Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Dublin Port Masterplan

  • 21-02-2017 5:38pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭ Pixel Eater
    Registered User


    Hello all. Anyone have thoughts on this? They're in consultation with the public at the minute, until early March. It would nice to have the port (or the seafront at least) better integrated with the city.

    http://www.dublinport.ie/masterplan/masterplan/


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,340 ✭✭✭ yannakis
    Registered User


    I'm a big fan of the integrated cruise terminal proposal!

    Seen a similar implementation in Barcelona and the open recreational areas is between the offices/hotels/roads/terminal are a big plus for everyone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭ Pixel Eater
    Registered User


    I'm a big fan of the integrated cruise terminal proposal!

    Seen a similar implementation in Barcelona and the open recreational areas is between the offices/hotels/roads/terminal are a big plus for everyone.

    Agreed. On a much smaller scale I hope they do up the walk to the South bull Wall. The actual wall itself is great but parts of the way to it look pretty grubby.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,808 ✭✭✭ Ste.phen
    Registered User


    I'm not sure what the deal is with ESB's use of the river-front part of their property on the south wall, but i'd love to see a more direct walking/cycling route to the lighthouse through / on the river side of the poolbeg complex without the detour to the south side of the property


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭ Pixel Eater
    Registered User


    Ste.phen wrote: »
    I'm not sure what the deal is with ESB's use of the river-front part of their property on the south wall, but i'd love to see a more direct walking/cycling route to the lighthouse through / on the river side of the poolbeg complex without the detour to the south side of the property

    My understanding is that Dublin Port will be utilising the waterfront here for port activities (I could be wrong though). Another question is what will be done with the power station...

    Pigeon House Road isn't a particularly nice route due to the sewage works next to it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3
    Registered User


    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2017/08/20/move-dublin-port-and-create-new-city-on-the-water

    Very good piece there on the port and the future of Dublin.

    Hard to argue with.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭ Pixel Eater
    Registered User


    He makes some good points but it's not exactly a new idea: proposals to move the port to Balbriggan were mooted years ago.

    I don't agree with him on the capacity problem; Dublin and huge amount of undeveloped land, vacant sites and unused buildings within the M50. Plus a large amount of previous port land has already been redeveloped. Doesn't appear that the port authorities are too keen on relocating for what ever reason.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭✭ EmoCourt


    Interesting article. Is he suggesting moving both freight and passenger services out of Dublin port? It'd be important to retain the tourism footfall from Cruise ships and tall ships.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,883 ✭✭✭ markpb
    Registered User


    EmoCourt wrote: »
    Interesting article. Is he suggesting moving both freight and passenger services out of Dublin port? It'd be important to retain the tourism footfall from Cruise ships and tall ships.

    A lot of major cruise ports in Europe are in ports are remote from their nearest city. Civitavecchia is over 70km from Rome. Livorno is 90km from Florence and 30km from Pisa. A lot of the others are about as close to their cities are Dublin are but the port area, like Dublin's, aren't pedestrian friendly at all or they're too far from the tourist area to want to walk (Barcelona). It's definitely a plus as a cruise passenger to sail into a pleasant, centrally located cruise port like Naples (recently) or Istanbul. I'd imagine that the tall ships could continue to sail up the Liffey even if the port was relocated.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭ Middle Man
    Banned


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2017/08/20/move-dublin-port-and-create-new-city-on-the-water

    Very good piece there on the port and the future of Dublin.

    Hard to argue with.

    For once, someone is actually blaming the planning system for our transport problems instead of the usual barstool style car bashing mantra. We should be smart enough at this stage to plan entire new urban areas so that much of our day to day business can be within walking distance (including the rail station) - I guess that would be too much to ask of Irish people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭ yermanoffthetv
    Registered User


    22gd9k.jpg

    Sure would look impressive rolling in on the ferry from Holyhead to that sight.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭ patrickbrophy18
    Registered User


    22gd9k.jpg

    Sure would look impressive rolling in on the ferry from Holyhead to that sight.

    Where did you see that?
    Was it recently?
    SaveSave


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭ Pixel Eater
    Registered User


    Where did you see that?
    Was it recently?
    SaveSave

    Wasn't there a spoof ad at the height of the Celtic Tiger about a shamrock shaped artificial island that was planned for Dublin Bay?


  • Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭ yermanoffthetv
    Registered User


    Where did you see that?
    Was it recently?
    SaveSave

    Its from a guy called Jonathan Mcreas 6 part series on Be3 called "The Great guide to the future". This is from episode 4. You can probably get it on the 3 player.

    http://tilefilms.ie/productions/great-guide-future/episodes/


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,729 ✭✭✭ plodder
    Registered User


    22gd9k.jpg

    Sure would look impressive rolling in on the ferry from Holyhead to that sight.
    Looks a bit soulless to me, and like Dubai transplanted to a cold and wet climate :). I think we could do better.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭ patrickbrophy18
    Registered User


    plodder wrote: »
    Looks a bit soulless to me, and like Dubai transplanted to a cold and wet climate :). I think we could do better.

    Perhaps not as soulless. However, back in 2006 the Progressive Democrats had a plan for a New York style skyline that would've re-invigorated Dublin Port. It involved moving all port activity to Breamore, just north of Balbriggan. Anyway, the below is an example of how Dublin Port could look:

    dublin_new_heart.jpg?w=620
    Save


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,294 ✭✭✭ LiamoSail


    A few points on that article.

    Firstly, Dublin Port themselves may only employ 140 people, but there are thousands working in the port for other companies whose business is entirely associated with it being a port.

    Secondly, something like 70-80% of goods imported through Dublin Port are ultimately destined for inside the M50 ring. What sort of congestion will relocating that create and what will be the environmental impact of the thousand of extra/longer truck journeys required?

    Thirdly, I'm relatively certain that while the state owns the land, much of it is on long term leases (999yr sort of thing) to companies operating in the port. They'll surely want a cut of any sale, so I don't think relocating would provide the riches that are speculated, particularly when the costs of infrastructure of a new port are considered

    Off the top of my head, there's at least 15 ferry sailings per day from Dublin. Will that demand be sustained elsewhere?

    Even if ferries and cruise ships were to remain in Dublin and all else move, there would then be the associated costs of two ports to operate. Dublin, as well as the new port, would still require tugs, pilots, dredging etc.

    The whole notion seems farcical and entirely impactical to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,340 ✭✭✭ yannakis
    Registered User


    Its from a guy called Jonathan Mcreas 6 part series on Be3 called "The Great guide to the future". This is from episode 4. You can probably get it on the 3 player.

    http://tilefilms.ie/productions/great-guide-future/episodes/

    Did anyone find a source to watch this show? Can't find it anywhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 583 ✭✭✭ orangerhyme
    Registered User


    LiamoSail wrote: »
    A few points on that article.

    Firstly, Dublin Port themselves may only employ 140 people, but there are thousands working in the port for other companies whose business is entirely associated with it being a port.

    Secondly, something like 70-80% of goods imported through Dublin Port are ultimately destined for inside the M50 ring. What sort of congestion will relocating that create and what will be the environmental impact of the thousand of extra/longer truck journeys required?

    Thirdly, I'm relatively certain that while the state owns the land, much of it is on long term leases (999yr sort of thing) to companies operating in the port. They'll surely want a cut of any sale, so I don't think relocating would provide the riches that are speculated, particularly when the costs of infrastructure of a new port are considered

    Off the top of my head, there's at least 15 ferry sailings per day from Dublin. Will that demand be sustained elsewhere?

    Even if ferries and cruise ships were to remain in Dublin and all else move, there would then be the associated costs of two ports to operate. Dublin, as well as the new port, would still require tugs, pilots, dredging etc.

    The whole notion seems farcical and entirely impactical to me.

    You make some good points, Im assuming also the intention is to keep the ferrys and cruise ships in Dublin.

    Maybe it can be phased out gradually, starting maybe with the containers as the infrastructure for this is easier to move as opposed to the big oil storage tanks etc..

    The western side of the port by the point depot seems to have alot of container type activity. Since this is close to luas and road network, it makes sense to phase this out first.

    I cycled all around the port area one fine day. I think most people dont realise how vast it is.

    I agree about McWilliams article being completely underresearched, its pie in the sky thinking really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭ wakka12
    Registered User


    Perhaps not as soulless. However, back in 2006 the Progressive Democrats had a plan for a New York style skyline that would've re-invigorated Dublin Port. It involved moving all port activity to Breamore, just north of Balbriggan. Anyway, the below is an example of how Dublin Port could look:

    dublin_new_heart.jpg?w=620
    Save

    Whats the obsession with recreating new york style skylines here :confused: American cities arent known for their aesthetics..european cities are..its why everyone in the world visits european cities. New york is amazing because its dense (high rise does not equal dense btw, vancouver is high rise and 3 times less dense than dublin), because of the buzz, the mixed population, the immigration, the culture venues among other things. Not because tall buildingz

    High rise cities are not even slightly enjoyable to walk through. Amsterdam is, houston is not. Think about how a city feels for poeple on the street, not how it looks from an aerial viewpoint


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3
    Registered User


    Nobody is talking about destroying the existing city center, that’ll still be there.

    But we can’t keep eating up countryside.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,883 ✭✭✭ markpb
    Registered User


    wakka12 wrote: »
    American cities arent known for their aesthetics..european cities are..its why everyone in the world visits european cities. ... High rise cities are not even slightly enjoyable to walk through. Amsterdam is, houston is not. Think about how a city feels for people on the street, not how it looks from an aerial viewpoint

    Your entire post is your opinion stated as if it were facts. This may come as a shock to you but different people have different opinions, especially about something as subjective as architecture and urban design.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭ wakka12
    Registered User


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Nobody is talking about destroying the existing city center, that’ll still be there.

    But we can’t keep eating up countryside.

    Yeh I know that, what Im saying is that all the modern new developments dont need to be high rise . Levallois perret is a town in the paris metropolitan area and its the most densely populated urban area in europe. No high rises, continuos 5-8 story throughout


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,298 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox
    Moderator


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Yeh I know that, what Im saying is that all the modern new developments dont need to be high rise . Levallois perret is a town in the paris metropolitan area and its the most densely populated urban area in europe. No high rises, continuos 5-8 story throughout

    If Paris was suffering from an absolutely chronic shortage of housing, offices, hotels within the city limits, and they had the opportunity to redevelop a district next to the heart of Paris, I'd very much doubt that their planners would allow said district to be only 5-8 stories.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,185 ✭✭✭ sdanseo
    Registered User


    CatInABox wrote: »
    If Paris was suffering from an absolutely chronic shortage of housing, offices, hotels within the city limits, and they had the opportunity to redevelop a district next to the heart of Paris, I'd very much doubt that their planners would allow said district to be only 5-8 stories.

    They did exactly this, it's called La Defense. Buildings are just a little bit taller. ;)

    https://www.google.ie/maps/place/La+D%C3%A9fense,+France/@48.8926057,2.2365219,3a,75y,46h,92.24t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOcQ132O25Fy4l4MHhjTbWrTwSL7uuLVGuWDRS9!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOcQ132O25Fy4l4MHhjTbWrTwSL7uuLVGuWDRS9%3Dw234-h106-k-no-pi-15.255209-ya268.76563-ro0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352!4m5!3m4!1s0x47e66505aaadd1dd:0xf187c86ce82c7889!8m2!3d48.8897359!4d2.2418428


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭ wakka12
    Registered User


    CatInABox wrote: »
    If Paris was suffering from an absolutely chronic shortage of housing, offices, hotels within the city limits, and they had the opportunity to redevelop a district next to the heart of Paris, I'd very much doubt that their planners would allow said district to be only 5-8 stories.

    That town is THE densest place in the entire continent!! Clearly you dont need to go high rise at all to make an incredibly dense city. So why should we have to, theres no guarantee that any high rise area we try develop will become dense either. Especially seeing as most irish people seem to prefer living in low rise buildings.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 21,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk
    Moderator


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Whats the obsession with recreating new york style skylines here :confused: American cities arent known for their aesthetics..european cities are..its why everyone in the world visits european cities. New york is amazing because its dense (high rise does not equal dense btw, vancouver is high rise and 3 times less dense than dublin), because of the buzz, the mixed population, the immigration, the culture venues among other things. Not because tall buildingz

    High rise cities are not even slightly enjoyable to walk through. Amsterdam is, houston is not. Think about how a city feels for poeple on the street, not how it looks from an aerial viewpoint

    I'm sorry but non of that is correct!

    People travel from all over the world to visit Manhattan! And Manhattan has incredible aesthetics and is one of the most walk-able cities in the world.

    Mid and Upper Manhattan aren't particularly high-rise, mostly old 4 to 6 storey houses and buildings. It is only Lower Manhattan where you have the sky scrapers like you see in all the pictures.

    Have you actually ever been to Manhattan?

    I would agree that we certainly don't want a Houston or Atlanta, but no one is suggesting that. New York is much more a European style city (though not completely, still clearly heavily planned with street blocks).

    What is being planned for Dublin is very similar to Manhattan. The existing part of Dublin city center will still much as it is today. High rise development will be focused far away from the current city center down in the port district.

    I can point you at dozens of European cities that have a separate "old town" district and a modern "high rise district". Take La Defense in Paris:

    iStock_000020317843XLarge.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭ Pixel Eater
    Registered User


    Read this recently on another trend:

    https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/chaos-of-the-metrolink-project.html

    Mostly an ill informed rant against the metro but at the bottom he states that Dublin Port has get permission to infill more of the bay. I thought they were denied this; has it been reversed? Or is it more absolutely bullsh*&e in keeping with the rest of the article?


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,298 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox
    Moderator


    Read this recently on another trend:

    https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/chaos-of-the-metrolink-project.html

    Mostly an ill informed rant against the metro but at the bottom he states that Dublin Port has get permission to infill more of the bay. I thought they were denied this; has it been reversed? Or is it more absolutely bullsh*&e in keeping with the rest of the article?

    As you say, he's "ill informed."

    Controversial plan to reclaim part of Dublin Bay ‘dead and will not be revisited’, says chief. That's from last month, they've already started down a totally different route, moving non-core activities to out near the airport.

    Perhaps he's been reading about the dredging that they're doing as part of the Alexandra Basin redevelopment, and gotten confused.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,133 ✭✭✭✭ Muahahaha
    Registered User


    If all container shipping were moved to a new port further up the north coast the Port Tunnel would be freed up of trucks and effectively become a new primary commuter route into the city. Unsure if that would be a good or a bad thing :o


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sam Russell
    Moderator


    Read this recently on another trend:

    https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/chaos-of-the-metrolink-project.html

    Mostly an ill informed rant against the metro but at the bottom he states that Dublin Port has get permission to infill more of the bay. I thought they were denied this; has it been reversed? Or is it more absolutely bullsh*&e in keeping with the rest of the article?

    This is an example that a stupid person is someone who should keep their mouth shut for fear of being considered stupid, or opening it and removing all doubt.

    In his rant he says the money would build ten Luas lines and later eight, but has a scatter gun approach. He cites among others of Ballymun and Glasnevin as being served by his magical Luas lines, oblivious of the fact that Metro will serve them. Surface running would be fine for the far suburbs, but there is no surface left in Dublin City Centre.

    He also states that the airport is served by an adequate bus service. The other evening, I got an Aircoach at St Vincents to go to the Airport, only for the Driver to tell me that the 36 min scheduled time would actually take an hour to an hour and a half as the traffic was appalling. He also said they are having to try different routes to see if they are quicker. It used to take 25 mins for the bus when it avoided the city centre.

    The Metro from Tara will be about 20 mins, with a frequency in the order of 2 minutes, instead of travel time between 30 mins and 50 mins and frequency of 30 mins for the bus.

    I think he is talking utter rot.


Advertisement