Densities in developments

Pixel Eater

So while I was skimming over the various headlines this morning I came across this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/permission-given-for-65m-pelletstown-development-1.2748462

It was well buried among the plethora of other articles but the fact that a significant housing development got the go ahead tweaked my curiosity - still so few housing being built as well all know.

But after reading it I was left a tad disheartened. To summarise: Dublin City Council approved the planning permission, it was stalled by local resident group due to lack of facilities but overturned and again approved by An Bord Pleanála.

The thing is that the approved development has a lot lower density that what was initially envisaged. The Council want higher density; An Bord Pleanála want higher density and I assume the Transport Authority, who plan to construct a railway station nearby, surely want high density; yet the first two granted the lower density development?!!

It seems to because of the new Government construction strategy that allows lower density developments. Why would it do this?! The Council seem to be contradicting themselves? Surely even developers what higher densities? What am I missing?

It's not a complete disaster of course as at least something will be built but with a railway station planned and in a location only 4 kms from the city centre it seems like a completed missed opportunity. I just hope we're not going back to Celtic Tiger era ways of planning...

karma_coma

"Tokyo may have found the solution to soaring housing costs":


http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo

Bray Head

There is a hell of a lot more infrastructure here than there is for most one-off developments which account for a substantial minority of new build in Ireland right now.

I know very little about how DCC operates. But do the people in the housing section paying out tens of millions per annum for 'emergency' homeless accommodation ever wander down the corridor for a chat with the planning section and politely suggest higher densities?

Pixel Eater

karma_coma wrote: »

"Tokyo may have found the solution to soaring housing costs":


http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo

Good link. And it's exactly the same scenario here unfortunately. NIMBYism...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ross-fighting-plans-to-build-108-homes-in-his-constituency-34912317.html

Councillor Deirdre Donnelly states the area has been "plagued" by high-density planning application. I'm beginning to see where the problem lies...

Pixel Eater

Bray Head wrote: »

There is a hell of a lot more infrastructure here than there is for most one-off developments which account for a substantial minority of new build in Ireland right now.

I know very little about how DCC operates. But do the people in the housing section paying out tens of millions per annum for 'emergency' homeless accommodation ever wander down the corridor for a chat with the planning section and politely suggest higher densities?

One-off housing is a complete disaster and the main reason for the decline of our rural towns and villages in my opinion.

If the Council spent that money on actually building public housing on all that land they own then the problem would be solved very quickly.

Idbatterim

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Good link. And it's exactly the same scenario here unfortunately. NIMBYism...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ross-fighting-plans-to-build-108-homes-in-his-constituency-34912317.html

Councillor Deirdre Donnelly states the area has been "plagued" by high-density planning application. I'm beginning to see where the problem lies...

yet I am sure ms Deirdre Donnelly bemoans the housing crisis , homelessness etc. Ask her where to build thigh and no doubt it will be anywhere but her constituency! These people are the problem , but they are voted in on this basis by nimbys, I.e current residents ... I would absolutely take densities out of elected officials hands...

I read an Irish times article on a development in mount metro on the other day. Planning sought and rejected for a 5 storey block. One quote from a resident not word for word, but this is the jist "it's the kind of thing you'd see in suburban Hong Kong, not suburban Dublin" LMAO! LMAO!

Here's the link...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/planning-refused-for-mount-merrion-development-at-kiely-s-site-1.2729749

PhoenixParker

Pixel Eater wrote: »

So while I was skimming over the various headlines this morning I came across this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/permission-given-for-65m-pelletstown-development-1.2748462

It was well buried among the plethora of other articles but the fact that a significant housing development got the go ahead tweaked my curiosity - still so few housing being built as well all know.

But after reading it I was left a tad disheartened. To summarise: Dublin City Council approved the planning permission, it was stalled by local resident group due to lack of facilities but overturned and again approved by An Bord Pleanála.

The thing is that the approved development has a lot lower density that what was initially envisaged. The Council want higher density; An Bord Pleanála want higher density and I assume the Transport Authority, who plan to construct a railway station nearby, surely want high density; yet the first two granted the lower density development?!!

It seems to because of the new Government construction strategy that allows lower density developments. Why would it do this?! The Council seem to be contradicting themselves? Surely even developers what higher densities? What am I missing?

It's not a complete disaster of course as at least something will be built but with a railway station planned and in a location only 4 kms from the city centre it seems like a completed missed opportunity. I just hope we're not going back to Celtic Tiger era ways of planning...

On this, it's not a low density development, it's medium density and at the higher end of that. Over half the dwellings are apartments in 5 & 6 storey buildings and the houses are terraced with small gardens and many of them are over 3 floors to reduce footprint.

There's a good run down of the planned development here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1842436&page=2

The development & density is in line with the Local Area Plan for the area:
http://www.dublincity.ie/ashtown-pelletstown-local-area-plan

The Local Area Plan targets a population for the area of 7000, while the 2000 plan's target was for 10,000. While the 2011 plan's target is lower, the 2000 plan also included the provision of a Metro North station at the Eastern End of the site, so it's appropriate that the overall target population would be lower.

Overall the planned population density for the area is about double that of Ranelagh, I can't call it inappropriately low density for a site 4km out from the city centre with constricted road access and a relatively low frequency train service.

Idbatterim

Ok so we don't put in the infrastructure and what? just keep on going out and out and out? ... It's moronic MN and du are key solutions to the housing crisis!

Pixel Eater

PhoenixParker wrote: »

On this, it's not a low density development, it's medium density and at the higher end of that. Over half the dwellings are apartments in 5 & 6 storey buildings and the houses are terraced with small gardens and many of them are over 3 floors to reduce footprint.

There's a good run down of the planned development here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1842436&page=2

The development & density is in line with the Local Area Plan for the area:
http://www.dublincity.ie/ashtown-pelletstown-local-area-plan

The Local Area Plan targets a population for the area of 7000, while the 2000 plan's target was for 10,000. While the 2011 plan's target is lower, the 2000 plan also included the provision of a Metro North station at the Eastern End of the site, so it's appropriate that the overall target population would be lower.

Overall the planned population density for the area is about double that of Ranelagh, I can't call it inappropriately low density for a site 4km out from the city centre with constricted road access and a relatively low frequency train service.

That's fine enough; as I said it's not a totally absurd development. The problem is that the city is so low density as it is so when there is an opportunity to increase it then it should be grasped. An Bord Pleanála said as much in regards to this development. 4km is very close to the city centre and the railway is only low frequency due to the low density housing currently adjacent it; create high density clusters around railway stations (with plenty of scope to do the same on the Ashtown and Navan Road stations further up the line) is the way to go.

plodder

PhoenixParker wrote: »

On this, it's not a low density development, it's medium density and at the higher end of that. Over half the dwellings are apartments in 5 & 6 storey buildings and the houses are terraced with small gardens and many of them are over 3 floors to reduce footprint.

There's a good run down of the planned development here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1842436&page=2

The development & density is in line with the Local Area Plan for the area:
http://www.dublincity.ie/ashtown-pelletstown-local-area-plan

The Local Area Plan targets a population for the area of 7000, while the 2000 plan's target was for 10,000. While the 2011 plan's target is lower, the 2000 plan also included the provision of a Metro North station at the Eastern End of the site, so it's appropriate that the overall target population would be lower.

Overall the planned population density for the area is about double that of Ranelagh, I can't call it inappropriately low density for a site 4km out from the city centre with constricted road access and a relatively low frequency train service.

"Never let perfection be the enemy of the good..."

specially when you have the minister for transport objecting outright to infill developments in his own (urban) constituency.

PhoenixParker

Pixel Eater wrote: »

That's fine enough; as I said it's not a totally absurd development. The problem is that the city is so low density as it is so when there is an opportunity to increase it then it should be grasped. An Bord Pleanála said as much in regards to this development. 4km is very close to the city centre and the railway is only low frequency due to the low density housing currently adjacent it; create high density clusters around railway stations (with plenty of scope to do the same on the Ashtown and Navan Road stations further up the line) is the way to go.

But this is at Ashtown Rail Station?

The projected population of the area is 7000 and the area is around 0.5sqkm. The predicted population density is therefore 14,000/sqkm

That's in line with the densest boroughs of London albeit in a small area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population_density

Going for higher density, which would mean no houses and 8+ storey apartment buildings without an attendant increase in public space would be difficult to accomplish while maintaining a liveable environment.

There are many missed opportunities in Dublin's development, but this really isn't one of them.

Carawaystick

Pixel Eater wrote: »

the railway is only low frequency due to the low density housing currently adjacent it;

The railway is only low frequency because IÉ and the NTA choose to have a low frequency railway.

Pixel Eater

PhoenixParker wrote: »

But this is at Ashtown Rail Station?

The projected population of the area is 7000 and the area is around 0.5sqkm. The predicted population density is therefore 14,000/sqkm

That's in line with the densest boroughs of London albeit in a small area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population_density

Going for higher density, which would mean no houses and 8+ storey apartment buildings without an attendant increase in public space would be difficult to accomplish while maintaining a liveable environment.

There are many missed opportunities in Dublin's development, but this really isn't one of them.

There is a new train station planned for Pelletstown.

I think we're splitting hairs on this one; it's a reasonable amount of density but as the planning lad said, they could've squeezed in a few more apartments. Your figures are a little skewed as they only represent a small fraction of the area; overall the area as a whole would have a much lower density.

The site is near parks and playing fields already and the new development would surely include more green areas; making for a very liveable environment even with a slight increase in population.

I still don't understand why the new Government Strategy on Construction is favouring lower density though...

Pixel Eater

Carawaystick wrote: »

The railway is only low frequency because IÉ and the NTA choose to have a low frequency railway.

Granted Irish Rail are a bit useless but to be fair that line has a lot of quiet stations.

Zebra3

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Granted Irish Rail are a bit useless but to be fair that line has a lot of quiet stations.

No off peak journey generators between Leixlip LB and Drumcondra.

markpb

Zebra3 wrote:

No off peak journey generators between Leixlip LB and Drumcondra.

The low frequency pretty much assures low ridership and demand.

1huge1

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-council-asked-to-reverse-apartment-height-limits-1.2759551

Irish Times from today
Dublin City Council asked to reverse apartment height limits
Minister for Housing concerned that low-rise restrictions could hamper supply of homes

The situation with height restrictions is so glaringly obvious that even the Minister responsible is now wiring to Dublin city council to reverse their short sighted decision.

Idbatterim

I'm impressed he has been able to put two and two together. It's funny, never mind at the low end of floors, if they went crazy and put an extra few floors on buildings in the squatlands, thousands more residents and workers could be housed. The height restrictions there are probably even more off the wall than four stories in suburbs, relatively...

D.L.R.

Its missing the point IMO referring to a "city centre" single blanket height.

There should be clear delineation between the historic core on the one hand, and the likes of the Docklands etc on the other. Low rise in historic areas, high rise permissible elsewhere.

I'd even go further - it should be long term policy to remove inappropriately large developments in the historic core such as O'Connell Bridge House and the Central Bank on Dame St. Alas I fear I'm fighting a losing battle there.

Carawaystick

D.L.R. wrote: »

I'd even go further - it should be long term policy to remove inappropriately large developments in the historic core such as O'Connell Bridge House and the Central Bank on Dame St. Alas I fear I'm fighting a losing battle there.

If you don't have the thruppenny bits as your first target for removal, you're doing it wrong...

newcar2016

Dublin apartment height restrictions ‘crazy’, warns Ibec

Crazy is not the word, these backward restrictions are criminal.

Pixel Eater

What's 28 metres, about 8 stories! Hardy skyscrapers!