.

Cllr Brid Smith (People Before Profit Alliance) said the development plan should be about people, not buildings. Cllr Deirdre Heney (FF) claimed that people think that seven storeys is high rise.

Heney said, “We are living in a low rise city. Nobody at any residents’ association meeting I have ever attended consider seven storeys low rise, they consider seven storeys high rise. And, whether the city manager likes it or not, the people in Dublin do not want to live in a high rise city. People in Dublin like low rise.”

She said she has serious concern over proposals for 16 storeys at areas like the North Fringe and Clonshaugh Industrial Estate.

Meanwhile, Cllr Vincent Jackson (Independent) accused some councillors of being parochial, and not strategic for Dublin.

Cllr Dessie John Ellis (Sinn Fein) noted that heights have hardly changed in 100 years, and that Georgian buildings in the inner city are five storeys high. Ellis said, “We have only gone up one and two storeys effectively in over 100 years. It’s not a huge leap by any stretch of the imagination.”

Cllr Andrew Montague (Labour) said people commuting long distances into Dublin is not the future. He added that a real debate about quality is being missed due to focus on height.

Tormey said as a councillor he is a developer and wants to encourage industry, jobs and high quality of living. He says his objective is to advocate for the whole country not for a narrow sectional interest.

He added: “Are we happy to formulate an anti-social plan to condemn citizens to hours of commuting per day at huge expense and waste of personal and family time? Do we want the suburbs to be Navan, Mullingar, Drogheda and Dundalk? None of these people has any direct influence on our selfish, closed, insular decisions because they do not have a vote in elections or have a voice in residents’
associations.”

All parts of the draft development plan voted on which differ from the previous version will be put out for a second round of public consultation.
The video record of the debate can currently be found dublincity.public-i.tv, look under recent webcasts and titled “Special Meeting of City Council – Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011 – 2017 – Tuesday 27th July 2010” and then click on index point “17.6 Building Height in a Sustainable City.”

Re the bits I've bolded, which is worse: "they consider seven storeys high rise" or concern over proposals for 16 storeys at new development areas like the North Fringe and Clonshaugh Industrial Estate?

It's also worth saying that some wanted rail hub heights to be reduced from six to five storeys even after the definition of a rail hub was reduced from a radius of 1km to a radius of 500m from a train/metro station.

Note: I'm the author and full copyright holder of the above news report and I'm ok with it being posted in full here on boards.ie as above.

Idbatterim · 05-05-2015 6:43pm

Heney said, “We are living in a low rise city. Nobody at any residents’ association meeting I have ever attended consider seven storeys low rise, they consider seven storeys high rise. And, whether the city manager likes it or not, the people in Dublin do not want to live in a high rise city. People in Dublin like low rise.”

what total and utter rubbish, it would be good to have the option, if I dont want to live in a high rise, I will choose not to. I'd imagine a huge amount of people would love to live in a slick high rise in the docklands with great views... The thousands employed in all the I.T firms in the docklands for a start.

(Sinn Fein) noted that heights have hardly changed in 100 years, and that Georgian buildings in the inner city are five storeys high. Ellis said, “We have only gone up one and two storeys effectively in over 100 years. It’s not a huge leap by any stretch of the imagination.”

I made this point on this thread a while ago.

Worth bearing in mind that Keegan pretty much has to do as councillors instruct. The reason for low-rise in the development plan is due to councillors, not planners/staff.

Are the councillors voted in?

monument · 05-05-2015 6:50pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Are the councillors voted in?

Yes, at the local elections, last happened last year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_local_elections,_2014

Aard · 05-05-2015 6:50pm

Seems like one of the major stumbling blocks, trivial though it sounds, is simply defining what is and isn't low/med/high rise!

monument · 05-05-2015 6:54pm

For anybody interested: A council meeting on the development plan is happening now and being webcasted now: http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/175089

I'm not sure if there will be much or any detail on heights.

Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Comments