Dublin City Council obstructing housing through mindless height limits?

blanch152

Del2005 wrote: »

The article should be why are we keeping 2 bedroom houses in a city with a massive housing crisis? Building houses hundreds of km out into the countryside is better than building apartments high in the city using the logic of the paper and the city councillors. Protect a skyline we don't have by destroying the countryside seems to be the solution to our housing problem.

Cork Street is an example of the kind of architectural landscape we should have everywhere in the city between the canals. If anything, heights are too low there.

https://reddyarchitecture.com/project/newmarket-masterplan-dublin/

The plans for Newmarket Square, just off Cork Street, look like a fantastic improvement for that area of the city.

James Brown

Del2005 wrote: »

The article should be why are we keeping 2 bedroom houses in a city with a massive housing crisis? Building houses hundreds of km out into the countryside is better than building apartments high in the city using the logic of the paper and the city councillors. Protect a skyline we don't have by destroying the countryside seems to be the solution to our housing problem.

Because they are private property and nobody's business?
There's a middle ground surely?

Even if it's no 2 bedroom houses, apartment blocks and a spar is not a community or living space.

Geuze

Del2005 wrote: »

The article should be why are we keeping 2 bedroom houses in a city with a massive housing crisis? Building houses hundreds of km out into the countryside is better than building apartments high in the city using the logic of the paper and the city councillors. Protect a skyline we don't have by destroying the countryside seems to be the solution to our housing problem.

There are 1-story houses within 1km of OCS.

Should they be CPO-d? Demolished?

Maybe if we gave the current owners a new house in the replacement 4-6 storey block, and an ownership stake in the extra apts in the new block, might that convince them?

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

There are 1-story houses within 1km of OCS.

Should they be CPO-d? Demolished?

Maybe if we gave the current owners a new house in the replacement 4-6 storey block, and an ownership stake in the extra apts in the new block, might that convince them?

There is a strong argument for CPO in situations where this would faciliate a wider development of the area. However, that shouldn't be the default option for all such housing. Where there is no need for development, then things should be left as is.

A bigger issue are the apartment blocks that DCC owns and that they haven't bothered maintaining over the last eight years, mainly due to lack of money (if they hadn't cut LPT, they might have had the money). A number of these could do with being demolished and being replaced with modern taller buildings with greater density.

maxsmum

Del2005 wrote: »

The article should be why are we keeping 2 bedroom houses in a city with a massive housing crisis? Building houses hundreds of km out into the countryside is better than building apartments high in the city using the logic of the paper and the city councillors. Protect a skyline we don't have by destroying the countryside seems to be the solution to our housing problem.

Well, not everybody living in a city is suited to apartment living. I know people say that families live in apartments all over Europe, but apartments in Amsterdam are way bigger and higher standard than the ones put up during Celtic Tiger here. So where are families who live and work in the city to live? If I buy a house in the city am I to stay quiet when someone wants to put a 20 story tower up against my back yard? If I own the land, I am entitled by law to object. I may get nowhere, but it's still my right. Do I care if I delay the construction? Hell no.

James Brown

maxsmum wrote: »

Well, not everybody living in a city is suited to apartment living. I know people say that families live in apartments all over Europe, but apartments in Amsterdam are way bigger and higher standard than the ones put up during Celtic Tiger here. So where are families who live and work in the city to live? If I buy a house in the city am I to stay quiet when someone wants to put a 20 story tower up against my back yard? If I own the land, I am entitled by law to object. I may get nowhere, but it's still my right. Do I care if I delay the construction? Hell no.

That was why they voted down the last lot I read about. 'Not suitable for families'.

There's a middle ground. For planning high rise within the city surely?

Thelonious Monk

https://twitter.com/3ddesignbureau/status/1364921613767032834

Looks like they're developing this area properly in line with modern city requirements. More of this please.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a strong argument for CPO in situations where this would faciliate a wider development of the area. However, that shouldn't be the default option for all such housing. Where there is no need for development, then things should be left as is.

A bigger issue are the apartment blocks that DCC owns and that they haven't bothered maintaining over the last eight years, mainly due to lack of money (if they hadn't cut LPT, they might have had the money). A number of these could do with being demolished and being replaced with modern taller buildings with greater density.

They attempted that with the 'regeneration' scam. It was allegedly set up to regenerate areas like Fatima and St. Michaels high rise estates. Instead they shipped most out to the suburbs and built PPP apartments in Fatima, (St. Michael's still a big field). Greed tends to queer the deal every time.

maxsmum

Well, I am biased. I own a house in the city and I bought it because we both work in the city and it vastly improves our quality of life to be near various amenities but also have no commute, so family life is maximised. If someone wanted to put up a skyscraper against my boundary wall of course I would exercise my right to object whether via planning objection, legal remedy (if there was a legitimate basis), whatever it is. You can't just obliterate the rights of those living in the city because there's a housing crisis. For what it's worth, I don't think residents' views hold much sway anymore but if a developer bypasses DCC with the strategic housing application to ABP then of course there has to be some appellate level open to residents if they have a legitimate right being infringed.
And yes I do think apartment blocks should have units suitable for families, that goes without saying. Families make kids who pay future taxes. Families are important.

cgcsb

blanch152 wrote: »

Cork Street is an example of the kind of architectural landscape we should have everywhere in the city between the canals. If anything, heights are too low there.

https://reddyarchitecture.com/project/newmarket-masterplan-dublin/

The plans for Newmarket Square, just off Cork Street, look like a fantastic improvement for that area of the city.

Way too small for a central site. Look at all the optimistic number of people milling around at ground level, the render shows more people on the street than there are apartments. Where are they all coming from? People aren't commuting from burbs to go to cafes. How is the ground floor retail supposed to survive with a sparse local population.?

It's exactly this that causes vacancy in new developments. Smithfield took years to fill up and that's with 9 floors of apartments on top.

blanch152

maxsmum wrote: »

Well, not everybody living in a city is suited to apartment living. I know people say that families live in apartments all over Europe, but apartments in Amsterdam are way bigger and higher standard than the ones put up during Celtic Tiger here. So where are families who live and work in the city to live? If I buy a house in the city am I to stay quiet when someone wants to put a 20 story tower up against my back yard? If I own the land, I am entitled by law to object. I may get nowhere, but it's still my right. Do I care if I delay the construction? Hell no.

https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/apartment-23-the-park-larch-hill-santry-dublin-9/2550388

Cycling distance from the city centre.

https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/apartment-24-lanesborough-mews-finglas-dublin-11/17452

Near to the future Luas to Finglas

Those are for sale, at reasonable prices.

https://www.daft.ie/for-rent/apartment-the-elms-pelletstown-manor-ashtown-dublin-15/2926209

On the Maynooth line for rent.

I think that any family looking for a three-bedroomed apartment in the city centre of any European capital would have to accept that this would be very pricy.

In most European capitals, the normal situation for a family on average household income would see them renting a family-sized apartment within a 30-60 minute commute. Expecting to be able to live within a 10-minute walk seems to be part of an Irish entitlement culture.

maxsmum

We don't want to commute, we bought our house, our choice! We have every right to live in the city! It's not entitlement, it's earned and it's our choice.

jackofalltrades

OneEightSeven wrote: »

The Indo did an article about high rise at Upper Mayor Street and the effect it's had on residents in the area. They said the city council were no help.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/our-sunny-homes-are-now-dull-and-dark-local-residents-despair-as-peaceful-cul-de-sac-is-now-in-shadow-of-apartments-40127697.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=seeding&fbclid=IwAR0S1127VkEYdUoZxvm2sWsl-lC2oPfDs90mGqcFlxyq0Fkml0fWpi6mHyA

And what are they looking for to happen?
They seem to lament the loss of their "quiet cul-de-sac."
By all means if dust from construction is an issue it should be dealt with, but I don't see what more can be done.

I wonder if there was an offer to buy them out.
A neighbouring house sold for a lot a few years ago.

blanch152

cgcsb wrote: »

Way too small for a central site. Look at all the optimistic number of people milling around at ground level, the render shows more people on the street than there are apartments. Where are they all coming from? People aren't commuting from burbs to go to cafes. How is the ground floor retail supposed to survive with a sparse local population.?

It's exactly this that causes vacancy in new developments. Smithfield took years to fill up and that's with 9 floors of apartments on top.

I was comparing it to what is there at the moment.

Ideally, I would like something higher as you suggest. However, you will find that many of the nimbys are already having kittens worried about the scale of this.

James Brown

maxsmum wrote: »

We don't want to commute, we bought our house, our choice! We have every right to live in the city! It's not entitlement, it's earned and it's our choice.

Completely.
We had pockets of communities within the city, still have. Making a city of apartment blocks with no sense of community will make for a very drab city. Not to mention quality of life for those commuting.
Imagine going to Athlone and telling everyone who lived there for generations that they would need move and make way for apartment blocks not fit for families and if they'd issue tell them they were self entitled? For some reason it's acceptable if you are from Dublin and working class or poor.
We need a middle ground if only for quality of community.

blanch152

maxsmum wrote: »

We don't want to commute, we bought our house, our choice! We have every right to live in the city! It's not entitlement, it's earned and it's our choice.

But you don't have the right to deny that opportunity to others through blocking development.

And it can't be denied that you are in a very privileged position.

maxsmum

blanch152 wrote: »

But you don't have the right to deny that opportunity to others through blocking development.

And it can't be denied that you are in a very privileged position.

Well, I may indeed have that right, depending on the situation. We go without other things that we might have more disposable income for if we commuted from the Midlands. I'm not living in the Aras or anything.

Northernlily

James Brown wrote: »

Completely.
We had pockets of communities within the city, still have. Making a city of apartment blocks with no sense of community will make for a very drab city. Not to mention quality of life for those commuting.
Imagine going to Athlone and telling everyone who lived there for generations that they would need move and make way for apartment blocks not fit for families and if they'd issue tell them they were self entitled? For some reason it's acceptable if you are from Dublin and working class or poor.
We need a middle ground if only for quality of community.

Dublin is the centre of our economy, the most vibrant place in Ireland and where the talent is at. That unfortunately means expansion upwards if it the economy is to grow and fulfil its potential to become a true global city.

Apartment blocks designed correctly can be fit for families. However doesn't seem to happen here as profit takes priority.

James Brown

Northernlily wrote: »

Dublin is the centre of our economy, the most vibrant place in Ireland and where the talent is at. That unfortunately means expansion upwards if it the economy is to grow and fulfil its potential to become a true global city.

Apartment blocks designed correctly can be fit for families. However doesn't seem to happen here as profit takes priority.

I'm cool with building up. I've repeatedly said we should/could find a middle ground. I've worked abroad and seen a few apartment blocks, a little parkette, some trees, then another set of apartments, all near 2/3 bedroom housing. Ripping down Cork street to line it with apartments and a spar ever few hundred yards is not my idea of good planning.

True. The council should not be allowing such builds in a city. If it's fully private on private land, go ahead sure.

Thelonious Monk

I can't think of any other cities that have semi ds, ground floor cottages and the likes in the city centre. Most progressive cities redeveloped land like that years ago.

maxsmum

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I can't think of any other cities that have semi ds, ground floor cottages and the likes in the city centre. Most progressive cities redeveloped land like that years ago.

Well mine is technically a protected structure. They either want to protect them or they don't. And there are hundreds more like mine.

I don't know what the solution is, by the way. But I don't think cities should exclude families. I'm biased because I love living in the city. I've friends living in massive A rated houses in commuter belts who think I'm mad. I just think all points of view should be heard.

blanch152

Northernlily wrote: »

Dublin is the centre of our economy, the most vibrant place in Ireland and where the talent is at. That unfortunately means expansion upwards if it the economy is to grow and fulfil its potential to become a true global city.

Apartment blocks designed correctly can be fit for families. However doesn't seem to happen here as profit takes priority.

https://libertiesdublin.ie/the-changing-face-of-cork-street/

Another perspective on a part of our city that is changing fast. This is a local perspective and is much more optimistic and forward-looking than some of the comments you find.

Thelonious Monk

maxsmum wrote: »

Well mine is technically a protected structure. They either want to protect them or they don't. And there are hundreds more like mine.

I don't know what the solution is, by the way. But I don't think cities should exclude families. I'm biased because I love living in the city. I've friends living in massive A rated houses in commuter belts who think I'm mad. I just think all points of view should be heard.

Yeah you've nothing to worry about we never had the balls here to do what they do in other cities, but the fact that we have such a low rise city centre means it's very hard to live there unless you're loaded or on the housing list. I'd much rather live central but I wont be able to afford it in this lifetime.

maxsmum

Not quite related to the thread but I looked up some examples of protected structures that aren't worth keeping in the city. There are applications to preserve three particularly minging buildings on Parkgate St. I can't post list on my phone but if you Google Dublin city Council RPS you can see the applications. They seem to be beside the highish rise Aisling Hotel. Thats probably a waste of protected space.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

https://libertiesdublin.ie/the-changing-face-of-cork-street/

Another perspective on a part of our city that is changing fast. This is a local perspective and is much more optimistic and forward-looking than some of the comments you find.

So the Liberties Business Area Improvement Initiative and Dublin city council think it's a great thing. I would hope so after all they were responsible. They not left wing led today?

You can be forward thinking and mistaken or forward thinking and correct.

[Deleted User]

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What skyline?

We are not dealing with Venice here.

This is the reason. The council think they are preserving some precious architectural heritage, which along the quays/docklands is pretty drab and miserable.

By all means have restrictions in Georgian Dublin, Merrion Square etc, but there needs to be a bit more nuance and some zones designated for high rise, the way larger cities like London/Dublin have clusters of high rise office towers in the East End but it doesn't impede West London/Kensington/Chelsea type areas.

markodaly

It is the easiest thing in the world to be against something, something that is bread and butter politics from many of the parties from the left.
Very different thing to be for something. If you want to build houses/homes, then you either have to build out or up, there is really no other choice.

Northernlily

In Canada they build on top of the protected structures and maintain the facade at the ground level. Why is this not an option here.

cgcsb

Northernlily wrote: »

In Canada they build on top of the protected structures and maintain the facade at the ground level. Why is this not an option here.

That's not the problem. The problem is that we're not allowed build anything worthwhile on empty pieces of land in central areas that have nothing to do with architectural heritage. The proposed Waterfront tower is on the site of a long demolished 1950s warehouse. The anti development people don't want to even be able to see modern buildings in the same eyeshot as historic ones. Only development permitted is 4 storeys basically and they even scream at that.

blanch152

cgcsb wrote: »

That's not the problem. The problem is that we're not allowed build anything worthwhile on empty pieces of land in central areas that have nothing to do with architectural heritage. The proposed Waterfront tower is on the site of a long demolished 1950s warehouse. The anti development people don't want to even be able to see modern buildings in the same eyeshot as historic ones. Only development permitted is 4 storeys basically and they even scream at that.

Read an interesting article on the YIMBY movement in California.

I am really surprised that it isn't something that one of the left-wing parties haven't taken on. Essentially, it is a group of young people looking for more building in their back yard so that they can live in the cities. Bascially, they lobby for more development rather than less development.

Unfortunately, in Ireland, our so-called left-wing parties are only interested in the negative, and never make any positive contribution.