Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

1235789

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


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

    Too true - its amazing how many people in the vast sprawling semi-D suburbs still regard apartment blocks higher that two stories as some sort of abomination! "Bad planning" is anything that interrupts the semi-d landscape.

    But "experts" like Frank McDonald, who presented completely unrealistic pictures of European cities, did much to promote tall-phobic attitudes before his late epiphany.

    The centres of Amsterdam, Barcelona and other old European cities were cited in order to condemn a host of proposals in Dublin far from the Georgian core - even though those European cores are surrounded by massive motorway and ring-road networks, riddled with subways and have clusters of skyscrapers a short hop from the centres.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Anybody have a link or reference number to the planning files for Kennedy Wilson's Capital Dock?

    I find the city council's planning website near to impossible to search.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    It's really annoying. And the map search is no good too. It's filled with old applications, applications covering a whole site etc.

    I just search for DSDZ in the reference criteria and see what's new.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,440 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    with alto vetro, montevetro, the millenium tower and the britain quay site, along with bolands mill, there will be a nice cluster of medium rise...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    with alto vetro, montevetro, the millenium tower and the britain quay site, along with bolands mill, there will be a nice cluster of medium rise...

    That's true, and it's a great improvement, but I can't help but feeling that the capital docks site is being under-developed, given it's previous permission for height of 100-120m...
    However, better than nothing I suppose.

    Does anyone know if crosbie has been making any sounds about ressurrecting the watchtower, considering he built the whole underground part for tens of millions?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    I don't know what they even changed in this reviewed version that got the go-ahead a week ago?

    http://www.irishbuildingmagazine.ie/2015/07/03/e150m-plan-for-bolands-mills-redevelopment-gets-the-green-light-from-dublin-city-council/


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Reuben1210 wrote: »
    I don't know what they even changed in this reviewed version that got the go-ahead a week ago?

    http://www.irishbuildingmagazine.ie/2015/07/03/e150m-plan-for-bolands-mills-redevelopment-gets-the-green-light-from-dublin-city-council/

    JZ3MyC.jpg

    OMmyg8.jpg

    I like the first view but not the second.

    The balconies in the residential building are now 'winter gardens' with glass panels that slide open.

    Oh and they changed the name.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Nim wrote: »
    JZ3MyC.jpg

    OMmyg8.jpg

    I like the first view but not the second.


    Indeed. Image how vastly better it would look if the two outer buildings were half the height and the middle one twice the height.

    But that altitude would cause the Dublin cognoscenti fainting fits....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    I actually quite like that revised tower with the winter gardens. Given Irish weather it's far more pragmatic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    I think the real problem facing Dublin's sustainable growth is not building tall building in the City Centre, but how to increase density in the already developed low-rise suburbs inside the M50.

    It's absolutely crazy to think that during the boom, when people were crazy for building and buying, the population of basically everywhere inside the M50 but outside the canals remained static or actually fell! And this is some of the most expensive, desirable land in the country, so it's not as if no-one is interested in living there.

    Currently in Seattle, the mayor is considering loosening the zoning in the suburbs to allow single family houses to be rebuilt as larger duplex or triplex units, and allowing granny flats in back gardens and basements. Predictably, this has thrown up a massive protest by people afraid that their parking will disappear, their views will be gone, and poorer people may be able to live in their neighbourhood.

    I've no doubt it would be just as controversial in Dublin, but the city badly needs development and densification in its inner suburbs to allow people to live closer to work and to take some pressure of the crazy rental market around the city centre. Amending planning laws to encourage conversion of houses to small duplexes would also have the bonus of allowing older people to downsize in the same place they currently live while getting access to the money tied up in their property.

    Also, fast track planning for apartments near train and luas stations is badly needed. It's bizarre how much undeveloped land there is close to the city along the Maynooth and Kildare railway lines especially.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,163 ✭✭✭Ben D Bus


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    It's absolutely crazy to think that during the boom, when people were crazy for building and buying, the population of basically everywhere inside the M50 but outside the canals remained static or actually fell! And this is some of the most expensive, desirable land in the country, so it's not as if no-one is interested in living there.

    The older suburbs inside the M50 are full of empty nesters. People grow up, move out of home and move to the outer suburbs with young families. And the family sized homes inside the M50 are left with 2, then 1, elderly occupants. The population in these areas falls.

    As the empty nesters die off, 3/4 bedroom homes will once again hopefully have families move into them and the population of the inner suburbs will grow dramatically again.

    But yes, I agree with increasing the density of development within the city proper.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,129 ✭✭✭my friend


    Ben D Bus wrote: »
    And the family sized homes inside the M50 are left with 2, then 1, elderly occupants. The population in these areas falls.

    As the empty nesters die off, 3/4 bedroom homes will once again hopefully have families move into them and the population of the inner suburbs will grow dramatically again.
    .

    A finely tuned property tax system could correct this issue


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    It's absolutely crazy to think that during the boom, when people were crazy for building and buying, the population of basically everywhere inside the M50 but outside the canals remained static or actually fell! And this is some of the most expensive, desirable land in the country, so it's not as if no-one is interested in living there.

    This is just not correct.

    Dublin City and most of the DLR area has descent population densely. I'd have the check again for DLR, but Dublin City is comparable to Amsterdam population densely. Due to lack of open land etc, already densely populated areas will hardly ever grow as fast as open countryside which is being open for development.

    Can Dublin do better? Yes. Is it as bad as you're making it out to be? No.

    It's just not correct to say that everywhere inside the M50 but outside the canals remained static or actually fell in population between the last census and the one before it.

    The attached census map can be visually misleading, but it still does not support you -- it shows large tracks on land with increases between the two censes.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    I think the real problem facing Dublin's sustainable growth is not building tall building in the City Centre, but how to increase density in the already developed low-rise suburbs inside the M50.


    I've no doubt it would be just as controversial in Dublin

    You can say that again!

    New residential areas that incorporated "townhouse" type dwellings and the much hated apartment blocks are widely regarded (ironically) as "bad planning" by the denizens of existing semi-d land.

    During the boom much of the emigration to Navan, Maynoooth, Wicklow etc was precisely because new semi-d's weren't being built in Dublin so the few new or second-hand houses that came on the market were at crazy prices (and still are).

    I know many people who say that if it's a choice between a semi with a front and back green patch they'd rather commute from 40 miles out rather than being reduced to living in an apartment/townhouse in Dublin.

    I don't see much signs of that changing, despite all the tut-tutting we do about it ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    IMHO North Dublin inner city is prime for serious redevelopment whether it's through new planning relaxations, tax rebates or re-zoning. It's the most criminally underused land in the city.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,313 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Sustainable development in Dublin has no chance while 50 acre farmers in county Meath are considered "an ideal one-off housing opportunity". That mindset needs to be eliminated before we see any meaningful increase in density in the city centre.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    IMHO North Dublin inner city is prime for serious redevelopment whether it's through new planning relaxations, tax rebates or re-zoning. It's the most criminally underused land in the city.

    Exactly which part/s of the north inner city are you talking about?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    monument wrote: »
    Exactly which part/s of the north inner city are you talking about?
    Rough boundary: Quays, Amiens St, Canal, Phibsborough Rd/Church St. with particular emphasis on redeveloping area around Connolly/Gardener St area (Gardiner St. is a disgrace IMHO) and Four Courts.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Rough boundary: Quays, Amiens St, Canal, Phibsborough Rd/Church St. with particular emphasis on redeveloping area around Connolly/Gardener St area (Gardiner St. is a disgrace IMHO) and Four Courts.

    A good chunk of those areas have a population of 10,000 or more people per square km.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    monument wrote: »
    A good chunk of those areas have a population of 10,000 or more people per square km.
    You'd argue they're well used and developed?

    Population density is a part of the bigger picture is it not?

    I'd rather have those areas be functional parts of the city than filled with people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,682 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Rough boundary: Quays, Amiens St, Canal, Phibsborough Rd/Church St. with particular emphasis on redeveloping area around Connolly/Gardener St area (Gardiner St. is a disgrace IMHO) and Four Courts.

    imo you lose a lot of Dublin's inner city character with those boundaries, if you're just being general. I certainly see individual spots in areas that could do with development though - most of north O'Connell Street, most of Parnell Square North, empty lots on Dominick Street and Dorset Street near Wellington Street.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MJohnston wrote: »
    imo you lose a lot of Dublin's inner city character with those boundaries, if you're just being general. I certainly see individual spots in areas that could do with development though - most of north O'Connell Street, most of Parnell Square North, empty lots on Dominick Street and Dorset Street near Wellington Street.
    I'm not saying knock and rebuild. I'd consider Gardiner St. an area of architectural value that is basically in squalor at the moment. There are some areas as well which I would advocate knock an rebuild, but that's a different story.

    There are some examples on the South Side of areas of character and value that haven't lost character.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,682 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I'm not saying knock and rebuild. I'd consider Gardiner St. an area of architectural value that is basically in squalor at the moment. There are some areas as well which I would advocate knock an rebuild, but that's a different story.

    There are some examples on the South Side of areas of character and value that haven't lost character.

    Yeah, I didn't think you meant that at all to be honest, not really targeting you, just the general idea of everything being densified! I'm living up near the Blessington Basin, and it's pretty low density, so it'd be ripe for some overzealous "we must high densify" person to target, but I think it's up there with Stoneybatter for providing a lot of charm and character to the city. Then, on the other hand there's Blessington Street itself which seems to be mostly dumps at this point.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Yeah, I didn't think you meant that at all to be honest, not really targeting you, just the general idea of everything being densified! I'm living up near the Blessington Basin, and it's pretty low density, so it'd be ripe for some overzealous "we must high densify" person to target, but I think it's up there with Stoneybatter for providing a lot of charm and character to the city. Then, on the other hand there's Blessington Street itself which seems to be mostly dumps at this point.
    I'd certainly cite cities like Portland as examples of mixed density city centres (or at least a part of their city centre) with a vibrant live/work/play atmosphere.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    You'd argue they're well used and developed?

    Population density is a part of the bigger picture is it not?

    I'd rather have those areas be functional parts of the city than filled with people.

    What exactly do you mean by functional part of the city? Functional for whom or for what?

    I'm not being smart here, just that in the context of the thread I don't know what you're talking about...
    IMHO North Dublin inner city is prime for serious redevelopment whether it's through new planning relaxations, tax rebates or re-zoning. It's the most criminally underused land in the city.

    If you're not talking about density, what did you mean by "criminally underused"?

    I know there's sites which are underused, many of which will be developed sooner or later, but you're talking about a very wide area -- an area which the data clearly shows is not underused. It's the opposite: it's some of the most used land in the country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    monument wrote: »
    What exactly do you mean by functional part of the city? Functional for whom or for what?

    I'm not being smart here, just that in the context of the thread I don't know what you're talking about...



    If you're not talking about density, what did you mean by "criminally underused"?

    I know there's sites which are underused, many of which will be developed sooner or later, but you're talking about a very wide area -- an area which the data clearly shows is not underused. It's the opposite: it's some of the most used land in the country.

    Let's just take Gardiner St. for example. It's mainly hostels and god-knows-what. Allowing redevelopment of the main street (protected structures) whilst allowing demolition of some of the older but not protected buildings for medium-rise (well, for Dublin) would allow for increased population density plus an increase in office space and restaurants, etc. which will allow people in the city to live closer to work/play.

    There are plenty of pockets like that around the North inner city, which are misused or underused. Regardless of whether on paper they are densely populated, they aren't used properly with regard to the mix of use and density. It's no good cramming a bunch of unhappy people in an area without amenities or jobs nearby.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Let's just take Gardiner St. for example. It's mainly hostels and god-knows-what. Allowing redevelopment of the main street (protected structures) whilst allowing demolition of some of the older but not protected buildings for medium-rise (well, for Dublin) would allow for increased population density plus an increase in office space and restaurants, etc. which will allow people in the city to live closer to work/play.

    There are plenty of pockets like that around the North inner city, which are misused or underused. Regardless of whether on paper they are densely populated, they aren't used properly with regard to the mix of use and density. It's no good cramming a bunch of unhappy people in an area without amenities or jobs nearby.

    You're going a bit overboard with the generalisations and that's coloring your view of the area.

    First you were talking about underuse, now you're talking about different issues altogether.

    There's far more than hostels on the street.

    There's also many restaurants areas developed or in development across the city and the types of offices which these houses could be used for are already underused in the south city centre area.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    monument wrote: »
    You're going a bit overboard
    So do you believe that area is being used properly then?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Indeed. Image how vastly better more phallic it would look if the two outer buildings were half the height and the middle one twice the height...
    FYP :)

    Havnt looked at the plans for this but I assume the original Bolands buildings that are staying in place are getting converted in to apartments too? Good to have sites like that revamped. Old derelict buildings do nothing for the city.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    So do you believe that area is being used properly then?

    I just edited my post, I mistakenly pressed post while still writing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    monument wrote: »
    I just edited my post, I mistakenly pressed post while still writing.
    Fair enough. I spend a good bit of time in the area and I detest it. It just feels like an area ripe for (re)development to me.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    FYP :)

    Havnt looked at the plans for this but I assume the original Bolands buildings that are staying in place are getting converted in to apartments too? Good to have sites like that revamped. Old derelict buildings do nothing for the city.

    You misquoted me :)

    I can only assume that my aesthetic taste is better than yours.....:cool:

    What's wrong with phallicism?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    MJohnston wrote: »
    imo you lose a lot of Dublin's inner city character with those boundaries, if you're just being general. I certainly see individual spots in areas that could do with development though - most of north O'Connell Street, most of Parnell Square North, empty lots on Dominick Street and Dorset Street near Wellington Street.

    Good. Large parts of Dublin can legitimately be described as complete sh*tholes and not worth saving. Better to encourage large scale redevelopment of much of north inner city Dublin. As for urban sprawl the government really needs to put into place a green belt around Dublin and force Dublin to grow UP rather than grow out. Sprawl and one off housing are a cancer in Ireland and needs to be stamped out.

    Finally Dublin doesn't suddenly end at the M50 and Phoenix Park so it's time for local authorities to recognise this reality. Merge all four Dublin authorities together, abolish all four mayors and provide for a single directly elected mayor of the capital.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Agreed. But when is the next time there will be a chance of a vote on that again??:(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,682 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    Good. Large parts of Dublin can legitimately be described as complete sh*tholes and not worth saving.

    Yeah, and large parts are the opposite too, that was my point. And additionally, some ****holes can be rescued without losing the character, Stoneybatter being an area that springs to mind very quickly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Yeah, and large parts are the opposite too, that was my point. And additionally, some ****holes can be rescued without losing the character, Stoneybatter being an area that springs to mind very quickly.
    IMO mid-rise (in the true international sense) mixed in with "character" neighbourhoods doesn't remove the charm. There are plenty of examples of areas that are mixed in a proper way that retain their charm.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    IMO mid-rise (in the true international sense) mixed in with "character" neighbourhoods doesn't remove the charm. There are plenty of examples of areas that are mixed in a proper way that retain their charm.

    Mid-rise replacing the charm of Stoneybatter?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    monument wrote: »
    Mid-rise replacing the charm of Stoneybatter?
    Properly mixed in appropriate areas. Did I say demo the whole place and replace with mid? There's a lot of assumptions and mis-reading here it seems. :o


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 112 ✭✭brownbeard




  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    brownbeard wrote: »

    22 storeys near the heart of the old city - this should start a bit of fun when the usual suspects get their outrage in gear! :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,947 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Most European Cities generally don't have an issue mixing old and new in their historic core

    NATKgC8.jpg

    For some reason we've gotten it into our heads that we musn't have modernity in eyeshot of Merrion Square.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭Zhane


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Most European Cities generally don't have an issue mixing old and new in their historic core

    NATKgC8.jpg

    For some reason we've gotten it into our heads that we musn't have modernity in eyeshot of Merrion Square.

    London is a fantastic city for mixed architecture. Its a shame we can't aspire to it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,523 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    The thing is though, that I think it works best when there's a really strong contrast between the two, i.e. an ultra-modern design rather than a watered down one that somehow tries to "fit in" by incorporating design elements from the buildings around it, which I guess isn't going to happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    Zhane wrote: »
    London is a fantastic city for mixed architecture. Its a shame we can't aspire to it.

    We wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of some Georgian building eh? :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭Zhane


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    We wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of some Georgian building eh? :rolleyes:

    Oh heavens no. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,947 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Alun wrote: »
    The thing is though, that I think it works best when there's a really strong contrast between the two, i.e. an ultra-modern design rather than a watered down one that somehow tries to "fit in" by incorporating design elements from the buildings around it, which I guess isn't going to happen.

    Agreed some of that 90's red brick faux georgian stuff is mank.
    Although later attempts at faux georgian look really well, Parnell Square East for example.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Agreed some of that 90's red brick faux georgian stuff is mank.
    Although later attempts at faux georgian look really well, Parnell Square East for example.

    I also like that late 70s building at Leeson St bridge.

    If you want to "fit-in" then replicate - and ignore the "Disneyland" sneers and cheap "pastiche" jibes.

    The guys who built the Four Courts weren't bothered that they were building a "pastiche" of Greek/Roman buildings.

    And if you want a modern building - make it stand out, not fit in!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,977 ✭✭✭crushproof


    22 storeys near the heart of the old city - this should start a bit of fun when the usual suspects get their outrage in gear! :rolleyes:

    This plan is still rattling along...are there any images available at all? Hopefully they don't go with the plan from the early 2000's as that would be wel outdated by now.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement