Poll - allow high-rise buildings in certain parts of Dublin

ygolometsipe

Currently the maximum is [font=Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]28m tall which is tiny compared to high rise buildings in London [/font]
[font=Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]London has over 63 buildings over 100m[/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London[/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]I think this would have huge benefits to help with housing and to attract foreign direct investment.[/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The question is, would you support high rise buildings in some parts of Dublin i.e. IFSC [/font]

BrokenArrows

ygolometsipe wrote: »

Currently the maximum is [font=Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]28m tall which is tiny compared to high rise buildings in London [/font]
[font=Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]London has over 63 buildings over 100m[/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London[/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]I think this would have huge benefits to help with housing and to attract foreign direct investment.[/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The question is, would you support high rise buildings in some parts of Dublin i.e. IFSC [/font]

Yes.

It makes no sense to limit the height of buildings as long as proper procedures are followed.

1. It needs to be a good looking building. There is no desire to have a towering grey mass in the sky.

2. The required parking needs to be properly designed. If they plan on building an apartment block to house hundreds of people then sufficient underground parking needs to be provided with a minimum of 1 space per apartment. Same applies to commercial buildings.

3. Road access needs to be considered and built to accommodate the new building. Road access should be completed before building work begins.

4. If its apartments then it needs to be a mix of different grade apartments which include "affordable" up to expensive all in the one building. Dedicating entire buildings to "affordable" is a bad idea because they will just become slums.

5. Apartments then they need to be built to a very high standard. In ireland we seem to accept paper walled shoeboxes for apartments. New buildings need to be quality, sound insulated and large. The planning officers need to dictate to improve the standard of accommodation.

kerosene

A 60 plus storey building is under construction in manchester at present.

ChikiChiki

We need to go high-rise to remain competitive. The housing crisis is turning a lot away from the country and international businesses are starting to take note. The city is sprawling unnecessarily far out and public transport is poor.

BrokenArrows

ChikiChiki wrote: »

The city is sprawling unnecessarily far out and public transport is poor.

Ya, The government like putting themselves into catch 22 situations. No building without transport, no transport because of no money, no money because of no buildings.

Its amazing how we have the capital of a country which cant put together a comprehenive transport system.

Lollipops23

I absolutely think high rise should be permitted- with proper planning and designed well. Look at some of the eye sores that went up in the 60s/70s- Wood Quay, the Ballymun flats. We don't want a city full of those.

Idbatterim

its beyond ridiculous here. The housing crisis, spiralling commercial and hotel rates, reducing our competitiveness again. Forget about Dublin, this does the whole economy damage.

The "just because" argument against taller buildings in Dublin is a joke. I cant find one good argument against them IN THE RIGHT LOCATION. I can list off a ton of negatives though...

Id go as far as saying that this housing crisis, is government choice. Ok so central bank rightfully wont change their current rules. Here is an option that costs nothing to implement, allow taller buildings and potentially reduce building regs on certain fronts, i.e. dual aspect, lift ratio and outdoor space ratio.

These units could then be provided in abundance, it really could kickstart the market again, free up family homes, give people the choice if they want to live in one of these newer cheaper apartments or sink everything into renting an older unit etc.

A 60 plus storey building is under construction in manchester at present.

yeah they are building quite a few high rise, yet dublin, building non, has far higher lands costs and rents are far higher too, go figure...

ChikiChiki

Idbatterim wrote: »

its beyond ridiculous here. The housing crisis, spiralling commercial and hotel rates, reducing our competitiveness again. Forget about Dublin, this does the whole economy damage.

The "just because" argument against taller buildings in Dublin is a joke. I cant find one good argument against them IN THE RIGHT LOCATION. I can list off a ton of negatives though...

Id go as far as saying that this housing crisis, is government choice. Ok so central bank rightfully wont change their current rules. Here is an option that costs nothing to implement, allow taller buildings and potentially reduce building regs on certain fronts, i.e. dual aspect, lift ratio and outdoor space ratio.

These units could then be provided in abundance, it really could kickstart the market again, free up family homes, give people the choice if they want to live in one of these newer cheaper apartments or sink everything into renting an older unit etc.

I agree and I think many of our politicians are in the game with the sole motivation to enrich themselves. They don't want the common sense approach like the above if it means more supply and reduced prices in rental and housing markets etc. Many of our TDs are property owners, site owners and landlords. Something stinks as policy in the area is a joke.

Personally I'm leaving the country because of housing. It's gone beyond a joke.

kenmc

In theory yes, but not with our shower of cowboys behind them. Bloody things be falling down before they're finished building them. Remember priory hall, longboat quay, the apartments in carrickmines where the entire roof blew off a couple of years back?and those are all only a few stories high and still can't do them right. No way in hell would I trust anything higher being churned out by our boyos

Walter H Price

Yes , High density private residential all over the noth and south city center please glass and steel get it done

Jayop

As a non-Dub I'd say absolutely yes, go big and go beautiful. There's some amazing architecture going on now with high rise buildings and they could really add (or create) a great city-scape.

Ush1

Certainly in the IFSC there should be high rise buildings and all around Grand Canal dock.

Grayson

The vote so far is 56 yes, 2 no.

That's pretty damn close to a consensus.

4068ac1elhodqr

for sure, Belfast currently has the three tallest buildings on the island of Ireland, but only around half the population of Dublin.

Jayop

Alaric Long Handshake wrote: »

for sure, Belfast currently has the three tallest buildings on the island of Ireland, but only around half the population of Dublin.

And my hometown sports the tallest structure. The Tyrone Eiffel tower!

Winterlong

It is a bit bizzare that a modern western capital city with a population of 1.4 million does not have any high rise buildings.

The Obel tower in belfast is a lovely building IMO. And great views from within.

nice_guy80

The building density allowed on a site needs to be changed and much better designed buildings with a mix of apartments, studio apartments, office and retail space. Once the building is within 5 minutes walk of a public park

go to Stockholm and they have much higher density of buildings in the city and mixed use

ScumLord

It's stupid for a city that wants to market itself as a major European capital has such restrictions. Dublin hasn't really got a skyline, from the air it just looks like a town that got out of control.

London has some fabulous vistas, mixing a thousand years of architecture so you can see an ancient castle, a roman wall, a victorian masterpiece and a physics defying sky scraper all in one scene.

kenmc wrote: »

In theory yes, but not with our shower of cowboys behind them. Bloody things be falling down before they're finished building them. Remember priory hall, longboat quay, the apartments in carrickmines where the entire roof blew off a couple of years back?and those are all only a few stories high and still can't do them right. No way in hell would I trust anything higher being churned out by our boyos

Sorry but I hate this attitude in Ireland, "we can't do anything because we'll be **** at it", the way you get better at things is to do them, fail, and do them again using what you learned the first time. If we never do these things we'll never get any better at it.

ChikiChiki

Dublin should take the bull by the horns here. There is a massive, absolutely massive opportunity with Brexit aswell to become a major European financial centre. We could be like a Singapore of Europe. Unfortunately ambition seems to be lacking which is so frustrating.

An area should be zoned out past the IFSC to the docklands where high rise can be built and the restrictions could be kept in the current city centre retaining the old charm. A bit like an old and new Dublin. I find skyscrapers when done correctly can be beautiful buildings and really add to a city.

4068ac1elhodqr

If Western Europe's tallest tower (The 7132 Hotel) can be built up (and blended into) in the Swiss Alps, and in a tiny village (ready for 2019), it can be built anywhere. It will be actually be the same height as the Empire State Building once complete.

Reflective style buildings can also be made to reduce shadow impact.

Maybe the best idea of all, could be to build carbon neutral, on land reclaimed from the sea as in Singapore Might take a team of Geologists to find a suitable spot however. On the plus side roadworks and inconvenience would be reduced.

Idbatterim

for sure, Belfast currently has the three tallest buildings on the island of Ireland, but only around half the population of Dublin

capital docks has a 23 floor apartment block being built, 1 m short of Windsor house and 6 short of obel...

The exo building has planning to go up to 90m, which would make it the tallest on the island... wait till all of the remaining low hanging fruit is gone, i.e. the last of the bulk of land in the docklands. We will see what happens then, in terms of how much longer this will continue for.

There was talk before the bust, of relocating Dublin port and developing the land for commercial, residential etc. Land values would have to be high- very high to justify it though and there is no point in it, if its for the likes of the crap they are putting up in the docklands now...

Dublin should take the bull by the horns here. There is a massive, absolutely massive opportunity with Brexit aswell to become a major European financial centre. We could be like a Singapore of Europe. Unfortunately ambition seems to be lacking which is so frustrating.

yeah don't hold your breath, there are some great things about Dublin, but as alternative to London, its a joke on a lot of fronts. No transport network. No impressive modern architecture. Housing situation here is relatively a bigger joke than London, I actually reckon London is far better value, you are actually living in a world class, world city there!

Jayop

I'd love some of the 7 who voted no to come in and say why. Would be an interesting perspective.

ygolometsipe

Grayson wrote: »

The vote so far is 56 yes, 2 no.

That's pretty damn close to a consensus.

Almost 100 votes and its > 90% in favor.
I think Dublin City Council is largely against high rise buildings.

"The issue is a contentious one that has seen councillors and DCC management pulling in different directions."

It was only recently even increased to 28 meters :eek:

"The new regulations would change it so that apartments and office blocks can be up to 28 metres in the inner city, up to 24 metres above rail hubs and up to 16 metres in the outer city."

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-tall-buildings-problems-2795550-May2016/

If councilors are elected its amazing this is not a more prominent election issue.

Idbatterim

I'd love some of the 7 who voted no to come in ans say why. Would be an interesting perspective.

ballymun probably, its was the towers that were the problem! Funny how in alto vetro, a 16 floor apartment building in the docklands, we don't hear of any social issues :rolleyes:

Jayop

ygolometsipe wrote: »

If councilors are elected its amazing this is not a more prominent election issue.

I'd imagine while people are largely pro building up, it's not a doorstep issue that you'd expect the average joe to take up with a potential councilor.

Jayop

Idbatterim wrote: »

ballymun probably, its was the towers that were the problem! Funny how in alto vetro, a 16 floor apartment building in the docklands, we don't hear of any social issues :rolleyes:

No-one is really talking about high rise cinderblocks like that though. Beautiful glass building with a huge variety of different types of housing. If that is indeed why the few are against it then I guess you'll never change their minds.

Idbatterim

If councilors are elected its amazing this is not a more prominent election issue.

think about it, they go looking for votes, what is the easiest vote winner usually? "not on our doorstep" they are going to existing residents, the rest of us, can go to hell...

I mentioned this recently, I am not sure how this is done in other countries, who gets to decide the density etc. But there is a big conflict of interest here and we have very weak government. I am assuming in other countries, there is far more of a balance struck, for the common good!

My honest opinion is, that Ireland in general, is ruled by an incredibly conservative and backwards generation. I think things will change a lot in the next decade or two...

No-one is really talking about high rise cinderblocks like that though. Beautiful glass building with a huge variety of different types of housing. If that is indeed why the few are against it then I guess you'll never change their minds.

sorry I was being sarcastic in terms of ballymun. youll never please all of the people, all of the time. Forget even trying to do that. If they want to live in a city and have neighbouring two floor buildings, let them move to a village or in the countryside. Its probably Irelands biggest issue, talk talk talk, consensus, compromise. Forget it. We don't have some bloody Rome like skyline, in fact we have none...

Jayop

Idbatterim wrote: »

think about it, they go looking for votes, what is the easiest vote winner usually? "not on our doorstep" they are going to existing residents, the rest of us, can go to hell...

I mentioned this recently, I am not sure how this is done in other countries, who gets to decide the density etc. But there is a big conflict of interest here and we have very weak government. I am assuming in other countries, there is far more of a balance struck, for the common good!

My honest opinion is, that Ireland in general, is ruled by an incredibly conservative and backwards generation. I think things will change a lot in the next decade or two...

sorry I was being sarcastic in terms of ballymun. youll never please all of the people, all of the time. Forget even trying to do that. If they want to live in a city and have neighbouring two floor buildings, let them move to a village or in the countryside. Its probably Irelands biggest issue, talk talk talk, consensus, compromise. Forget it. We don't have some bloody Rome like skyline, in fact we have none...

It's the kind of thing that if you had a proper mayor for Dublin they could run with it as one of the big picture ideas that they would have for people. Councilors (at least down the country where I am) are pot hole fixers and wouldn't know a high rise if it was half way up their.......

Dr Crayfish

I wonder if the OP read the same Guardian article I did today. Anyway, talk of Big Banking moving from London to Dublin post-Brexit is being laughed off by most experts because we simply don't have the space and are unwilling to build upwards. I think the Citibank tower in Canary Wharf has something like 1.2 million sq/ft of office space, probably the equivalent of most of the IFSC.
So no, we can't avail of a great opportunity because we couldn't accommodate these massive companies.
Why wont we do this though? I've never met anyone who would be opposed. It must be 100% down to NIMBYism and no one having the f**king BALLS to do anything progressive in this country. Pass the hot potato. Joke of a country...

mohawk

IFSC and Grand Canal would be perfect for mixed use high rise. I think mixed use is important. Business only high rises would be a ghost town on weekends. There should be everything from studios to luxury penthouses.

You could probably go a bit higher then what is currently there in places like Sandyford and Cherrywood. Obviously not skyscraper high.

Dr Crayfish

mohawk wrote: »

Obviously not skyscraper high.

Obviously not! Care to enlighten us why not?

Idbatterim

I wonder if the OP read the same Guardian article I did today. Anyway, talk of Big Banking moving from London to Dublin post-Brexit is being laughed off by most experts because we simply don't have the space and are unwilling to build upwards. I think the Citibank tower in Canary Wharf has something like 1.2 million sq/ft of office space, probably the equivalent of most of the IFSC.
So no, we can't avail of a great opportunity because we couldn't accommodate these massive companies.
Why wont we do this though? I've never met anyone who would be opposed. It must be 100% down to NIMBYism and no one having the f**king BALLS to do anything progressive in this country. Pass the hot potato. Joke of a country...

Also I just don't buy that the mid to high earners in London on top off all the issues with moving to Dublin, would then be happy to pay 51% of their income on the joke that is €33,800 and lets be clear that is a joke when you are on the money, that they are...

actually speaking of London, take a look at the below link. It refers to the Dublin development and a few posts in there, is a comparison with a photo of the Citibank tower in London... (image heavy link)...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1818450

Dr Crayfish

Idbatterim wrote: »

that's laughable, there is a new development being launched now on the quays. It has 1000,000,000 sq foot.

Also I just don't buy that the mid to high earners in London on top off all the issues with moving to Dublin, would then be happy to pay 51% of their income on the joke that is €33,800 and lets be clear that is a joke when you are on the money, that they are...

They may not move, but the jobs may have to move. Either way, we simply don't have the space to accommodate business and employees.

suicide_circus

Maintaining quaint Georgian Dublin is not a luxury we can afford. The housing crisis is deepening by the day with the government moving at absolute glacial pace, essentially doing nothing but watch things spiral out of control. A few of the intelligentsia don't want highrise, well I'm sorry us plebs need somewhere to ****ing live in our own city.

Idbatterim

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

They may not move, but the jobs may have to move. Either way, we simply don't have the space to accommodate business and employees.

the thing is, London is such a powerhouse, I don't see any direct competition in Europe. Paris to an extent, but has it been mentioned as a viable alternative?

Frankfurt is a financial centre, but meant to be dull as dishwater and obviously not English speaking. Dublin socially and culturally would obviously be a lot closer to London...

Maintaining quaint Georgian Dublin is not a luxury we can afford. The housing crisis is deepening by the day with the government moving at absolute glacial pace, essentially doing nothing but watch things spiral out of control. A few of the intelligentsia don't want highrise, well I'm sorry us plebs need somewhere to ****ing live in our own city.

that's the thing though, we can preserve Georgian Dublin, no problem and we should and will. The problem is though, no compromise, which leads to the current situation. Preserve it and limit heights in the central areas. But why in gods name in the docklands for example, are they so restricted?! That could have been the outlet, to take off the pressure from restricting heights so much, in other areas of the city...

ygolometsipe

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I wonder if the OP read the same Guardian article I did today.

Yes, I did read it. I have to say I was very disappointed because they more or less said we are ideal in terms of having common law based legal system, an educated anglophone population and close to London, the major issue they had was space which really is incredible, we have all the difficult requirements but flop on the most obvious one.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/17/dublin-exploits-brexit-uncertainty-to-lure-firms-from-london

Barry Badrinath

Id be in favour of high rise developments in Dublin...

...but only if they all have slides.

markpb

suicide_circus wrote:

Maintaining quaint Georgian Dublin is not a luxury we can afford.

London manages to successfully maintain Ye Old London and modern London side by side so there's no reason why we couldn't and shouldn't do both. Tall buildings near Trinity and Merrion Square would diminish our appeal to tourists but the rest of the city should be fair game. Anywhere along a train or tram line should be high density only.

suicide_circus

markpb wrote: »

London manages to successfully maintain Ye Old London and modern London side by side so there's no reason why we couldn't and shouldn't do both. Tall buildings near Trinity and Merrion Square would diminish our appeal to tourists but the rest of the city should be fair game. Anywhere along a train or team line should be high density only.

So how come London can merge the two but Dublin can't even try?

Idbatterim

It is a bit bizzare that a modern western capital city with a population of 1.4 million does not have any high rise buildings.

The Obel tower in belfast is a lovely building IMO. And great views from within.

1. a western capital. with a housing crisis. Commercial rents rocketing again, which costs jobs. Hotel rates a joke again, costing jobs.

2. A western capital with the whos who of technology firms and many finance, EMEA headquarters here

3. A western capital that wont locate people where they actually want to live (centrally for the most part) and wont sort out a decent transport system either, to get them there...

So how come London can merge the two but Dublin can't even try?

the quality of governance over there is streets ahead.... People thinking about moving from the uk to this two puppet joke show, are out of their mind in my opinion...

Dr Crayfish

Idbatterim wrote: »

the quality of governance over there is streets ahead.... People thinking about moving from the uk to this two puppet joke show, are out of their mind in my opinion...

As a former London resident I totally agree. I can't see it happening but the article really highlighted to me how backwards we really are, it's frustrating.

Haithabu

Jayop wrote: »

I'd love some of the 7 who voted no to come in and say why. Would be an interesting perspective.

I voted "no". Skyscrapers are an eyesore and are bad for the environment because they use much more energy than the same amount of small houses because the individal apartment does get less sunlight and needs to be artificially lit. Additional you have to pump water much much higher and use elevators all the time instead of stairs.

I see people think that skyscrapers are a way to tackle housing crisis. We ave a housing crisis bnot because we don't have skyscrapers but because many houses are derelicted. If you walk around D7 or D8 you see so many houses that are boarded up, have no roof and the sites are overgrown with weed. If we want to tackle the housing crisis, this is where we should create new space for living.

Haithabu

ChikiChiki wrote: »

There is a massive, absolutely massive opportunity with Brexit aswell to become a major European financial centre. We could be like a Singapore of Europe.

We had enough trouble with the greedy and corrupt bankers that were already in Ireland before Brexit. Should we now invite the rest of the crooks to come here as well ?

Haithabu

Idbatterim wrote: »

2. A western capital with the whos who of technology firms and many finance, EMEA headquarters here

They came here despite there are no skycrapers in Dublin so it's wrong to argue we need to attract them with that.

BoJack Horseman

There are already high-rise zones in Dublin?

Fratton Fred

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Yes.

It makes no sense to limit the height of buildings as long as proper procedures are followed.

2. The required parking needs to be properly designed. If they plan on building an apartment block to house hundreds of people then sufficient underground parking needs to be provided with a minimum of 1 space per apartment. Same applies to commercial buildings.

3. Road access needs to be considered and built to accommodate the new building. Road access should be completed before building work begins.
.

I worked in a 12 storey building, of which we had over six hundred people spread over the first six floors. We had four allocated parking spaces.

What we did have though, was the Jubilee line 200 metres away and the DLR 400 metres away. In 12 months time there will also be a mainline station there as well. In all, an area where over 100,000 people work and there is very limited parking.

If Dublin had a decent transport system (why the **** are they not digging a tunnel for the Luas connector?) you don't need parking and lots of new roads.

I have lots of friends and relatives in London who, if they do own a car, rarely use it.

ChikiChiki

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I worked in a 12 storey building, of which we had over six hundred people spread over the first six floors. We had four allocated parking spaces.

What we did have though, was the Jubilee line 200 metres away and the DLR 400 metres away. In 12 months time there will also be a mainline station there as well. In all, an area where over 100,000 people work and there is very limited parking.

If Dublin had a decent transport system (why the **** are they not digging a tunnel for the Luas connector?) you don't need parking and lots of new roads.

I have lots of friends and relatives in London who, if they do own a car, rarely use it.

We wouldn't need cars if we had decent linked up public transport. The M50 is a car park most rush hours. Most of these people are forced into their cars because of the public transport disconnect. If I have to drive to Park West it takes me 15 mins off peak but to go via public transport it's an hour and 20 mins.

defrule

I like how they do apartments in Hong Kong.

The bottom levels are massive shopping malls and underground stations.

Above them are facilities, like gyms, swimming pools, gardens for residents. And then above these are luxury apartments.

http://www.pacificplaceapartments.com.hk/en/

Pepe LeFrits

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There are already high-rise zones in Dublin?

Docklands, George’s Quay, Connolly and Heuston are permitted to have high rise buildings in excess of 50 metres.

mohawk

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Obviously not! Care to enlighten us why not?

Maybe my post wasn't clear. Skyscraper high would be grand in city centre. I also think we could go a bit higher is some other areas such as Sandyford but as it's the suburbs perhaps not as high as city centre.
I am all for skyscrapers as long as it's done in right places, with transport links and they look good.

Peregrine

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Docklands, George’s Quay, Connolly and Heuston are permitted to have high rise buildings in excess of 50 metres.

Three sole sites in the Docklands. Acres and acres of space and only three sites were allowed to have tall buildings. 1 site limited to around 55m, and two sites at around 90m. An opportunity lost, no, destroyed.

The rest is all limited to 5-6 storeys with occasional 8 storeys permitted here and there. Farcical.

The site of the eyesore that is Hawkins House is permitted for building of similar height in the LAP. Planning permission for a redevelopment went in there a few months ago. It would transform that whole miserable block. DCC came back with concerns about its height and mass last week. Pretty sure it's shorter than or roughly the same height as the piece of **** that's there now and a million times better.

mohawk wrote: »

Maybe my post wasn't clear. Skyscraper high would be grand in city centre. I also think we could go a bit higher is some other areas such as Sandyford but as it's the suburbs perhaps not as high as city centre.
I am all for skyscrapers as long as it's done in right places, with transport links and they look good.

We should aim for high density in areas like Sandyford. It's a public transport hub. It has taller buildings than most of the city centre. Maybe because DCC isn't in charge.