'Shaping the city' -Dublin as a low-rise capital

DCC Planning Secretariat

Dublin is acknowledged as a low-rise city and the Council's Draft Development Plan intends to retain this intrinsic quality and ensure that it remains predominantly so in the future.

Do you think this is an appropriate stance for the city to take? Can the city accommodate greater height without comprising the city’s unique identity?

Chapter 5 of the Development Plan is called “Shaping the City.” It outlines the approach and proposed actions the city will take regarding the form and structure of the city over the next six years. You can read a short summary of the chapter, including some specific policies and objectives, or download the original here.

You can also make a written submission directly to Dublin City Council on the subject using the online submission form here.

---

Dublin City Council's 'Draft Development Plan, 2011-2017' is currently open for public consultation. The plan explains City Council strategy on everything from allotments and accommodation for artists to new economic corridors, new neighbourhoods, green spaces and low rise buildings.

We’re encouraging Dubliners to look at the Draft Plan, discuss any issues on these boards and make a comment directly to Dublin City Council via the online submission form.

You can find out more at www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie where there are videos, text summaries and an interactive map of Dublin in 2017. All feedback will be reviewed before the plan is adopted by the City Council at the end of the year.

---

PaulieC

when you say 'the ciy's unique identity' you mean that of sprawling suburbs with no facilities and commuters driving thousands of miles per year to work ?

gollem_1975

DCC shaping the city.

Don't tell me there is a plan to build more houses and apartments in Dublin ?

High-rise : Dublin Corporations management of so-called high rise public housing estates would not give me confidence that High-rise is the way to go.

On the other hand we have 2 storey houses within 5 minute walk of o'connell street and stretch all the way out to the meath border leading to issues mentioned in the post above.

what can the current local authorities realistically do about that.

<blue sky thinking>

Ideally I think we'd have housing stock such as I have seen in Edinburgh.

4 storey buildings with large , sound proof apartments and communal gardens ( i think they were built during the georgian period..am open to correction though ) stretching outward from the city centre.

</blue sky thinking>

I think if there was a form of light rail that ran alongside the length of the M50 that would also be a good idea ( not everyone has a car )

admiralofthefleet

we need to go up, sprawl hasnt worked so far and as another poster said it leaves people driving thousands of miles per year to work as public trasnsport doesnt exist in dublin

markpb

gollem_1975 wrote: »

High-rise : Dublin Corporations management of so-called high rise public housing estates would not give me confidence that High-rise is the way to go.

Why would you judge a building density based on the (mis-)management of a local authority that no longer exists? There are several apartment blocks of 8+ stories in Dublin at the moment - maybe they're faring better?

RandolphEsq

High rise + apartments large enough to raise families + soundproof = success!

gollem_1975

RandolphEsq wrote: »

High rise + apartments large enough to raise families + soundproof = success!

high rise living is not all roses though

watched this clip a while back ...not when it originally came out mind you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9FIrPT-3PY

gollem_1975

markpb wrote: »

Why would you judge a building density based on the (mis-)management of a local authority that no longer exists? There are several apartment blocks of 8+ stories in Dublin at the moment - maybe they're faring better?

did they sack everyone in Dublin Corporation when it became Dublin City Council ? same same but different ?

sure lessons may have been learned and in fact I favour high density rather than the current low-rise sprawl ( I am speaking as an ordinary Dub - I don't have any town planning/estate management/architectural training etc. )

I think Dublins "low-rise identity" will not be under threat for a long time to come.

what can DCC do ? its not as though they can order estates of low-rise terrace and semi-d's to be knocked down and replaced by high-rise. I can't see any major housing developments taking place in the short to medium term considering there is an overhang of unsold properties all over the county.

I'd think there is a happy medium .. think of those 4 storey blocks ala Edinburgh or the streets one will see in European cities such as Paris where much of the buildings are about 5 storeys high.

sron

How about we stave off the building for a while? Put the trowel down, DCC, and wait till we actually need more buildings.

markpb

sron wrote: »

How about we stave off the building for a while? Put the trowel down, DCC, and wait till we actually need more buildings.

You're missing the point. This is about actually having a plan for the future, not about doing any building right now. When people start to build again, we could have a proper plan saying where high and low density will be allowed and what services will be required from the city (and country) when they're built.

The very lack of planning you're asking for is part of the reason we're in trouble now.

Dyr

Dublin city council don't plan, they scheme.

hmmm

I've never talked to a single person in "real life" who thinks that Dublin's lowrise skyline is special. There are a couple of other cities around the world with lowrise skylines and you can immediately pick them out, but Dublin? It's a hodgepodge of buildings, mostly drab and many run down.

I've also never talked to a single person in real life who likes sprawl and likes returning to the arse end of nowhere every evening. Of course not everyone wants to live in apartments, but if we can get those who do want to live in apartments living closer to the city centre then the whole city becomes more compacted.

I do hear these "lowrise" people on the radio every now and again - who are these people? Why are DCC even posing this question?

Pete4779

It makes sense as they have allowed the sprawl to develop so far, that encouraging more efficient and taller buildings would mean the useless empty estates circling the M50 would rot and die.

*Now* that it is a sprawled low-rise city where tall buildings are obsructed as much as possible, they decide "yes it is a low-rise city".

A Disgrace

High rise, done right, can add a lot to a city. High denistiy in turn does not have to be high rise.. Sure, there are areas where an average of and above 10 stories could and should be sustained (Docklands, Hawkins st, Hueston), but the idea of Dubin being low-rise is also sorta right, such as in the Georgian City.. Everyone knows that the Docklands is a distaster in terms of density, and now is the time to right the wrongs in that area..

I'd plonk 15+ story buildings in these areas, and keep the rest for low-rise, but high denseity.. it can be done, and the overall benefit (transport hubs, centrailised commercial districts) would make Dublin a lot better

Paris keeps its highrise area seperate, and it looks all the better for it..

Dirk Gently

A DCC rep comes on asking for public opinions and is met with smart remarks? Would you prefer they didn't engage and just steam rolled through a plan you had no imput into? At least offer constructive ideas before moaning and whining. I'd rather see more official public reps participate on boards than make them feel unwelcome and open to abuse.

Dyr

Read the users posts, he doesn't engage... just hawks the DCC PR site and leaves. If you think for one minute that the city manager or county council could care less about you input into anything then why do they charge you money to just comment on any of their schemes?

markpb

Bambi wrote: »

Read the users posts, he doesn't engage... just hawks the DCC PR site and leaves. If you think for one minute that the city manager or county council could care less about you input into anything then why do they charge you money to just comment on any of their schemes?

What are you on about? (S)He came here to tell us that we can comment on the next development plan. Commenting is free. I presume you're getting mixed up with an observation on planning permission or something?

Meeja Ireland

I don't see that the low-rise nature of Dublin really contributes anything good to its identity. We shouldn't freeze something forever just because it hasn't changed yet. A cluster of beautiful skyscrapers would give Dublin a new focal point - and a greater concentration of tall buildings, as a previous poster pointed out, would reduce the difficulties of sprawl.

Jesus Wept

Before we decide on shapes, let's get some decent building regulations first.

WindSock

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

I don't see that the low-rise nature of Dublin really contributes anything good to its identity. We shouldn't freeze something forever just because it hasn't changed yet. A cluster of beautiful skyscrapers would give Dublin a new focal point - and a greater concentration of tall buildings, as a previous poster pointed out, would reduce the difficulties of sprawl.

I would love to see more high rise buildings (tastefull ones) but I fear there would be a huge problem with traffic management. The city is fairly concentrated at the moment.

gollem_1975

I suppose this is another one of those "smart" comments but here goes:

now that there is a surplus of commercial office space in Dublin ( some of which will be taken over by NAMA perhaps ) how about DCC pull down the offices at wood quay and relocate ?

PaulieC

clown bag wrote: »

A DCC rep comes on asking for public opinions and is met with smart remarks? Would you prefer they didn't engage and just steam rolled through a plan you had no imput into? At least offer constructive ideas before moaning and whining. I'd rather see more official public reps participate on boards than make them feel unwelcome and open to abuse.

A rep from the same DCC that has overseen the development of the city into what it is today ? If I thought for one second that these people would actually listen to what people have to say and not just go through the motions before deciding what to do based on other "reasons", I would make submissions. However, as I don't have any power/influence/status/money I know for definite that I would not be listened to

Paulj

cambo_gueno wrote: »

A rep from the same DCC that has overseen the development of the city into what it is today ? If I thought for one second that these people would actually listen to what people have to say and not just go through the motions before deciding what to do based on other "reasons", I would make submissions. However, as I don't have any power/influence/status/money I know for definite that I would not be listened to

How do you know for definite? perhaps they are changing their ways? It's worth a try at least. Better than coming on here in 10 years time complaining that they won't listen to what people are saying. At least if we make a few points they might listen! ...maybe i'm just naive...

Anyway, i think we definately need more high rise. Our 'services' are too far stretched as it is. But there also needs to be proper buliding regulations so that you don't end up with really tall crappy shoeboxes (as opposed to the shorter shoe boxes we've built in recent years). If you're building high rise then you need to have public green areas with kids playgrounds etc too. Keep the car parking underground. Build the tram ways/bus corridors first. Don't forget about schools too! ... oh this all seems like a pipe dream

billybigunz

We missed the boat on high rise development by 15 or so years.

The pool of human misery this has caused with commuters living on half built ghost estates 40 miles from the city is huge.

Dyr

markpb wrote: »

What are you on about? (S)He came here to tell us that we can comment on the next development plan. Commenting is free. I presume you're getting mixed up with an observation on planning permission or something?

I'm not getting it mixed up, your comments on a PR website will be taken as seriously as an entry into a kids colouring competition. Try actually challenging DCC on any of their schemes and you'll see how receptive they are to public input, just look at the o'connell street farce.

Gumbo

gollem_1975 wrote: »

now that there is a surplus of commercial office space in Dublin ( some of which will be taken over by NAMA perhaps ) how about DCC pull down the offices at wood quay and relocate ?

what would the benefit of this be?

if there is anybody genuine serious about getting their opinion heard, you must submit you suggestions before the 12th March.

http://www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie/

sdanseo

@Dublin City representatives on this forum:

Dublin's public transport network cannot currently cope with the sprawl this antiquated and frankly stupid policy of low-rise only development has produced. This is not the way forward. I'm not suggesting 50-storey buildings on every street but there would be nothing wrong with more mid-hight delevopment along the lines of Grand Canal Apartments or the developments c. 12 storeys in the docklands, or perhaps a little higher, punctuated by the odd high-rise.

I read a report about a year ago that said the Dublin commuter area was roughly the same size as that of Los Angeles; but with 12.5% of the population of same. That sort of sprawl is fine where there are road tunnels, underground railways and light railways, upgraded roads with underpasses rather than roundabout after endless roundabout, signaled junction after signalled junction. But we don't have that for reasons not really relevant. What is relevant is that at the rate we're going, Wexford will soon be a dormitory town for the capital.

The planning - or lack thereof - as regards integrating our transport infrastructure in the city has failed epically in the past 20 years. The problem is exacerbated by the low-rise culture. We need to build up at this stage to avoid clogging the city's arteries more than they are - and currently a metaphorical heart attack in that context occurs in certain spots twice each and every weekday. There are people living in the lives of Navan, Kildare, Wicklow etc who have young children they barely see for getting up so early and arriving home so late. By housing those suited to apartment life higher above the city, houses can be built closer and when integrated ( a word this city just doesn't seem to understand) with public transport efficiently, quality of life will improve dramtically for hundreds of thousands.

There is in my opinion no case for NOT building up rather than out. It is the socially responsible course to take. Altering the character of an area to the objection of a decidedly small minority of people is not a reasonable excuse for ruining the quality of life for those not even able to afford living in the same county as where they work. The character of Dublin can be happily maintained with the addition of higher buildings, just look at New York or even European cities like Brussels, Frankfurt or Paris, for example.

We have seen compromise and counter compromise destroy developments in this city. Take Aviva stadium, sliced in capacity by c. 10,000 seats because about 10 people didn't want their gardens to be in the shadow of it. There are some occasions when the greater good demands that some objections by turfed rapidly back at those who submit them. Had the state or the city compulsorily purchased perhaps ten properties in the Lansdowne Road area, would would have a world-class stadium capable of seating 80,000 rather than the half-baked compromise we got stumped with. Yes a certain level of democracy, red tape etc is required to make planning decisions, but it's high time this country stopped beating about the bush, stopped taking ten or even twenty years to make decisions that are needed yesterday, get rid of the unnecessary red tape and rubbish that is the scourge of progress and get what needs doing done WHEN in needs to be done rather that a decade in retrospect. And it's high time that the capital city and the decsion making powers within it (that's you guys) started to lead the country by good example.

The_B_Man

Whats with all the people saying we need families in the city? From what i've seen, its the kids of these families that are ruining the city, especialy for tourists!

Imagine the dublin riots without all the locals! it woulda been way smaller!
Stick them all out in the suburbs with the rest of us, and keep all the places for people working in the city! Simple as that.

Then we can keep this Dublin "skyline" for some nice buildings, containing some useful amenities!

Cool Mo D

sdonn wrote: »

I read a report about a year ago that said the Dublin commuter area was roughly the same size as that of Los Angeles; but with 12.5% of the population of same.

Dublin is sprawling, but if you believe that, you'd believe anything. Unless you include the entirety of rural Meath, Kildare, and Wicklow as Dublin, and that would still be way smaller than the built up area of LA.

Los Angeles has an area of 1290 km2 and a population of 3.8 million.
Dublin City has an area of 115 km2 and a population of 505,000. That's a significantly higher density than Berlin, say.

Los Angeles urban area has a population of 13 million and is 12,500 km2
County Dublin has a population of 1,186,000 and an area of 921 km2.

sdanseo

I'll check those figures and berate the Irish Independent accordingly so :P

somehow I doubt that takes in enough area though. I know the republic has 70000km2 so it seems a very low estimation based on that. When I get to a pc I'll expand further.

markpb

sdonn wrote: »

I'll check those figures and berate the Irish Independent accordingly so :P

I remember that article when it came out - it struck me as a little dubious too. I think they were referring to the entire area covered by people who commute to Dublin. IIRC Cavan and Portarlington were on their map which is true if you're describing commuting patterns but they wrote the article as if Dublin extended all the way to Cavan, presumably to make the headlines look better.

Gumbo

sdonn wrote: »

@Dublin City representatives on this forum:

Dublin's public transport network cannot currently cope with the sprawl this antiquated and frankly stupid policy of low-rise only development has produced. This is not the way forward. I'm not suggesting 50-storey buildings on every street but there would be nothing wrong with more mid-hight delevopment along the lines of Grand Canal Apartments or the developments c. 12 storeys in the docklands, or perhaps a little higher, punctuated by the odd high-rise.

I read a report about a year ago that said the Dublin commuter area was roughly the same size as that of Los Angeles; but with 12.5% of the population of same. That sort of sprawl is fine where there are road tunnels, underground railways and light railways, upgraded roads with underpasses rather than roundabout after endless roundabout, signaled junction after signalled junction. But we don't have that for reasons not really relevant. What is relevant is that at the rate we're going, Wexford will soon be a dormitory town for the capital.

The planning - or lack thereof - as regards integrating our transport infrastructure in the city has failed epically in the past 20 years. The problem is exacerbated by the low-rise culture. We need to build up at this stage to avoid clogging the city's arteries more than they are - and currently a metaphorical heart attack in that context occurs in certain spots twice each and every weekday. There are people living in the lives of Navan, Kildare, Wicklow etc who have young children they barely see for getting up so early and arriving home so late. By housing those suited to apartment life higher above the city, houses can be built closer and when integrated ( a word this city just doesn't seem to understand) with public transport efficiently, quality of life will improve dramtically for hundreds of thousands.

There is in my opinion no case for NOT building up rather than out. It is the socially responsible course to take. Altering the character of an area to the objection of a decidedly small minority of people is not a reasonable excuse for ruining the quality of life for those not even able to afford living in the same county as where they work. The character of Dublin can be happily maintained with the addition of higher buildings, just look at New York or even European cities like Brussels, Frankfurt or Paris, for example.

We have seen compromise and counter compromise destroy developments in this city. Take Aviva stadium, sliced in capacity by c. 10,000 seats because about 10 people didn't want their gardens to be in the shadow of it. There are some occasions when the greater good demands that some objections by turfed rapidly back at those who submit them. Had the state or the city compulsorily purchased perhaps ten properties in the Lansdowne Road area, would would have a world-class stadium capable of seating 80,000 rather than the half-baked compromise we got stumped with. Yes a certain level of democracy, red tape etc is required to make planning decisions, but it's high time this country stopped beating about the bush, stopped taking ten or even twenty years to make decisions that are needed yesterday, get rid of the unnecessary red tape and rubbish that is the scourge of progress and get what needs doing done WHEN in needs to be done rather that a decade in retrospect. And it's high time that the capital city and the decsion making powers within it (that's you guys) started to lead the country by good example.

submit it before the 12th March to make any kind of influence!
putting it on here makes no difference at all imo, it has to officially submitted.

gollem_1975

gumbo wrote: »

what would the benefit of this be?

if there is anybody genuine serious about getting their opinion heard, you must submit you suggestions before the 12th March.

http://www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie/

1) DCC's offices are obscuring the view of Christchurch cathedral ( one of the cities most impressive buildings and important tourist attractions )
can you imagine how good it would look with a sloped public park leading up to Christchurch instead ?

2) wood quay was the site of a viking settlement.. perhaps a reconstructed viking settlement could be built there ( as a tourist, heritage attraction )

I don't know how old your are but there was a lot of opposition to the building
of DCC's offices on the wood quay site back in the day. Dublin Corpo built 2 modernist bunkers on the site , smack bang in front of christchurch... would the french have thrown up 2 ugly tower blocks in front of Notre Dame ? I don't think so.

Gumbo

gollem_1975 wrote: »

1) DCC's offices are obscuring the view of Christchurch cathedral ( one of the cities most impressive buildings and important tourist attractions )
can you imagine how good it would look with a sloped public park leading up to Christchurch instead ?

2) wood quay was the site of a viking settlement.. perhaps a reconstructed viking settlement could be built there ( as a tourist, heritage attraction )

I don't know how old your are but there was a lot of opposition to the building
of DCC's offices on the wood quay site back in the day. Dublin Corpo built 2 modernist bunkers on the site , smack bang in front of christchurch... would the french have thrown up 2 ugly tower blocks in front of Notre Dame ? I don't think so.

yeah i can see your point, i wasnt been smart just curious to your reasons, which are good tbh.

billybigunz

gollem_1975 wrote: »

1) DCC's offices are obscuring the view of Christchurch cathedral ( one of the cities most impressive buildings and important tourist attractions )
can you imagine how good it would look with a sloped public park leading up to Christchurch instead ?

2) wood quay was the site of a viking settlement.. perhaps a reconstructed viking settlement could be built there ( as a tourist, heritage attraction )

I don't know how old your are but there was a lot of opposition to the building
of DCC's offices on the wood quay site back in the day. Dublin Corpo built 2 modernist bunkers on the site , smack bang in front of christchurch... would the french have thrown up 2 ugly tower blocks in front of Notre Dame ? I don't think so.

I saw a program about this recently. I couldn't believe how great the Cathederal looked on the hill, something I had never seen before.

I think the council offices are actually decent enough looking but just not in that location.

gollem_1975

the offices that were built in the last decade along the riverfront are quite nice from the outside and also from the inside ( i still think the "Vista" would look better if they weren't there though )

the 2 Bunkers were DCC's only footprint on the site for the 1980s and much of the 1990's

I think it was a mistake to put the bunkers there and Dublin Corporation instead of admitting the mistake and tearing them down ( as they have done with all but one of the original 15 story towers out in Ballymun ) they put the new riverfront offices in to hide the bunkers and consolidate the site as a location for their offices ( this is how it seemed to me.. as an ordinary Dub mind you )

perhaps a cost-benefit analysis could be done on the relocation of the DCC offices, perhaps to Ballymun, Docklands or Eastpoint Business Park, and the re-development of the Wood Quay site as an amenity/heritage site for Dubliners and Tourists alike ?

sdanseo

I've submitted my rant above as an offical one - for all the difference it'll make.

DCC Planning Secretariat

The closing date for receipt of submissions on the Draft Development Plan was last Friday, March 12th. We’d like to thank everyone who got involved in the discussion and especially those who posted replies or made submissions about the plan.

The next step is the preparation of a report on the submissions/observations received. This will be submitted to members of the City Council who will consider it until mid-August 2010. Any material amendments agreed to the Draft Plan will then be put on public display for four weeks. It is envisaged that this display will take place during September.

We’ll post notification of the dates closer to the time. In the meantime, keep an eye on www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie and www.dublincity.ie for updates on what’s happening.

Regards,
The Development Plan Team

Kintarō Hattori

Damn I wish I had seen this sooner. Personally I'm a fan of Dublins low-rise skyline. It is a pretty unique feature among capital cities and does give it a close knit feel to the city.

If Paris toyed with the idea of high rise and decided it failed I don't see why folk would imagine it'd work here. Keep the buildings low and if you must build high rise, take it out of the city area.

markpb

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

If Paris toyed with the idea of high rise and decided it failed I don't see why folk would imagine it'd work here. Keep the buildings low and if you must build high rise, take it out of the city area.

But other cities toyed with the idea of high rise and accepted it. I don't see why one city's decision would have any affect on us. In any event, Paris is a low-rise, medium density city which is why they can support the Paris metro and RER. Dublin is a low-rise, low density city which is (one of the reasons) why we have such crap public transport.

Japer

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

we need to go up, sprawl hasnt worked so far and as another poster said it leaves people driving thousands of miles per year to work as public trasnsport doesnt exist in dublin

+1. Hundreds of thousands of people driving / commuting for an hour or two to the city just is not good planning.

syklops

Im from galway, and grew up about 15 miles from Galway City, so out in the countryside. I remember when I was about 12 my mother commented on all the building going on and sai that in a few years it will be built up all the way out to Oranmore. At the time I thought she was mad. Now it is built up almost all the way out to Oranmore.

At the rate of building in the area over the last few years, within my lifetime my parents house will be surrounded by buildings. To me, that is a terrifying prospect.

Now I know this thread is about Dublin, but the situation is the same. We have to start building up and we have to start doing it now.

Take Dun Laoighre. Wikipedia describes Dun Laoighre as a town situated approx. 12 kilometres from Dublin ciy centre. The fact that it is described as a town suggests it is actually, well, a town. However, if you travel to Dun Laoighre from Dublin city, there is no part where it stops being Dublin city and becomes a seperate town. Its built up all the way out to Dun Laoighre. If that continues, then it will get to the stage where there will be no point on a journey from Dublin to Galway where it stops being Dublin city.

DCC Planning Secretariat

Thanks to everyone who commented on the Draft Plan earlier in the year. We’ve posted an update on the submissions and the subsequent Council meetings that have taken place since – you can view that on the News section of the Development Plan website, here. You can also download the Proposed Amendments and related documents such as modified zoning maps etc., here.

‘Shaping the City’ (Chapter 4 of the Development Plan) relates to the urban structure and built form of the city and corresponds to standards on height and density. It drew a significant number of comments and observations. The main aspects of the proposed amendments to the draft that have resulted relate to:

• a greater emphasis on Dublin as a low-rise city
• changes to the height range for the inner city
• additional assessment criteria for high buildings
• Density standards – the specific criteria for each of the three density bands has been replaced with the more general requirements of the national and regional guidelines
• the term ‘economic corridor’ – this has been replaced through the draft plan with the term ‘innovation corridor’
• in those limited areas identified for higher buildings, a local area plan (LAP) must now be approved first.

What do you think of these changes? Is this the best way forward for the city? You can comment on the amendments and send your observations to Dublin City Council using the online submission/observation form on the site.

---

Dublin City Council's 'Draft Development Plan, 2011-2017' explains City Council strategy on everything from allotments and accommodation for artists to new economic corridors, new neighbourhoods, green spaces and low rise buildings.

Proposed amendments to the plan are currently available to view and for comments.

We’re encouraging Dubliners to look at the Proposed Amendments, discuss any issues on these boards and make a comment directly to Dublin City Council via the online submission form.

You can find out more at www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie, where there are videos, text summaries and an interactive map of Dublin in 2017.

---

gollem_1975

DCC Planning Secretariat wrote: »

• the term ‘economic corridor’ – this has been replaced through the draft plan with the term ‘innovation corridor’

wowsers DCC know how to use "Find and replace" . now thats what I call innovation

would be nice if a DCC representative would have engaged with the public in an online forum.

As in DCC can't do that , thats not a good idea because...or no we can't do that because it would cost x million euro.

but perhaps thats not realistic or feasible.

gollem_1975

syklops wrote: »

If that continues, then it will get to the stage where there will be no point on a journey from Dublin to Galway where it stops being Dublin city.

over the last few years Ireland built more than we'll need for a long time and in fact ghost estates in the middle of nowhere between Dublin and Galway will be knocked down because theres no demand for them.

we'll be riding in Space elevators before Dublin City stretches as far as Galway.

bonerjams03

DCC Planning Secretariat wrote: »

• a greater emphasis on Dublin as a low-rise city

What?!

Dublin has a huge problem with Urban Sprawl and hideous housing estates creeping away from it. The sooner more at least semi-tall buildings start replacing derelict old ones the better.

Also, there's a lack of use of roof terraces, greenhouses and other such things on roofs.

hmmm

Well that's another generation of young people sacrificed to a 2 hour commute.

But as long as it allows a small group of people hang on to gardens in the city centre it seems to suit the council.

gollem_1975

DCC Planning Secretariat wrote: »

Thanks to everyone who commented on the Draft Plan earlier in the year. We’ve posted an update on the submissions and the subsequent Council meetings that have taken place since – you can view that on the News section of the Development Plan website, here. You can also download the Proposed Amendments and related documents such as modified zoning maps etc., here.

‘Shaping the City’ (Chapter 4 of the Development Plan) relates to the urban structure and built form of the city and corresponds to standards on height and density. It drew a significant number of comments and observations. The main aspects of the proposed amendments to the draft that have resulted relate to:

• a greater emphasis on Dublin as a low-rise city
• changes to the height range for the inner city
• additional assessment criteria for high buildings
• Density standards – the specific criteria for each of the three density bands has been replaced with the more general requirements of the national and regional guidelines
• the term ‘economic corridor’ – this has been replaced through the draft plan with the term ‘innovation corridor’
• in those limited areas identified for higher buildings, a local area plan (LAP) must now be approved first.

What do you think of these changes? Is this the best way forward for the city? You can comment on the amendments and send your observations to Dublin City Council using the online submission/observation form on the site.

---

Dublin City Council's 'Draft Development Plan, 2011-2017' explains City Council strategy on everything from allotments and accommodation for artists to new economic corridors, new neighbourhoods, green spaces and low rise buildings.

Proposed amendments to the plan are currently available to view and for comments.

We’re encouraging Dubliners to look at the Proposed Amendments, discuss any issues on these boards and make a comment directly to Dublin City Council via the online submission form.

You can find out more at www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie, where there are videos, text summaries and an interactive map of Dublin in 2017.

---

where can we see the online submissions from members of the public ?

what proof is there that any heed was paid to them ?

DCC Planning Secretariat

Hi,

You can track online submissions from the public and the Council's response to them in the Manager's Report. Volume 1 of the Report lists the submissions received, assigns each of them a number and indicates what part of the draft plan they relate to.

Volume 2 then addresses the submissions - summarising the issues raised and providing a response and a recommendation.

Both volumes of the Report are available to download from the Development Plan website, here.

Regards,
The Development Plan Team

---

Dublin City Council's 'Draft Development Plan, 2011-2017' explains City Council strategy on everything from allotments and accommodation for artists to new economic corridors, new neighbourhoods, green spaces and low rise buildings.

Proposed amendments to the plan are currently available to view and for comments.

We’re encouraging Dubliners to look at the Proposed Amendments, discuss any issues on these boards and make a comment directly to Dublin City Council via the online submission form.

You can find out more at www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie, where there are videos, text summaries and an interactive map of Dublin in 2017.

---

monument

IRcolm wrote: »

What?!

Dublin has a huge problem with Urban Sprawl and hideous housing estates creeping away from it. The sooner more at least semi-tall buildings start replacing derelict old ones the better.

Here's a little bit of insight into the thinking of councillors on this issue and how we ended up with all the low rise focus:

Council challenged on “anti-social” height limits

...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...

Not all councillors have the same kind of stances as the above, but if you have a different view you need to be contacting councillors and making submissions to get your voice heard.

Cookie_Monster

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.

How and why do they consider 7 stories high rise I'd like to know.

30+ is high rise
15-30 is medium
<15 is low
IMO.

Dublin need to be built up, not out further. Poor decision from the DCC. high rise = greater density = better transport and service, better value for money on public infastructure, shorter commute time, less cars due to better public transport, less pollution from vehicles, etc etc etc.

But no, why bother when we can just let people commute from suburbs such as Gorey, Kildare and Dundalk...