High rise buildings in Dublin - Yeay or nay?

some_dose

What are peoples opinions on this?

With the continued increase in population in Ireland it is inevitable that cities will continue their urban sprawl across the countryside. We supposedly live in a modern country but crazy planning laws have prevented us from building high rise buildings i.e. we'll say over 30 to 40 stories high.

Do you think that the lack of such high buildings adds character to our cities or do you think (as I do) that it's time to halt the unnecessary urban sprawl and start build some of these if needed?

BraziliaNZ

some_dose wrote: »

What are peoples opinions on this?

With the continued increase in population in Ireland it is inevitable that cities will continue their urban sprawl across the countryside. We supposedly live in a modern country but crazy planning laws have prevented us from building high rise buildings i.e. we'll say over 30 to 40 stories high.

Do you think that the lack of such high buildings adds character to our cities or do you think (as I do) that it's time to halt the unnecessary urban sprawl and start build some of these if needed?

Who's going to pay for these projects and who will buy the space when available?

Fromthetrees

I've decided that these are now allowed.

/thread.

some_dose

some_dose wrote: »

What are peoples opinions on this?

With the continued increase in population in Ireland it is inevitable that cities will continue their urban sprawl across the countryside. We supposedly live in a modern country but crazy planning laws have prevented us from building high rise buildings i.e. we'll say over 30 to 40 stories high.

Do you think that the lack of such high buildings adds character to our cities or do you think (as I do) that it's time to halt the unnecessary urban sprawl and start build some of these if needed?

There's nothing crazy about protecting the skyline and cityscape, they help maintain the character of a city. That's why there's no modern skyscrapers in Venice.

KungPao

But are they needed? Plenty of empty buildings out my way (D18) including a skeletal eyesore in Sandyford and empty office buildings in Leopardstown.

Looks like the urban sprawl has halted for now.

Adhamh

It's not crazy planning laws that are the problem (the plan is to make Dublin denser and more high rise)- it's the crazy and insensitive proposed developments. Instead of building honest and decent buildings, developers a;ways want to put their stamp on the building by making it look as retarded as possible (cough, cough the childrens hospital).

o1s1n

KungPao wrote: »

including a skeletal eyesore in Sandyford.

That always reminds me of the Ryugyong Hotel in North Korea before they put the glass in.

Also plenty of empty shells down towards The Point. Do something with them first before considering changing the city centre.

ScumLord

Dublin should have started building up a long time ago. There's nothing to the Dublin skyline, I think at this stage a "skyline" requires some tall buildings or it might as well be any towns skyline.

1ZRed

Yes. It's about time Dublin started building up instead of out. It only makes sense for a capital city, and is well overdue.

Now, I'd actually want well designed buildings instead of the likes of Liberty Hall, or even the ugly planned building to replace it.

I swear the amount if architects that should be shot for lack of talent, but yet are hired for the job anyway, is unreal.

Dublin is like a blank canvas for high rise buildings and there's loads of apporunity to design modern and unique buildings that could make the city stand out a lot more compared to many other European cities.

BraziliaNZ

1ZRed wrote: »

Yes. It's about time Dublin started building up instead of out. It only makes sense for a capital city, and is well overdue.

Now, I'd actually want well designed buildings instead of the likes of Liberty Hall, or even the ugly planned building to replace it.

I swear the amount if architects that should be shot for lack of talent, but yet are hired for the job anyway, is unreal.

Dublin is like a blank canvas for high rise buildings and there's loads of apporunity to design modern and unique buildings that could make the city stand out a lot more compared to many other European cities.

But we're an economically dead backwater. What's going to drive this upward growth?

ScumLord

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

But we're an economically dead backwater. What's going to drive this upward growth?

Bigger buildings can be more economical in the long run. Urban sprawl is making it hard to get around. We could have better infrastructure. There are a multitude of reasons for building up.

Richard Hillman

There is still plenty of space in West and North Dublin, with small sections still available in the South. There will be a day when it has to be seriously looked at but its a bit early now. We need to work on Public Transport that isnt City Centre orientated.

BraziliaNZ

ScumLord wrote: »

Bigger buildings can be more economical in the long run. Urban sprawl is making it hard to get around. We could have better infrastructure. There are a multitude of reasons for building up.

Where would you build them? City center? To make it even more congested? In a city without public transport, maybe we should be spreading out so as cars can get around easier, and not congest in the city center.

squod

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

But we're an economically dead backwater. What's going to drive this upward growth?

Think the OP is talking about Dublin City Centre. It'll be the people who live there. The Chinese, Eastern Europeans and Africans who'll have to worry about funding IMO.

Conmaicne Mara

Conditional yes, one really big unstable one beside the Dail will do.

Lapin

Candie wrote: »

There's nothing crazy about protecting the skyline and cityscape, they help maintain the character of a city. That's why there's no modern skyscrapers in Venice.

Comparing a UNESCO world heritage city built around canals with Dublin is hardly compating like with like.

I don't have a problem with high rise buildings in Dublin as long as they are concentrated in one area rather dotted around the city in a haphazard manner. Apart from being more asthetic, such a concentration in one place would also provide a location with the critical mass required to sustain other services in the area.

I often consider the docklands to be a lost opportunuty in this regard. The place could have been used to showcase the best in Irish architecture with some landmark high rise structures that are unmistakably Dublin.

BraziliaNZ

Lapin wrote: »

I often consider the docklands to be a lost opportunuty in this regard. The place could have been used to showcase the best in Irish architecture with some landmark high rise structures that are unmistakably Dublin.

But who would occupy them? There are already lots of unoccupied buildings there

ScumLord

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Where would you build them? City center? To make it even more congested? In a city without public transport, maybe we should be spreading out so as cars can get around easier, and not congest in the city center.

If you have to drive through 20 estates to get were you need to go it's not easier to get around.

Most city don't plonk there high rise district in the centre of town either. Dublin would need better public transport but having high density hubs for that transport to go to is needed to make the most out of the public transport system. It's hard to justify making a public transport stop outside of an estate were 4 people might get on board.

staker

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Who's going to pay for these projects and who will buy the space when available?

Lease Dublin to the chinese as a strategic military base in the west,let them take it high rise if they want.
And clean the ****in place up while they're at it.

syklops

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

But we're an economically dead backwater.

We really aren't.

But who would occupy them? There are already lots of unoccupied buildings there

There are buildings and buildings. There are lots of unoccupied, badly built, badly insulated shoeboxes. High-rise does not automatically equal small and pokey.

markpb

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

But we're an economically dead backwater. What's going to drive this upward growth?

WTF. I can't stand this kind of overly negative sh*te. We're in a recession, it's happened before (to us and others) and it'll happen again. It's not the end of the world.

Plenty of people in Ireland still have good, well paying jobs. The IT sector in Ireland is positively booming. People are still immigrating into Ireland because it's a good place to live.

squod

staker wrote: »

Lease Dublin to the chinese as a strategic military base in the west,let them take it high rise if they want.
And clean the ****in place up while they're at it.

You have my vote!!!!

BraziliaNZ

markpb wrote: »

WTF. I can't stand this kind of overly negative sh*te. We're in a recession, it's happened before (to us and others) and it'll happen again. It's not the end of the world.

Plenty of people in Ireland still have good, well paying jobs. The IT sector in Ireland is positively booming. People are still immigrating into Ireland because it's a good place to live.

Right but why do we need skyscrapers? Take somewhere like Munich, I'm not aware of any there, but it functions great as a city.
Dublin is just badly planned through and through, you'd nearly need to bulldoze the entire place and start from scratch to get any type of order going.

quad_red

Been attempted. Didn't end well.

Ask Sean Dunne.

1ZRed

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

But we're an economically dead backwater. What's going to drive this upward growth?

So what're we supposed to do? Nothing and just continue sprawling out to fit the population and so straining transport systems and infrastructure?

That's quite short sighted and the reason why Dublin is so badly planed as it is, there was no foresight put into things. You have to plan for the future, and work towards it gradually.

Recession or no recession, things are going to be built and have to be built regardless, so it's very shortsighted to plan for now instead of investing slowly into something more long-term that will ultimately benefit us more.

There'll be another boom sometime and then what are we stuck with? More crap planning that'll end up costing more long-term to correct, if there's any real effective way to do it at all then.
That was the whole problem with Dublin and how it ended up so badly laid out to begin with.

Capt'n Midnight

what Dublin needs is a better mix of residential and business use.

At present almost everyone has to commute to work because they are in different areas. It also means that the business areas are completely dead at night.

IF there are to be any high rise then they must have commercial activities on the ground floor that can attract passing trade to get people out on the streets.

Other wise it'll be vertical ghettos in empty streets.

Pilotdude5

It should have been encouraged initially. Dublin could have half the footprint it has now. The suburbs feel like sprawling, dead, lifeless wasteland.

conorhal

Unless you want to bulldoze the entire center of the city to get rid of the Victorian streetscape you'll never have the road infrastructure to accomodate high rise, and the center is pretty small anyway. Highrise is already permissable in certian zoned areas like the dockland's and Hueston South Quater and other areas.This is the most sensible option and it's already in place. Unfortunately these places are wastelands, as are most high density developments bucause they were built with no appreciation that people would ever have to live in them. They are small glass goldfish bowls with a total lack of amenities for families or living in general. In the US you'd have to have a laundry room, storage rooms, parking etc. We will never get density righ until developers are forced to make them livable.

admiralofthefleet

yes, we need high rise. its going to have to happen eventually so sooner rather than later. the whole port should be moved up to balbriggan and a high rise [bigger] financial/business district built, a lá canary wharf

Bad Santa

Is the U2 tower being built or what. Walked passed it the other night parking on route to the Grand Canal Theater were we had champagne and caviar and it looks like a right eye sore. International U2 fans have begun to deface the gates with names for their upcoming album though.

pabloh999

We will never ever have rise rise districts or anything of the sort.
Reason - An Bord Pleanala mafia have an anti high rise agenda
http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=164&n=406&a=1694
http://www.thejournal.ie/bord-pleanala-liberty-hall-refused-676532-Nov2012/
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2009/0130/113378-dunne/
http://lhra.info/wewon.htm
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0130/113371-ballsbridge/
http://buckplanning.blogspot.ie/2009/02/how-bord-pleanala-shot-down-dunne-plan.html

pabloh999

.

markpb

pabloh999 wrote: »

We will never ever have rise rise districts or anything of the sort.

While I agree with you, those examples are poor. ABP could not approve high rise in Ballsbridge because it was not allowed by the cities local area plan. DCC should never have approved it. Ditto Liberty hall (although I think the existence of the current building should set precedent).

However, if either of those plans had been submitted for one of the agreed/approved areas (Docklands, Heuston, Clonshaugh(!), etc) ABP really would have no reason not to approve them. I suspect they might though....

Franticfrank

There's absolutely no reason to construct high buildings in the middle of Dublin anyway. It would make sense to construct them but a little bit outside, in the same way as Šnipiškės in Vilnius or La Défense in Paris. Constructing something like that close to a Dart or Luas line would bring a lot of life to an area outside the centre.

April O Neill

ScumLord wrote: »

Bigger buildings can be more economical in the long run. Urban sprawl is making it hard to get around. We could have better infrastructure. There are a multitude of reasons for building up.

That's true but the point is that we have plenty of empty buildings right now so it makes no sense to build more.

Nippledragon

1ZRed wrote: »

I swear the amount if architects that should be shot for lack of talent, but yet are hired for the job anyway, is unreal.

Not so sure Architects are wholly to blame here, many draughtsmen, arch-techs, engineers etc. claimed they were 'Architects' during the boom. Most people don't know the difference between the three anyways.
The problem in Ireland is that the majority don't appreciate good design, and don't think paying the properly qualified people is worth the money. Have a look at some of the 'beautiful' houses that have made sh!te of been built in the countryside. It really says it all The planning depts across the country have a lot to answer for too imo.

Would you pay chiropodist to pull your teeth? No? Then why pay a non qualified/trained architect (or architectural technician) to design your house?

Back to the topic, I think Dublin should build high-rise, but only if it is actually needed. They should not build high-rise just for the sake of it. Any city's development should be the driven by what is needed, and existing redundant spaces/buildings should always be considered first, where applicable.

markpb

April O Neill wrote: »

That's true but the point is that we have plenty of empty buildings right now so it makes no sense to build more.

Where are all those empty buildings (in Dublin)? Sandyford has one incomplete building and one partially incomplete. All the other buildings completed in the last three years have been occupied. The city centre has the Anglo building on the quays. There may be others in other areas but I'm not sure there's the glut of empty buildings that everyone assumes there is.

Perhaps some of the empty buildings are empty because they're unsuitable for any economic use or in unsuitable areas (not near public transport or a motorway)?

It's worth pointing out that a lot of empty buildings are actually let and rent is being paid but the company has ceased trading in Ireland. In this case, their parent company are obliged (by lease) to continue paying rent to the landlord until the end of their lease. They might not be allowed to sub-lease the building to anyone else. This happens all the time with commercial units and creates the impression of empty buildings that no-one can fill. For example, ICS Mortgage shops were all empty for years but you can be sure the landlord is still getting paid.

pabloh999

markpb wrote: »

While I agree with you, those examples are poor. ABP could not approve high rise in Ballsbridge because it was not allowed by the cities local area plan. DCC should never have approved it. Ditto Liberty hall (although I think the existence of the current building should set precedent).

However, if either of those plans had been submitted for one of the agreed/approved areas (Docklands, Heuston, Clonshaugh(!), etc) ABP really would have no reason not to approve them. I suspect they might though....

Perhaps not the greatest examples they were literally the first couple google put up.
We had a big building boom by any global standard
And not one single skyscraper type building?
Its not a coincindence

markpb

pabloh999 wrote: »

Perhaps not the greatest examples they were literally the first couple google put up.
We had a big building boom by any global standard
And not one single skyscraper type building?
Its not a coincindence

Perhaps the reason (initially) is that the city councils were happy to give permission to keep building out instead of up so there was no reason to incur the extra cost of a skyscraper? You only build up when you have to because it's many, many times more expensive (initially and in on-going maintenance) than building out. When fields in Blanchardstown were going cheap and Fingal were happy to give permission for thousands of houses, why bother paying more for a tower in the city centre.

By the time it was financially viable to build up, DCC had a new set of local area plans which limited where high rise could be constructed and then the money ran out...

ScumLord

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Right but why do we need skyscrapers? Take somewhere like Munich, I'm not aware of any there, but it functions great as a city.

If you do a serch on google for Munich skyline you will find they do have high rises, they're not in the historic centre but just as in Paris they surround the city. It's the same in any historic city, they protect the buildings that deserve protecting but have well connected business centres elsewhere in the city.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At present almost everyone has to commute to work because they are in different areas. It also means that the business areas are completely dead at night.

That's common throughout the country. The N17 in Galway is always blocked because for some reason the people that work in the city live in the countryside and the people that work in the countryside live in the city.

April O Neill wrote: »

That's true but the point is that we have plenty of empty buildings right now so it makes no sense to build more.

It's not really the buildings fault it wasn't used, planned for or built correctly. Every other developed country builds up because it's the logical things to do.

pabloh999

What an absolute wasted opportunity the IFSC was.
We could have a nice and interesting little high rise area down there.

Recently a lot of IFSC buildings are adding new lighting, reds and greens.
Maybe when you look down the river it makes it seem like something is actually going on down there ?

riclad

here,s plenty of building land round dublin,for house building i think high buildings would be of most interest to business or large companys.
This is not the 70s, the council is knocking down blocks, they build mainly 2 or 3 story houses, apartments.
Theres many apartment blocks, on ground floor theres retail space,
probably demanded by council,to get planning permission, many of these spaces are lying empty,
probably cos of the recession.
Many of these spaces have never been used.as theres plenty of shops nearby.
I Think theres plenty of office space in dublin.enough to meet demand at the moment.

RUSTEDCORE

Ive always wanted to live in new york

BraziliaNZ

ScumLord wrote: »

If you do a serch on google for Munich skyline you will find they do have high rises, they're not in the historic centre but just as in Paris they surround the city. It's the same in any historic city, they protect the buildings that deserve protecting but have well connected business centres elsewhere in the city.

I've visited loads of times, a good friend lives in the suburbs, and didn't really notice, but maybe they do have some outside the old parts.
But why would we build them in Dublin? For what I mean?
Irish people are obsessed with living in houses with gardens, semi-detatched etc.
Do we really need high rise for business around the outskirts of the city? What business?

markpb

riclad wrote: »

I Think theres plenty of office space in dublin.enough to meet demand at the moment.

You could be wrong though. Office space has to suit the company involved. Google or other large companies aren't going to go around hoovering up all the small to medium offices around the city - they need a single large building. Likewise, most IT companies won't move into renovated Georgian buildings because they're awful to try to put proper networking and power into. Some companies won't take older buildings on two stories unless they have a lift which most old buildings don't. Some companies won't take city centre locations because they don't have enough parking or because they're too far away from the Dart of Luas. It's way to vague to point at some empty buildings and say there's more than enough.

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

But we're an economically dead backwater. What's going to drive this upward growth?

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Do we really need high rise for business around the outskirts of the city? What business?

You believe we're stuck in a rut from which we'll never emerge? It must be a depressing place for you

April O Neill

markpb wrote: »

Where are all those empty buildings (in Dublin)? Sandyford has one incomplete building and one partially incomplete. All the other buildings completed in the last three years have been occupied.

There are loads in Smithfield, around Heuston, and in Dublin 2.

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not really the buildings fault it wasn't used, planned for or built correctly. Every other developed country builds up because it's the logical things to do.

If it's needed.

pabloh999

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

Ive always wanted to live in new york

A high rise building or two does not equal Manhattan.

Remember the anti high rise marches? residents of sherriff st/east wall area out protesting because plans were afoot to build some tallish buildings in our International Financial Centre:eek:
I was young enough at the time but i remember thinking what a bunch of absolute losers.

ScumLord

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

But why would we build them in Dublin? For what I mean?

Improved efficiency. It'll improve resource use and make transporting people around easier. It's also better for peoples health. If you can walk from your building to your place of work it's much better than spending 30+ minutes commuting.

April O Neill wrote: »

If it's needed.

It is needed, Dublins big and spread out at the moment. The new road network around Dublin has made getting around Dublin much easier but that won't last, it's becoming outdated as we speak.

BraziliaNZ

markpb wrote: »

You believe we're stuck in a rut from which we'll never emerge? It must be a depressing place for you

It looks that way, I don't really give a sh*t I don't live there.
I just think building more stuff is the last thing you'd want to do ffs.

pabloh999

High rise 21st century living for some
Grim deserted lifeless housing estates for others

April O Neill

ScumLord wrote: »

It is needed, Dublins big and spread out at the moment. The new road network around Dublin has made getting around Dublin much easier but that won't last, it's becoming outdated as we speak.

The only way people in Ireland will move into high-rise is if high rise living in this country becomes a lot less sh1t. But, you know, a lot of iconic skyscrapers are pretty pokey on the inside. It's more about the aesthetics with them.

Housing estate houses are soulless but they tend to be roomy, something people won't give up easily.

Finally, not everyone wants to live in city centres.