Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Aard

hfallada wrote: »

Houses shouldnt be built within redeveloped areas of the M50. Ideally everything should be like the German way of housing within cities, which is 8 storey apartment blocks centred around a tram/u-bahn station.

You'll find that it doesn't make economic sense to redevelop land inside the M50 as houses. It's too expensive to purchase already-developed land in order to amalgamate a site, and the sale price would be astronomical. Do you know any examples of houses built on redeveloped land inside the M50?

L1011

Glenmalure Park for one, albeit a while ago now. Definitely some around Santry too

Godge

Aard wrote: »

You'll find that it doesn't make economic sense to redevelop land inside the M50 as houses. It's too expensive to purchase already-developed land in order to amalgamate a site, and the sale price would be astronomical. Do you know any examples of houses built on redeveloped land inside the M50?

Phoenix Park Racecourse.

Aard

Did those schemes involve demolishing buildings and rebuilding? That's what I was talking about. There are of course many greenfild to houses schemes.

L1011

Aard wrote: »

Did those schemes involve demolishing buildings and rebuilding? That's what I was talking about. There are of course many greenfild to houses schemes.

Yes, that's why I mentioned them.

Glenmalure Park was a football stadium and associated buildings, its now townhouses.

Out in Santry there were a number of cases of large 40s to 50s industrial buildings - warehouses, car CKD assembly plants, etc - knocked and rebuilt with housing estates in the 1970s onwards

Phoenix Park Racecourse had a number of buildings demolished also, in particular at the bit that got built on first.

Wasn't one of the factories along the Grand Canal at Blackhorse turned to normal density housing also?

There's also be infill development of townhouses around D4/D6 on former commercial sites but of smaller scale.

Peregrine

50 houses being built on the site of a former industrial building on Farnham Drive in Finglas right now.

Godge

Aard wrote: »

Did those schemes involve demolishing buildings and rebuilding? That's what I was talking about. There are of course many greenfild to houses schemes.

Canada Building is one commercial example.

Aard

Thanks for the examples; I hadn't been aware of them.

sdanseo

I'm not sure that enforcing or encouraging minimum heights is something we need as far out of the city as Santry or Finglas, to be fair.

I'd be quite happy if anything within the canal ring was made to be a minimum of 6 storeys unless there's a specific reason not to, with minima of perhaps 10 and 14 storeys in selected locations like the Docklands.

The policy of low rise is something that actually keeps Dublin with some character compared to other cities and it's nice to see, it's just been too strictly enforced. There's nothing wrong with widespread 10 or 20 storey buildings with the odd landmark building higher than that, but there's no need for us to suddenly become London or New York either.

Schadenfreudia

Aard wrote: »

No modern transport infrastructure in central Dublin?! Central Dublin is the best connected place on the island!

Not trying to be facetious - but that is a comment on the rest of the island.

Compared to nearly any modern European system the connections between Dublin centre and it's suburbs and between different parts of the city inside the canals is poor.

There are lots of clogged, slow bus routes - no metro or light rail links except for three narrow corridors that don't even link.

Compare that to Amsterdam!

Kermit.de.frog

sdanseo wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with widespread 10 or 20 storey buildings with the odd landmark building higher than that, but there's no need for us to suddenly become London or New York either.

Just because there is no need does not mean it should not happen. Cities smaller than Dublin have taller buildings. Even Belfast has taller buildings.


But it's more than just the non existent skyline. It is depriving the city of the type of density and population we need to create. It's depriving us of critical mass as a city.


And I do find it absolutely galling when some idiot in either media or Dublin City Council tells us they are protecting "Georgian" Dublin:

1. This is not Georgian Dublin. We need to build for now.

2. It's absolutely hilarious given the state the Georgian houses are in.

hfallada

sdanseo wrote: »

I'm not sure that enforcing or encouraging minimum heights is something we need as far out of the city as Santry or Finglas, to be fair.

I'd be quite happy if anything within the canal ring was made to be a minimum of 6 storeys unless there's a specific reason not to, with minima of perhaps 10 and 14 storeys in selected locations like the Docklands.

The policy of low rise is something that actually keeps Dublin with some character compared to other cities and it's nice to see, it's just been too strictly enforced. There's nothing wrong with widespread 10 or 20 storey buildings with the odd landmark building higher than that, but there's no need for us to suddenly become London or New York either.

Places like Germany generally are 8 storeys minimum close to city. As a result its viable to have tram and U-Bahn lines throughout the whole city. German cities tend to avoid the endless sprawl like Dublin. Although cities in NRW are a different story.

I remember up until 15 years ago you used to find farms at the edge of Glasnevin/Finglas/Ballymun. These farms have been replaced with generic housing and more of the countryside will be replaced with Generic housing. Why should we lose highly fertile land to protect 'our heritage'. Most of our Georgian Dublin is featureless offices or housing that isnt much better than the tenements that used to exist.

Dublin needs more housing and the best way is up and not outwards

Peregrine

Georgian and Victorian Dublin needs to be conserved(much better than it's being conserved right now), there's no question about it.

But that's not an excuse to build shoeboxes in the docklands.

Kermit.de.frog

I think you are being unfair to shoe boxes there.


This is dreadful. Such wasted opportunity to create a skyline

Idbatterim

when all of the land there has been built on and there is virtually no availability, you would wonder if some of the crap that was built in the 90's the 5 story ish stuff, mainly on the northside, will be demolished and rebuilt with a much higher density...

I think you are being unfair to shoe boxes there.


This is dreadful. Such wasted opportunity to create a skyline

I couldnt even be described as bad, it is a spectacular fail! Why, why do planners here and a lot of the population, think only on the smallest scale?!

MJohnston

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think you are being unfair to shoe boxes there.


This is dreadful. Such wasted opportunity to create a skyline

Dreadful is hyperbole - the Docklands has a few distinctive landmarks - tall buildings aren't necessarily going to create any kind of memorable skyline. Most US cities are far more dreadful than anything Dublin planning has given us, even though they're full of tall buildings.

Schadenfreudia

MJohnston wrote: »

Dreadful is hyperbole - the Docklands has a few distinctive landmarks - tall buildings aren't necessarily going to create any kind of memorable skyline. Most US cities are far more dreadful than anything Dublin planning has given us, even though they're full of tall buildings.

Point is - docklands is further removed from the Georgian City than high rise areas in many European city centres are separated from their old centres - Amsterdam being a good example.

The Dublin Georgian core needs to be defined - it lies inside the canals and stops at Heuston and the East Link - max.

Then preserve that if you wish.

Outside that, high-rise should be liberally permitted in selected areas and f**k the nonsense about it "ruining the vista" from any point in the Georgian core.

Peregrine

As a rule of thumb, the Georgian core, for me, lies between the canals and west of the DART line with a few exceptions (Custom House, parts of Pearse Street) and there are one or two isolated Victorian buildings on North Wall Quay that's worth keeping (mostly the former railway station and the adjacent hotel).

MJohnston

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Outside that, high-rise should be liberally permitted in selected areas and f**k the nonsense about it "ruining the vista" from any point in the Georgian core.

I don't buy into the 'ruin the view' notion at all, and would love to see some higher buildings around the Docklands, I just don't think the reality as-is is anywhere near "dreadful".

Aard

The reason for a height limit of 43m on the Convention Centre was so that the vista of the Georgian Mile wouldn't be negatively impacted upon.

sdanseo

Some interesting things in the SDZ masterplan if not already posted (apologies if so):

http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/Documents/NorthLottsandGrandCanalDockChapter4prt2.pdf

Pages 130-134 specifically.

D.L.R.

Aard wrote: »

The reason for a height limit of 43m on the Convention Centre was so that the vista of the Georgian Mile wouldn't be negatively impacted upon.

Maybe if we had a few tall buildings the ESB wouldn't need to be ON the Georgian Mile!

Idbatterim

I just took a read of those pages 130-134, what absolute crap. Is there any mention in that document of the massive housing shortage, urban sprawl, the effect it has on peoples quality of life or are all these secondary to the bloody georgian architecture and this obsession with building office blocks and apartment blocks to the same height the georgians were buildings the same amount of floors over 300 years ago, when the georgian period started...

The rubbish being thrown up there makes us look like a city of 100,000 not one of over 1,000,000!

sdanseo

Idbatterim wrote: »

I just took a read of those pages 130-134, what absolute crap. Is there any mention in that document of the massive housing shortage, urban sprawl, the effect it has on peoples quality of life or are all these secondary to the bloody georgian architecture and this obsession with building office blocks and apartment blocks to the same height the georgians were buildings the same amount of floors over 300 years ago, when the georgian period started...

The rubbish being thrown up there makes us look like a city of 100,000 not one of over 1,000,000!

I agree completely. While it's somewhat positive in mentioning Spencer Dock as "more suitable" for 10-12 storeys it's still in the dark ages except for "landmark" buildings. We need to be fostering certain areas of the city for better development and, as I said earlier, imposing minimum limits of perhaps 6 storeys anywhere within the canal ring. As I also said there's no need to turn us into New York, but in GCD area 14+ storeys should be the standard.

Found it very interesting as well that it mentions 50 units per hectare as a minimum standard for the area with a preference for going above that in the SDZ. 50 units in a 10,000sqm footprint is pretty damn poor.

Schadenfreudia

Aard wrote: »

The reason for a height limit of 43m on the Convention Centre was so that the vista of the Georgian Mile wouldn't be negatively impacted upon.

I might concede that one but I presume that means that East of the Convention Centre there isn't any comparable view to spoil? (Hopefully)

crushproof

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I might concede that one but I presume that means that East of the Convention Centre there isn't any comparable view to spoil? (Hopefully)

Of course there is. it might be your view, or my view...but it will be somebody's view, and they will no doubt kick up a fuss about this "historic vista" which ironically used to be an industrial toxic wasteland.

The more I've travelled the more I've come to realise that Dublin's Georgian City isn't all that grand, it's just large terraced red brick. Now I they should be conserved, and appreciated but when people give out about views being ruined I would simply send them to the North Inner City and ponder why they don't give a toss about the state of the Georgian townhouses there?

You'd swear the planners have never travelled themselves and seen the vibrancy a high density neighbourhood. Either this or they just simply don't have the heart to bother - knowing that NIMBYS, Senator Norris and An Tasice will intervene.

Idbatterim

A pity the Pds are not around anymore on a number of front IMO. But for anyone not aware of the plans they had for Dublin port and a high rise district, check the below link...

https://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/from-2006-a-new-heart-for-dublin-progressive-democrat-proposals-for-a-new-high-rise-quarter-where-dublin-port-was-with-great-pics/

I wonder what the plans are for the Irish glass bottle site? semi d's probably...

Pete_Cavan

Idbatterim wrote: »

when all of the land there has been built on and there is virtually no availability, you would wonder if some of the crap that was built in the 90's the 5 story ish stuff, mainly on the northside, will be demolished and rebuilt with a much higher density...

To say that when the docklands is developed that there will be virtually no availability left is an exaggeration. There are still a large number of infill sites left in the city, industrial type buildings where the business has relocated, numerous 60s/70s blocks of flats which are in need of redevelopment. There are also whole areas such as East Wall, Ringsend, Stoneybatter etc. which are mainly poor quality single storey houses which will be redeveloped over the coming decades. They even remain right behind Googles offices! There was a lot of crap built in the 50 years before the 90s that will be demolished and rebuilt before the 90s crap comes up for redevelopment.

Idbatterim

Originally Posted by Idbatterim View Post
when all of the land there has been built on and there is virtually no availability

To say that when the docklands is developed that there will be virtually no availability left is an exaggeration.

I am referring to the docklands and there wont be...

There was a lot of crap built in the 50 years before the 90s that will be demolished and rebuilt before the 90s crap comes up for redevelopment.

The 90's crap is commercial (I am referring mostly to some of the rubbish on the quays) and owned by a single investor or pension fund whatever, that's pretty straightforward, what are they going to do with the single storey cottages each with a different owner, CPO them?

L1011

Idbatterim wrote: »

when all of the land there has been built on and there is virtually no availability, you would wonder if some of the crap that was built in the 90's the 5 story ish stuff, mainly on the northside, will be demolished and rebuilt with a much higher density...

I'd see the 1960s and 70s 4-6 storey private apartment blocks coming down first - lots of 99 year leases that I could see the freeholder looking to buy back on those. There's a fair few of those in D2/D4/D6.