The (real) Liffey Valley

Zaph0d

The other day I was on a flight that passed over South Dublin before landing. In the good weather, there was great visibility. I noticed that to the West of the Phoenix park there are just fields that extend to the M50 and continue South of Lucan along the both sides of the river. There seems to be no development along this axis until Leixlip.

Why is this? Why are there no houses along this stretch? And what's it called? Is it Strawberry Beds? The lower Lucan road runs through it.

daz42C

Zaph0d wrote:

The other day I was on a flight that passed over South Dublin before landing. In the good weather, there was great visibility. I noticed that to the West of the Phoenix park there are just fields that extend to the M50 and continue South of Lucan along the both sides of the river. There seems to be no development along this axis until Leixlip.

Why is this? Why are there no houses along this stretch? And what's it called? Is it Strawberry Beds? The lower Lucan road runs through it.

A section of it is the Strawberry beds

highdef

It's in a very steep valley and it would be very difficult to build here without making a huge impact on the landscape. People would protest too.

Zaph0d

I wasn't suggesting there should be houses built there! It's amazing that the countryside extends all the way from Leixlip to Parkgate street.

highdef

Sorry, didn't mean to take it the wrong way. But yeah, it's probably a protected green belt or something. Have to say that driving from Chapelizod to the city via Parkgate St is a bit weird alright. It's like as if you are in the countryside for ages and in a few seconds you are in the middle of the city.

Metrobest

Whilst a great deal of this green space should be preserved, I can't help thinking that some of it should be used to meet the city's housing requirement. The Phoenix Park, in my opinion, is simply too large for the numbers of people who have access to/use it. I think a portion of it off should be filled with high-rise, quality housing, thereby injecting some badly-needed life into the park.

murphaph

Absolutely no development should take place in the liffey valley IMO (I know that's not what the OP was suggesting!). There is loads of infill space still in the city and loads of 3 bed-semis close to the city centre or along rail lines that should be knocked and rebuilt with higher density housing. The Phoenix Park Racecourse is under development with ~6 storey apartments which is just about right for Dublin. Some parts of the Phoenix Park could be developed into 0 car dependency high density housing if it was done properly, but in this silly country buses aren't even allowed to use the park while private motorists can congest it at will.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

Absolutely no development should take place in the liffey valley IMO (I know that's not what the OP was suggesting!). There is loads of infill space still in the city and loads of 3 bed-semis close to the city centre or along rail lines that should be knocked and rebuilt with higher density housing. The Phoenix Park Racecourse is under development with ~6 storey apartments which is just about right for Dublin. Some parts of the Phoenix Park could be developed into 0 car dependency high density housing if it was done properly, but in this silly country buses aren't even allowed to use the park while private motorists can congest it at will.

We're in agreement for once! I would love to see high-density housing on the periphery of the park, so that the park would be actually used to its full potential as a "people's garden".

Sarsfield

murphaph wrote:

loads of 3 bed-semis close to the city centre or along rail lines that should be knocked and rebuilt with higher density housing.

I'm pretty sure the people living in those semi-d's would object strenuously. While I agree they should never have been built in the first place, we can't be totalitarian in correcting our past mistakes!

murphaph

Sarsfield wrote:

I'm pretty sure the people living in those semi-d's would object strenuously. While I agree they should never have been built in the first place, we can't be totalitarian in correcting our past mistakes!

But for the greater good? (look-it's never gonna happen with the spineless excuses for civic leaders that we have to endure, but for argument's sake). Compulsory purchases are used all the time for the greater good. I assume new legislation would be required but to be honest, swathes of housing really should go and be replaced by apartment units, gradually raising the city's density to be in line with other european capitals and giving the critical mass for a complete metro network. The current sprawl will never support one. I'm talking about working from the inside out, levelling any unlisted single or two storey dwellngs and replacing them. Places like Tallaght, Blanchardstown and Swords would not be affected for decades. This would be a very very long term project, perhaps involving the government buying up of property in an area at maret value if/when they come on the open market. The government (well, the government agency) would then rent these properties out, or use them for social housing until a critical mass was reached and the last few units bought up with a CPO, before complete redevelopment of the area.

Sarsfield

murphaph wrote:

The government (well, the government agency) would then rent these properties out, or use them for social housing until a critical mass was reached and the last few units bought up with a CPO, before complete redevelopment of the area.

That's not a bad idea in theory. However, once an area is identified, the market price would instantly rocket. Secondly, due to lifespans and inheritance, this idea may take a very, very long time indeed! Not everyone trades up every 3 years!

I think strictly enforced planning laws requiring high denisty, AND quality development is the only practical way forward. The price of land is forcing high density anyway in central Dublin, as that's how to maximise profits. Quality is the issue if high density living is to have a future in Ireland. Poor quality will set us back by a generation.

murphaph

Sarsfield wrote:

That's not a bad idea in theory. However, once an area is identified, the market price would instantly rocket. Secondly, due to lifespans and inheritance, this idea may take a very, very long time indeed! Not everyone trades up every 3 years!

Yeah, this would be a long longterm plan, taking generations to complete. The idea of land prices shooting up isn't a given. Think about this; the houses are bought by the authorities and used for the forseeable as social housing/housing for asylum seekers etc. This situation could last quite a long time before everyone has sold up, but the price of the property in this area ma be negatively affected by the social housing use, thus balancing out the 'bonanza factor'. The process would also be so lengthy as to prove unattractive to speculators as they would have no idea when the CPO's were to be made. Just an idea. None of this will happen!

Sarsfield wrote:

I think strictly enforced planning laws requiring high denisty, AND quality development is the only practical way forward. The price of land is forcing high density anyway in central Dublin, as that's how to maximise profits. Quality is the issue if high density living is to have a future in Ireland. Poor quality will set us back by a generation.

Indeed, the price of land is finally forcing high density and as you correctly point out-this must be quality or people will opt for the long commute. Some of the sh!t that's been built along the quays in particular leaves a lot to be desired IMO.

BrianD

Metrobest wrote:

Whilst a great deal of this green space should be preserved, I can't help thinking that some of it should be used to meet the city's housing requirement. The Phoenix Park, in my opinion, is simply too large for the numbers of people who have access to/use it. I think a portion of it off should be filled with high-rise, quality housing, thereby injecting some badly-needed life into the park.

Are you trying to wind people up Metro??? Under no circumstances should the Phoenix Park be hived off for housing. It is a great resource for the capital and used by 10s of 1000s and is full of life...take a trip up there any sat or sun.

If a rational development plan was put in that includes high rise, the city would be well able to meet its housing requirements. Dublns development is driven by the short term economic needs and greed of a few developers and by plans that say what we don't want instead of what we want.

In my view, too many green spaces are being sold off to developers. I'm always amazed that when you go up a tall building in the US e.g. Boston is how green their cities look. Go up the Dublin mountains (the nearest we get to a tall building) and look at the ugly grey sprawl that is Dublin.

Metrobest

My opinion is that the Phoenix Park is so large, and so surrounded by low density housing, that it needs to be streamlined. By steamlining, I mean putting high denisty housing in peripheral sections of the park, providing, of course, that the neccessary cycle routes and public transport would be there to serve these residents.

Look at the Phoenix Park today and what is it? In my opinion, a city park should be more than just a maze of roads, fields, trees and roads. The Phoenix Park features some lovely beauty spots, but how are they reached? Primarily by car - polluting the very green space that is so valued. What an interesting dichotomy.

Look at other city parks in other countries. I'm thinking of Versailles near Paris, the englischergarten in Munich and Amsterdam's Vondelpark. These places just bustle with life as they feature outdoor restaurants, facilities for hiring bicycles and rollerblades, and crucially, they are CAR-FREE.

Green space is all very well, but green space not used to its full potential is just wasted space. And with a city as sprawled as Dublin, yet so low-density in its housing, there just isn't a justification for not using a (small) section of the periphery of the Phoenix Park for high-density, high-quality housing. If it's good enough for the president, it's good enough for Joe citizen!

The Sisco Kid

murphaph wrote:

I assume new legislation would be required but to be honest, swathes of housing really should go and be replaced by apartment units, gradually raising the city's density to be in line with other european capitals and giving the critical mass for a complete metro network. The current sprawl will never support one. I'm talking about working from the inside out, levelling any unlisted single or two storey dwellngs and replacing them. Places like Tallaght, Blanchardstown and Swords would not be affected for decades. This would be a very very long term project, perhaps involving the government buying up of property in an area at maret value if/when they come on the open market. The government (well, the government agency) would then rent these properties out, or use them for social housing until a critical mass was reached and the last few units bought up with a CPO, before complete redevelopment of the area.

In theory this change could be achieved simply by changing planning policy and signalling to the market that high density housing would be allowed. This would give incentives to private developers to buy adjoining houses and build apartments in their place. It's already happening to a degree in parts of Kilmainham...
Come to think of it, I can't think of many places in Dublin today, where semi-d's with large gardens are being built - as far as I can see it's mainly townhouses and apartments...

murphaph

The Sisco Kid wrote:

In theory this change could be achieved simply by changing planning policy and signalling to the market that high density housing would be allowed. This would give incentives to private developers to buy adjoining houses and build apartments in their place. It's already happening to a degree in parts of Kilmainham...
Come to think of it, I can't think of many places in Dublin today, where semi-d's with large gardens are being built - as far as I can see it's mainly townhouses and apartments...

I believe local authorities have density targets to try and meet as it is. That's why you'll see folks getting permission to squeeze a house onto that large corner garden that they haven't been allowed to build on up until now.

The density targets for places like Drumcondra should be radically higher than what actually exists there right now. I wonder if they are.

This idea of developing areas into higher density is happening in a haphazard way all across the city alright, it's just painfully slow, meanwhile the city continues to sprawl outwards. Surely the finance act could be amended and section 23 could be restricted to developments built over old lower density developments or something? Section 23 is no longer needed in it's current incarnation to spur on housing development-the demand for housing does that all by itself.

So long as developers are able to get their hands on residentially zoned land around the city's periphery they will build on that because greenfield sites are cheaper and easier to develop. The city should have a line drawn around it and development should be strictly limited outside this line, but that will never happen because local authorities in Louth, Meath, Kildare Wicklow and Dublin want their cut of the rates from businesses that spring up to service these housing developments (Ireland probably has a higher density of SPAR shops than anywhere else in Europe!).

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

I believe local authorities have density targets to try and meet as it is. !).

They're failing! Populations in some of the more established Dublin suburbs are in actual population decline. Houses in back gardens do not represent good planning. Rather, just another example of Celtic Tiger get-rich-quickery.

BrianD

wow...I'm in agreement with Metrobest! It's very difficult to roll back the low-density inner suburbs and a few mews in the back garden is not the answer. Where possible new developments should be taller and apartments should be favoured over building a house.

Danno

Ya think Dublin is bad - try Portlaoise!

hawkmoon269

Metrobest wrote:

Whilst a great deal of this green space should be preserved, I can't help thinking that some of it should be used to meet the city's housing requirement. The Phoenix Park, in my opinion, is simply too large for the numbers of people who have access to/use it. I think a portion of it off should be filled with high-rise, quality housing, thereby injecting some badly-needed life into the park.

This is not meant personally, but really, posts like this epitomise what is wrong with the mentality of our city right now.

High rise in Phoenix Park? F**cking hell.

I actually support the principle of high rise if done in the right way but there are limits.

fightin irish

Metrobest wrote:

Whilst a great deal of this green space should be preserved, I can't help thinking that some of it should be used to meet the city's housing requirement. The Phoenix Park, in my opinion, is simply too large for the numbers of people who have access to/use it. I think a portion of it off should be filled with high-rise, quality housing, thereby injecting some badly-needed life into the park.

Oh god that sent shivers up my spine...Its surrounded by Cabra, Blanch, Navan road area, Castleknock, Chapelizord......How many thousands live here and use the park everyday..In my humble opinion...get rid of cars in the park.

Metrobest

It amuses me that people are aghast at the idea of housing in the Phoenix Park. There are houses in the Park already - sprawling country estates for people who are rich. Why not some well-designed high-density housing for the "middle class" citizen?

The main thing that seems to deter people from living in apartments is that they would lose the valuable green space. Well in the Phoenix Park that's not a problem: there's literally kilometres of it which would then be used as a giant people's garden! Right now, you can be sure that huge swathes of the park are barely used - or used for questionable purposes. With Dublin Bay cutting off one half of the city, and the Phoenix Park cutting off a huge chunk of the Northside, putting in a high density transport such as metro is made very difficult. Making it worse is the fact that so much of Dublin's housing consists of houses with gardens. I don't think it's right that people should be trapped in their cars on long commutes in from places like Navan while huge sections of the Phoenix Park lie there empty of people and purpose.

I think it comes down to architectural ideology - fine to have a rambling gentrified property like Farmleigh, but not a modern, well-designed development of apartments in an unused location. Another thing is: "don't spoil the view!" Well, Dublin is great for views. But it's not great for public transport or quality of life. So there has to be a balance. And it just seems odd to me that people are happy to see Counties Meath, Kildare and Wicklow lose their countryside to semi-detached housing, yet react with horror at the idea of a small section of the Phoenix Park being developed in a quality manner. You shouldn't forget, some of the best-loved views in the Phoenix Park are man-made!

DubTony

I can see the developers ads already.

Beautiful 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments in an exclusive setting.
Just 5 minutes walk to Dublin city centre. Easy access to the countryside. Close to Luas and mainline rail. And the biggest back garden in the world.
Car parking available.

Surely it's a fact that policy dictates what goes where. Developers will build high in a heartbeat if they're allowed. Until recently any high rise proposals have been rejected out of hand. The other issue is the plight of residents who are overshadowed by looming skyscrapers in their back garden.

"We'll never see the sun again"

The Phoenix Park is the perfect location. If the right area of the park was used their would be no moaning neighbours (the President?).
There are many areas of the park with huge trees that could easily hide new developments and provide an extremely attractive residential location.

Replacing 3 bed semi with blocks of apartments is already happening. Anyone familiar with Walkinstown roundabout will be familiar with the houses on the left of Greenhills Rd. There are about 10 of these and over the last few years a developer has been buying them up by offering the residents market value. But the remaining residents have dug their heels in and demanded more. Fact is they're getting it. A friend's parents recently done a deal for well above market value. The houses that are already sold have been rented and currently house local authority residents. This had little effect on the values that people expected for their homes. No CPO, nobody got pushed around and I believe that all the residents have agreed to go. Kudos to the developer.

Expect to see development there in the next few years.

johnos

Metrobest wrote:

It amuses me that people are aghast at the idea of housing in the Phoenix Park. There are houses in the Park already - sprawling country estates for people who are rich. Why not some well-designed high-density housing for the "middle class" citizen?

The main thing that seems to deter people from living in apartments is that they would lose the valuable green space. Well in the Phoenix Park that's not a problem: there's literally kilometres of it which would then be used as a giant people's garden! Right now, you can be sure that huge swathes of the park are barely used - or used for questionable purposes. With Dublin Bay cutting off one half of the city, and the Phoenix Park cutting off a huge chunk of the Northside, putting in a high density transport such as metro is made very difficult. Making it worse is the fact that so much of Dublin's housing consists of houses with gardens. I don't think it's right that people should be trapped in their cars on long commutes in from places like Navan while huge sections of the Phoenix Park lie there empty of people and purpose.

I think it comes down to architectural ideology - fine to have a rambling gentrified property like Farmleigh, but not a modern, well-designed development of apartments in an unused location. Another thing is: "don't spoil the view!" Well, Dublin is great for views. But it's not great for public transport or quality of life. So there has to be a balance. And it just seems odd to me that people are happy to see Counties Meath, Kildare and Wicklow lose their countryside to semi-detached housing, yet react with horror at the idea of a small section of the Phoenix Park being developed in a quality manner. You shouldn't forget, some of the best-loved views in the Phoenix Park are man-made!

I would have thought this a wind-up, or that you were on the payroll of some sinister developers' PR plot, but for the reference to The Netherlands. Nice people, the Dutch, but your approach to your physical environment is not your forte. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the notion of recreational space, free of traffic, commerce and development, for its own sake and, to use your chilling language, 'empty of purpose'.
The Phoenix Park is one of the jewels of Dublin City. The unspoilt stretches of the (real) Liffey Valley form a lesser-known gem. Get on a bike and try both of them out, and see if you still hold to this nonsense.
You can get as much self-aggrandising 'amusement' out of this as you like. But you're not going to hand our park over to developers.

Metrobest

Johnos, I have indeed cycled all around the Phoenix Park and Chapelizod, one of Dublin's most charming villages. There are some fantastic views right across the Dublin mountains - and quite a few recently-built one-off houses. perfect examples of the terrible planning that charachterises what is termed "development" in Dublin. I'd have more sympathy for your argument of "keep it green" but for the examples of ugly low-rise architecture in the area: for example the Garda boat club, and some vile three-floor apartment blocks opposite Chapelizod.

I'm not Dutch, I'm Irish, but I've seen in the Netherlands that it's possible to combine high-density development with ample recreational green space. I would advise you, next time you're in Amsterdam, to cycle out to the Nieuwe Meer parkland area which is surrounded by highways, metro, tram, high-density housing and office developments. And yet, step inside the parkland and you're in another world: you can't even see the developments!

At the end of the day, there is a housing shortage in the Dublin area. Places like Navan and Drogheda are buckling under the strain of unsustainable Dublin-based commuting populations. We need radical solutions. We need to create, sustainable, non car-dependent, high density communites proximate to central Dublin, and there are sections of the PP perfect for this purpose. In the park, there are parts which are desolate day and night, consisting of grass or scrub, and yet these areas would represent very suitable high-density sites adjacent to existing infrastructure. As DubTony said, there are many areas of the Phoenix park with huge trees that could easily hide new developments and provide an extremely attractive residential location. Is your objection to development in the park based on a "keep the park green" ideology? You shouldn't forget, there is housing in all parts of the park - but only for Mary McAleese and for Bertie's dinner parties!

Whether or not you want to admit it, the Phoenix Park in its current state is flawed, because the only practical way to get to it, for most Dubliners, is by car. That strikes me as highly unfair - if you live in leafy Castleknock or Chapelizod, you have this wonderful park on your doorstep, or if you have a car, you can drive into it from afar. But that leaves a substantial number of Dubliners (those without cars) for whom this "jewel" will never sparkle. A low-key, high density development would redress that.

Victor

I agree with Metrobest, putting 4 clusters* in the Phoenix Park of say 500m diameter, would together house 20,000 people, but use about 10% of the park. Depending on layout, you could have a bus route to serve them that would operate to the centre of all the clusters (putting everyone within 250m of a bus stop) and after 1-4 stops maximum deliver people to Heuston Station in about 5 minutes or continue on to the city centre.
Yup, 20,000 people living in the park and most people wouldn't notice any difference.

Of course there are many other sites like this in the city, especially around Drumcondra, Grangegorman and Harolds Cross.

Of course, you already have the following:

Áras an Uactaráin
Department of Defence (to Newbridge, to be replaced with Courts Service HQ)
Garda HQ (to Thurles, to be repalced with Dublin Metropolitan HQ)
Farmleigh
Ashtown Castle (Interpretive Center, former Papal nunciature)
Ordnance Survey Office (to Dungarvan?)
McKee Barracks (army)
Thomas Hill magazine (disused and semi-derilect)
American Ambassador's Residence

St. Mary's Hospital
Cheshire Home

Zoo
Polo Ground
Cricket Ground
Playground
Park Maintainence, nurseries and glasshouses

Civil Defence School
Phoenix Park Special School
Glen College

Blackhorse Avenue Apartments
Several residences & lodges

Railway Tunnel

Half of Chapelizod

Several hundred deer

One (set of) commuter route.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=53.355879,-6.322718&spn=0.036305,0.079419&t=h&hl=en

* Say (1) Garda HQ / McKee Barracks (2) Islandbridge / Clancy Barracks / Heuston Station (3) Chapelizod (4) "Fifteen Acres"

SeanW

For once, Metrobest might be right.

dowlingm

Could this be a Metrobest love-in developing?

The problem here is that Dublin is still not at a place where it can demand the kind of radical developments you see in other areas. Ideally these HD developments would have things like:

• No overground parking of any kind - including deliveries and refuse collection
• high frequency hybrid buses for minimum noise and emissions
• a carsharing facility where you can hire a hybrid vehicle for a few hours/days
• roof garden to reduce airconditioning needs, reduce heat island effect and retain green footprint
• built to extremely high standards of energy efficiency
  
  What you are creating is a development which is an attraction of the Park itself rather than an encroachment on it, a showcase of what the rest of Dublin could be with Vancouver-style demands on developers for high quality.
  
  Are all Dublin high-rises rental apartments or are there plans/legislation in train for condominiums?

Victor

dowlingm wrote:

Are all Dublin high-rises rental apartments or are there plans/legislation in train for condominiums?

con·do·min·i·um ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knd-mn-m)
n. pl. con·do·min·i·ums, also con·do·min·i·a (-mn-)

A building or complex in which units of property, such as apartments, are owned by individuals and common parts of the property, such as the grounds and building structure, are owned jointly by the unit owners.

This is the typical model for Irish apartment ownership, although strictly speaking everything is owned by the management company and typically the shareholders have renewable 99-year leases.

If you mean the American sub-model where all occupiers are owners (no renting allowed). I haven't heard of that in the Irish market, but I imagine it is possible.

Duplex (multi-story) units are also common here.

johnos

Metrobest wrote:

Johnos, I have indeed cycled all around the Phoenix Park and Chapelizod, one of Dublin's most charming villages. There are some fantastic views right across the Dublin mountains - and quite a few recently-built one-off houses. perfect examples of the terrible planning that charachterises what is termed "development" in Dublin. I'd have more sympathy for your argument of "keep it green" but for the examples of ugly low-rise architecture in the area: for example the Garda boat club, and some vile three-floor apartment blocks opposite Chapelizod.

I'm not Dutch, I'm Irish, but I've seen in the Netherlands that it's possible to combine high-density development with ample recreational green space. I would advise you, next time you're in Amsterdam, to cycle out to the Nieuwe Meer parkland area which is surrounded by highways, metro, tram, high-density housing and office developments. And yet, step inside the parkland and you're in another world: you can't even see the developments!

At the end of the day, there is a housing shortage in the Dublin area. Places like Navan and Drogheda are buckling under the strain of unsustainable Dublin-based commuting populations. We need radical solutions. We need to create, sustainable, non car-dependent, high density communites proximate to central Dublin, and there are sections of the PP perfect for this purpose. In the park, there are parts which are desolate day and night, consisting of grass or scrub, and yet these areas would represent very suitable high-density sites adjacent to existing infrastructure. As DubTony said, there are many areas of the Phoenix park with huge trees that could easily hide new developments and provide an extremely attractive residential location. Is your objection to development in the park based on a "keep the park green" ideology? You shouldn't forget, there is housing in all parts of the park - but only for Mary McAleese and for Bertie's dinner parties!

Whether or not you want to admit it, the Phoenix Park in its current state is flawed, because the only practical way to get to it, for most Dubliners, is by car. That strikes me as highly unfair - if you live in leafy Castleknock or Chapelizod, you have this wonderful park on your doorstep, or if you have a car, you can drive into it from afar. But that leaves a substantial number of Dubliners (those without cars) for whom this "jewel" will never sparkle. A low-key, high density development would redress that.

So this really is a wind-up. Congratulations on the initially deceptive veneer of honest debate, and your ability to actually convince some poor souls, but if you don't mind I'd prefer not to take part in the development phase of someone's comedy project.
What's the next wheeze in The Commissioner for Efficiency's plan for deployment of neglected resources? Use archaeological finds to fuel power stations? Let children work from age 12?

dowlingm

Victor

in Ontario condo owners are owners in common of the property, appointing a board of directors either from among themselves or appointing a management company to run the condo once a specified level of ownership is reached, taking over from the developer's interim board. Units can be leased by owners to tenants subject to the condo's rules which are decided by the owners in accordance with the Condominium Act. The common elements of the property are funded by the owners with a management fee which funds a reserve to pay for long term items like elevator replacement.

The original developer is just that, they are not ongoing landlords.

Metrobest

I think Johnos is trying to wind me up! Be an ostrich if you like, Johnos, bury your head in the green, green grass of the Phoenix Park, but there'll still be a massive housing shortage in Dublin that needs to be dealt with.