Time for An Taisce to call it a day?

Metrobest

Originally intended as a watchdog on poor planning, An Taisce has morphed into a kind of architectural morality police; its dogma can best be summed up as:

Bland, Low rise suburbia good
High rise bad

First it horrified commuters by delaying DART Upgrade for at least three months, now it want to see the iconic U2 Tower chopped down to a measly 60 metres.

The question is, since its recent objections have miscalculated so badly, why can't we just give An Taisce the chop?

http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=4919

Ian Lumley, of An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, says: "We were very happy with the original 60m proposal and don't see the need for these megalomaniac schemes. The previous plan was very harmonious and these new proposals threaten to undermine the good relations that have been built up in the area between residents and developers." The trust's view is that developers overpaid for the land and are trying to recoup the cost by building higher. It queries whether the U2 Tower scheme has had a proper environmental impact assessment.

Dublin City Council recently published a consultation document, "Maximising the City's Potential," which addresses the issue: "High buildings have a part to play as...high-density clusters with significant capacity to promote urban regeneration and increase Dublin's competitive edge."

An Taisce has plans to table a strongly worded objection. "These proposals threaten to destroy one of the last great low-rise European city centres," Lumley says.

The trend for high-rise is not confined to the historic centre of Dublin. In June last year the developer Sean Dunne submitted plans for the seven-acre Jurys Berkeley Court site in the smart neighbourhood of Ballsbridge. These included a 37-storey, 132m tower as the centrepiece: its architect, Ulrik Raysse, described it as "cut like a diamond." The plans, however, cut no ice with planners: after vociferous local opposition, they requested further details from the developer. These were submitted in January; the council is due to reply by next week.

steve-o

Dublin needs good architecture allied with good planning. While I think An Taisce have made a mess of things lately, they serve a valuable purpose in defending us from bad development.

High rise has its place, and right now the planners have designated where they think it belongs. Several buildings over 30 floors have been granted permission in recent years. But the commercial reality is that money is in short supply. Have of the planned high rises started construction yet?

Regarding the U2 tower, the planning has been an awful mess. The first winning design was discarded immediately, simply because the DDDA forgot who has submitted it. The second was that beautiful twisting tower that was discarded when it was deemed too difficult to build. I personally don't like the third design, and I'd be happy if it wasn't built. It's not a matter of height - it's just ugly.

[I think this thread is in the wrong forum!]

paulm17781

I think An Taisce definitely have a roll to play but find they go too far too frequently. Preventing the demolition of an historic site is one thing. Preventing the destruction of our country side with semi-d's is something I think they should look at more. Stopping the city evolving as cities need to do is a terrible thing and one that should be completely outside of their remit. Heritage is one thing, stopping significant changes is another.

Zoney

I don't think people are being reasonable here. An Taisce are playing their role, and those in charge of planning decisions are going to weigh up their opinion against others. Just as well we have the likes of An Taisce, because the other opinions are frequently just from cowboys who want to make a quick buck.

As regards high-rise, just because it may make sense does not mean high-rise plans should be approved when they are poorly thought out from cowboys just looking to make a quick buck.

There is little danger of people taking a conservative attitude to planning here. The Dublin low-rise problem (Limerick and Dublin have higher buildings in general now it would seem) is more likely down to wanting to make more people rich from developing far more land. It's not about conserving the Dublin skyline.

paulm17781

Zoney wrote: »

The Dublin low-rise problem (Limerick and Dublin have higher buildings in general now it would seem) is more likely down to wanting to make more people rich from developing far more land. It's not about conserving the Dublin skyline.

Should An Taisce not be focusing on that instead of preventing city skylines from changing? ?

Victor

Moved from Commuting & Transport.

Metrobest

paulm17781 wrote: »

I think An Taisce definitely have a roll to play but find they go too far too frequently. Preventing the demolition of an historic site is one thing. Preventing the destruction of our country side with semi-d's is something I think they should look at more. Stopping the city evolving as cities need to do is a terrible thing and one that should be completely outside of their remit. Heritage is one thing, stopping significant changes is another.

Exactly, I agree totally that Ireland should have a national trust looking after individual buildings and streets that are deemed to be of heritage value, but where An Taisce shows its true ideology is in its statement that the U2 Tower would destroy "one of the last great European low rise city centres".

We have agencies that can approve or reject planning applications, we have master plans for certain areas such as Docklands, so it is totally outside of An Taisce's remit to start objecting to plans for high rise in situations where it does not compromise any existing heritage building or street.

This unelected quango needs have its wings clipped.

MadsL

Stopping the city evolving as cities need to do is a terrible thing and one that should be completely outside of their remit. Heritage is one thing, stopping significant changes is another.

Significant changes such as a 51 storey tower opposite Guinness? A 30 odd storey at the Digital Hub? Preventing (hopefully) U2 going barking mad with the Clarence?

Exactly, I agree totally that Ireland should have a national trust looking after individual buildings and streets that are deemed to be of heritage value, but where An Taisce shows its true ideology is in its statement that the U2 Tower would destroy "one of the last great European low rise city centres".

There is one. The Heritage Council, largely 'harmless' according to the Hitchhikers guide....:)

We have agencies that can approve or reject planning applications, we have master plans for certain areas such as Docklands, so it is totally outside of An Taisce's remit to start objecting to plans for high rise in situations where it does not compromise any existing heritage building or street.

The 'agencies' are the local authorities; being increasingly seen as soft-touches by speculative developers. If you were to see what Dublins skyline would look like were it not for An Taisce, trust me you would be horrified.

This unelected quango needs have its wings clipped.

Perhaps you should do some research. An Taisce is a charity. Perhaps you would like to join and make your voice heard?

....and yes I am a member - proudly so.

Oh, should Failte Ireland also 'get the chop' ???

U2's plans for a €150m revamp of the Clarence Hotel in Dublin have not been given one hundred thousand welcomes by Failte Ireland, the national tourism authority.

Failte Ireland criticised the project, saying that the planned dramatic facelift for the hotel -- owned by Bono and The Edge -- contravenes policies relating to conservation and does not constitute sustainable development.

The comments were made by Paddy Mathews, the authority's manager for Environment and Planning, in a submission that will be made at an An Bord Pleanala oral hearing about the case later this month.

Carawaystick

quango - quasi autonomous non government organisation

sounds like AT meet this definition.

AT are informed of certain planning applications made and can make submissions for of them for free, while normal citizens cannot.

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

AT are informed of certain planning applications made and can make submissions for of them for free, while normal citizens cannot.

Thereby encouraging normal citizens to cooperate with each other or with civic organisations.

There are lots of organisations that don't have to pay obsevation fees.

gjim

metrobest wrote:

Bland, Low rise suburbia good
High rise bad

Could you point to any statement that AT have ever made where they champion low rise suburbia? The opposite is the case if you did any research; AT is completely against urban and suburban sprawl and champion increased density for cities, towns and villages. Please have the honesty and integrity to withdraw this claim as you are effectively slandering a largely volunteer organisation.

Carawaystick wrote:

quango - quasi autonomous non government organisation

sounds like AT meet this definition.

You are being disingenious. The term quango, like lots of acronyms has an accepted meaning more specific than its expansion. Half the charities in the country and some semi-state companies would also qualify under the vague "quasi autonomous non government organisation" definition but that does not make them quangos. A quango is an professional executive agency created by the government to run some part of the public sector. An Taisce is no such thing. It is overwhelmingly run by volunteers and has open membership and a democratic structure.

Finally, I find AT bashing to generally be the preserve of the gombeen (usually a councillor, builder or auctioneer with a vested interest) or the ignorant. It is always accompanied by a complete lack of understanding or knowledge of AT's organisation, funding, aims and actions. Because they don't have a professional PR department nor do they resort to the legal system to defend themselves from slanderous attact, they are viewed as fair game by anyone with a gripe.

If you thinking sticking towers into the middle of historic areas of Dublin will do anything except turn the public completely against high rise while doing little to increase the density of Dublin, you are deluded. We have only now gotten around to being able discuss high-rise for the city after the scars left by the last round of brutalist or high-rise building in the 1960s. I can guarantee you that if some of the high-rise proposals from the last couple of years had been granted, we'd be looking at anouther 30 years of implacable political and public opposition to anything over 6 stories.

I am a (non active) member.

MadsL

Oh and thinking about this....

I find it deeply ironic that someone with opportunity to look around Barcelona with it's strictly protected historic core and only 9 buildings over 100m in height and not draw comparisons with Dublin.

And then you come on this forum and call for highrise in Dublin's core and the 'clipping of AT wings'. What? :eek:

Metrobest

Some points.

An Taisce does, by default, champion Irish sububia. Its belief that the centre of Dublin constitutes one of "the last great low-rise European city centres" is very dogmaticl and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how cities are developing across Europe. An Taisce says it opposes low rise suburbia, yet the targets of its objection are invariably iconic (high rise) projects such as the U2 Tower or the Ballsbridge plan.

This is not an argument against conservation. There are plenty of historic spaces in Dublin that need to be - and are being - well preserved, in particular the Georgian core in the North and South city centres. Lessons from the past have been learnt.

However the whole city centre cannot become a kind of architectural theme park dominated by outdated and unsustainable three-floor buildings of little architectural merit. Most of the quays in general and Burgh Quay in particular are ugly and have little or nothing in the way of architectural merit. Relatively speaking, it is already a high rise district. The question now is of turning it into a sustainable high rise district, as would happen in other cities.

In relation to U2's plans for the Clarence I watched agog at claims that this building would "dominate" Dublin's skyline. If anything, I'd like to see that particular building go higher like the riverside profile in Bilbao. Visit Bilbao and see once-dirty old city, just like Dublin still is in many places, being transformed into an architectural jewel right before your eyes. That's what Dublin has to aspire to. But An Taisce's objection to iconic projects destroys new ideas which would be embraced in other cities.

Finally in relation to Barcelona the previous post is not factually accurate. Anyone with knowledge of Barcelona will tesfity to its advanced urban planning history which has included a lot of tall buildings. The city has a density far superior to that of Dublin; Barcelona has the feel of a metropolis while Dublin feels more like a provincial town in many ways with its low building profile and lack of iconic new architecture. The Torre Agbar by Nouvelle has proven a spectualar addition to Barcelona's skyline and may come to define the city in the same way the Eiffel Tower (originally hated) does for Paris. Also along the New Diagonal there are spectacular buildings sprouting up. And in the "Old" Diagonal there are lots of other high rise examples such as the Bank Sabadell Tower and Deutsche Bank Tower. These are all skyscrapers in the sense that "the force of altitude is in them, they are in every inch a proud and soaring thing", which is what a true skyscaper should be. Sadly, nothing (yet) in Dublin can match that definition.

Finally, when the poster speaks about Barcelona's "strictly protected historical core" he must not be aware of the the fact that one of the city's main office streets, Via Laeintana, (with average building height of about ten floors) was built in the early 20th Century by demolishing a maze of tiny streets in the old town. Yet the street today is a glorious (although traffic choked) avenue with stunning classical tall buildings. Had an Taisce been active in Barcelona at that time, the area would have stayed the way it was, stifling city development, and turning the area into some kind of human zoo.

steve-o

Metrobest wrote: »

the targets of its objection are invariably iconic (high rise) projects such as the U2 Tower or the Ballsbridge plan.

What aspect of those two proposed towers to you consider iconic?

gjim

So you've gone from accusing them of being motivated by nothing more than "low rise suburbia good, high rise bad" to being champions of suburbia "by default". This is despite the fact that they are explicitly against low rise sprawl.

Your sideswipe was a cheapshot, I believe, against a volunteer non-profit organisation; not a perfect organisation by any means but an organisation which does far more good than bad on balance given the almost overwhelming strength of their opposition: the collection of special interests both commercial and political who back to the hilt the tendency of county councils all over the country (motivated by development levies) to rezone random fields for low-rise suburban housing estates even if miles from any infrastructure or to flatten any bits of our built heritage which might get in the way of some cheap development.

You couldn't be more wrong blaming AT for this tendency. If it weren't for the likes of AT along side some members of An Bord Pleanala and a few enlightened and stubborn planners around the country, then suburban low rise low density housing would be allowed everywhere. Given how cheap it is to build (because the cost of providing infrastructure is not externalised) there would be no economic or financial motivation whatsoever for developers to build anything in the country taller than 2 stories. Why would you when you could buy acres of agricultural land for a relative pittance and slap up cheap semi-ds? There might be one or two trophy multi-million euro apartment towers (which would seem to satisfy you) but the overall effect on the country would be disastrous.

Have you ever in your life admitted you were just wrong about anything? You can just say something like "ok I didn't know that - that's interesting" or "yeah - maybe it's not AT fault" and you will appear far more sympathetic. Buried among your generalisations and wriggling, you actually do actually have some interesting ideas.

Metrobest

Where I'm wrong I'll admit it. My knowledge of An Taisce is based only on what I have consumed about them in the Irish media. The media focuses only on high profile projects such as Dart Upgrade or U2 Tower, and many positive things An Taisce stands for, according to its defenders such as you, have been overlooked. That is a fair point, and I accept it.

You cannot blame people (and I'm not the only one) for having a negative impression of An Taisce. What we hear from An Taisce (in the media) is objections, and in particular objections about high rise projects that would actually benefit the spatial planning of Dublin.

I stand corrected that their ideology is "low rise suburbia good". However the keenness to preserve/conserve existing building heights in central Dublin does by default maintain the unhealthy status quo: a city centre with average building height of 3/4 storeys, surrounded by houses with gardens. And that's not sustainable going forward.

When An Taisce descibes Dublin as a "great low rise centre" and schemes such as the U2 as "megaolmaniac", I think it's fair for me to say they are not exacly fans of vertical architecture per se. Or am I wrong about that, too?

The question I raised, at the beginning of the thread, is about the actual point of An Taisce's existence, for they certainly haven't stopped the proliferation of unhealthy development across every town, city and village in Ireland over the last decade of economic boom. And it's a valid question to ask.

The planning system in Ireland is a sick system. Money talks. So does media and power. An Taisce is the most powerful "charity" in existence, and as such has access to media and power. It therefore has to be open to criticism.

There's more than one way to get better planning in Ireland and let's not elevate An Taisce to an undeserved god-like status. Their opinions, which is what their objections essentially represent, are as likely to feature flawed thinking as anyone else's. And as much as An Taisce I am am prone to being wrong.

But I do have interesting ideas and I care about conservation like An Taisce does. And I want to see Dublin become the tier 1 city it deserves to be. But if An Taisce's ideas are followed Dublin will forever languish behind the vanguard.

MadsL

An Taisce is the most powerful "charity" in existence, and as such has access to media and power.

If only that were true; sadly An Taisce has neither access to media or power. As you stated, your knowledge of AT is limited to what you have read in the media. Irish reporting, particularly on planning matters is scattered at best.

The question I raised, at the beginning of the thread, is about the actual point of An Taisce's existence, for they certainly haven't stopped the proliferation of unhealthy development across every town, city and village in Ireland over the last decade of economic boom. And it's a valid question to ask.

And what do you propose replaces AT in stopping unhealthy development?

let's not elevate An Taisce to an undeserved god-like status

Who has done this? The reverse is more likely, especially after their rightful opposition to singe-unit development in rural areas.

forever languish behind the vanguard.

The vanguard being where exactly? Frankfurt? London? Madrid?

paulm17781

MadsL wrote: »

And what do you propose replaces AT in stopping unhealthy development?

But that's for the councils to decide. AT do have a lot of sway and I agree with Metrobest that in cities they do seem to have a one sided view. AT is made of people who feel strongly about development. Generally their views IMO are too strict. If they completely focused on sites of historical importance or the country well and good but they tend to oppose many major projects, most of which should be outside their remit. The docklands (a formerly deprived area) is going to be redeveloped. An area like that should be high rise for maximum benefit. AT should look at things like that from a view of "is there infrastructure to support it" not a "Dublin is one of the few remaining low rise cities" view.

I think they have a partto play but they also have a lot of sway. I don't think where an area has been designated for high rise, they should have any input. If someone wants to put a 60 story building in Merrion Sq. that's a different matter and one where their input should be both taken on board and is welcome.

MadsL

But that's for the councils to decide

Who watches the councils?

If they completely focused on sites of historical importance or the country well and good but they tend to oppose many major projects, most of which should be outside their remit. The docklands (a formerly deprived area) is going to be redeveloped

AT has never disputed the concept of the redevelopment of the Docklands with the exception of the fiasco that is the U2 tower.

AT has had a policy of following the DEGW study in 2000, agreed by DCC, that the two areas of Dublin suitable for highrise were Docklands and Heuston Gateway. AT policy has been to appeal 'unplanned' (as in outside the Development Plan) high-rise in other areas. DCC has granted permission for the following since then;

16-storey development - Thomas Street,
13-storey apartment block - Tivoli Theatre
12-storey residential scheme - School Street
13-storey building - Bridgefoot Street.
16-storey element - Arnotts
11-storey - Chancery St,
13-storey development - Merrion Road,

All of which have been appealled and overturned by An Bord Pleanala, largely as the developments breach the council's own Development Plan.

With these type of permissions being granted by DCC - who do you suggest (if not An Taisce) ensures that DCC adheres to it's own democratically agreed Development Plan. Personally, I do not believe that DCC Planning management (it is clear that DCC Planners get overruled on a regular basis) can be trusted to follow their own Development Plan.

If this type of development you feel is outside of the remit of AT, then who is going to police the Dublin City and other councils?? Private individuals? Dept of Env? Or should we just let planning permissions be sought that breach the Development Plan and if they are 'lucky' enough not to be objected, then allow such developments to take place outside of any strategic development framework and just live with the resulting infrastructure problems (parking/traffic management) incoherant mess of the skyline (adhoc towers etc) and the consequential incentive for deriliction leading to overdevelopment of plot ratios.

The grave consequences of this type of developer-led policy can be easily seen with a visit to the ESB HQ on Fitzwilliam St, I thought that the lessons of that mistake had been learnt. However when I walk along Thomas St it is clear that property owners of derelict Georgians there are just waiting for the main chance to demolish and overdevelop.

The Green Party leader and Minister for the Environment John Gormley said today that 'the days of irresponsible planning in Ireland are over'.

If only that were true.

Metrobest

16-storey development - Thomas Street,
13-storey apartment block - Tivoli Theatre
12-storey residential scheme - School Street
13-storey building - Bridgefoot Street.
16-storey element - Arnotts
11-storey - Chancery St,
13-storey development - Merrion Road,

None of these buildings meet a skyscaper definition, they are just tall buildings. What is it about them that scares you?

I get the whiff of snobbery about high rise in Dublin that's reflected in development plan and of course by the targets An Taisce decides to object to.

The development plan says it's fine to stick a tall building in a working class area but never to put it anwhere near where rich people live. This is a purely cultural phenomenon. In other parts of the world, such as Latin America, it is the rich who live in high rise and the poor in one storey houses.

I think Dublin needs a directly-elected mayor who can act as a watchdog on planning, and one of the key issues in such a campaign would be transport and development. Nobody elected An Taisce, yet it has assumed a degree of importance it does not deserve.

And breathtaking arrogance.

If this type of development you feel is outside of the remit of AT, then who is going to police the Dublin City and other councils?? Private individuals? Dept of Env? Or should we just let planning permissions be sought that breach the Development Plan and if they are 'lucky' enough not to be objected,

The goal should be to increase civic particpation across the city. So yes, private individuals should be engaged and consulted about big projects, like what is happening with MetroNorth, and feel they can make their voices heard. The weight of emphasis should always be about people who are directly affected by a proposed development, not charities such as An Taisce that are objecting purely out of a dislike of certain types of modern architecture.

I also think that the city needs to impose tighter controls on development so that they are of a mixed use, and better regulate public spaces.

What has an Taisce done about the amount of gated apartment buildings in Dublin? It seems there is no objection from An Taisce so long as the aparment buildings are not tall and "harmonise" with their surroundings. Wouldn't one forty floor mixed use skyscaper be far superior to forty gated apartment buildings. That's what I mean by sustainable high rise.

High rise development can actually open up new public spaces, for example a mixed use skyscraper could have a public library, a viewing gallery, a winter skygarden and a gym, along with new pubic plazas outside the buildings due to less land being consumed. High rise is an opportunity, not a threat as you see it. You should be campaigning for better high rise, not no high rise.

However when I walk along Thomas St it is clear that property owners of derelict Georgians there are just waiting for the main chance to demolish and overdevelop.

Overdevelop? Hardly. There's a good reason Dublin the "last" great low rise centre in Europe - every other city has copped on to the fact that high rise is only sustainable future.

Dublin is a hideously underdeveloped city. The larger urban zone of Dublin ranks 34th on Eurostat's list, behind Bari and Leeds-Bradford. It's an unacceptable position for a capital city in a nation that has experienced a decade-long economic boom. Dublin's architectural should be a reflection of the dynamic success that has been experienced, like that seen in Singapore or Hong Kong. Cities striving for a better future. The architectural legacy of Dublin's boom is a raft of housing estates and a beautiful but useless spire on O'Connell Street.

The vanguard being where exactly? Frankfurt? London? Madrid?

What is your point?

The vanguard means cities that are at the forefront of planning and development. Do you think Dublin is at the forefront of planning and development? How do you rank Dublin?

And what is your idea for the future development of Dublin? What model do you want Dublin to follow?

paulm17781

I have never made a business plan that hasn't varied due to input or new ideas / technology. DCCs development plan should be just that, a plan. If someone comes along with a good idea, it should be up to DCC to decide. Not a group of NIMBYs.

galwayrush

paulm17781 wrote: »

I have never made a business plan that hasn't varied due to input or new ideas / technology. DCCs development plan should be just that, a plan. If someone comes along with a good idea, it should be up to DCC to decide. Not a group of NIMBYs.

They are obsessive here in Galway with objecting to any proposed building that is exciting, modern or over three floors in height.

Irish and Proud

steve-o wrote: »

Dublin needs good architecture allied with good planning. While I think An Taisce have made a mess of things lately, they serve a valuable purpose in defending us from bad development.

High rise has its place, and right now the planners have designated where they think it belongs. Several buildings over 30 floors have been granted permission in recent years. But the commercial reality is that money is in short supply. Have of the planned high rises started construction yet?

Regarding the U2 tower, the planning has been an awful mess. The first winning design was discarded immediately, simply because the DDDA forgot who has submitted it. The second was that beautiful twisting tower that was discarded when it was deemed too difficult to build. I personally don't like the third design, and I'd be happy if it wasn't built. It's not a matter of height - it's just ugly.

[I think this thread is in the wrong forum!]

I don't like the current proposal for the U2 tower - it's far too bulky in shape - why not go for something like a smaller version of the Chicago Spire - it's a real nice sleek building. I don't see any reason why we can't go for a few buildings of 50 to 70 storeys in the docklands. Such ambition such work out if the architectural criteria is strict enough and a reasonable proportion of such landmarks rendered for public and social use - thereby maintaining a good balance in planning terms.

Regards!