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

24567

Comments

  • #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.

    A blanket rule is needed because we've are so idiotic in what we build. It takes a certain minimum density to make a city work and this ensures that.

    What you're suggesting is the recipe for a tediously drawn-out, unfair and corrupt system which ultimately won't yield the results anyway.

    And again, high-rise hasn't come into this. 4/6 storeys isn't anything like high-rise.


  • #2


    cgcsb wrote: »
    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.

    Says you.

    Edit: just to make it clear, I think permission should have been granted.


  • #2


    Locals concerned over plans to build 299 apartments in blocks of up to 9 storeys in Glasnevin

    Mary Fitzpatrick:
    Let me clear, we desperately need houses… and I’m in favour of density and height
    Just not here. Somewhere else.


  • #2


    The journal had an article on this. Picture of the sure and neighboring lie density houses. It’s a joke!


  • #2


    This site is 250m away from Metrolink Glasnevin station which will also include 2 DART stations.

    I'd be more arguing that 9 stories is insufficient. That's the type of land that should be properly densified.


  • #2


    The company I work for is headquartered in Manhattan. They occupy floors 14-22. Our highest office in Dublin has 5 floors.

    Its a little embarrassing.


  • #2


    Fantastic news from Glasnevin

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cairn-approved-for-380-apartment-development-on-griffith-avenue-1.3847115

    Hopefully we are moving somewhat in the right direction now with this new milestone.


  • #2


    marno21 wrote: »
    Fantastic news from Glasnevin

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cairn-approved-for-380-apartment-development-on-griffith-avenue-1.3847115

    Hopefully we are moving somewhat in the right direction now with this new milestone.

    Shocking number of car parking spaces.


  • #2


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Shocking number of car parking spaces.

    Slightly less than 1 per dwelling? I don't think the number sounds too unreasonable given where the development is located. It's not in the city centre so people aren't going to be able to walk absolutely everywhere. Most people are going to want some access to a car, even if they only use it the odd day. Even if they don't, it's useful having a space available for their visitors.


  • #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?

    The profession that simply has to write " no." after a digit...


  • #2
  • #2


    There should be minimum heights stipulated. Look at that glasnevin development that is being celebrated, have you seen the photos with the 3/4 floors. A real winner there alright!


  • #2


    fionnsci wrote: »

    Interesting. I wonder if the current legal grey area around the Salesforce tower height is what's driving this.

    Johnny Ronan (who else?) has asked for Salesforce tower to be several stories taller than what the SDZ specifies as the maximum height, as the height restrictions have since been relaxed by the government.

    The locals are objecting, as there's going to be two story houses literally in the shadow of this building.

    The legal grey area is that if Ronan gets his way, and his building is increased in height, there's currently no legal way for those locals to object, as the SDZ stops them.

    Even more interestingly, the management company for one of the buildings there objected, and then had to withdraw their objection due to their tenants complaining about their objection.

    See here.


  • #2


    Surprised by this but it’s just been reported in The Times that An Bord Pleanala have granted permission for Johnny Ronan’s 22 story building at Tara street. An Taisce are fuming to say the least.

    Paywall:

    Ronan takes Dublin to new high
    Dublin’s status as a low-rise city is over, An Taisce has claimed, after developer Johnny Ronan was granted permission to construct the tallest building in Ireland in Tara Street.

    Ronan’s 22-storey tower will stretch to 88 metres, nine metres higher than the Capital Dock building in Grand Canal Dock and almost 30 metres taller than Liberty Hall, which stands at 59.4 metres.

    An Taisce has blamed the removal of height restrictions in the historic centre of Dublin, by housing minister Eoghan Murphy, for the “catastrophic” decision. A previous attempt by Ronan to build a tower on the site, opposite the Custom House, was refused by An Bord Pleanala last year.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c59263bc-5899-11e9-8813-c167a1bb1937


  • #2


    An Taisce: "Dublin’s status as a low-rise city is over"

    Me: "Praise Jesus, thank you god"


  • #2


    An Taisce: "Dublin’s status as a low-rise city is over"

    Me: "Praise Jesus, thank you god"

    Here's another great one:
    “Amid the general fiasco that has characterised Irish planning over the last 60 years, there was at least one achievement — of maintaining Dublin as one of Europe’s low-rise major historic cities. This is now lost.”

    Ha, absolutely no one, no one, flew into Ireland Ireland because of our low rise city.


  • #2


    An taisce can go and jump, how is Tara st the historical centre of Dublin.


  • #2


    jvan wrote: »
    An taisce can go and jump, how is Tara st the historical centre of Dublin.

    sure isn't it where Ímar (Ivar the Boneless?) use to keep his ship perched on a mudflat at low tide? ;)


  • #2


    cisk wrote: »
    Surprised by this but it’s just been reported in The Times that An Bord Pleanala have granted permission for Johnny Ronan’s 22 story building at Tara street. An Taisce are fuming to say the least.

    Paywall:

    Ronan takes Dublin to new high



    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c59263bc-5899-11e9-8813-c167a1bb1937

    Wow, was not expecting such good news. A victory for decency and common sense. The an Taisce crowd can afford to live where they like, they don't care if plebs have to commute from Kildare. 22 stories next to the City's busiest station is something you might see in the provincial capitals of Europe, but still, it's a start.


  • #2


    One mid rise building, wow! It doesn’t change the absolute disgrace of the wasted docklands , if they are going to build mid and high rise , it should be there. Someone tell me the logic of allowing that in the city centre and then the Quays lined with 5-8 floors boxes? Same with the rest of the squatlands.

    Hopefully the currents igbs site plans are now redundant. Another farce of a proposal!


  • #2


    Does it not look absolutely awful though? Just an ugly glass box that will be viewable everywhere in the city, at least Capital Dock is far away.

    We absolutely need to go up, but is plonking a 22-story building beside Trinity, Dame street etc really the way to do it? Docklands should have all been twice the height, definitely. But the problem with density is that Ranelagh and Phibsborough and anywhere that's a 20 min walk from the city centre is two-story houses and that continues on. We need to triple the height there.

    Mind you, I guess I wouldn't mind at all if it looked nice so maybe I'm juts rambling


  • #2


    Dats me wrote: »
    Does it not look absolutely awful though? Just an ugly glass box that will be viewable everywhere in the city, at least Capital Dock is far away.

    We absolutely need to go up, but is plonking a 22-story building beside Trinity, Dame street etc really the way to do it? Docklands should have all been twice the height, definitely. But the problem with density is that Ranelagh and Phibsborough and anywhere that's a 20 min walk from the city centre is two-story houses and that continues on. We need to triple the height there.

    Mind you, I guess I wouldn't mind at all if it looked nice so maybe I'm juts rambling

    I’m glad it bring built BUT what kind of morons permit that there and then have the docklands waste of space filled with 6/7 floors buildings, including those lining the quays. It’s absolutely laughable !


  • #2


    I think half the reason we end up with iffy looking buildings is because when an architect comes up with a contemporary or modern design the likes of an Taisce object and we're left with a horrible compromise. Rather than embracing change and working with modern design and existing buildings they are just a thorn in the side of progress.


  • #2


    I can't say I like this decision. I'm not a fan of the UK-style city planning where density is achieved by having relatively massive buildings randomly dotted around a lowrise city scape. I prefer the "separate new quarter model" for adding high rise to a lowrise city.

    No matter what style of building, isolated tall buildings generally end up despised within a few years. Who loves Liberty Hall these days or even the Harp building at O'Connell bridge? The renderings don't inspire any confidence that this building has a different future in the hearts of Dubliners.

    I actually love high-rise but only when such buildings are clustered. I'm a fan of the "Manhatten" effect and not the "Coventry" one. This particular building would be very welcome in the Docklands or as part of the cluster of new buildings at Heuston, for example.

    It seems particularly mad that we're restricting buildings to 8 stories in the Docklands while allowing 22 stories in a place like this.


  • #2


    South quays should be full of high rise buildings which would mean most of the sun being blocked would fall on the Liffey when people are at home in the evening.


  • #2


    gjim wrote: »
    I can't say I like this decision.
    I agree with you re the prefer the clustered approach, but unfortunately the over-the-top opposition to high rise in the city has meant that the floodgates will now be opened as a reaction. The opposition groups have only themselves to blame - a proper debate and identification of a suitable city centre site for a cluster never happened because they never allowed it to happen.

    I'm all for this development and hope it leads to many more. We are destroying our countryside with fields of houses owned by people commuting into the city, our public transport system is disgraceful, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people are worse because of the opposition to proper height and density in the city. Let's hope that we see more residential and commercial towers very soon.


  • #2


    I wonder if someone will ever dust down the plans for the 35 story hotel that was proposed for the back of the Convention Center

    000369.jpg

    Of course the original proposal for the area around the Convention Center back in 98/99 was something else! I can't seem to find any of drawings online but there are several of them in Frank McDonald's "The Construction of Dublin" from 2000. The only bit that was actually built was the Convention Center (and perhaps the PWC building)

    Here's a quote from RTÉ from circa 2000.
    The architect who designed the Spencer Dock development in Dublin has said he does not believe it intrudes on the historic heart of the city. Kevin Roche told the Bord Pleanála hearing he did not believe the buildings were high-rise, which he said began at forty floors. He said the Spencer Dock buildings were low to medium-rise. He added he would be prepared to lower the height of the buildings if they were considered too tall for Dublin. Mr Roche told the hearing that the scheme is meant to be international in order to attract foreign business.

    Ciarán Cuffe was just as much a pox in 2000 as he is today.
    http://www.ciarancuffe.com/back-to-the-drawing-board-for-spencer-dock-by-ciaran-cuffe-published-in-the-irish-independent-july-2000/


  • #2


    I read during the week that failure ireland said Dublin not having a thousand bed hotel is damaging the conference business. Ronan owns the site of the proposed high rise hotel mentioned above , city block nine. Failte ireland also said they have had discussions with developers about building such a hotel in Dublin. Ronan would be the man for it , reckon they have had discussions


  • #2


    hmmm wrote: »
    I agree with you re the prefer the clustered approach, but unfortunately the over-the-top opposition to high rise in the city has meant that the floodgates will now be opened as a reaction. The opposition groups have only themselves to blame - a proper debate and identification of a suitable city centre site for a cluster never happened because they never allowed it to happen.

    I'm all for this development and hope it leads to many more. We are destroying our countryside with fields of houses owned by people commuting into the city, our public transport system is disgraceful, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people are worse because of the opposition to proper height and density in the city. Let's hope that we see more residential and commercial towers very soon.
    I'm with you on the lack of density in Dublin being a disgrace and that tackling it must be a priority. And that's why I say "I'm not sure" about my opinion on this
    planning decision.

    My worry is that buildings like this could queer the pitch for future tall buildings in Dublin and thus hinder the densification of the city.

    Opposition to tall buildings in Dublin was until recently a very commonly held position amoung the public. I never agreed with it but accepted that it was based on real negative experiences with tall Dublin buildings: the Ballymun towers, Liberty Hall, Hawkins house, etc.

    These developments killed support for building taller in Dublin for a generation. I don't want to see the same happening again and that's why I'm a little uneasy about this building despite being a fan of tall buildings. I don't find it particularly beautiful and suspect the public will not either.

    The problem with isolated tall buildings is obvious - they stand out - so every blemish and aesthetic failure screams at you. They become notorious just because they are singular.

    Ideally this building should be in the Docklands, Hueston or Sandyford (none of which should have any height restrictions whatsoever). On the other hand, this section of Tara St. has been a disgrace for years and something needs to be done at this corner - and this building is certainly "something" - I just hope it doesn't provoke a new backlash against tall buildings.


  • #2


    This nonsense about ballymun is laughable. They put the dregs of society in them and low and behold it didn’t turn out well. They’d wreck houses too. I wonder if the same thing will happen to capital docks... L!O!L


Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.