Glasnevin/Phisborough + Metro/DART = New City Centre

MyLove4Satan

Personally I think this location will become a major urban area with the new transport hub potentially making it one of the most desirable places to live and work in the entire country. How long before Mountjoy is no longer a prison? Every available piece of development land around there is absolute gold.



Yet strangely very little consideration is given to the potential of the area around the Metro/DART interchange?

densification

Just looked on Maps.ie and it's 20 acres (0.08km2) including the Garda station, women's prison and car parks. Could be looking at 500+ units there.

Was good to see 200 apartments (12 Storeys) get planning literally right next to Glasnevin Station. (Despite Local Opposition as per)

The whole Metrolink project could do with more TOD in general. Tara St should have another skyscraper next to JR's one.

There's literally a farm next to DCU. Different topic but why we need to start taxing land to encourage high density development at prime sites.

JohnnyChimpo

densification wrote: »

Just looked on Maps.ie and it's 20 acres (0.08km2) including the Garda station, women's prison and car parks. Could be looking at 500+ units there.

Hamilton Gardens SHD in Cabra is due to be 500 units on 10 acres with plenty of amenities, so I'd say you could double that

D.L.R.

Bit far out to be considered "city centre", more of an inner suburb along with the likes of Ballsbridge and Rathmines.

Agree though, huge potential here.

magicbastarder

Are there currently any plans to move mountjoy?

Peregrine

magicbastarder wrote: »

Are there currently any plans to move mountjoy?

Not at the moment.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/prison-site-bought-by-state-has-cost-660-000-to-maintain-1.3164549

Thelonious Monk

Great area, wish I could afford to live there. I was up at the canal having a few beers a few weeks ago and cycled past a site I think where Smurfit used to be, from what I could see from the road there were a load of big enough houses being built. How ridiculous that they're building that kind of house there and not blocks of apartments, it's maddening.

densification

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Great area, wish I could afford to live there. I was up at the canal having a few beers a few weeks ago and cycled past a site I think where Smurfit used to be, from what I could see from the road there were a load of big enough houses being built. How ridiculous that they're building that kind of house there and not blocks of apartments, it's maddening.

There is planning permission for 76 apartments there. Developer wanted 299 apartments (and fewer houses) in blocks up to 9 storeys (at back of site). Was rejected by DCC (unsurprisingly).

Objectors used their usual ‘transient’ bull**** wanting million euro houses instead of apartments. The houses aren’t selling well and prices have been reduced by 50-100k.

Thelonious Monk

Surely places like that should be transient though, at least somewhat. One can't hold out too much hope for how the city develops if they're still building developments like this a stonesthrow from O'Connell St.

magicbastarder

IIRC (though i'll need to confirm my memory is correct) the whole site had been planned out, people bought houses there and then the developer changed their plans for the other parts of the site. i'd have been a bit annoyed too if i bought a house thinking i'd be overlooked by another house, to find out the developer had done a switcheroo and stuck in a 9 storey apartment block instead.

Strumms

densification wrote: »

There is planning permission for 76 apartments there. Developer wanted 299 apartments (and fewer houses) in blocks up to 9 storeys (at back of site). Was rejected by DCC (unsurprisingly).

Objectors used their usual ‘transient’ bull**** wanting million euro houses instead of apartments. The houses aren’t selling well and prices have been reduced by 50-100k.

Whatever about reasons for objecting, I was glad it never got permission ... the area even at off peak times is a nightmare with traffic. 299 apartments wouldn’t have been suitable... the R108 is at a crawl at times off peak, hardly moves at peak ... 299 apartments ? No... 299 apartments would have brought multiples of vehicular traffic that the road infrastructure there won’t cope with, it’s hardly coping...

I left Glasnevin pre covid for a healthcare/fitness appointment in Rathmines and that trip used to take 50-55minutes leaving 5:55pm. Phibsboro was a nightmare... it’s about 10 Kms journey according to google maps..

densification

The location with Metro and Dart stations is just too good not to be building high density housing. Every site around there should be maximised.

Glasnevin Industrial Estate needs to be developed into housing. DCC councillors voted for a Finglas industrial estate to go to Housing (with commercial and school) today.

I’d even say the low density estate across from Glasnevin Cemetery Museum and the school should be redeveloped (Obviously building a new school). Probably about 20 acres between the 2 of them.

magicbastarder

Strumms wrote: »

the R108 is at a crawl at times off peak...

just wait till the metro construction starts, i expect the R108 will be effectively closed in places.

densification

Strumms wrote: »

Whatever about reasons for objecting, I was glad it never got permission ... the area even at off peak times is a nightmare with traffic. 299 apartments wouldn’t have been suitable... the R108 is at a crawl at times off peak, hardly moves at peak ... 299 apartments ? No... 299 apartments would have brought multiples of vehicular traffic that the road infrastructure there won’t cope with, it’s hardly coping...

I left Glasnevin pre covid for a healthcare/fitness appointment in Rathmines and that trip used to take 50-55minutes leaving 5:55pm. Phibsboro was a nightmare... it’s about 10 Kms journey according to google maps..

I agree the traffic there is a completer disaster. I got the 155 from Ballymun Road/Griffith ave and it took 35 mins to Blessington St (Pre COVID).

However the solution to that is Metrolink, BusConnects (+ Bus lane cameras) and better cycling Infra. It’s a 15 minute cycle to town from where I got the bus but Barely anyone does it as Harts Corner, phibsboro and Dorset st are very hostile to cycle.

I doubt every apartment would have or need a parking space. Most new developments seem to get way more bike parking than car parking. I’d say the car dependency further north along that corridor is a much bigger issue.

markpb

Strumms wrote: »

Whatever about reasons for objecting, I was glad it never got permission ... the area even at off peak times is a nightmare with traffic. 299 apartments wouldn’t have been suitable... the R108 is at a crawl at times off peak, hardly moves at peak ... 299 apartments ? No... 299 apartments would have brought multiples of vehicular traffic that the road infrastructure there won’t cope with, it’s hardly coping...

The CSO data shows that people who live in or close to the city centre have the lowest car ownership rates in the country, it’s staggeringly low. The chances are that those 299 apartments would have come with limited or expensive parking so most of the residents wouldn’t drive. The people causing the congestion in that area are people commuting through it, not living in it.

By not building them, those people will now live further out, will be more likely to drive and will cause the congestion that you’re worried about.

densification

magicbastarder wrote: »

IIRC (though i'll need to confirm my memory is correct) the whole site had been planned out, people bought houses there and then the developer changed their plans for the other parts of the site. i'd have been a bit annoyed too if i bought a house thinking i'd be overlooked by another house, to find out the developer had done a switcheroo and stuck in a 9 storey apartment block instead.

Yes that’s a very fair point. The developer applied for pp a few times. Some of the rejected plans were applied for long before any brick was laid or house sold. The houses have not sold well as Id imagine people don’t want to live on a building site for the guts of a decade as well as the uncertainty with surrounding unit type.

Strumms

markpb wrote: »

The CSO data shows that people who live in or close to the city centre have the lowest car ownership rates in the country, it’s staggeringly low. The chances are that those 299 apartments would have come with limited or expensive parking so most of the residents wouldn’t drive. The people causing the congestion in that area are people commuting through it, not living in it.

By not building them, those people will now live further out, will be more likely to drive and will cause the congestion that you’re worried about.

It’s not that close, but look at Iona road and Lindsay Road, a shade south and actually nearer the city, either drive down or look on google maps... a couple of cars at or outside each house.

The prevailing mindset even living reasonably close to town is to want a car(s).

piuswal

densification wrote: »

The location with Metro and Dart stations is just too good not to be building high density housing. Every site around there should be maximised.

Glasnevin Industrial Estate needs to be developed into housing. DCC councillors voted for a Finglas industrial estate to go to Housing (with commercial and school) today.

I’d even say the low density estate across from Glasnevin Cemetery Museum and the school should be redeveloped (Obviously building a new school). Probably about 20 acres between the 2 of them.

What part of Clareville, if that is what you are talking about,are you talking about?
The swimming pool at Vincents is being demolished and I understand there will be some development there with an exit through Tower View Cottages onto the Finglas Rd.
The Glasnevin Industrial Estate would seem to have potential with closre access to the Luas and Irish Rail Stations at Broombridge.

Thelonious Monk

Strumms wrote: »

It’s not that close, but look at Iona road and Lindsay Road, a shade south and actually nearer the city, either drive down or look on google maps... a couple of cars at or outside each house.

The prevailing mindset even living reasonably close to town is to want a car(s).

But you could say that building apartments anywhere will cause gridlock. If they were to be built on the Navan road they'd cause gridlock as they'd drive through Phibs. If I lived in a new apartment at the Smurfit site and it was constant gridlock outside my house I wouldn't be driving anywhere in a hurry, I'd take the bus or Metro or cycle. I think we need to think and plan differently on these things.

magicbastarder

at least part of the development applied for in glasnevin village was turned down for PP; bizarrely, they'd applied to knock the washerwoman building as part of it, and they were on a hiding to nothing with that.

bk

Strumms wrote: »

It’s not that close, but look at Iona road and Lindsay Road, a shade south and actually nearer the city, either drive down or look on google maps... a couple of cars at or outside each house.

The prevailing mindset even living reasonably close to town is to want a car(s).

The presence of cars is not an indication of them being used for commuting.

I live in an apartment, 30 minutes walk from O'Connell Bridge. We have underground parking and it is full of cars, yet the cars are all there Monday to Friday (pre-covid).

I or non of my neighbours drive into the city. You'd be mad too. The buses on the nearby bus lane get you in at less then half the time and you don't have to pay crazy parking fees.

The cars are mostly only used at the weekends, etc. Off peak recreational travel.

Building high density apartments near to the city, with high quality public transport, cycling, etc. actually reduces traffic. It is the folks driving into the city from way outside the M50 that cause the majority of congestion.

JohnnyChimpo

yeah those roads in Glasnevin are mostly skinny driveways with no offstreet parking, and a lot of those cars seem to be there any time during the week when I'm going for a run around there

densification

piuswal wrote: »

What part of Clareville, if that is what you are talking about,are you talking about?
The swimming pool at Vincents is being demolished and I understand there will be some development there with an exit through Tower View Cottages onto the Finglas Rd.
The Glasnevin Industrial Estate would seem to have potential with closre access to the Luas and Irish Rail Stations at Broombridge.

From East of the cemetery car park is where I’m referring to. It appears to be a (former?) council estate. It’s very low density for the location. Blanch, Clongriffin much higher density.

The school is 9 acres in total. Does it need that many fields? You could keep most of the Greenspace but to it into a public park with a few pitches.

Glasnevin Industrial estate will be one stop on the Dart away from Glasnevin Stn. 5 minute cycle along the canal. People would have choice of Luas,Dart and metro

gjim

magicbastarder wrote: »

IIRC (though i'll need to confirm my memory is correct) the whole site had been planned out, people bought houses there and then the developer changed their plans for the other parts of the site. i'd have been a bit annoyed too if i bought a house thinking i'd be overlooked by another house, to find out the developer had done a switcheroo and stuck in a 9 storey apartment block instead.

Buying a house in Dublin shouldn't and doesn't come with any guarantee that future development in the area will be height restricted on your behalf.

Whether the developer proposing to build apartments is the same or different to the one who built the individual houses makes no difference.

When you live in a city, change/dynamism/re-development are part of the package particularly in areas close to expensive transport infrastructure. Heavy investment in rail-based public transport is not sustainable if stations are surrounded with low density/suburban-style housing.

Strumms

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

But you could say that building apartments anywhere will cause gridlock. If they were to be built on the Navan road they'd cause gridlock as they'd drive through Phibs. If I lived in a new apartment at the Smurfit site and it was constant gridlock outside my house I wouldn't be driving anywhere in a hurry, I'd take the bus or Metro or cycle. I think we need to think and plan differently on these things.

I don’t think you could equate that really.. lots of apartments built elsewhere in areas where it wont negatively impact people, Belcamp being one..

Phibsboro is a hugely built up area already as is Glasnevin, and Ballymun to the north... residents of both areas need to use the R108/Botanic Road to access the city... and beyond if driving... it’s going to be absolute gridlock in that area, dumb decision to grant permission.

magicbastarder

gjim wrote: »

Buying a house in Dublin shouldn't and doesn't come with any guarantee that future development in the area will be height restricted on your behalf.

i'm not arguing that. but it's am issue with several factors - if i bought a house and the person selling me the house told me there was going to X beside me (which they were building) and then substituted it for Y, of course i'm going to be pissed off, it's an easy argument to make that i was sold the house on false pretences.
it'd be a different story if it was an adjacent site belonging to someone else completely.

but also, developer led planning is idiotic. whether - or more importantly, where - to build nine storey apartment blocks is important. it's not a done deal that sticking a couple in in an area surrounded by two or three storey buildings is going to be a good idea.

actually, i put an objection in to a planning application a couple of years ago, and the permission was refused; it was to build a five storey apartment block where the spar on ballymun road is (at the junction of pappins road). it was comprehensively shot down by the planners.

markpb

Strumms wrote: »

Residents of both areas need to use the R108/Botanic Road to access the city... and beyond if driving... it’s going to be absolute gridlock in that area, dumb decision to grant permission.

But residents of Phibs absolutely don’t need to drive to access the city (centre?). They don’t today because so much of it is within walking distance, the bus and tram services are quite good and metro will be even better. They might need to drive for going to other parts of the city but this will diminish as public transport in the area improves.

Also if you live in a city, especially so close to a city centre, you have to accept congestion. Even if people managed to put a halt to new developments along the R108 (not any other road), that will still be congestion.

magicbastarder

Strumms wrote: »

Phibsboro is a hugely built up area already as is Glasnevin, and Ballymun to the north... residents of both areas need to use the R108/Botanic Road to access the city... and beyond if driving... it’s going to be absolute gridlock in that area, dumb decision to grant permission.

if you live in the area and drive into the city, you deserve gridlock. there are 5 different bus routes which use ballymun road. and the 83 which doesn't. and multiple more which go through phibsboro.

markpb

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you live in the area and drive into the city, you deserve gridlock. there are 5 different bus routes which use ballymun road. and the 83 which doesn't. and multiple more which go through phibsboro.

It’s probably reasonable to say that Strumms problem isn’t that the residents of Phibs will suffer congestion but that residents of outer suburbs who pass through Phibs will suffer. It’s a valid concern but it assumes that people in outer suburbs have a greater right to roadspace than people who want to live in Phibs or any other inner suburb. It also assumes that development can gain somewhere in a city and somehow not affect existing commuters.

gjim

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not arguing that. but it's am issue with several factors - if i bought a house and the person selling me the house told me there was going to X beside me (which they were building) and then substituted it for Y, of course i'm going to be pissed off, it's an easy argument to make that i was sold the house on false pretences.

it'd be a different story if it was an adjacent site belonging to someone else completely.

Would it, really? Be honest. If the exact same apartment block was proposed to be built similarly close to their houses but on a site owned by someone else, then the owners would have no objection? I'm not buying it for a second.

but also, developer led planning is idiotic. whether - or more importantly, where - to build nine storey apartment blocks is important. it's not a done deal that sticking a couple in in an area surrounded by two or three storey buildings is going to be a good idea.

This spot is within 1.5km of O'Connell St and will be a few minutes walk from one of the best connected public transport hubs in the country. I can't imagine anywhere better for 9 story apartment buildings to be honest. It's the presence of 2 or 3 story buildings so close to the centre of the city that's the abomination - not the proposed apartment blocks.

magicbastarder

gjim wrote: »

Would it, really? Be honest.

yes, it would. if you'd bought a house off the plans with a promise that there would be a green area out the front, say, and then found out the developers had lied and intended all along to build an apartment block, of *course* you'd be pissed off.

Strumms

markpb wrote: »

It’s probably reasonable to say that Strumms problem isn’t that the residents of Phibs will suffer congestion but that residents of outer suburbs who pass through Phibs will suffer. It’s a valid concern but it assumes that people in outer suburbs have a greater right to roadspace than people who want to live in Phibs or any other inner suburb. It also assumes that development can gain somewhere in a city and somehow not affect existing commuters.

You have one lane of traffic each side, that at off peak times can be at a standstill..

The 4,9,40,40B,40D, 83, 83A, 140 as well as taxis share one bus lane.

I can only imagine the chaos at peak...stupid.. just all about $$$

gjim

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, it would. if you'd bought a house off the plans with a promise that there would be a green area out the front, say, and then found out the developers had lied and intended all along to build an apartment block, of *course* you'd be pissed off.

That wasn't my question. I asked whether we're expected to believe that those who are objecting to the apartment block would fully accept the same apartment block built just as close to their houses but built by a different developer? Because I'm just not buying it.

One thing NIMBYs are good at is coming up with excuses for their behaviour so they can claim they're not actually against building more housing. I do give these objectors some credit for originality - they didn't reach for one of the usual excuses like traffic, character of the area, lack of schools/whatever, etc. instead "I was promised a scenic vista of semi-d houses".

They've chosen to live in a CITY - where you have no choice but share space with other people and where densification, expansion and new buildings have been part of daily life for at least 1000 years. Choosing to live in a city and then objecting to "city" stuff happening near you makes no sense.

magicbastarder

Strumms wrote: »

I can only imagine the chaos at peak...stupid.. just all about $$$

i have driven through phibsborough at peak times a couple of times. once it took me i think half an hour to get from the bus garage to harts corner.

densification

Strumms wrote: »

I don’t think you could equate that really.. lots of apartments built elsewhere in areas where it wont negatively impact people, Belcamp being one..

Phibsboro is a hugely built up area already as is Glasnevin, and Ballymun to the north... residents of both areas need to use the R108/Botanic Road to access the city... and beyond if driving... it’s going to be absolute gridlock in that area, dumb decision to grant permission.

Permission wasn’t granted.
If we can’t build decent density on a site next to what will be the best train station in the country, then there is little hope.

The area is already congested. That’s not really going to change. Even with metro, people will still drive and be stuck in traffic.

Ballymun and Phibsboro have much higher population density that Glasnevin. Glasnevin needs to densify.

Strumms

densification wrote: »

Permission wasn’t granted.
If we can’t build decent density on a site next to what will be the best train station in the country, then there is little hope.

The area is already congested. That’s not really going to change. Even with metro, people will still drive and be stuck in traffic.

Ballymun and Phibsboro have much higher population density that Glasnevin. Glasnevin needs to densify.

If it’s congested it will change, for the worse , the building of more houses and more property ... Daneswell HAS changed it. Permission grated and built, standing.

Glasnevin, densify ? Nowhere left to build in Glasnevin.... one sports club have already turned down multiple offers as where they were going to be re-sited was 4-5 kilometers away in an area with crap public transport links..

MyLove4Satan

Build on top of the Midland line? DART Underground 2 by default!

densification

Strumms wrote: »

If it’s congested it will change, for the worse , the building of more houses and more property ... Daneswell HAS changed it. Permission grated and built, standing.

Glasnevin, densify ? Nowhere left to build in Glasnevin.... one sports club have already turned down multiple offers as where they were going to be re-sited was 4-5 kilometers away in an area with crap public transport links..

Daneswell was refused planning for the 9 storey 299 apartments they wanted. They still have an older one for houses and apartments.

There are multiple planning applications for glasnevin. All facing significant opposition from residents associations etc. In fairness, some of the designs are not very aesthetically pleasing.

Glasnevin Motors site, Washewoman Restaurant, Glenavon House are all seeking permission.

Site just left of Courtlands on Griffith Ave, Fisheries Board are other sites. The Church still owns plenty of land on Old Finglas Road.

I’m not sure what’s happening at the site next to Daneswell but that could be another one.

magicbastarder

densification wrote: »

Glasnevin Motors site, Washewoman Restaurant, Glenavon House are all seeking permission.

if it's the same one i'm thinking of, this has been refused. well, the one which included demolishing the washerwoman was.

bk

Strumms wrote: »

If it’s congested it will change, for the worse , the building of more houses and more property ... Daneswell HAS changed it. Permission grated and built, standing.

I didn't think many people understand the size of the challenge faced by Dublin.

In the next 15 years the population of Dublin city is expected to increase by 31% or 410,000 extra people! And that is considered a conservative estimate!

Either those people can be housed in high density apartments close to the city and high quality public transport. Or they can be housed spread out outside the the M50 and commute in by car on every read into the city.

Trust me when I say, the latter option is VASTLY worse. Imagine there being 31% more cars on the road, it simply is unsustainable.

Every scrap of undeveloped land inside the M50 needs to be developed to a high density and people encouraged onto public transport and cycling.

densification

magicbastarder wrote: »

if it's the same one i'm thinking of, this has been refused. well, the one which included demolishing the washerwoman was.

I didn’t see anything about refusal yet. Looked on Glasnevin Heritage FB. The closing date for submissions was 25 May so that seems quite quick to decide.

magicbastarder

that's where i saw it actually.

https://www.facebook.com/GlasnevinHeritage/posts/1929162420567749

In a decision issued on 11th June 2021 the proposed redevelopment of the Washerwoman restaurant and adjoining structures has been refused planning permission.
Planning Application Reference No. 2635/21
Hereunder is a brief account of the reasons given.
1. The proposed development would not provide appropriate residential amenity to future residents due to the poor quality north-facing private open space to the majority of the apartments, the number of bedrooms facing blank walls at short distances, and the lack of any communal open space.
2. The proposed development, with no visitor parking or set-down parking and insufficient cycle parking, demonstrates an overreliance on the public realm lands to support the transport needs of the development, and would be likely to lead to overspill parking with impacts on surrounding residential amenity, and to lead to haphazard parking which would result in potential vehicular and pedestrian conflict to the front of the site.
3. By reason of its excessive height, bulk, massing, footprint and incongruous design, the proposed development would fail to successfully integrate into or enhance the character of the streetscape, and would seriously injure the visual amenity and setting of Glasnevin Village and the setting of protected structures
4. The building (60-66 Glasnevin Hill) is one of the last surviving remnants of the early buildings of Glasnevin Village, and makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and the understanding of the architectural, historical, and cultural development of the village. Its demolition would be contrary to Policy CHC1 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-22, To seek the preservation of the built heritage of the city that makes a positive contribution to the character, appearance and quality of local streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city......which states that the planning authority will actively seek the retention and re-use of buildings/ structures of historic, architectural, cultural, artistic and/or local interest or buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and identity of streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city.

Strumms

densification wrote: »

Daneswell was refused planning for the 9 storey 299 apartments they wanted. They still have an older one for houses and apartments.

There are multiple planning applications for glasnevin. All facing significant opposition from residents associations etc. In fairness, some of the designs are not very aesthetically pleasing.

Glasnevin Motors site, Washewoman Restaurant, Glenavon House are all seeking permission.

Site just left of Courtlands on Griffith Ave, Fisheries Board are other sites. The Church still owns plenty of land on Old Finglas Road.

I’m not sure what’s happening at the site next to Daneswell but that could be another one.

So the residents are kicking up, good on em... when the builders and the council can’t be trusted to enable the comfort, safety and quality of life of those they are supposed to work for....object away.

That part of Phibsboro is already manic... 9 stories ? No wonder it was refused, headcases.

densification

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's where i saw it actually.

https://www.facebook.com/GlasnevinHeritage/posts/1929162420567749

Ah didn’t spot that! It was a bit bulky and too close to the street for my liking. (But I still wouldn’t mind something built there)

I think the estate agent and pizzeria frontage is a bit tacky and brings the house down.

magicbastarder

Strumms wrote: »

when ... the council can’t be trusted to enable the comfort, safety and quality of life of those they are supposed to work for....

...

9 stories ? No wonder it was refused, headcases.

trying to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds there!

magicbastarder

there was talk at one point of a cycle path being constructed i think along eglinton terrace, and connecting with royal canal bank (the road alongside the park at the side of the old skating rink/cinema), crossing over onto whitworth road. but i've heard nothing about that in a long while. it would have provided a secluded cycling path from the western way to the canal IIRC

densification

Strumms wrote: »

So the residents are kicking up, good on em... when the builders and the council can’t be trusted to enable the comfort, safety and quality of life of those they are supposed to work for....object away.

That part of Phibsboro is already manic... 9 stories ? No wonder it was refused, headcases.

Modern apartments are perfectly safe and comfortable, I’d argue they’re safer and more comfortable than a poorly insulated energy inefficient red brick. The quality of life in a city apartment is much better than a suburban housing estate (at least for young people who want a social life).

If we can’t build on within the existing urban footprint, where can we? Would you prefer we keep expanding west into the commuter belt? Like where are we going to build 10s of thousands of units over the next few decades?

Melanchthon

bk wrote: »

I didn't think many people understand the size of the challenge faced by Dublin.

In the next 15 years the population of Dublin city is expected to increase by 31% or 410,000 extra people! And that is considered a conservative estimate!

Either those people can be housed in high density apartments close to the city and high quality public transport. Or they can be housed spread out outside the the M50 and commute in by car on every read into the city.

Trust me when I say, the latter option is VASTLY worse. Imagine there being 31% more cars on the road, it simply is unsustainable.

Every scrap of undeveloped land inside the M50 needs to be developed to a high density and people encouraged onto public transport and cycling.

A 30% increase in 15 years, 410,000 people, natural birth rate is only 60,000 a year. That figure seems to imply a delibrate funneling of international inward migration into Dublin.

Why not target that, it's not inevitable? It's not harder than or more expensive than turning Dublin into a mess of high rise the current population doesn't want.

Strumms

densification wrote: »

Modern apartments are perfectly safe and comfortable, I’d argue they’re safer and more comfortable than a poorly insulated energy inefficient red brick. The quality of life in a city apartment is much better than a suburban housing estate (at least for young people who want a social life).

If we can’t build on within the existing urban footprint, where can we? Would you prefer we keep expanding west into the commuter belt? Like where are we going to build 10s of thousands of units over the next few decades?

We need to address why we might need the extra housing...? Is the population ‘naturally’ increasing ? ie people here having more and larger families? Or are decisions being made for us politically that sees the continued requirement for more houses / apartments?

No call to keep facilitating the over population of suburban Dublin or urban Dublin and the facilitation of a downgrade in quality of life of those there already, taxpayers

Infrastructure already is light years behind so we’ll be playing catch up, in gridlock.

donvito99

Strumms wrote: »

We need to address why we might need the extra housing...? Is the population ‘naturally’ increasing ? ie people here having more and larger families? Or are decisions being made for us politically that sees the continued requirement for more houses / apartments?

Well, you heard it here first folks. The housing crisis is a sham, there's only mahoosive demand for accommodation because those greedy developers make itso.

No call to keep facilitating the over population of suburban Dublin or urban Dublin and the facilitation of a downgrade in quality of life of those there already, taxpayers

Ah yes, because people looking to buy new builds in Dublin don't pay tax. Only existing residents pay tax, that's obvious.

Infrastructure already is light years behind so we’ll be playing catch up, in gridlock.

Let's ignore the massive investment that is mentioned in the title of this thread specifically affecting the area and pretend that the present crippling gridlock is somehow better than same crippling gridlock (avoidable in using public transport) that will prevail whether this development goes ahead or not.

To sum up this post - "Dublin became full when I bought my house. Everyone else can f*ck off to Kilcock".

The silver lining of course is that the city will continue to densify, much to the displeasure of Strumms and Melanchthon, because the NIMBY whinging is drowned out by renters, buyers and developers clamouring to live somewhere where they were born, grew up and work. The enormous development in Finglas is an excellent example of this where NIMBY was totally skewered.

cgcsb

Strumms wrote: »

Whatever about reasons for objecting, I was glad it never got permission ... the area even at off peak times is a nightmare with traffic. 299 apartments wouldn’t have been suitable... the R108 is at a crawl at times off peak, hardly moves at peak ... 299 apartments ? No... 299 apartments would have brought multiples of vehicular traffic that the road infrastructure there won’t cope with, it’s hardly coping...

Is this a serious post? The area is getting Ireland's largest public transport interchange, 2 bus connects corridors and a separated cycle route. There is literally nowhere else in the country that has been assured of greater investment in transport.

Strumms wrote: »

I left Glasnevin pre covid for a healthcare/fitness appointment in Rathmines and that trip used to take 50-55minutes leaving 5:55pm. Phibsboro was a nightmare... it’s about 10 Kms journey according to google maps..

You'd have cycled that in 20 mins, hope you learned your lesson.