Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Dublin City Council obstructing housing through mindless height limits?

  • 22-02-2021 11:06am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 21,708 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/developer-ronan-s-45-storey-tower-must-be-refused-council-says-1.4491099

    Height limits where removed through legislation to increase the number of housing units across urban areas due to the housing crisis.

    In the above example that's over 1,000 new units.

    DCC seems to be restricting height intentionally in places like the docklands in Dublin thereby distorting the housing market and less supply means higher prices and higher rent.

    That aside the docklands looks absurd. If ever there is an area for high density high rise development it's there like other cities.

    They think Dublin city should be built to the scale of a small town. 6 and 7 storeys.

    However, I think there is a bigger story here the media needs to look in to.

    Are these planning schemes being used to intentionally circumvent the government policy and prevent supply?

    Because it's beginning to look like it.

    DCC took An Bord Pleanala to court last year to prevent a development of 10 storeys in the same area being increased to 13 floors and adding 200 more apartments. 13 floors!?

    There is another story in the Irish Times here again indirectly linked to height but again another case of the council actively trying to frustrate construction.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/protected-structure-status-recommended-for-player-wills-building-1.4491025

    Why are they doing this? In all their public consultations the vast majority of submissions seek more height and density in the city yet they just ignore everyone saying "they know better" basically.

    So they are not really "public consultations" at all.

    I hope the minister calls DCC officials in and asks them why they are frustrating national policy to increase supply?

    Cork recently approved a 40 storey building (ok that's a hotel but the point remains) in their city center no problem yet Dublin is being deprived of huge numbers of extra units due to this nonsense. They seem terrified of anything above 6 floors.

    They are restricting building heights too low in areas where they could be much higher.

    God forbid Dublin might ever have an actual skyline too!

    Basically An Bord Pleanala are approving new units and Dublin City Council keeps objecting.

    Karl Deeter on the news the other day discussing this height issue in Dublin made a good point - "you can't have a 21st century city with a 17th century skyline".

    We need to build up.


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 21,747 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/developer-ronan-s-45-storey-tower-must-be-refused-council-says-1.4491099

    Height limits where removed through legislation to increase the number of housing units across urban areas due to the housing crisis.

    In the above example that's over 1,000 new units.

    DCC seems to be restricting height intentionally in places like the docklands in Dublin thereby distorting the housing market and less supply means higher prices and higher rent.

    That aside the docklands looks absurd. If ever there is an area for high density high rise development it's there like other cities.

    They think Dublin city should be built to the scale of a small town. 6 and 7 storeys.

    However, I think there is a bigger story here the media needs to look in to.

    Are these planning schemes being used to intentionally circumvent the government policy and prevent supply?

    Because it's beginning to look like it.

    DCC took An Bord Pleanala to court last year to prevent a development of 10 storeys in the same area being increased to 13 floors and adding 200 more apartments. 13 floors!?

    There is another story in the Irish Times here again indirectly linked to height but again another case of the council actively trying to frustrate construction.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/protected-structure-status-recommended-for-player-wills-building-1.4491025

    Why are they doing this? In all their public consultations the vast majority of submissions seek more height and density in the city yet they just ignore everyone saying "they know better" basically.

    So they are not really "public consultations" at all.

    I hope the minister calls DCC officials in and asks them why they are frustrating national policy to increase supply?

    Cork recently approved a 40 storey building (ok that's a hotel but the point remains) in their city center no problem yet Dublin is being deprived of huge numbers of extra units due to this nonsense. They seem terrified of anything above 6 floors.

    They are restricting building heights too low in areas where they could be much higher.

    God forbid Dublin might ever have an actual skyline too!

    Basically An Bord Pleanala are approving new units and Dublin City Council keeps objecting.

    Karl Deeter on the news the other day discussing this height issue in Dublin made a good point - "you can't have a 21st century city with a 17th century skyline".

    We need to build up.


    The left-wing opposition - SF, SD, Labour, I4C, PBP and left-wing independents - have a majority on Dublin City Council. They are anti-development, anti-housing and anti-heights. They also believe that preventing housing development in the city will reflect badly on the government rather than on the Council. As a result, they are putting their own short-term political interests ahead of the interests of the people of the city.

    It is a complete disgrace the way that they are behaving.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,467 ✭✭✭✭ Thelonious Monk


    It's just one of those stupid things in Ireland that no one agrees with, but never seems to change. For as long as I can remember high rises are objected to and plans are cancelled, and it leaves most of us confused as to why we have to be different to the rest of the world. It's like off licences closing at 10pm, no one wants is but it's just the way it is in Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭ Northernlily


    In my mind this type of policy benefits everyone policywise except for the middle income taxpayer.

    It benefits SF/SD/Labour etc as they appease the working class voters in the area and benefits the landlord classes in FG/FF as supply is kept low and therefore rents high.

    Utterly utterly horrific short sightedness and hostility towards the people that contribute the most to our economic success.

    A city with a shocking poor public transport system continues to needlessly sprawl towards Mullingar and Portlaoise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,708 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    The problem here is Dublin City Council because An Bord Pleanala is approving these schemes (adhering to govt policy on building heights) and then they are being taken to court by Dublin City Council.

    We are in the middle of a housing crisis and this is the behaviour that is happening.

    It's our money they are using to obstruct housing and supply.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭ timmyntc


    It makes sense from their perspective - the types of people who vote for City councillors tend to be middle-aged and homeowning people.
    They already have their home, why would they want density in developments and a disruption to the Dublin skyline when it wont benefit them?

    When these types make up majority of the voters its no surprise


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,708 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    timmyntc wrote: »
    a disruption to the Dublin skyline

    What skyline?

    We are not dealing with Venice here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭ timmyntc


    What skyline?

    Exactly - the lack thereof.
    Its mostly the homeowning class who want to preserve it as is - doesnt matter to them if rents/house prices go up due to shortages created. Doesnt matter to them if we have criminally inefficient use of city center land.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,467 ✭✭✭✭ Thelonious Monk


    timmyntc wrote: »
    Exactly - the lack thereof.
    Its mostly the homeowning class who want to preserve it as is - doesnt matter to them if rents/house prices go up due to shortages created. Doesnt matter to them if we have criminally inefficient use of city center land.

    I own a home as do my friends and family, I can't think of anyone who'd object to high rise in the city centre. No one really cares about preserving the docklands area, there's nothing to preserve there in the first place.


  • Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The left-wing opposition - SF, SD, Labour, I4C, PBP and left-wing independents - have a majority on Dublin City Council. They are anti-development, anti-housing and anti-heights. They also believe that preventing housing development in the city will reflect badly on the government rather than on the Council. As a result, they are putting their own short-term political interests ahead of the interests of the people of the city.
    ......

    Indeed, they all come out sh1tting on about government inaction to the housing crisis then.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6 ✭✭✭ OicheMhaira


    I was travelling on thed red line luas after one of the housing protests last year - people who had a vested interest in seeing housing built you would think.

    Someone suggested we can't built long as the land isnt there so building high is the only option. She was shouted down and the loudest voice i heard went "but that will ruin the look of the city!".

    Surely we shouldn't care anyway but look at Dubai or Melbourne for example - high rise buildings and a beautiful skyline.

    Can we afford not to go up ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,708 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog



    Can we afford not to go up ?

    It's seems to me we have been paying the price of these limits for decades. It's there in supply numbers. We are not producing enough units in the areas of the city center we should have been.

    You only have to walk along north wall quay and see how low the buildings are.

    It's a huge waste of that land. They had a blank canvas there and they fcuked it up. There should be 1,000's more units down there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 763 ✭✭✭ doublejobbing 2


    I

    A city with a shocking poor public transport system continues to needlessly sprawl towards Mullingar and Portlaoise.

    I keep seeing this comment time and time again. What is so bad about Dublin's transport system compared to a similar size city in the UK or Europe?

    Dublin Bus has the vast majority of the 1.4m people in the county within a 10 minute walk of a stop, most of which are quite frequent.

    The Luas is a highly efficient and regular service any of the admittedly few times I've used it.

    As are the suburban diesel trains, albeit a bit irregularly timetabled.

    The Dart mind, I'd to use it regularly many years ago to visit an ex, now there is a shoddy service. Frequently late, train can sit between station for ages without explanation, terrible leg room design at rush hour, union crippled (train refused to take off from Connolly once because there were swans or geese on the line- clearly the driver wasn't allowed by the union to leave the cab and boot them off), their early Saturday morning services particularly unreliable.


    Three out of four isn't bad. These comments that every other city has direct door to door buses always intrigue me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭ Northernlily


    We are attracting the world's biggest MNCs, we have one of the highest income levels. Its a no brainer if we want to maintain this trajectory we need show ambition and attract further investment.

    The lack of ambition in relation to Dublin is something that astounds me. It could be worthy of a beautiful skyline and harbour like Dubai or Singapore but instead, a place that people want to travel to and live. All the potential is there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,708 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    We are attracting the world's biggest MNCs, we have one of the highest income levels. Its a no brainer if we want to maintain this trajectory we need show ambition and attract further investment.

    The lack of ambition in relation to Dublin is something that astounds me. It could be worthy of a beautiful skyline and harbour like Dubai or Singapore but instead, a place that people want to travel to and live. All the potential is there.

    Didn't Salesforce look for another few stories (two?) on their building recently in that area for I think it was 1,000 extra jobs and the council said no?

    It's damaging the city.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,887 ✭✭✭✭ Del2005


    I keep seeing this comment time and time again. What is so bad about Dublin's transport system compared to a similar size city in the UK or Europe?

    Dublin Bus has the vast majority of the 1.4m people in the county within a 10 minute walk of a stop, most of which are quite frequent.

    The Luas is a highly efficient and regular service any of the admittedly few times I've used it.

    As are the suburban diesel trains, albeit a bit irregularly timetabled.

    The Dart mind, I'd to use it regularly many years ago to visit an ex, now there is a shoddy service. Frequently late, train can sit between station for ages without explanation, terrible leg room design at rush hour, union crippled (train refused to take off from Connolly once because there were swans or geese on the line- clearly the driver wasn't allowed by the union to leave the cab and boot them off), their early Saturday morning services particularly unreliable.


    Three out of four isn't bad. These comments that every other city has direct door to door buses always intrigue me.

    Both Luas lines are already over capacity, pre pandemic, and with massive development at Cherrywood on the Green and Citywest on the Red will be full leaving their respective terminals so no good for the rest of the line. There is no capacity for more services on either line. Buses and DART where always packed during rush hour, we'd need to close a lot of roads to increase the DART services and there is huge resistance to improving the bus service.


    But we shouldn't have to build a world class public transport if we built up in the cities. We don't want to ruin our skyline but are destroying our countryside, and building in flood planes, which means that people need to travel to work. So to protect a non existent skyline that no one apart from some city councilors want to protect we are destroying the environment by making people live in places that they don't want to and then commute to work.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 763 ✭✭✭ doublejobbing 2


    Del2005 wrote: »
    Both Luas lines are already over capacity, pre pandemic, and with massive development at Cherrywood on the Green and Citywest on the Red will be full leaving their respective terminals so no good for the rest of the line. .

    http://www.cherrywooddublin.com/2018/05/31/planning-approved-cherrywood-town-centre/

    Plans for 25,000 residents in the coming years.

    Probably circa 6000 will be children, the majority schooled within a short distance of home.

    18,000 adults, mostly motorists, leaving for work any time between 6am and 9am. Some by bus, some getting dropped off to the train at Shankill, some working in Wicklow.

    Many of these people already living in the SE Dublin, North Wicklow area in house shares and with parents.

    The Cherrywood area has a train route, a Luas, numerous bus routes and Dublin's main motorway beside it.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 32,879 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Seth Brundle


    Didn't Salesforce look for another few stories (two?) on their building recently in that area for I think it was 1,000 extra jobs and the council said no?

    It's damaging the city.
    Firstly development decisions should not made on a promise of jobs.
    Secondly, it was Johnny Ronan who applied, not SalesForce. He applied for three additional stories
    Thirdly, the council had no option but to say no as for them to allow Ronan to increase the scale of the development would have meant the council exceeding their permitted heights. Furthermore, Ronan proceeded knowing that he was waiting on ABP to update the SDZ planning scheme for North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,708 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    Firstly development decisions should not made on a promise of jobs.
    Secondly, it was Johnny Ronan who applied, not SalesForce. He applied for three additional stories
    Thirdly, the council had no option but to say no as for them to allow Ronan to increase the scale of the development would have meant the council exceeding their permitted heights. Furthermore, Ronan proceeded knowing that he was waiting on ABP to update the SDZ planning scheme for North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock.

    True. However, I think it's appalling planning decisions by the council in the first place that there a ludicrously low skyline there that is an atrocious waste of land.

    There should be 1,000s more housing units down there.

    Have you walked around there? It's all 6 and 7 storeys, only one or two so called "landmarks".

    Blanchardstown literally has a taller skyline.

    They should not be let off the hook as to the failure of that whole area.

    And they don't do "public consultations" at all. They lay out what they want to do and don't pay a blind bit of difference to the submissions.

    Check out the submissions on the last "consultation". 90% are saying "it's too low", "needs to be higher" etc etc and all those are dismissed.

    That area has failed because DCC have this ideological aversion to anything "high".


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,411 ✭✭✭ Yurt2


    I'd be in favour of Japanese planning and zoning laws. Nationally decreed not subject to nimbyism, and as long as buildings are up to code, you build whatever you bloody well want.


    The UK was thinking of experimenting with Japanese planning and zoning laws in certain cities, but guess what, nimbys and people who were worried about the value of their houses nixed it.





  • Closed Accounts Posts: 844 CrazyFather1


    I keep seeing this comment time and time again. What is so bad about Dublin's transport system compared to a similar size city in the UK or Europe?

    Dublin Bus has the vast majority of the 1.4m people in the county within a 10 minute walk of a stop, most of which are quite frequent.

    The Luas is a highly efficient and regular service any of the admittedly few times I've used it.

    As are the suburban diesel trains, albeit a bit irregularly timetabled.

    The Dart mind, I'd to use it regularly many years ago to visit an ex, now there is a shoddy service. Frequently late, train can sit between station for ages without explanation, terrible leg room design at rush hour, union crippled (train refused to take off from Connolly once because there were swans or geese on the line- clearly the driver wasn't allowed by the union to leave the cab and boot them off), their early Saturday morning services particularly unreliable.


    Three out of four isn't bad. These comments that every other city has direct door to door buses always intrigue me.

    The public transport system needs more trains.

    Apart from that the bus service is good but very under utilised as it is easier to take a car.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭ James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The left-wing opposition - SF, SD, Labour, I4C, PBP and left-wing independents - have a majority on Dublin City Council. They are anti-development, anti-housing and anti-heights. They also believe that preventing housing development in the city will reflect badly on the government rather than on the Council. As a result, they are putting their own short-term political interests ahead of the interests of the people of the city.

    It is a complete disgrace the way that they are behaving.

    All the parties not FF/FG make up the majority. Would this not be true most years? Do you believe SF/Lab vote to support each other? Do you think PBP support rando independents who didn't want to join PBP? Do you think the SD's, one of their leaders left Labour due to a dispute over policy is supporting Labour?
    I'm sure there are issues where they may agree but you suggest here all these parties and individuals are voting the same every time regards housing.
    Have you stats or other proof of this? sounds unlikely and made up.
    Then you go on with a complete conspiracy theory that they all all engaging in tactics to damage government rather than address housing?
    You also neglected to mention that the ones who voted against such things give reasons. The most recent of which are them wanting the money spent on family suitable housing not get rich dog boxes.
    And you sign off with made up outrage.

    One of the most dishonest spun government party PR spin yarns I've seen, since your last one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,747 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


    All the parties not FF/FG make up the majority. Would this not be true most years? Do you believe SF/Lab vote to support each other? Do you think PBP support rando independents who didn't want to join PBP? Do you think the SD's, one of their leaders left Labour due to a dispute over policy is supporting Labour?
    I'm sure there are issues where they may agree but you suggest here all these parties and individuals are voting the same every time regards housing.
    Have you stats or other proof of this? sounds unlikely and made up.
    Then you go on with a complete conspiracy theory that they all all engaging in tactics to damage government rather than address housing?
    You also neglected to mention that the ones who voted against such things give reasons. The most recent of which are them wanting the money spent on family suitable housing not get rich dog boxes.
    And you sign off with made up outrage.

    One of the most dishonest spun government party PR spin yarns I've seen, since your last one.


    Yes, the bit in bold is exactly what they are doing.

    The record of the Council over the last decade when under SF/left-wing control speaks for itself. No spin, no dishonesty.

    Rather than defend the Council's record by pointing to their successes in housing (there aren't any), you resort to attacking the poster.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭ James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Yes, the bit in bold is exactly what they are doing.

    The record of the Council over the last decade when under SF/left-wing control speaks for itself. No spin, no dishonesty.

    Rather than defend the Council's record by pointing to their successes in housing (there aren't any), you resort to attacking the poster.

    No proof.

    I'm criticising the post, which you've mostly side stepped anyway. Your conspiracy theory that they all vote together just to stick it to FF/FG is Q-anon quality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,887 ✭✭✭✭ Del2005


    No proof.

    I'm criticising the post, which you've mostly side stepped anyway. Your conspiracy theory that they all vote together just to stick it to FF/FG is Q-anon quality.

    So why haven't these councilors managed to fix the housing problem in the councils that they control? They are good at shooting down developers plans, and have plenty of money for a white water centre, but haven't fixed the housing problems in areas that they have controlled for years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,407 ✭✭✭✭ Eric Cartman


    Yurt! wrote: »
    I'd be in favour of Japanese planning and zoning laws. Nationally decreed not subject to nimbyism, and as long as buildings are up to code, you build whatever you bloody well want.


    The UK was thinking of experimenting with Japanese planning and zoning laws in certain cities, but guess what, nimbys and people who were worried about the value of their houses nixed it.




    residential allowed everywhere and business allowed most places, ideal solution.
    you can also build almost anything you want as a one off outside cities.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭ James Brown


    Del2005 wrote: »
    So why haven't these councilors managed to fix the housing problem in the councils that they control? They are good at shooting down developers plans, and have plenty of money for a white water centre, but haven't fixed the housing problems in areas that they have controlled for years.

    Which councilors?

    When they do they state why.

    Who introduced leasing apartments for 25 years? Who favours assisting build to rent apartments and then becomes a customer? It's no leftist conspiracy group.


  • Registered Users Posts: 341 ✭✭ Skyfloater


    Frank McDonald, the former Irish Times environment editor and Temple bar resident has to take a lot of responsibility for this. He used his platform in the IT for years to shoot down anything that could bring Dublin into the 20th never mind the 21st century.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,747 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


    Which councilors?

    When they do they state why.

    Who introduced leasing apartments for 25 years? Who favours assisting build to rent apartments and then becomes a customer? It's no leftist conspiracy group.

    So after what, eight years of left-wing majority on Dublin City Council, you can point to [email protected] all as an achievement? And that maybe they blocked something sometime.

    If anything sums up the toxic nature of left-wing idiotic politicians, the last eight years on Dublin City Council is a fantastic example.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,848 ✭✭✭ John Doe1


    Well, seeing as there will be more apartments on the market as offices will be downsizing in the wake of the pandemic, I don't see how building up should be a priority.

    Ireland is losing enough of its identity without building some phallic glass tower just for the sake of fitting in with the others


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭ vladmydad


    RTE had a piece on the 6 o’clock news about the “negative” effect of “high rise”. They reported from the Bolands Mill development. They featured residents from those small ridiculously placed house’s behind it. The occupants complained about lack of sunlight and construction noise. They live in the center of a Capital City for Christ sakes. RTE kept showing the development from ground angles looking upward, to give the appearance of greater height. They’re barely 15 stories. God help us.


Advertisement