Ireland 2040 plan results in high rise building being approved

CatInABox

Fora.ie have an article about a hotel and "aparthotel" being approved after appeal. It was originally rejected, but since that rejection, the Ireland 2040 plan was published with a focus on high rise development. That plan was then cited as the reason for the approval.

Very interesting that the Ireland 2040 plan is being used to override the councils plan, perhaps this will result in some much needed high development now.

Also, Johnny Ronan must be sick looking at a high rise development literally around the corner from where his building was rejected. Of course, it's not on the same scale, but still, he must be wondering if it's worth chancing his arm again.

Varik

“High-rise is for high rollers, it’s great if you want to build expensive apartments because it’s expensive to build and therefore it is expensive to sell units.

Not like those people aren't going to be buying else where and driving up prices there.

JohnC.

Only 8 storeys? What's the definition of high-rise? I didn't realise even just 8 was so problematic in Dublin.

marno21

8 storeys is high rise in Kerry or Mayo. It's utterly pathetic in a city like Dublin.

plodder

I don't see why the choice has to be between traditional semi-d two-storey and "sky scrapers". Most of Europe seems to get on fine with 4-5 storey blocks, which are a lot cheaper to build than the really high rise stuff. Also, look at what happened with the new tower in Ballymun. It just takes one tool to have a kitchen fire and then dozens of families could be made homeless. High rise is fine in specific close to city centre locations though.

bk

plodder wrote: »

I don't see why the choice has to be between traditional semi-d two-storey and "sky scrapers". Most of Europe seems to get on fine with 4-5 storey blocks, which are a lot cheaper to build than the really high rise stuff. Also, look at what happened with the new tower in Ballymun. It just takes one tool to have a kitchen fire and then dozens of families could be made homeless. High rise is fine in specific close to city centre locations though.

As you say it is an overall problem.

It is crazy that lots of new buildings down by the docks are only 4 to 6 storeys. They should all be at least 10 storeys going up to 20 and even a few 30 to 40 storey real high rise.

But equally, it is mad that I live in the suburbs, just 3km from O'Connell Bridge and there is lots of new developments, but there still only 2 to 3 storey houses! Mad. That clsoe to the city it should be a lot of 4 to 6 storey apartment buildings.

Dardania

CatInABox wrote: »

Fora.ie have an article about a hotel and "aparthotel" being approved after appeal. It was originally rejected, but since that rejection, the Ireland 2040 plan was published with a focus on high rise development. That plan was then cited as the reason for the approval.

Very interesting that the Ireland 2040 plan is being used to override the councils plan, perhaps this will result in some much needed high development now.

Also, Johnny Ronan must be sick looking at a high rise development literally around the corner from where his building was rejected. Of course, it's not on the same scale, but still, he must be wondering if it's worth chancing his arm again.

Great - that's how these plans should to used, to drive the local authorities etc. to toe the national strategic line

wakka12

I can't even take this seriously, system needed to be over ridden to allow a fecking 8 story in the middle of dublins modern financial/tech centre. How in the world could 8 stories be anyway too much for central dublin

markpb

Dardania wrote: »

Great - that's how these plans should to used, to drive the local authorities etc. to toe the national strategic line

I'm all in favour of the outcome (more density where it's suitable) but I hate the way we're getting there. Taking more powers away from our local authorities when they're already very limited is the wrong thing to do. It doesn't make sense that the same people are looking for a locally elected mayor while also cheering the government when they use policy to take powers away from the local authorities.

The housing minister already has the power to veto or change local area plans. When DCC presented their plan with the terrible words "Dublin is a low rise city and should remain as such", why was there no reaction from the government? That was the time to send the development plan back to the council and tell them to cop themselves on.

Dardania

markpb wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

Great - that's how these plans should to used, to drive the local authorities etc. to toe the national strategic line

I'm all in favour of the outcome (more density where it's suitable) but I hate the way we're getting there. Taking more powers away from our local authorities when they're already very limited is the wrong thing to do. It doesn't make sense that the same people are looking for a locally elected mayor while also cheering the government when they use policy to take powers away from the local authorities.

The housing minister already has the power to veto or change local area plans. When DCC presented their plan with the terrible words "Dublin is a low rise city and should remain as such", why was there no reaction from the government? That was the time to send the development plan back to the council and tell them to cop themselves on.

100% agree with you that the government should have reacted to DCCs statement. And I admit I believe that there should be greater local power (incl. local mayor)

The issue is, DCC are thinking like the city they are, rather than what Dublin represents to the rest of the country. For that, there needs to be greater national government input - if Dublin didn’t exist, the rest of the country would practically collapse, such is its revenue generation capacity.

blanch152

markpb wrote: »

I'm all in favour of the outcome (more density where it's suitable) but I hate the way we're getting there. Taking more powers away from our local authorities when they're already very limited is the wrong thing to do. It doesn't make sense that the same people are looking for a locally elected mayor while also cheering the government when they use policy to take powers away from the local authorities.

The housing minister already has the power to veto or change local area plans. When DCC presented their plan with the terrible words "Dublin is a low rise city and should remain as such", why was there no reaction from the government? That was the time to send the development plan back to the council and tell them to cop themselves on.

The government did react. It produced the 2040 National Plan to overturn the gobsh!te councillors in DCC.

This is what governments should do. Produce an overall coherent framework that councils must operate within.

cgcsb

I'm all for local democracy, but there's too many anti progress elements in DCC, mostly extreme left wingers who like keeping people as poor and downtrodden as possible.

punisher5112

I would love to see properly designed and actually nice to look at high rises.

I honestly can't see how even in the docks they cant go up to say 10 to 20 stories.

Only thing is it will make the rich richer as prices will be just as bad.

Zebra3

cgcsb wrote: »

I'm all for local democracy, but there's too many anti progress elements in DCC, mostly extreme left wingers who like keeping people as poor and downtrodden as possible.

Can you provide examples?

cgcsb

punisher5112 wrote: »

I would love to see properly designed and actually nice to look at high rises.

I honestly can't see how even in the docks they cant go up to say 10 to 20 stories.

Only thing is it will make the rich richer as prices will be just as bad.

The price of every commodity = what people are willing to pay for that commodity, if the commodity is abundant then the price will be lower. Basic supply and demand there. There are also reasonable steps that the City could take to prevent excessive price inflation, for example they could bar vulture funds from buying or they could limit the amount of properties that investment firms can own.

cgcsb

Zebra3 wrote: »

Can you provide examples?

Green Party and Labour councilors and TDs have consistently campaigned against residential developments, particularly multi-storey developments in their areas, indeed many boast about their opposition to said developments in their election manifestos.

blanch152

Zebra3 wrote: »

Can you provide examples?

Of incompetent local councillors?

How about the Phibsboro Local Area Plan?

http://www.dublinpeople.com/news/northsidewest/articles/2018/05/14/4155970-locals-hope-to-influence-phibsborough-plan/

http://www.thejournal.ie/reimagining-phibsborough-plans-2852727-Jul2016/

Time and again, the failure of the current load of incompetent councillors in DCC to adopt a LAP for Phibsboro has been referenced as the main source of the problems with developing the village. I don't know the latest, but maybe by now they have managed to get their act together.

Zebra3

cgcsb wrote: »

Green Party and Labour councilors and TDs have consistently campaigned against residential developments, particularly multi-storey developments in their areas, indeed many boast about their opposition to said developments in their election manifestos.

And that keeps people poor and downtrodden?

And you think the Greens and Labour are left-wing? Not when in power....

I think you'll find it was the right-wing parties who looted the state about ten years ago to protect the wealthy.

It was the poor and downtrodden kept in their place by the crooks with fat pay cheques, sweet expenses, and obscene pensions.

Talk to those families who lost their homes or suffered from suicides and ask them which parties destroyed them.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we keep the politics out of this thread. Terms like 'downtrodden' are political, and should be taken to the politics forum.

I do not want to cramp posters style, but it is in the interest of clarity and to prevent threads descending into chaos.

Thank you.

marno21 wrote: »

8 storeys is high rise in Kerry or Mayo. It's utterly pathetic in a city like Dublin.

Mid-rise (5-8 storeys) is the norm in almost every European city (except e.g. Rotterdam and Hamburg). High-rise is wasteful on every metric except F.A.R. and I'm not aware of any evidence that land is at such a premium in Dublin that high-rise is ever foreseeably going to be necessary beyond a sprinkling of office towers.

What has led you to believe that high rise (<12 storeys) is necessary or beneficial to Dublin beyond a handful of specific use-cases?

CatInABox

Deleted User wrote: »

Mid-rise (5-8 storeys) is the norm in almost every European city (except e.g. Rotterdam and Hamburg). High-rise is wasteful on every metric except F.A.R. and I'm not aware of any evidence that land is at such a premium in Dublin that high-rise is ever foreseeably going to be necessary beyond a sprinkling of office towers.

What has led you to believe that high rise (<12 storeys) is necessary or beneficial to Dublin beyond a handful of specific use-cases?

Dublin is currently going through a massive office space shortage, and despite the current building spree, it's not getting significantly better. A high rise office area in the docklands definitely makes sense there. It's also got a massive hotel space shortage, but I'd personally prefer if hotels were kept around a max of 8 stories or so.

bk

Plus the point is we don't even do mid-rise. I live just 3km from O'Connell Bridge and I'm surrounded by a sea of two storey semi-d's!

Any similar sized European city would be all mid-rise (5 to 8 storey) apartment buildings this close to the city.

wakka12

Yeh exactly mid rise is imo ideal throughout a city with only a few high-rises as landmarks, for the city skyline,image, aesthetics, and zero nasty suburbia.

But in Dublin suburbia was let run amoc for so long and continues to sprawl into places like kiltiernan so some high-rises are very much needed to quickly and effectively combat that and inject some much needed density

marno21

Deleted User wrote: »

Mid-rise (5-8 storeys) is the norm in almost every European city (except e.g. Rotterdam and Hamburg). High-rise is wasteful on every metric except F.A.R. and I'm not aware of any evidence that land is at such a premium in Dublin that high-rise is ever foreseeably going to be necessary beyond a sprinkling of office towers.

What has led you to believe that high rise (<12 storeys) is necessary or beneficial to Dublin beyond a handful of specific use-cases?

If Dublin is building midrise developments in it's central business district, down in the Docklands, it doesn't give much hope for anything of any note outside of that area, in the suburbs.

I'm not talking about suburban "high rise" but making the most use of limited land resources would merit buildings higher than what we have at the minute.

theyoungchap

Deleted User wrote: »

Mid-rise (5-8 storeys) is the norm in almost every European city (except e.g. Rotterdam and Hamburg). High-rise is wasteful on every metric except F.A.R. and I'm not aware of any evidence that land is at such a premium in Dublin that high-rise is ever foreseeably going to be necessary beyond a sprinkling of office towers.

What has led you to believe that high rise (<12 storeys) is necessary or beneficial to Dublin beyond a handful of specific use-cases?

I presume you mean >12 stories.

The benefits of high-rise are significant. Plenty of young people are currently renting 3-4 bed houses in suburbs and commuting in. If we had high-rise, these people could live in Docklands say, walk or cycle to work nearby. This takes massive pressure off our already choked public transport and road network, while also freeing up family style houses for families. It is a complete no-brainer for me. Young people love to live in the city centre, and you can house thousands of people on a relatively small site.

Dublin has 2 options, sprawl out or sprawl up. Unfortunately, we have chosen the first one and it has been a disaster for everybody.

Consonata

theyoungchap wrote: »

Dublin has 2 options, sprawl out or sprawl up. Unfortunately, we have chosen the first one and it has been a disaster for everybody.

No European city has sprawled out and remained functional without a really decent Public Transport system. That, Dublin definitely doesn't have

theyoungchap

Consonata wrote: »

No European city has sprawled out and remained functional without a really decent Public Transport system. That, Dublin definitely doesn't have

Exactly. So you increase the density in the city centre, which is by far the quickest thing to fix, and then sort out the public transport at the same time, but that takes much longer.

Mutant z

Highrise is the most effective way to tackle ugly urban sprawl which is currently happening in Dublin once it starts going up you would wonder what the fuss was about build it up and build it up now.

Idbatterim

the below article will be of interest to you guys...

https://www.independent.ie/life/home-garden/ronan-lyons-wheres-the-plan-to-provide-20-new-homes-per-acre-in-dublin-36993600.html

theyoungchap

Mutant z wrote: »

Highrise is the most effective way to tackle ugly urban sprawl which is currently happening in Dublin once it starts going up you would wonder what the fuss was about build it up and build it up now.

Clowns in the council is why. They just don't get it.
This is why councils need to be given less power.

Mutant z

Its absolutely hilarious to hear objections to high rise in Dublin based on protecting the heritage of the city doesnt London have a heritage as well or is Dublin the only city in the world that has existed for the last millennium.