Goodbye An Bord Pleanala!

bear1

Ok not for good but thank God they will be bypassed for this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/fast-track-plan-for-dublin-docklands-approved-1.1587697

I think this is what Dublin needs, a nice few skyscrapers and with some decent height.
Would make the city look so much more modern.
The U2 Tower would probably have been nice but I doubt that is going anywhere.
So it got me thinking, what other projects would have been completed if ABP were taken out of the equation altogether?
I seem to remember plans in the 00's of a huge theme park in Finglas I believe which was shelved by ABP.. could be wrong though

Dravokivich

Don't see the point in it. We don't have the facilities to support it and there's a fúck tonne of empty buildings around the docklands already. What's the use in bigger emptier buildings?

D1stant

Less urban planning is exactly what we need

bear1

I can see what you guys are saying, job-wise though I think it's good news. Plus I imagine a good few more international companies would probably move over or further expand, all in all I don't think it's bad news

seamus

Dravokivich wrote: »

Don't see the point in it. We don't have the facilities to support it and there's a fúck tonne of empty buildings around the docklands already. What's the use in bigger emptier buildings?

There's a chicken-and-egg issue with the docklands. Businesses won't move there because there's so much wasteland and run-down buildings, and there's so much wasteland and run-down buildings because businesses won't move there.

There's a tech hub growing in the Grand canal dock area, which has modern buildings interspersed with crumbling abandoned factories and huge empty lots like the U2 building.

Presumably the aim here is a big prestige building that will encourage companies to locate 500+ people there, which will then encourage smaller companies to locate there too, stimulating demand.

There is a transport shortfall there though on the south side. They should look at having the Luas Red line do a loop after the Point - across another bridge parallel to the east link to Ringsend and then straight back down Pearse St to link up with the new section of rail from Stephen's Green to Abbey st.

munchkin_utd

seamus wrote: »

<snip>

There is a transport shortfall there though on the south side. They should look at having the Luas Red line do a loop after the Point - across another bridge parallel to the east link to Ringsend and then straight back down Pearse St to link up with the new section of rail from Stephen's Green to Abbey st.

Is a dart station 100m from Google and 500m from the new Facebook offices not to mention very regular busses down Pearse st not enough?

And thats aside from the fact that the Grand Canal Dock area is well accessible by bike

o1s1n

Just reading up on the U2 Tower;

The predicted price of a 2-bed apartment in the tower was estimated in October 2006 at €1-1.5 million

Hah! My god, I can only imagine the further debt we'd be in now if that had gone ahead.

bear1

It would make it more attractive though if there was another Luas line connecting that area to the rest of the city

carlmango11

D1stant wrote: »

Less urban planning is exactly what we need

Yes because An Bord Pleanala did a great job during our construction boom.

seamus

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Is a dart station 100m from Google and 500m from the new Facebook offices not to mention very regular busses down Pearse st not enough?

Dart isn't light rail though. You wouldn't get a dart to get yourself from Grand Canal Dock to Grafton St.
I should have clarified that's what I meant. The area is surprisingly isolated from the commercial centre of the city. You've no hope of getting onto Dame Street and back in a lunchtime.

And thats aside from the fact that the Grand Canal Dock area is well accessible by bike

It is, but the closest Dublin bike station to the city centre is a 25 minute walk away.

They are planning on putting a number of stations there in 2014 though which should help.

Maximus Alexander

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Is a dart station 100m from Google and 500m from the new Facebook offices not to mention very regular busses down Pearse st not enough?

And thats aside from the fact that the Grand Canal Dock area is well accessible by bike

It's not really enough, no. I work in the docklands on the south side of the river, and there is a definite transport problem. The Dart is fairly near by, but it serves a limited area and is of no use to me.

The buses are much the same, there are certain areas that you just can't get to easily from here. I lived in Dundrum last year and I had to get a Luas, followed by a 20 minute walk which is really not ideal. I started cycling, but most people won't do that.

Driving is not an option as there is no parking available in the area, apart from some private spaces which can be rented for ~€150 per month.

Sure, you can take a bus down Pearse Street into the city and then get another bus to pretty much anywhere. However, because of the way the fares work you have to pay twice, and that makes your commute fairly expensive, not to mention unnecessarily long.

It's not exactly impossible to get here, but it's not straightforward, quick or cheap enough to be much of a draw either.

bear1

Wonder how long it will be before the work will start on the Docklands?

Teyla Emmagan

This is bananas. Why have structures and safeguards in place when they are then bypassed? Look at the hideous planning decisions that have already been made in this country - whatever gombeen thought this was a good idea needs their head kicked in.

bear1

Hopefully then the past will show us the error of our ways when it comes to planning the future
Eventually these types of projects would be needed as the cities will only get bigger so a proper detailed plan and forecast is needed so this could be a good opportunity to see if the council are on the right track or not.
Time will tell but I maintain that jobs wise its good news

neris

the southside of the quays isnt to bad and is well developed already with a few small pockets of further development but the north quays after the convention centre to the point is a kip and wasteland and should be sorted out first but with dublin city council i wouldnt trust them feckers an inch with either side of the river

humanji

I can't help but feel that large amounts of money have just been passed under a lot of tables, in many brown envelopes.

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

There's a chicken-and-egg issue with the docklands. Businesses won't move there because there's so much wasteland and run-down buildings, and there's so much wasteland and run-down buildings because businesses won't move there.

There's a tech hub growing in the Grand canal dock area, which has modern buildings interspersed with crumbling abandoned factories and huge empty lots like the U2 building.

Presumably the aim here is a big prestige building that will encourage companies to locate 500+ people there, which will then encourage smaller companies to locate there too, stimulating demand.

There is a transport shortfall there though on the south side. They should look at having the Luas Red line do a loop after the Point - across another bridge parallel to the east link to Ringsend and then straight back down Pearse St to link up with the new section of rail from Stephen's Green to Abbey st.

I get you, but look at Park West then. That got built up and is as empty as the wasteland before it. If you want to clean it up, get rid of the buildings that have fallen into disrepair. But there is no point on building up over'em when there's so much vacant already.

Can't throw a Luas over at that end, as the bridge will need to be able to be opened/closed for waterway traffic. Dart Underground would have been a more realistic feeder for that.

Gee Bag

carlmango11 wrote: »

Yes because An Bord Pleanala did a great job during our construction boom.

ABP only get to decide on individual planning applications, they don't set planning policy.

seamus

Dravokivich wrote: »

I get you, but look at Park West then. That got built up and is as empty as the wasteland before it. If you want to clean it up, get rid of the buildings that have fallen into disrepair. But there is no point on building up over'em when there's so much vacant already.

I do agree on that point; there is a lot of modern vacant property there. But I also recognise that a single prestige building might encourage the rest of that space to fill up. Might...

Can't throw a Luas over at that end, as the bridge will need to be able to be opened/closed for waterway traffic.

It doesn't open that often, technically there's no reason why the Luas can't be run across a lifting bridge, there are ways of splitting the overhead lines.
An interim measure though could be a terminus in Ringsend (there's plenty of space for it). The beauty here is that this line could feed both the red and green lines, giving a Ringsend - Saggart route and a Ringsend to Brides Glen route.
It would also probably the cheapest and quickest Luas extension possible because the run down Pearse St to the new line extension is straight and wide.

Stick a Terminus on South Dock Road and run the line straight from there to Hawkins st. There's enough room there for two Luas lanes + 2 traffic lanes.

D1stant

carlmango11 wrote: »

Yes because An Bord Pleanala did a great job during our construction boom.

Yes you are right. But the Bank regulator did a sh1t job also - should we get rid of bank regulation too?

These functions are required. If they don't work, fix them. Do not remove them. That's all.

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

I do agree on that point; there is a lot of modern vacant property there. But I also recognise that a single prestige building might encourage the rest of that space to fill up. Might...

There was also one of'em in Park West too! :P

seamus wrote: »

It doesn't open that often, technically there's no reason why the Luas can't be run across a lifting bridge, there are ways of splitting the overhead lines.
An interim measure though could be a terminus in Ringsend (there's plenty of space for it). The beauty here is that this line could feed both the red and green lines, giving a Ringsend - Saggart route and a Ringsend to Brides Glen route.
It would also probably the cheapest and quickest Luas extension possible because the run down Pearse St to the new line extension is straight and wide.

Stick a Terminus on South Dock Road and run the line straight from there to Hawkins st. There's enough room there for two Luas lanes + 2 traffic lanes.

Well even not open often, can be enough to disrupt the amount of trams available for services on either side. But the affect on that, would be something for city planners to weight up pros/cons for. A line spurring off down Pearse st would act most likely little more than a shuttle service, similar to what they do between Heuston / Connolly. It sounds a bit much to me, when there's other stuff that may be more in demand/ required.

humanji

humanji wrote: »

I can't help but feel that large amounts of money have just been passed under a lot of tables, in many brown envelopes.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but that's the first thing that I thought, too.

It almost reads like something from an episode of The A-Team.

"The city planners so corrupt, that he's letting them put up buildings left, right, and centre! It's gonna kill off the demand on our poor little family run farm that just happens to be right next to this large multi-storey building empire that's going ahead"

"Isn't there a planning board that this could be appealed to?"

"There was, but.. well.. Kirkland and his men pushed them out. Now they can build whatever they want, wherever they want, with no one to answer to!"

"Im'ma need my tools, Hannibal!"




... Sorry, Im just humouring myself now...

WilyCoyote

At long last a bit of rational thinking and force to bypass those effing mandarins. If only this could have been done 20 years ago!

Mint Aero

Yes and about time too. I like some of the empty lots/wasteland in the docks, they've a certain charm about them.

CucaFace

This is a great idea and really we have nothing to lose.

First off there is a city centre accommodation shortage at the moment and apartments are badly needed again (Mad isn't it but its true).

Plus I cant see too many Irish developers or Irish banks being in a position to build this so the investment would come from foreign developers and banks thus leaving all the risk on them, while supplying badly needed construction jobs in the capital.

Really nothing to lose on this and its about time the council got with the times and started to allow tall buildings like this.

K-9

humanji wrote: »

I can't help but feel that large amounts of money have just been passed under a lot of tables, in many brown envelopes.

It's very hard to get away from thinking that, always make me think of Hawkins House and the ESB HQ, though I never understood the need for the total ban for buildings above a certain height.

After reading the article though, ABP will be involved initially but there will be limited grounds of appeal after the first building in the area is granted.

neris

K-9 wrote: »

It's very hard to get away from thinking that, always make me think of Hawkins House and the ESB HQ, though I never understood the need for the total ban for buildings above a certain height.

After reading the article though, ABP will be involved initially but there will be limited grounds of appeal after the first building in the area is granted.

hawkins house and that other 1 beside it, apollo house i think its called and lump liberty hall in and that part of town must have been built on A4 sized brown envelopes. Youd think the dept of health would get out of hawkins house and flog it for development. though theyd prob have union uproar and the idea of staff having to move a new modern built office block and then theyd be looking for pay offs to move

Cool Mo D

D1stant wrote: »

Less urban planning is exactly what we need

What we need is to make it easier to build in the city, and harder to build in the middle of nowhere. One of the reasons we have so many ghost estates is that it was easy to throw up a cheap estate miles away from where people worked or grew up, and hard to build tall buildings in the city.

In the boom, Dublin should have built up, instead of sprawling all over Leinster. Its way too late coming, but making it much easier to build tall buildings in the city is good urban planning.

darragh16

I don't agree with the 22 storeys, surely they could cap it at say 15 storeys instead?

Gee Bag

CucaFace wrote: »

This is a great idea and really we have nothing to lose.

First off there is a city centre accommodation shortage at the moment and apartments are badly needed again (Mad isn't it but its true).

Plus I cant see too many Irish developers or Irish banks being in a position to build this so the investment would come from foreign developers and banks thus leaving all the risk on them, while supplying badly needed construction jobs in the capital.

Really nothing to lose on this and its about time the council got with the times and started to allow tall buildings like this.

I agree with you 100% that tall buildings should be built in Dublin (and elsewhere).

I disagree with the notion that an Bord pleanala should be sidelined. During the boom ABP where just about the only organisation with teeth that stopped utterly inappropriate developments.

The planning and development laws and bylaws need to be changed to allow for taller buildings and then ABP can make appropriate descisions on individual planning applications.

IMo this move allows developers too much influence over the planning process, it strikes me as a return to the the bad old days of planning in Ireland.

K-9

neris wrote: »

hawkins house and that other 1 beside it, apollo house i think its called and lump liberty hall in and that part of town must have been built on A4 sized brown envelopes.

Considering the links between FF and developers in the 60's through TACA, the body set up to fund raise for the party, I'd be suspicious as well.

Youd think the dept of health would get out of hawkins house and flog it for development. though theyd prob have union uproar and the idea of staff having to move a new modern built office block and then theyd be looking for pay offs to move

I think there was talk of it a few years back but I suppose the crash put an end to that. Think I remember reading about sick building syndrome and Hawkins House, must be a shyte hole to work in, so they'd probably save any pay offs from reduced sick pay.

MadsL

carlmango11 wrote: »

Yes because An Bord Pleanala did a great job during our construction boom.

They actually did, with the very strong prodding of An Taisce, prevent some really stupid stuff getting planning permission. A 51 story at James's Gate, A diamond 30 story at the Digital Hub, a cantilevered inverted L shape over the quays (I **** you not), skislope idiocy on O'Connell Street etc.

I don't really understand why high-rise fanboys jerk off quite so much with every announcement of fantasy of a tall building, Dublin is full of empty office space, no need to emulate some sad empty version of Frankfurt.

Cool Mo D

Gee Bag wrote: »

I agree with you 100% that tall buildings should be built in Dublin (and elsewhere).

I disagree with the notion that an Bord pleanala should be sidelined. During the boom ABP where just about the only organisation with teeth that stopped utterly inappropriate developments.

The planning and development laws and bylaws need to be changed to allow for taller buildings and then ABP can make appropriate descisions on individual planning applications.

This move to allows developers too much influence over the planning process strikes me as a return to the the bad old days.

I completely disagree. An Bord Pleanala try to do a good job, but their decisions are often contradictory and arbitrary. During the boom, getting as much past an Bord Pleanala was like a game for developers, and the arbitrary nature of the decisions made for completely hodge-podge planning.

What should happen is that a development plan is published for each area, specifying exactly what you can and cannot build. If I buy a piece of land, I should know exactly what I can and cannot build on it from day one.

The problem with an Bord Pleanala is that you never know exactly what is and what isn't allowed in advance. That is not good planning.

Maximus Alexander

MadsL wrote: »

They actually did, with the very strong prodding of An Taisce, prevent some really stupid stuff getting planning permission. A 51 story at James's Gate, A diamond 30 story at the Digital Hub, a cantilevered inverted L shape over the quays (I **** you not), skislope idiocy on O'Connell Street etc.

I don't really understand why high-rise fanboys jerk off quite so much with every announcement of fantasy of a tall building, Dublin is full of empty office space, no need to emulate some sad empty version of Frankfurt.

I actually agree with you. I'd be in favour of high rise buildings in Dublin if there were a need for them. There isn't though. It would only serve to create more pathetic wastelands like the Anglo building. Except bigger.

MadsL

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I completely disagree. An Bord Pleanala try to do a good job, but their decisions are often contradictory and arbitrary. During the boom, getting as much past an Bord Pleanala was like a game for developers, and the arbitrary nature of the decisions made for completely hodge-podge planning.

Which ones were arbitary and contradictory?

What should happen is that a development plan is published for each area, specifying exactly what you can and cannot build. If I buy a piece of land, I should know exactly what I can and cannot build on it from day one.

That's exactly what happens and is mandatory under the Planning Acts.
Here's the site for the Dublin Development Plan

The problem with an Bord Pleanala is that you never know exactly what is and what isn't allowed in advance. That is not good planning.

ABP take account of the Development Plan and compare the proposal against it. Much of the boom time crap that was proposed was proposed entirely flew in the face of the relevant Development Plan.

What you have described as the ideal, is actually how ABP work in practice.

Gee Bag

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I completely disagree. An Bord Pleanala try to do a good job, but their decisions are often contradictory and arbitrary. During the boom, getting as much past an Bord Pleanala was like a game for developers, and the arbitrary nature of the decisions made for completely hodge-podge planning.

What should happen is that a development plan is published for each area, specifying exactly what you can and cannot build. If I buy a piece of land, I should know exactly what I can and cannot build on it from day one.

The problem with an Bord Pleanala is that you never know exactly what is and what isn't allowed in advance. That is not good planning.

Not being a smart arse, but could you maybe give some of these arbitary descisions? I can'y think of any offhand.

Who comes up with the development plan? Your suggestion that there should be a development plan that stipulates exactly what can and can not be built at a given location is an invitation for cronyism and corruption.

County and Urban Councillors can veto descisions made by their planners. Laois county councils development plan in 2005 rezoned enough land for 39500 new homes in the county over five years! This would have been enough to accomadate the entire predicted population growth in Leinster. Fair play to Dick Roche for putting a stop to this madness. After the utter balls they made of planning I would be in favour of curtailing the powers of county councillors to have any significant input in the planning process unless it was subject to review by a body such as ABP.

Development is a business, same as any other business you have to take your chances. If a developer knows what they are doing and spend time preparing their application with the right advice they will know what they can and can not build. Letting developers decide what they want to do with their land without any checks or balances is a recipe for disaster.

We need more planning regulation not less.

MadsL

WilyCoyote wrote: »

At long last a bit of rational thinking and force to bypass those effing mandarins. If only this could have been done 20 years ago!

Had those "manderins" been bypassed no-one would have listened to An Taisce when they said that this development was "a bit" overscaled for Dublin's highest point, and that would have been another good few million to bail out.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/8485/dighubmodel2qb.jpg

An Taisce and the "manderins" actually saved about a half billion...

An Taisce estimates that appeals taken against inappropriate speculative development has reduced the value of impaired loans by at least €505m. These are loans which the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA) would have had to purchase, or if falling outside the scope of NAMA, would remain with financial institutions as non-performing burdens – liabilities which Irish taxpayers are currently underwriting.

http://www.antaisce.ie/Portals/27/publications/An_Taisce_(2012)_State_of_the_Nation.pdf

bear1

All valid points. Although IMO some nice tall buildings would be nice to see

MadsL wrote: »

I don't really understand why high-rise fanboys jerk off quite so much with every announcement of fantasy of a tall building, Dublin is full of empty office space, no need to emulate some sad empty version of Frankfurt.

^^ I wouldn't consider myself a "fanboy" of high-rises who jerks off to the idea of them, bit of a silly statement. I believe they make cities look richer, tidier somehow. Even nicer when flying into the city and you see them all lit up.
Just because a few people would like to see them doesn't merit this kind of statement.

Maximus Alexander

bear1 wrote: »

All valid points. Although IMO some nice tall buildings would be nice to see

The idea of them is nice, but the reality would be quite different. There is no way they would be filled. Look around Dublin at the amount of brand new Celtic Tiger buildings that are sitting idle. Even along the grand canal there are some state of the art office spaces that have never been used and are still to let.

MadsL

bear1 wrote: »

I wouldn't consider myself a "fanboy" of high-rises who jerks off to the idea of them, bit of a silly statement. I believe they make cities look richer, tidier somehow. Even nicer when flying into the city and you see them all lit up.
Just because a few people would like to see them doesn't merit this kind of statement.

You have no idea how many people use the argument how Dublin 'needs' tall buildings. Personally I think there is a phallic inferiority complex going on - the only impressive erection in town is a skinny needledick.

What Dublin really needs is the National Concert Hall replaced with a world class symphonic hall designed by Frank Gehry.

http://cdn.freshome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/frank-gehry-walt-disney-concert-all-LA1.jpg

bear1

MadsL wrote: »

You have no idea how many people use the argument how Dublin 'needs' tall buildings. Personally I think there is a phallic inferiority complex going on - the only impressive erection in town is a skinny needledick.

What Dublin really needs is the National Concert Hall replaced with a world class symphonic hall designed by Frank Gehry.

http://cdn.freshome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/frank-gehry-walt-disney-concert-all-LA1.jpg

That building is disgusting I think.
You quote penises like its meant to be funny, I may noy know how many people say we "need" them but I do know that I would like to see them eventually. It has nothing to do with Phallics or complexes.
The Spire looks good, probably would have been better if it was fully lit up.
Eventually Dublin will run out of space to build laterally and the time will come to build vertically. Many cities are doing it as its a space saver.
I agree that they should first have the unoccupied buildings sorted out first and then look at building their high-rises in the Docklands.
If they can sort all that out Dublin would become even more attractive than it is already.

MadsL

bear1 wrote: »

That building is disgusting I think.
You quote penises like its meant to be funny, I may noy know how many people say we "need" them but I do know that I would like to see them eventually. It has nothing to do with Phallics or complexes.
The Spire looks good, probably would have been better if it was fully lit up.
Eventually Dublin will run out of space to build laterally and the time will come to build vertically. Many cities are doing it as its a space saver.
I agree that they should first have the unoccupied buildings sorted out first and then look at building their high-rises in the Docklands.
If they can sort all that out Dublin would become even more attractive than it is already.

Get back to me when Dublin runs out of space - Dublin city is a awash with empty buildings, brownfield underutilised land and brand new never been occupied celtic tiger speculative office blocks.

If Dublin let had planning and need rather than financial gain drive development as people like An Taisce kept reminding everyone, Ireland would not be in such a financial mess.

stoneill

The Council give themselves powers to build what they want without appeal by the planning board?

Jasus!

Blisterman

bear1 wrote: »

Ok not for good but thank God they will be bypassed for this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/fast-track-plan-for-dublin-docklands-approved-1.1587697

I think this is what Dublin needs, a nice few skyscrapers and with some decent height.
Would make the city look so much more modern.
The U2 Tower would probably have been nice but I doubt that is going anywhere.
So it got me thinking, what other projects would have been completed if ABP were taken out of the equation altogether?
I seem to remember plans in the 00's of a huge theme park in Finglas I believe which was shelved by ABP.. could be wrong though

Skyscrapers have neither been a modern nor innovative thing for a long time. Just go to any third world city and you'll see hundreds of random tower blocks from the 60's.

Which is not to say I'm necessarily opposed to well designed tall buildings, provided they're appropriately sited and relate well to their surroundings. And that's exactly why good town planning is needed. You can't just randomly place a few modern buildings, and expect it to automatically regenerate an area.

The best cities are the ones where new and old work together harmoniously. Each adding to the other, rather than being in an awkward conflict.

bear1

Blisterman wrote: »

Skyscrapers have neither been a modern nor innovative thing for a long time. Just go to any third world city and you'll see hundreds of random tower blocks from the 60's.

Which is not to say I'm necessarily opposed to well designed tall buildings, provided they're appropriately sited and relate well to their surroundings. And that's exactly why good town planning is needed. You can't just randomly place a few modern buildings, and expect it to automatically regenerate an area.

The best cities are the ones where new and old work together harmoniously. Each adding to the other, rather than being in an awkward conflict.

Yes, which is why I hope that mistakes from the past can be learnt and new elegant buildings can be made.
For instance I think New York looks too chaotic with its skyscrapers but London looks ok with them, they sort of blend in and it would be an approach I would approve Dublin to take.
Not just plump a 30 storey building next to the GPO and say "looks mighty"
As you said, properly planned.

Dyr

Last thing dublin needs is to give the council more power and less oversight

end of the road

carlmango11 wrote: »

Yes because An Bord Pleanala did a great job during our construction boom.

i'd still trust them more then the wannabe politicians in DCC

WilyCoyote

darragh16 wrote: »

I don't agree with the 22 storeys, surely they could cap it at say 15 storeys instead?

Why on earth not?

hmmm

Not all of us want to live in Leixlip and commute for 2 hours a day because a few people want to retain the low-rise "character" of inner city Dublin. We need high density accommodation and retail in the city centre. I'm delighted with this move, I don't think ABP do altogether a bad job, but we've spent long enough talking and it's time to start building.

Peregrine

From what I can remember from reading the SDZ development plan a few months ago, 22 stories was only allowed in one or 2 sites. That's one or two buildings.

For half of the docklands, they still advocated building the 5-8 storey shoeboxes like the ones built during the 2000s.

Also, the section 25 powers aren't new. They were simply transferred from the DDDA.

I don't see why people are opposed to building high rise buildings in the docklands. I'd be against building them in the inner city but for **** sake the docklands is neither inner city nor historic. And all this ****e about "there's no demand for them" is simply not true.

end of the road

hmmm wrote: »

Not all of us want to live in Leixlip and commute for 2 hours a day

get the train, much quicker then driving, anyway in this day and age 2 hours 1 up and 1 back is nothing.

hmmm wrote: »

because a few people want to retain the low-rise "character" of inner city Dublin.

inner city dublin is of historic signifficance, it was people of your opinion who destroyed and continues to allow the destruction of anything historic, so therefore the "few" who want to keep high-rise buildings out of there are more important then those who want to build more buildings we can't fill.

hmmm wrote: »

We need high density accommodation and retail in the city centre.

we have enough empty buildings as it is, preserving the natural essence of the inner city is more important then those who want us to build more buildings nobody wants for nama to snap up

hmmm wrote: »

I'm delighted with this move

i'm sure you are, all though no doubt when the whole lot goes to s//t you will be paying for it and whining about it.

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think ABP do altogether a bad job

alot better then DCC, they don't deserve the right to give themselves any powers, only a government agency should have the right to give councils more powers and the councils will have to prove that they earn the right to those powers, and doing so should be as difficult as possible.

hmmm wrote: »

but we've spent long enough talking and it's time to start building.

no its not time to start building buildings nobody wants when we can't fill what we've got.