Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Time for Dublin to go high rise.

  • 01-12-2017 8:44pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭ Mutant z


    With the population of this country projected to increase by over a million in the next few decades and most of this growth expected to be in and around the Dublin area surely the time has come for the city to start to build upwards to combat uncontrollable ugly urban sprawl. The current system of low rise is no longer sustainable in a rapidly growing met area which is expected to have a population of over 2 million by the start of the 2020s, high rise needs to be the future to combat the needs of this increased population growth.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭ sdanseo


    Agree 100%. There have been a few threads about this so perhaps a merge, but generally speaking our very limited SDZs for high rise development above 20 sotreys in Dublin are too little and too late.

    We need to be making 8 storeys the minimum for any development within the canals. Positive step made recently in this regard with the need for parking provision removed or to be shortly removed for new apartments.

    I saw an article a few years back stating that the Greater Dublin Area had the commuter footprint of LA but with an eighth of the population. And LA is for the most part, even by US standards, a very flat city.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,676 ✭✭✭ Skatedude


    Cant go up unless we go down first. The current infrastructure can not handle more people living in the same area without dealing with transport etc.
    Until they cop on and start on an underground, going up will just make things worse.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭ Mutant z


    It will surely benefit those who work in the city centre who have to commute from Kildare and Meath every morning, many would prefer the option of having something suitable to live in the city instead of the long commutes in the morning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭✭✭ spucey2


    To be honest. the government needs to set higher minimum standards for apartments if they want people to live in them long term.
    Mainly, builders cheaping out on material/engineers signing off on sub par work.

    You shouldn't be able to hear your neighbours every movement. You shouldn't be able to hear water pipes (outside of those from your own apartment)

    All apartments should have a noise associated with it( much like the heating/insulation) grade they currently have.

    Course developers will complain that this increases cost. It does..but marginally so. They'll also say if affects their ability to build on that site but that's absolute boll**x.

    Minister for Housing/local councils should spend some more time worrying about those who work & thus bear the cost.

    Builders throw up seriously sub par apartments..then walk away from them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,521 ✭✭✭✭ Idbatterim


    The noise issue in apartments is a joke. Totally agreed. The cost of apartments being dual aspect. The lift core ratio and parking all cost a fortune. Most of us even on decent salaries can forget ever owning even an average apartment in an average area, if they maintain the ridiculous elements I have outlined. Cost of property massively riding, pay increases if you even get one after tax are minimal

    Also I wonder if one beds banned. You get a second bedroom, would only ad fee percent to build cost, the expensive kitchen bathroom etc are there. You double bedroom space. Only takes up extra 15%-20% space in apartment. Offers a number of advantages though obviously over a one bed


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 881 ✭✭✭ Bray Head


    Government should be in the business of regulating public goods, not private goods.

    For apartments public goods are things like fire safety and noise reduction.

    Private goods are apartment size, aspect and parking spaces.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭ Bits_n_Bobs


    Bray Head wrote: »
    Government should be in the business of regulating public goods, not private goods.

    For apartments public goods are things like fire safety and noise reduction.

    Private goods are apartment size, aspect and parking spaces.

    Lack of regulation in the "private" banks worked out well. Good regulations are essential in every market.


  • Registered Users Posts: 881 ✭✭✭ Bray Head


    To some extent we shouldn't care if people want to waste their own money lending badly. The problem is that it encourages others to do the same. And it decrease public confidence in the banking system. So financial stability is a public good and should be regulated. 

    I have no problem with someone wanting to live in a 35 sqm apartment with only north-facing windows. And I don't see why the government should.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭✭✭ spucey2


    > I have no problem with someone wanting to live in a 35 sqm apartment with only north-facing windows. And I don't see why the government should.


    Because that person doesn't knock down the apartment when they move or take it with them.
    So, developers will use the finite supply of land to build **** apartments which we'll all then be forced to live in as there are no alternatives.


  • Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭ blow69


    Are the height limits for new builds still due to be relaxed by DCC in 2018?

    The docklands area along the Liffey are now full with the remaining empty spaces already in the early stages of construction of approx. 8-story buildings.

    An area of high-rises could be built a little bit more north e.g. East Wall area or Ringsend in the south but the effective city centre area can't support high rises due to insufficient space or will face immediate rejection due to being too close to historical areas of Dublin.

    With the news that the government are now going to collect the €13bn from Apple, hopefully they will invest some (not all as there is a whole country outside of Dublin) of this towards Dart Underground and Metro North which will allow commuters to live in areas not currently served well by mass transit.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,049 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    blow69 wrote: »
    With the news that the government are now going to collect the €13bn from Apple, hopefully they will invest some (not all as there is a whole country outside of Dublin) of this towards Dart Underground and Metro North which will allow commuters to live in areas not currently served well by mass transit.

    The €13bn isn't a fund for infrastructure. The government isn't going to touch it and is appealing the commission tax ruling.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭ Zhane


    blow69 wrote: »
    With the news that the government are now going to collect the €13bn from Apple, hopefully they will invest some (not all as there is a whole country outside of Dublin) of this towards Dart Underground and Metro North which will allow commuters to live in areas not currently served well by mass transit.

    That money is never ever going to be ours. The level of misinformation people have of this is actually astounding. If we do collect this money, expect every EU country to want their share of it.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Zhane wrote: »
    That money is never ever going to be ours. The level of misinformation people have of this is actually astounding. If we do collect this money, expect every EU country to want their share of it.

    Yeah, plus collecting it means Ireland is de facto not as attractive for companies to set up here. If tax is to be sorted (and it should be), it must be sorted at the international level, with most major countries fixing it together.

    Anyway, I digress. Getting it back on topic, it's way past time for Dublin to go high rise, but planning in Ireland really needs to be streamlined before it can happen. Just look at Johnny Ronans tower at Tara Street, designed to meet all the relevant guidelines, and then rejected because it's too tall. I mean, how do you encourage high rise development when following the guidelines gets rejected?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,501 ✭✭✭✭ CIARAN_BOYLE


    Skatedude wrote: »
    Cant go up unless we go down first. The current infrastructure can not handle more people living in the same area without dealing with transport etc.
    Until they cop on and start on an underground, going up will just make things worse.

    Maybe it's just me moving (say for example) 10,000 residential units inside the canals would reduce the demand on transport as they would not need to be transported as much (assuming the majority would work inside the canals).


Advertisement