Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Idbatterim

an article in todays IT, about new docklands developments, total joke, more absolute rubbish by the sounds of it, more suited to a small provincial city than Dublin which is bursting at the seems "again"!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/a-new-dawn-for-the-dublin-docklands-1.2321329

cgcsb

9 storey squat. Of course we knew this suburban office park stuff was coming, it was set out in the "SDZ"

Idbatterim

9 storey squat. Of course we knew this suburban office park stuff was coming, it was set out in the "SDZ"

the €450,000,000 development is 7 stories!

going on the lowest of standards, which we must here, but at least the 2 landmark towers will be 19/20 storeys...

Schadenfreudia

cgcsb wrote: »

9 storey squat. Of course we knew this suburban office park stuff was coming, it was set out in the "SDZ"

Hey!

We have buildings less squat than that way out here in Sandyford! (Though they are a source of relentless local angst, mostly by IT-reading folk living in the Mausoleum (aka Dun Laoghaire's old coastal core) who can't even see them unless they travel there

At the last review of the CDP they introduced new height restrictions so shocked :eek: were they at the sight of 15 storey "towers"....

cgcsb

We're in the middle of a culture change from rural to urban. Unfortunately we're doing this 200 years after the rest of the industrialised world, which means a lot more kicking and screaming.

D.L.R.

cgcsb wrote: »

We're in the middle of a culture change from rural to urban. Unfortunately we're doing this 200 years after the rest of the industrialised world, which means a lot more kicking and screaming.

The politics is lagging behind the reality, that's the problem. Urbanisation is happening, its real, and its unavoidable. But Irish govts don't embrace it, probably because our party system is still so dependent on the rural vote. The prev govt wilfully ignored it.

Idbatterim

is one of the issues currently, that there isnt a shortage of available land in the docklands right now i.e. sites and as soon as the ones currently undeveloped, have been developed, that the price of land will increase substantially due to increased scarcity and there will be far higher land prices in future, leading to a need for higher density, that dublin city council wont be able to worm their way out of?

cgcsb

Dublin City Council's policy to have people commuting from Kildare and go homeless is not going to change in the short term. Modern structures are not to be visible from the georgian vistas, as that would 'spoil the view' for people who can afford to live in those areas. We cannot exceed 8 storeys, even in the Docklands SDZ because of vistas or because of the shadows that may be cast on terraced houses built in the 1990's in Dublin 1 of all places.

When we mature as a nation we may sling these people out of government and local government, but not before then.

FreudianSlippers

cgcsb wrote: »

Dublin City Council's policy to have people commuting from Kildare and go homeless is not going to change in the short term. Modern structures are not to be visible from the georgian vistas, as that would 'spoil the view' for people who can afford to live in those areas. We cannot exceed 8 storeys, even in the Docklands SDZ because of vistas or because of the shadows that may be cast on terraced houses built in the 1990's in Dublin 1 of all places.

When we mature as a nation we may sling these people out of government and local government, but not before then.

The problem is also that you have people objecting to buildings because they'll "destroy the character" of their 1950s semi-derelict neighbourhood in D1.

D1 is such a prime area IMHO, it should be redeveloped and/or restored to its former glory with modern offices and homes.

Idbatterim

in some rare good news, dublin city council have requested that the 19 storey "tower" on the U2 site, be increased to 23 floors...

cgcsb

with water on it's north, east and south side it's a wonder why only 23 floors, it's literally not casting a shadow on anything.

Idbatterim

with water on it's north, east and south side it's a wonder why only 23 floors, it's literally not casting a shadow on anything.

I agree, but 23 floors for Dublin is a start! I thought the 19 was a joke, with 23 its scraping the limits of acceptable IMO. The funny thing is, the height increase seems to have come about, due to complaints to DCC from some of the public about the "tower" being too low...

with water on it's north, east and south side it's a wonder why only 23 floors, it's literally not casting a shadow on anything.

yes, but the 6/7 storey stuff right beside it, is also a wonder! The whole thing is a bloody fiasco in my opinion, crap conservative architecture, OTT building regulations in terms of size of the apartments in sq meter and also the number of floors is far too low, we could have housed far more residents and employees there, without going anywhere near high rise! The knock on effects are colossal of the OTT building requirements, massive property price inflation, people looking for endless pay rises, like the boom, except that wont be happening this time around, You could actually argue that a large part of the crash was down to planning and them not allowing smaller cheaper units where people would CHOOSE to live and offering viable family apartments, the alternative being offering 700-800k for a bog standard semi D in south dublin or moving god knows how far out of dublin, being the alternative...

FreudianSlippers

Idbatterim wrote: »

in some rare good news, dublin city council have requested that the 19 storey "tower" on the U2 site, be increased to 23 floors...

I'm still not a huge fan of the design (why all buildings in Dublin have to have that, for lack of a better word, 'exoskeleton' design is beyond me) but the building is so much more elegant and proportioned with the added height.

From SSC:

Idbatterim

I'm still not a huge fan of the design (why all buildings in Dublin have to have that, for lack of a better word, 'exoskeleton' design is beyond me) but the building is so much more elegant and proportioned with the added height.

thats the disappointing thing, I bet so many could be won over on the high rise isnt evil here, with an attractive or stunning tower, this certainly wont be it! but it could have been worse, a whole lot worse!

Quadrature

To be perfectly honest, I think this stuff about the Dublin "skyline" is a bit ridiculous. It doesn't have a skyline other than the Dublin / Wicklow mountains. The city is basically flat.

My concern is that without building a totally different concept in apartment living - big apartments with decent facilities, we'll end up with shoeboxes in the sky instead of something nice.

Ireland has the lowest % of apartment dwelling in the EU and I would suspect that's largely because most apartments to date have been pokey and seen as a thing you might rent while you're in your single years. They're certainly not seen as anything that could possibly be a family home.

Change that attitude by changing the architecture and breaking the notion that a "flat" is something second rate and you might have some hope of going up with bigger buildings.

If they're going to be over priced pokey hovels for buy to let landlords to profiteer on, then just keep sprawling into Kildare as they'll be a complete disaster.

cgcsb

I don't think there's a need to relax size restrictions. Even if we build thousands of new big apartments over the next 10 years, the 90's shoe boxes will still be there for cheaper lets for single people.

Quadrature

cgcsb wrote: »

I don't think there's a need to relax size restrictions. Even if we build thousands of new big apartments over the next 10 years, the 90's shoe boxes will still be there for cheaper lets for single people.

You could always knock some of them together to create a shoebox !

FreudianSlippers

cgcsb wrote: »

with water on it's north, east and south side it's a wonder why only 23 floors, it's literally not casting a shadow on anything.

23 floors isn't to scoff at.

These are examples of 22 floor buildings from ground/near-ground in a low-to-mid rise city:

Idbatterim

I don't think there's a need to relax size restrictions. Even if we build thousands of new big apartments over the next 10 years, the 90's shoe boxes will still be there for cheaper lets for single people.

yeah but the shoe boxes are dated and crap, I dont think we should reduce the minimum size down to say 35-40sq m and only have developers build them, but I would allow them for a certain % of the 1 beds in a scheme... there needs to be far more choice, for smaller cheaper apartments and also for apartments that are viable for families...

FreudianSlippers

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah but the shoe boxes are dated and crap, I dont think we should reduce the minimum size down to say 35-40sq m and only have developers build them, but I would allow them for a certain % of the 1 beds in a scheme... there needs to be far more choice, for smaller cheaper apartments and also for apartments that are viable for families...

Most buildings in the past 20 years I have seen in the US make the most use of the space by having a range of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments with the occasional studio thrown in to make up dead space on a floor, with the upper floors turned into penthouses.

Carawaystick

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah but the shoe boxes are dated and crap, I dont think we should reduce the minimum size down to say 35-40sq m and only have developers build them, but I would allow them for a certain % of the 1 beds in a scheme... there needs to be far more choice, for smaller cheaper apartments and also for apartments that are viable for families...

Say what you like about Ballymun, but they did have 1200 '^2 3 bed flats.

Idbatterim

Say what you like about Ballymun, but they did have 1200 '^2 3 bed flats.

a lot of people think of ballymum when highrise is mentioned here, but I certainly wouldnt advocate it for anything other than people or families on decent enough incomes, where it isnt going to be another ballymun, in fact it would be quite the opposite, nice big glass towers, they would be buildings of prestige not hovels...

FreudianSlippers

Idbatterim wrote: »

a lot of people think of ballymum when highrise is mentioned here, but I certainly wouldnt advocate it for anything other than people or families on decent enough incomes, where it isnt going to be another ballymun, in fact it would be quite the opposite, nice big glass towers, they would be buildings of prestige not hovels...

+1

I don't think anyone would argue against high-rise as social housing. However, conversely I don't think anyone could seriously disagree with a percentage being allocated for background-checked and interviewed families in need of social housing.

As an aside, anti-social behaviour is generally not dealt with well by the councils with regard to estates.

Schadenfreudia

Looking at those photos the site could easily have taken another 10 floors (33 stories)

That would be Dublin's first real tall building.

qweerty

It seems to me that much more attention should be paid to how a building will age - materials, design, etc. (Despite the fact that it is older by almost two decades, Berkeley Library in Trinity College has aged far better than the Arts Building.) I don't think that the Sir Rogerson's Quay tower will age well!

miscn

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Looking at those photos the site could easily have taken another 10 floors (33 stories)

That would be Dublin's first real tall building.

Yeah, I don't understand why the city council is so opposed to high rise. This could be the perfect place e for a nice tall tower.

Idbatterim

Three articles that I have read today on the effects that virtually no availability for commercial space is having on Dublin! Yet the rubbish architecture and 5/6 storey waste of space continue! As soon as all the cheap / easy land has been developed in that area, I can see change coming, either companies will stop locating here or they will have to allow realistic densities. The heights of the usual rubbish, could be increased by one third easily and would still be low. In fact I think the 5/6 sotrey stuff on the quays looks rubbish, because it is so insignificant at the point of the liffey...


http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/dublin-city-faces-shortage-of-grade-a-office-space-1.2328326

http://www.independent.ie/business/small-business/latest-news/plans-for-dublins-new-startup-hub-fall-apart-31487219.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/news/how-dublin-is-becoming-a-nogo-zone-for-new-tech-firms-31487239.html

Reuben1210

The hoardings are up for capital dock....just waiting on the final permission...

newacc2015

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

+1

I don't think anyone would argue against high-rise as social housing. However, conversely I don't think anyone could seriously disagree with a percentage being allocated for background-checked and interviewed families in need of social housing.

As an aside, anti-social behaviour is generally not dealt with well by the councils with regard to estates.

In NYC, if you are building a high rise. There is height limits in some parts. They will allow you to build above the height limit in return for having some low income housing in the development. If a 1 bed is going for 2500 dollars a month. The low income person gets it for 450 dollars month. They all must have a secure job. All the people are credit checked and have to be interviewed and selected by the management board of the development. There is no real issues.

I cant imagine the same thing happening here. It might be suggested. But I can imagine a sob story from the Joe Duffy show getting a place immediately in a development without a reference check and destroying the tone of the building.

FreudianSlippers

newacc2015 wrote: »

In NYC, if you are building a high rise. There is height limits in some parts. They will allow you to build above the height limit in return for having some low income housing in the development. If a 1 bed is going for 2500 dollars a month. The low income person gets it for 450 dollars month. They all must have a secure job. All the people are credit checked and have to be interviewed and selected by the management board of the development. There is no real issues.

I cant imagine the same thing happening here. It might be suggested. But I can imagine a sob story from the Joe Duffy show getting a place immediately in a development without a reference check and destroying the tone of the building.

I was discussing that earlier in the thread as I believe from some places that a percentage of apartment for low-income, but background checked, individuals has been successful elsewhere. I think it's something like 10% of apartments must be designated for these people per development.