We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Dublin - Building heights

  • #2
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 12,599 mod marno21


    We don't have a strict development forum so I think this may be best here - if anyone thinks there's a better place (besides the Dublin forms) drop me a line

    Public consultation on guidelines relating to building heights are now on housing.gov.ie -> https://www.housing.gov.ie/

    Submissions are encouraged


«134567

Comments

  • #2


    It’s a joke. They’ll probabky receive vastly more submissions suggesting a decrease in building heights from residents in south Dublin , some of whom may now have to see “high rise” four floor apartment blocks from their houses. They might even start thinking they are in Dubai ...


  • #2


    Frank McDonald has an article criticising the new guidelines in the Irish Times. As you can probably guess, it's quite negative. As you can also guess, it ignores the fact that the current set up is a travesty.

    He notes that the guide lines show that six or seven stories will become the new default in the city centre, with scope for higher, with Paris used as the example in the guidelines. He then says:
    But anyone who knows Paris can see that the vast majority of its dense population within the Boulevard Péripherique are accommodated in apartment buildings that are no more than six or seven storeys high, with only a tiny minority living in towers. The same is true of most European cities.

    Which is, I don't know, one of the worst ways of complaining about something that I've ever seen. I mean, what's his point? "The guidelines talk about a 6 story default, so I'll high light a city (which is also high lighted in the guidelines) that consists primarily of 6 story buildings!"

    He then brings up the fact that high rise zones have been designated already in the Dublin City Development Plan, like the area around Tara St, but fails to see that those zones won't work because they're all getting rejected due to the presence of protected buildings like the Customs House. I mean, he even brings up Johnny Ronans rejected tower:
    Now the department is seeking to declare an open season for tall buildings pretty well everywhere, whatever about their impact on views of major historic buildings, such as the Custom House, which is why Johnny Ronan’s plan for a tower on Tara Street was rejected by An Bord Pleanála.

    Dublin is filled with "Major Historic" buildings, so any development in those areas will get rejected under the current guidelines. And seriously, how would a high rise impact on the views of the Customs House? Is he catering for those people with helicopters?

    There's plenty more in there that's frustratingly wrongheaded.


  • #2


    https://www.pinterest.ie/pin/301881981260835929/

    are we to take it that any modernity in the sight of old buildings is negative?

    it happens everywhere else in the world.

    Good thing this is happening now, perhaps JR can reapply for planning. Otherwise he'd be well within his right to sue the state for time they wasted on this.


  • #2


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Frank McDonald has an article criticising the new guidelines in the Irish Times. As you can probably guess, it's quite negative. As you can also guess, it ignores the fact that the current set up is a travesty.

    He notes that the guide lines show that six or seven stories will become the new default in the city centre, with scope for higher, with Paris used as the example in the guidelines. He then says:



    Which is, I don't know, one of the worst ways of complaining about something that I've ever seen. I mean, what's his point? "The guidelines talk about a 6 story default, so I'll high light a city (which is also high lighted in the guidelines) that consists primarily of 6 story buildings!"

    He then brings up the fact that high rise zones have been designated already in the Dublin City Development Plan, like the area around Tara St, but fails to see that those zones won't work because they're all getting rejected due to the presence of protected buildings like the Customs House. I mean, he even brings up Johnny Ronans rejected tower:



    Dublin is filled with "Major Historic" buildings, so any development in those areas will get rejected under the current guidelines. And seriously, how would a high rise impact on the views of the Customs House? Is he catering for those people with helicopters?

    There's plenty more in there that's frustratingly wrongheaded.

    You beat me to it with your post. I was reading that this morning before i went to work. At this stage i wonder do some people want to keep people out of our capital city and it should just be for them


  • #2


    You beat me to it with your post. I was reading that this morning before i went to work. At this stage i wonder do some people want to keep people out of our capital city and it should just be for them
    I think so, I think once our fantastic buildings and vistas LOL arent interrupted, that people sleeping on the streets, in vans, in slums, ridiculous commutes, living at home in their thirties. Yeah its definitely a price worth paying...


  • #2


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    I think so, I think once our fantastic buildings and vistas LOL arent interrupted, that people sleeping on the streets, in vans, in slums, ridiculous commutes, living at home in their thirties. Yeah its definitely a price worth paying...

    Id love to understand how people like Mr McDonald would solve the Dublin Housing crisis . Would he prefer urban sprawl to continue and that way keep the sky line low or is there another magic solution ?


  • #2


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    I think so, I think once our fantastic buildings and vistas LOL arent interrupted, that people sleeping on the streets, in vans, in slums, ridiculous commutes, living at home in their thirties. Yeah its definitely a price worth paying...

    Exactly, the junkies and other poor substance abusers circling the Customs House seems a far larger problem to me.


  • #2


    Why commute a hundred meters down a lift and walk to work, when you can travel a hundred km and have a life of misery on a third world transport system?

    Honestly lads, I think their battle is over and futile at this point. They will lose, this is just going to get worse in the short term here she is no longer politically or ecologically or morally defendable...

    Old Ireland is clutching on for dear life, but it will be shown the door and good riddance ..


  • #2


    An Taisce, the Irish Gergian Society don't care if working plebs have to cmmute from Kildare. Their 18th Century town is affordable for them and that's all that matters.

    Good riddance to the ridiculous height caps.

    On a related note I see there's talks of industrial land being rezoned with a few hints at Dublin Industrial Estate near Broombridge, which of course can't function as a modern industrial estate.


  • #2


    While Ronan is appealing to Abp the refusal of his 22 storey project this is what they want to build in London.

    http://news.sky.com/story/the-tulip-plans-unveiled-for-1000ft-skyscraper-in-london-with-glass-pods-to-view-city-11558291


  • #2


    jvan wrote: »
    While Ronan is appealing to Abp the refusal of his 22 storey project this is what they want to build in London.

    http://news.sky.com/story/the-tulip-plans-unveiled-for-1000ft-skyscraper-in-london-with-glass-pods-to-view-city-11558291

    While they might want to call it the Tulip, I have a feeling that the people of London may have a dramatically different name for it......


  • #2


    jvan wrote: »
    While Ronan is appealing to Abp the refusal of his 22 storey project this is what they want to build in London.

    http://news.sky.com/story/the-tulip-plans-unveiled-for-1000ft-skyscraper-in-london-with-glass-pods-to-view-city-11558291

    I doubt there'll be much in the way of large scale projects starting in London until all this political nonsense is cleared up. Property values in London are gone stagnent and these projects always base themselves on projected growth.


  • #2


    This report has now been published:

    https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/urban_development_and_building_height_guidelines_for_planning_authorities_december_2018.pdf

    Blanket restrictions on building height are to be removed and buildings will be decided upon a case by case basis.


  • #2


    This is good news.

    I always wonder about the thought processes of planners as their writing is so bad:
    Traditional building heights in most urban areas in Ireland vary somewhat within a limited and generally low-rise range. This range goes from two storeys in many suburban locations, frequently in the form of housing estates, moving towards building heights of three, four or more storeys in more central urban areas, but generally not more than 6-8 storeys in the central urban areas of the cities and larger towns.


    Why does their prose style need to be so tortured? All you need to say is: "Most existing development in Ireland is low rise. Two-storey housing is generally found in the suburbs, and higher buildings are found closer to the centres of large urban areas, although an eight-storey limit is rarely breached."


  • #2


    I haven't read the whole thing but does it define what urban is?

    Depending on how you define it "urban" could be inside the canals or most of Co Dublin and parts of Wicklow/Kildare.
    Likewise a "suburb" could be Rathmines or it could be Naas.

    If Urban means anything less than everything inside the M50 then this is pointless.


  • #2


    Bray Head wrote: »
    I always wonder about the thought processes of planners as their writing is so bad
    That's the difference between a highly paid consultant, and the rest of us (also they probably had to pad out the report ;) )


  • #2


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    That's the difference between a highly paid consultant, and the rest of us (also they probably had to pad out the report ;) )

    Oh yeah, word count is very important. Brevity might be the soul of wit, but long reports is the paycheck of the consultants.


  • #2


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    It’s a joke. They’ll probabky receive vastly more submissions suggesting a decrease in building heights from residents in south Dublin , some of whom may now have to see “high rise” four floor apartment blocks from their houses. They might even start thinking they are in Dubai ...

    And parts of South Dublin should indeed be free from high rise

    However it should not be one rule for all.

    High rise should be allowed happen in designated areas.


  • #2


    Just this very moment just saw a news bulletin stating that height limits have been totally abolished?

    This is fantastic news if true..

    As long as the likes of DCC are precluded from overriding it..


  • #2


    Bray Head wrote:
    Why does their prose style need to be so tortured? All you need to say is: "Most existing development in Ireland is low rise. Two-storey housing is generally found in the suburbs, and higher buildings are found closer to the centres of large urban areas, although an eight-storey limit is rarely breached."


    Because that is not what the paragraph is saying. It is saying what the new target for heights in those areas should be, not what it is.


  • #2


    lawred2 wrote: »
    And parts of South Dublin should indeed be free from high rise

    However it should not be one rule for all.

    High rise should be allowed happen in designated areas.

    It's talking about 6-storey buildings, what's that got to do with high-rise?


  • #2


    jhenno78 wrote: »
    It's talking about 6-storey buildings, what's that got to do with high-rise?

    Nothing.


  • #2


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Nothing.

    Well...ok.

    If what you're getting at was that the leafy victorian suburbs should be protected then I would say that there's no need to make rules against something that's never going to happen.

    Objections aside, these areas are all well filled-in with houses so the only way to build would be to buy up whole streets which would be way too expensive.


  • #2


    jhenno78 wrote: »
    Well...ok.

    If what you're getting at was that the leafy victorian suburbs should be protected then I would say that there's no need to make rules against something that's never going to happen.

    Objections aside, these areas are all well filled-in with houses so the only way to build would be to buy up whole streets which would be way too expensive.

    I'm saying decisions should be made based on the streets themselves. And some streets in South Dublin and wherever should be protected from out of place high rise.

    But that should be on a case by case basis. There should be no cack handed sledgehammer to rule all..

    There should be no restrictions on height anywhere outside of a planning process that deals with each case on its own merits.


  • #2


    jhenno78 wrote: »
    It's talking about 6-storey buildings, what's that got to do with high-rise?

    I think it is suggesting that this is a starting level for apartment block heights and they can go up from there. e.g. Apply for 4 stories and it will be refused because its too low unless there are mitigating circumstances


  • #2


    As a consultant planner myself, in the short term this is going to add delays to the delivery of housing units as many approved applicants are going to pause and resubmit for taller designs. That glut will result in initial approval delays at Council level, but also a backlog of appeals against the higher proposals locally.

    Yes, in the long term its a sensible change, but expect short-term consequences in an already tight market.


  • #2


    Bray Head wrote: »
    I always wonder about the thought processes of planners as their writing is so bad:




    Why does their prose style need to be so tortured? All you need to say is: "Most existing development in Ireland is low rise. Two-storey housing is generally found in the suburbs, and higher buildings are found closer to the centres of large urban areas, although an eight-storey limit is rarely breached."
    Unfortunately, many people in many professions haven't yet worked out that shorter is clearer.


  • #2


    jhenno78 wrote: »
    I haven't read the whole thing but does it define what urban is?

    Depending on how you define it "urban" could be inside the canals or most of Co Dublin and parts of Wicklow/Kildare.
    Likewise a "suburb" could be Rathmines or it could be Naas.

    If Urban means anything less than everything inside the M50 then this is pointless.

    You'd be some lad to define urban as just inside the M50 in any official document. Tullamore is urban in official speak.


  • #2


    lawred2 wrote: »
    I'm saying decisions should be made based on the streets themselves. And some streets in South Dublin and wherever should be protected from out of place high rise.

    But that should be on a case by case basis. There should be no cack handed sledgehammer to rule all..

    There should be no restrictions on height anywhere outside of a planning process that deals with each case on its own merits.

    For example the proposed tower adjacent to the state's busiest rail station on a street of no architectural merit being rejected on the grounds of height despite being within height limits set out by the LAP. There's a head scratcher for you.


  • #2


    cgcsb wrote: »
    You'd be some lad to define urban as just inside the M50 in any official document. Tullamore is urban in official speak.

    Not sure what you're getting at, I'm obviously talking about Dublin's urban/suburban environs.


Society & Culture