High rise buildings in Dublin - Yeay or nay?

markpb · 29-01-2013 06:50PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know about all that, it's a life style choice. It's the American dream of the picket fence and all that craic. People want all sorts of stupid crap

All true but ultimately people can make their own mistakes.

I think the view of apartment complexes is tainted by the tower blocks we used to have but new apartment complexes are being built in the likes of the Netherlands and Germany that have plenty of space, are highly economical and eco friendly. They are initially more expensive but much cheaper in the long run.

This is true and the handful of really poor apartments built in the last decade didn't help. People believe that all apartments are small, hard to heat and badly built. They probably also believe that apartment complexes are full of drug dealers and other antisocial types. The truth is that some apartment complexes in Dublin are vastly better than the average house (even older housing stock built before the boom) but people have a strongly formed opinion and won't easily be shifted.

29-01-2013 06:53PM

I wonder how much of the former accepted wisdom (still around in planning quarters) that Dublin should be a low rise city was linked to the need to continually rezone new land for building.

This policy has done dreadful damage, particularly related to our chronic traffic problems and poor public transport infrastructure.

Another thing, most of the apartments built in Dublin are far too small for people to live in for a lifetime. They're just suited for student and short term lets. 100sq m is a suitable size for an apartment for a couple to live in longterm. Most Dublin apartments seem to be only around 60 and many even tinier. These big complexes of tiny apartments will be the slums of tomorrow.

bb1234567 · 29-01-2013 07:31PM

Bad Santa wrote: »

Is the U2 tower being built or what. Walked passed it the other night parking on route to the Grand Canal Theater were we had champagne and caviar and it looks like a right eye sore. International U2 fans have begun to deface the gates with names for their upcoming album though.

ooh look at me i had champagne and caviar oooh

Pilotdude5 · 29-01-2013 07:33PM

Just a rough comparison of Dublins(Metro Pop. 1,804,156) footprint and NYC (Metro Pop. 18,897,109):

http://mapfrappe.com/?show=3787

Excellent site but note that mercator projection distorts distances at different latitudes.

EDIT: You're going to have to manually place outline over NYC

ScumLord · 29-01-2013 07:44PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

ooh look at me i had champagne and caviar oooh

I assume everyone had breakfast this morning.

Bad Santa · 29-01-2013 10:49PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

ooh look at me i had champagne and caviar oooh

The closest I ever came to having champagne and caviar is when I had a mouthful of Schweppes and went down on the Mrs.

Who it turned out, only let me do that as they were trying to poison me.

pabloh999 · 29-01-2013 11:55PM

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Just a rough comparison of Dublins(Metro Pop. 1,804,156) footprint and NYC (Metro Pop. 18,897,109):

http://mapfrappe.com/?show=3787

Excellent site but note that mercator projection distorts distances at different latitudes.

EDIT: You're going to have to manually place outline over NYC

Thats pretty good!
The outline you made takes in Dublin City, fingal and south and west dublin.
It fits in to NYC nicely,taking in most of the 5 boroughs i reckon.
Pop of NYC 9million
Pop of Dublin (your drawn outline) roughly 1 mill?

CrabRevolution · 30-01-2013 12:06AM

A lot of people are using the building of hundreds of thousands of housing estates in the suburbs as a reason for building some new skyscrapers in the city center. As if building massive apartment blocks in the city will attract these people back from when their families left decades ago.

The reason the suburbs expanded and towns around Dublin filled up is not because they didnt have a local skyscraper to move into in the city. It's because they wanted a decent sized house with a garden. Its also cheaper to live out in a suburb.

I've lived in apartments and in houses and only in my opinion houses win every time. I go to college in Dublin and I like the city, but in terms of living I personaly couldnt imagine a greater hell than living in a massive tower in Dublin city centre. Much rather live in a house a bit out and pay a small bus fare to get in.

Aquarius34 · 30-01-2013 12:29AM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

A lot of people are using the building of hundreds of thousands of housing estates in the suburbs as a reason for building some new skyscrapers in the city center. As if building massive apartment blocks in the city will attract these people back from when their families left decades ago.

The reason the suburbs expanded and towns around Dublin filled up is not because they didnt have a local skyscraper to move into in the city. It's because they wanted a decent sized house with a garden. Its also cheaper to live out in a suburb.

I've lived in apartments and in houses and only in my opinion houses win every time. I go to college in Dublin and I like the city, but in terms of living I personaly couldnt imagine a greater hell than living in a massive tower in Dublin city centre. Much rather live in a house a bit out and pay a small bus fare to get in.

Rubbish.
People moved out of Dublin, because they couldn't afford to live in the city. Most new houses built in the last 5 years in places like Kildare and Meath have small gardens. It's just sprawling housing estates. This just outlines the urban planning mess we have created. We are one of the lowest density cities in Europe. Dublin is a mess!

ToddyDoody · 30-01-2013 01:25AM

nay, they don't suit the place

bnt · 30-01-2013 01:27AM

Didn't we do this thread last year? I still think what I said then: Dublin can follow the Paris model, which encourages skyscrapers in a particular zone (La Défense), while keeping the centre for the "heritage" buildings.

Cookie_Monster · 30-01-2013 03:35AM

There is no reason for them to be banned and because of it the city continues to spread out instead of up. Either the city centr, port of Sanyford are ideal locations.

JonEBGud · 30-01-2013 04:54AM

Any building over 6 stories is a big problem for the fire services.

30-01-2013 08:24AM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I've lived in apartments and in houses and only in my opinion houses win every time.

Only because most of the apartments in Dublin are not fit for purpose.

Too small and badly designed.

30-01-2013 08:25AM

JonEBGud wrote: »

Any building over 6 stories is a big problem for the fire services.

How do other countries manage?

markpb · 30-01-2013 04:14PM

JonEBGud wrote: »

Any building over 6 stories is a big problem for the fire services.

So was the port tunnel when it opened but they managed to re-train for that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Only because most of the apartments in Dublin are not fit for purpose. Too small and badly designed.

There are decent sized apartments that are better built that most houses. They're in the majority but they do exist.

DCC brought in enhanced minimum requirements for new builds in (I think) 2008 which mandated dual aspect, more space, more floor to ceiling height and some other features. It also (further) limited the number of 1 and 2 bed apartments that could be built in a block. Unfortunately not many apartment blocks have gone through the planning process since then but it's something to improve in the future.

MadsL · 30-01-2013 05:25PM

Lapin wrote: »

Comparing a UNESCO world heritage city built around canals with Dublin is hardly compating like with like.

Georgian Dublin was a candidate for UNESCO world heritage designation a few years ago - it failed because DCC insist on fucking up the granite pavements. Had it passed "UNESCO world heritage city built around canals" would have been a very apt description for Dublin.

pabloh999 wrote: »

We will never ever have rise rise districts or anything of the sort.
Reason - An Bord Pleanala mafia have an anti high rise agenda
http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=164&n=406&a=1694
http://www.thejournal.ie/bord-pleanala-liberty-hall-refused-676532-Nov2012/
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2009/0130/113378-dunne/
http://lhra.info/wewon.htm
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0130/113371-ballsbridge/
http://buckplanning.blogspot.ie/2009/02/how-bord-pleanala-shot-down-dunne-plan.html

Nonsense. ABP police the Dublin City Development Plan. The Development Plan is a 'contract' between the people and the city, it has a very specific consultation process between planners, citizens and citizens representitives (councillors) that is widely advertised and facilitated. This Plan forms the basis of how the planners decide permissions, if the planners fail to uphold the Development Plan, and the permission is appealed, An Bord Pleanala enforce the Plan (and the wishes of the citizens) - here is what the Plan says about buiding height in the city.

Dublin City Council acknowledges the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city and considers that it should predominantly remain so.

It is the policy of Dublin City Council:
To protect and enhance the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a predominantly low-rise city, and to provide for taller buildings in the designated limited locations

To protect and enhance the skyline of the inner city, and to ensure that all proposals for mid-rise and taller buildings make a positive contribution to the urban character of the city,

This development plan also emphasises the contribution that good places, streets and buildings can make to regeneration and reaffirms Dublin as a predominantly low-rise city with height in limited locations.

30-01-2013 06:18PM

"Dublin City Council acknowledges the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city and considers that it should predominantly remain so. "

Lets go and rezone some more land in Kildare, Wicklow and Louth. Those guys are not in the real world.

ScumLord · 30-01-2013 06:24PM

Dublin City Council acknowledges the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city and considers that it should predominantly remain so.

What are the intrinsic qualities and what's so great about them?

To protect and enhance the skyline of the inner city,

I've already said it but Dublin doesn't have a skyline, outside of the spire, some ugly old chimney stacks and the odd dome of a church there's nothing worth a second look in the Dublin skyline. New York has a sky line, London has a skyline, Dublin just looks like any other town from a distance.

pabloh999 · 30-01-2013 06:26PM

Dublin City Council acknowledges the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a
low-rise city and considers that it should predominantly remain so.

Ive highlighted the keyword here.
No one(i imagine) is suggesting demo-ing Dublin low rise core

MadsL · 30-01-2013 06:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

"Dublin City Council acknowledges the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city and considers that it should predominantly remain so. "

Lets go and rezone some more land in Kildare, Wicklow and Louth. Those guys are not in the real world.

I've just explained to you that it is not DCC that sets the Development Plan, but the people. If anything DCC planners have a pro-high rise agenda judging by the fact they approved up to and including a 51 story development during the boom, they were overturned by ABP.

As to rezonings - Meath rezoned 61 times what was required for housing from sheer corruption.
http://www.meathchronicle.ie/opinion/comment/articles/2010/05/19/3997149-losing-the-run-of-ourselves-on-rezoning/

Is there now a shortage of housing in Dublin? Tell me how the highest building in Ireland is working out...many people living in it?

MadsL · 30-01-2013 06:33PM

pabloh999 wrote: »

Ive highlighted the keyword here.
No one(i imagine) is suggesting demo-ing Dublin low rise core

You mean the way part of the longest continuous Georgian terrace in the world was demolished to make way for the ESB offices?

pabloh999 · 30-01-2013 06:48PM

MadsL wrote: »

You mean the way part of the longest continuous Georgian terrace in the world was demolished to make way for the ESB offices?

No argument with ya there.

Lyaiera · 30-01-2013 06:55PM

Irish planning has been crap since the inception of the state. Dublin is horrific because it just sprawled outwards. I've often heard people in Dublin say they couldn't stand living in a bigger city than Dublin. They don't realise that bigger cities have come about in a much better way. London grew as lots of communities and towns joined up together. It means that different parts of London are like mini-cities unto themselves. Each different area has its own style and reason to be there. Look at New York, different areas all have a different vibe them. You get places becoming trendy and not so trendy (although with gentrification) and the place ebbs and flows with what people want. With Dublin you just have blandness escaping all the way out. I remember staying with someone as a teenager who told me their house was in a suburban area of Dublin. When I looked at the signs as we drove out there I realised that for them Meath counts as a suburban area of Dublin.

Thankfully other parts of Ireland have seen what's happened with Dublin and are trying to avoid it. In Cork there's satellite towns being built up (from pre-existing villages) within 15 minutes of the centre of the city. There has been a struggle to increase public transport but it's slowly happening. The greenbelt was just about maintained and there seems to be a general attitude that should we grow again the city will grow upwards (in increments) rather than outwards. So the two story urban poor areas will be redeveloped to five story large apartments. And limits will be placed on the size of the satellite towns. Luckily the recession happened, from a planning perspective. It's actually given the planners time to sit down, with time and figure out what was going on and the mistakes that were happening when people got caught up in the boom.

The question of building upwards really needs to be framed by urban gentrification (of non-historically significant areas) along with an upward swing in the totality of society. We're lucky enough that even with gentrification the split between the well off and lower income earners, and the relatively smaller population and population density means that there need not be areas that create neighbouring ghettos and slums.

MadsL · 30-01-2013 07:04PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Irish planning has been crap since the inception of the state. Dublin is horrific because it just sprawled outwards. I've often heard people in Dublin say they couldn't stand living in a bigger city than Dublin. They don't realise that bigger cities have come about in a much better way. London grew as lots of communities and towns joined up together. It means that different parts of London are like mini-cities unto themselves. Each different area has its own style and reason to be there. Look at New York, different areas all have a different vibe them. You get places becoming trendy and not so trendy (although with gentrification) and the place ebbs and flows with what people want. With Dublin you just have blandness escaping all the way out. I remember staying with someone as a teenager who told me their house was in a suburban area of Dublin. When I looked at the signs as we drove out there I realised that for them Meath counts as a suburban area of Dublin.

Thankfully other parts of Ireland have seen what's happened with Dublin and are trying to avoid it. In Cork there's satellite towns being built up (from pre-existing villages) within 15 minutes of the centre of the city. There has been a struggle to increase public transport but it's slowly happening. The greenbelt was just about maintained and there seems to be a general attitude that should we grow again the city will grow upwards (in increments) rather than outwards. So the two story urban poor areas will be redeveloped to five story large apartments. And limits will be placed on the size of the satellite towns. Luckily the recession happened, from a planning perspective. It's actually given the planners time to sit down, with time and figure out what was going on and the mistakes that were happening when people got caught up in the boom.

The question of building upwards really needs to be framed by urban gentrification (of non-historically significant areas) along with an upward swing in the totality of society. We're lucky enough that even with gentrification the split between the well off and lower income earners, and the relatively smaller population and population density means that there need not be areas that create neighbouring ghettos and slums.

Great post.

I just read that none of the recommendations of the Liberties Local Area plan that cost €1m in consultants fees have been implemented by DCC. On Thomas Street there is over 10% dereliction on the street, 10% of buildings actually demolished on the street through sheer neglect, and almost 15% of premises vacant on the street. This in one of Dublin's most historic districts, predating much of the Georgian fabric. Shocking, frankly.

We can never have a vibrant capital without fixing the urban rot and decay that has been caused by deliberate dereliction and landbanking by specualtive developers who are now NAMA'd. When that is fixed, talk to me about "iconic" skyscrapers.

I hope with John Tierney's resignation as City Manager a proper sense of how to save Dublin from Dublin City Council emerges.

30-01-2013 07:09PM

MadsL wrote: »

I've just explained to you that it is not DCC that sets the Development Plan, but the people.

Good theory that.

MadsL · 30-01-2013 07:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Good theory that.

Well, go compare the first draft with the actually published plan. It wasn't the Planning Department who got all those changes through.

riclad · 30-01-2013 07:24PM

If you see an unfinished building ,ITS Likely its owned by nama,
taken over from developer.There,s lots of unfinished apartment blocks , these will likely be finished off by nama and sold at some point.
I think there,s a shopping center in dublin that has just the walls and ceilings built.

JonEBGud · 31-01-2013 02:30PM

Deleted User wrote: »

How do other countries manage?

I would say it's a big problem for them as well.
I have been told by a fireman friend that any building over 6 stories needs special equipment, which isn't on the standard fire tender.

markpb · 31-01-2013 02:34PM

JonEBGud wrote: »

I would say it's a big problem for them as well.
I have been told by a fireman friend that any building over 6 stories needs special equipment, which isn't on the standard fire tender.

All this is true but it's hardly a good reason not to build up. I'm sure the Obel, Elysian, Liberty Hall and Monte Vetro were problematic when they were built but now they're fine (I assume

)

High rise buildings in Dublin - Yeay or nay?

Comments