Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

(Article) New Restrictions on high-rise buildings in Dublin

  • 30-07-2010 4:21am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 BluntGuy


    Not that many mega-developments are going to be starting for the foreseeable future anyway, but:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0728/1224275614559.html
    DEVELOPERS ARE facing severe restrictions on the construction of high-rise buildings in Dublin city following the introduction of the new Dublin City Development Plan next year.

    City councillors last night agreed to ban the construction of buildings above 28m (92ft) – about half the height of Liberty Hall – unless a statutory plan called a Local Area Plan (Lap) was drafted for the area in question. Such a plan could take several years to develop.

    This would block the construction of any further high-rise or even medium-rise buildings in areas previously earmarked by the council for tall buildings such as the Docklands, Heuston and Connolly stations and George’s Quay.

    The Lap, which functions as a development plan specific to a particular area, would have to specify maximum building heights allowed. Until a local area plan was approved all developments would have to remain low rise. Councillors last night agreed to define low rise as up to six storeys in relation to residential buildings and seven storeys for office buildings or a maximum height of less than 28m.

    The development of Laps has been a fraught process within the council. Attempts were made over several years to introduce a LAP for Ballsbridge but the plan fell apart when agreement could not be reached on whether to allow a “landmark” tall building.

    The amendment to the draft development plan in relation to the development of Laps was agreed last night as a compromise motion. Several councillors had wanted caps on height, and some motions would have seen high rise defined as under 30m.

    However the agreed amendment, by effectively deferring any decision on maximum heights, makes the city development plan worthless as a guide to developers as to where applications for tall building would be considered.

    The draft plan will be released for a further round of consultation before being formally agreed by councillors later this year.

    City manager John Tierney in his report to councillors on the plan had warned putting restrictive caps on heights would have “severe repercussions for the city’s competitiveness”.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭ Aard


    I wish they'd realise that the Docklands/Connolly area is well placed for a high-rise district. Stop fluting about with ideas for high-rise in many places over the city, and concentrate it in one area. The economies of scale and critical mass will feed off each other, and its central location will discourage further suburbanisation and revitalise the city-centre.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 454 ✭✭ irishdub14


    Its absolutely disgraceful, its a bunch of old people in the council against change, do they not realize high density in cities is actually better? Why should they decide for the whole city! :mad:


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,289 ✭✭✭✭ Cookie_Monster


    irishdub14 wrote: »
    Its absolutely disgraceful, its a bunch of old people in the council against change, do they not realize high density in cities is actually better? Why should they decide for the whole city! :mad:

    because you voted for them?

    Anyway its still a moronic decision


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 KevR


    More low-rise sprawling developments on the outskirts* as a result of this - fantastic!!


    *Where everyone is forced to drive from A to B because it's too hard to provide proper public transport.


    Anyhow, I thought the City Council agreed to allow high rise buildings in specific locations only last December. Now, seven months on and City Councillors have effectively banned any high rise developments. What the hell is going on?!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭ D.L.R.


    Who are these morons against tall buildings, and what is their problem with tall buildings, exactly? The shadows they cast over Dublin's sun-kissed streets?

    I think it all boils down to that old-skool 'vision' of Dev's Celtic Utopia, some of these gobdaws still have this in mind when making decisions which affect OUR lives in modern reality. Are these people all from Dublin, even?

    Its farcical, really. No wonder so many emigrate when those in power care more about flippin skyline height than JOBS and PROSPERITY.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭ Empire o de Sun


    I dispare at the thinking.

    I feel so much better since I emirgrated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 454 ✭✭ irishdub14


    because you voted for them?

    Anyway its still a moronic decision

    Im 17, and I would have never voted for those pigs if I could, even in the boom.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭ Aard


    Regarding voting them in - I was in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown for the last election, so I had absolutely no say in what happens in the "City". I think it's about time that the administrative area of Dublin City Council extended to the contiguous urban area, namely DLR, South Dublin, and Blanchardstown. That way, the whole city will get a comprehensive development-plan, without the hurdles of disjointed administration. Otherwise, a blind eye is being turned to the eventual knock-on effects that the Dublin City Councillors' decisions have on the city's effectively unrepresented suburbs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭ dubhthach


    Aard wrote: »
    Regarding voting them in - I was in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown for the last election, so I had absolutely no say in what happens in the "City". I think it's about time that the administrative area of Dublin City Council extended to the contiguous urban area, namely DLR, South Dublin, and Blanchardstown. That way, the whole city will get a comprehensive development-plan, without the hurdles of disjointed administration. Otherwise, a blind eye is being turned to the eventual knock-on effects that the Dublin City Councillors' decisions have on the city's effectively unrepresented suburbs.

    i think the whole area within the M50 should be ceaded to Dublin city. At the moment only about 50% of this area is in Dublin City the rest is divided between the three county councils.

    After doing that perhaps there could be just two county councils. A "North county" and a "South County". TBH while we at it why not merge the two Tipperary's into one Administrative county.

    As for the high-rise ban. I wonder what affect this will have on NAMA. After all NAMA now controls large areas of development land through loans etc. If they can't build more then 5-6stories on some of this land it will just result in more losses to the Taxpayer.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭ Sponge Bob


    What about all the existing permissions around Heuston ??


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 4,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭ G_R


    Jesus Christ i'm getting seriously sick of all these idiots who are in control of cities and country. They have absolutely no idea of reality, and impose stupid rules and regulations that are actively stunting the growth of our country economically. I don't know why I'm surprised tbh, I have lost all faith in this country's system of governance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭ Empire o de Sun


    Abolish the councils,

    replace them with about 10 national units. We don't need Ireland run by so many sub national entities, when we are only 4 million and shrinking.

    Using county boundaries that were drawn up hundreds of years ago to manage a country with completely different demographics today is insane.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭ D.L.R.


    Abolish the councils,

    replace them with about 10 national units. We don't need Ireland run by so many sub national entities, when we are only 4 million and shrinking.

    Using county boundaries that were drawn up hundreds of years ago to manage a country with completely different demographics today is insane.

    +1. Drawn up by another country, I might add.

    We need to move past county councils as political entities, but the problem is, the political will to do that is simply non existant, and will be for the foreseeable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭✭ Riddickcule


    I reckon the we should make the provinces into administrative areas.


  • Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭ Empire o de Sun


    I reckon the we should make the provinces into administrative areas.


    I agreed,

    1. Greater Dublin,

    2. North Leinster (including Cavan, Monaghan)

    3. South Leinster

    4. North Munster

    5. South Munster

    6. Connacht South

    7. Connacht North (including Donegal)

    Have them more as federal/provincial sub divisions with no futher "council" like structure within them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭ Empire o de Sun


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    +1. Drawn up by another country, I might add.

    We need to move past county councils as political entities, but the problem is, the political will to do that is simply non existant, and will be for the foreseeable.


    Yet as a Dublin fan I am so loyal to this division :rolleyes:

    And it would be like Turkies voting for Christmas :rolleyes:


Advertisement