Glasnevin/Phisborough + Metro/DART = New City Centre

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.

cgcsb

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.

As long as bus and cycle lanes are well enforced with eye watering fines and draconian enforcement and there are very frequent DART and metro services, who cares if there's gridlock for cars?

cgcsb

Melanchthon wrote: »

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.

How does a modern western economy achieve growth without inward migration? Also the vast bulk of inward migration is from the rest of the EU so not a huge amount we can do about that.

bk

cgcsb wrote: »

How does a modern western economy achieve growth without inward migration? Also the vast bulk of inward migration is from the rest of the EU so not a huge amount we can do about that.

Plus the natural birth rate will give you an extra 900,000 people over 15 years.

Not all in Dublin of course, but in the region of 230,000 to 300,000 extra people in Dublin based on birth alone.

bk

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).

Yep, I live in an apartment, I've never lived in a home that was so comfortable, so warm, so well insulated and so quite.

Also great that it has a big green garden all around it which is fantastic for the kids living there and in the area around. Really fantastic community spirit, people outside having picnics and all the neighbours keep an eye out for each others kids, etc.

gjim

Strumms wrote: »

Is the population ‘naturally’ increasing ? ie people here having more and larger families?

Is there a single period in the history of Dublin when this actually happened?

Dublin has always attracted a huge influx of people. In the past mostly from the rest of the country but now that it's no longer a sh*thole/economic basket case, it's also attracting people from outside Ireland's borders. This is what cities are and have always been.

If you want to "keep it in the family", then maybe a village in the Appallachian mountains might be more to your taste.

cgcsb

I wonder what these people were saying back in the late 17th Century when Dublin was the world's sixth or seventh largest city, today's equivalent of Beijing. They must have been clutching their pearls all day long at the prospect of bigger and bigger developments. The Broad Streets commission would have definitely given them a cardiac arrest.