Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Aard · 05-08-2013 4:44pm

That username is already in use. wrote: »

The Docklands is already soulless and windswept due to the ridiculous low density and sparse population.

The people are there, and the commercial uses at the moment are some of the densest in the city. The reason the area is soulless is more to do with a lack of complimentary landuses which would facilitate small, local businesses. Nobody goes to an office district looking for entertainment, shopping, nightlife etc. The area around Grand Canal Dock does it far better having learnt from the mistakes of the original IFSC.

Pixel Eater · 05-08-2013 4:48pm

Aard wrote: »

It sounds like the IDA want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to increase allowed building heights within the SDZ, but then the come out and say that they want to curtail residential development to the benefit of commercial. If there's anything that should be learnt from Celtic Tiger development it is that we should never rey too heavily on a single type of landuse. Allowing towering office blocks, and fewer apartments could lead to the development of a mini La Defence. Night-time use needs to be taken into account too (restaurants/bars/nightclubs) otherwise we risk labelling the area as "soulless" for years to come. If all you plan for is a single land-use type, it takes a lot of time and money to retrofit it in the future. For example, a problem with the first couple of stages in the Docklands (i.e. during the 90s) was that there were very few small floorplate units, which meant it was difficult to set up small local services (newsagents, hairdressers, that type of thing). It's these small things that hold back an area from becoming a proper neighbourhood. My argument here is not necessarily to do with building-heights, but rather land-use as raised in the IT article.

At any rate, the IDA are being disingenuous in this case. In their statement to the Irish Times they say: "We don’t believe a limit of five or six storeys [in some areas] should be set in stone. For a signature building, we are of the view that the planning authorities should take a flexible approach". However, a few paragraphs up the IT says: "The council has said in some areas within the zone it may accept buildings up to 60m in height, similar to Liberty Hall. It identified eight storeys as a general guideline across the zone, but it has proposed allowing buildings of 10 or 12 storeys in height around Spencer Dock." So there is scope to accept 60 metre (~20 storeys) buildings. The areas where there is a 5/6 storey limit will most likely be in more residential areas where light penetration to the lower floors will be a priority, especially if surrounded by high-rises.

I totally agree that there needs to be a mix of building types rather than solely commercial property but I'm actually with the IDA on this one. The council's position is conservative and parochial in the extreme. 12 or 14 stories should be the norm, even the minimum. And buildings up to 100 metres should be considered; after all it's only a very small area of the city.

becost · 05-08-2013 8:46pm

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Noticed this in the paper this morning:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/commercial-property/ida-seeks-taller-buildings-for-docklands-1.1484644

Hopefully Dublin City Council take heed.

The argument the IDA put up is futile. No company is going to be turned off Dublin because they don't have a high rise office to move into. :rolleyes:

Pixel Eater · 05-08-2013 9:10pm

becost wrote: »

The argument the IDA put up is futile. No company is going to be turned off Dublin because they don't have a high rise office to move into. :rolleyes:

I don't know, it seems plausible. A large multinational may require a large, modern, office block that is centrally located. If none is available it could scale down their operations or even look elsewhere.

becost · 05-08-2013 9:33pm

The most important factors for companies considering setting up in Ireland are operating costs and corporation tax. Being centrally located is pretty far down the list of essentials and any high rise would be occupied by multiple companies who could just as easily occupy space in a low rise. As an example, Microsoft employ over 2,500 out in Sandyford spread across four buildings of 2 - 6 storeys.

Pixel Eater · 06-08-2013 4:39pm

becost wrote: »

The most important factors for companies considering setting up in Ireland are operating costs and corporation tax. Being centrally located is pretty far down the list of essentials and any high rise would be occupied by multiple companies who could just as easily occupy space in a low rise. As an example, Microsoft employ over 2,500 out in Sandyford spread across four buildings of 2 - 6 storeys.

Okay good points although an I'm sure an abundance of good quality commercial property near the city centre would be a good selling point. Dublin still needs mixed use, high rise buildings.

joe_bloggs_ · 06-08-2013 8:03pm

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Okay good points although an I'm sure an abundance of good quality commercial property near the city centre would be a good selling point. Dublin still needs mixed use, high rise buildings.

Whatever about high rise commercial property, Dublin could certainly support a number of mixed use high rise developments. There are plenty of cities around the world with similar sized populations that have incorporated high rise.

hfallada · 07-08-2013 10:27am

You have to question if dcc didn't have such an obession with height would we have all the sprawling surburbs we have. I seriously doubt it as people would be living in more affordable housing as there would have been greater supply.

I was in shanghai a couple of weeks ago and most buildings were only 5/6 storeys except for sky scapers in the financial district( one of the biggest tourist attractions in the city) and they were extremely impressive.

I don't think DDC can call sky scapers eye sores with the amount of generic red brick five storey council housing blocks they have all over dublin 2

richiek83 · 13-08-2013 1:39pm

Amended plan is now online for Docklands SDZ. Two of the main links below:

From quick reading, max building height at Britain Quay is to be 22 storey for commercial or 29 residential.

Similar proposal at Point Village, 22 storey for a commercial/ cultural building. I haven't read it all yet but they were the two stand out amendments so far. Will have a full read of it later

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/Documents/DraftPlanningSchemeProposedAmendmentsTextAug2013.pdf

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/Documents/DraftPlanningSchemeProposedAmendmentsMapsFigsAug2013.pdf

Pixel Eater · 13-08-2013 2:48pm

richiek83 wrote: »

Amended plan is now online for Docklands SDZ. Two of the main links below:

From quick reading, max building height at Britain Quay is to be 22 storey for commercial or 29 residential.

Similar proposal at Point Village, 22 storey for a commercial/ cultural building. I haven't read it all yet but they were the two stand out amendments so far. Will have a full read of it later

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/Documents/DraftPlanningSchemeProposedAmendmentsTextAug2013.pdf

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/OtherDevelopmentPlans/LocalAreaPlans/Documents/DraftPlanningSchemeProposedAmendmentsMapsFigsAug2013.pdf

This is a bit more like it. Seems like some common sense has prevailed although I'll need to have a proper read before I'm convinced.

Peregrine · 13-08-2013 3:05pm

It's better but it still only allows 5-7 story stumpy blocks in certain areas.

Reuben1210 · 11-03-2015 2:36pm

So to revive this thread a little....anyone hear the news today about the tara street station high rise redevelopment? Due to soaring office rents, ianroid eireann has decided to try to cash in on this and is searching for a partner to develop a plan...

cgcsb · 11-03-2015 2:59pm

Fantastic, the 60's-70's planners done some damage to Tara street, let's hope it can be undone. Hawkins house will be the key for the whole street though. A narrowing of the road to two lanes and some cycling facilities would also be helpful.

crushproof · 11-03-2015 3:46pm

Reuben1210 wrote: »

So to revive this thread a little....anyone hear the news today about the tara street station high rise redevelopment? Due to soaring office rents, ianroid eireann has decided to try to cash in on this and is searching for a partner to develop a plan...

This has been ongoing for at least 15 years now, I can remember these plans floating about in the early 00's.
Hopefully the plan they have is more modern version of what was planned previously, it is a vital transport artery and therefore large scale development should be allowed.
Alas, it will be appealed, and shot down. You can't seriously think that you can have a monstrous 22 (Yes, that's right, 22!!!) skyscraper in a 21st century capital city?!

*then again, it is a state company so maybe it will get the go ahead

Peregrine · 11-03-2015 3:53pm

Hopwfully they can get it through the planning process without getting too many stories chopped off but I won't hold my breath.

As for the docklands, I'm just going to quote this post from SSC.

Purple: Landmark
Orange: 8 commercial / 10 residential
Pink: 6c/7r
Blue: 5c/7r

I'm not even shocked anymore.

Anyway, let's recap on the "lankmark" building sites. They're the purple sites.

12 storeys max/10 storeys min commercial on the second block from the Royal Canal north of Mayor Street.

11c/13r (54m) on the site between the Convention Centre and Mayor Street. The site has planning permission for a 13 storey hotel.

22 storeys commercial on the Watchtower site. The Watchtower still has planning permission.

22c/29r on the North East corner of the U2 site.

15 storeys max at Boland's Mill. Something about a line between the Montevetro and Millenium Tower.

And this is what Stumpville will look like:

Purple: Landmark
Orange: 8 commercial / 10 residential
Pink: 6c/7r
Blue: 5c/7r

Reuben1210 · 11-03-2015 4:00pm

Yeah and the tara street/george's dock area is one of those areas designated as a SDZ with permission for a possible 22 storey tower!!....
yeah the watchtower might try to change permission to commercial primarily, because as far as I know, it is permitted for mostly residential? maybe someone can confirm this? Also, all the foundations are built under it, complete with underground car park and everything, at a cost of over €32....so it makes sense to bring this project back to life soon imo

loyatemu · 11-03-2015 4:25pm

the existing permission is for 9 storeys @ Tara St.

Reuben1210 · 11-03-2015 4:51pm

9 storeys on top of a three storey concourse, but since the permission was granted, the LAP model has come into effect!!
So I guess they might try to go for more height as that means more rental return!
Here is the link:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ci%C3%A9-seeks-partner-to-build-office-block-in-tara-street-dublin-1.2133771

cgcsb · 11-03-2015 5:29pm

It's interesting to note that the children's hospital at the matter was refused permission because of it's height, in spite of the fact the LAP allowed for up to 15 storeys on the site. So it seems that LAP are not worth the paper they are printed on, you will still get tiny minds with tiny ideas running things.

monument · 11-03-2015 6:48pm

cgcsb wrote: »

It's interesting to note that the children's hospital at the matter was refused permission because of it's height, in spite of the fact the LAP allowed for up to 15 storeys on the site. So it seems that LAP are not worth the paper they are printed on, you will still get tiny minds with tiny ideas running things.

Was the LAP actually in place?

monument · 11-03-2015 7:53pm

cgcsb wrote: »

It's interesting to note that the children's hospital at the matter was refused permission because of it's height, in spite of the fact the LAP allowed for up to 15 storeys on the site. So it seems that LAP are not worth the paper they are printed on, you will still get tiny minds with tiny ideas running things.

I had a read on the LAP (both on heights and other things that interested me given I used to live in the area of it and just outside of it, and commute via it for even longer than that).... This is the LAP on heights:

The bottom box was the now scrapped children's hospital location:

And this is what they were planning on that site:

I think most reasons behind rejecting the site were nonsense, but I don't think the plan fits into the LAP.

Aard · 11-03-2015 8:36pm

It's easy to say "let's build tall buildings" when it's somebody else's money they're talking about. There is at least one Dublin developer not taking full advantage of SDZ permitted storeys due to financial considerations. The rule of diminishing returns means that tall buildings only get built when the financing is cheap and the property market bubbly. Those extra few storeys on top are *very* expensive. Gotta be certain you can rent/sell them at a price that will cover your costs+profit.

monument · 11-03-2015 8:50pm

Aard wrote: »

It's easy to say "let's build tall buildings" when it's somebody else's money they're talking about. There is at least one Dublin developer not taking full advantage of SDZ permitted storeys due to financial considerations. The rule of diminishing returns means that tall buildings only get built when the financing is cheap and the property market bubbly. Those extra few storeys on top are *very* expensive. Gotta be certain you can rent/sell them at a price that will cover your costs+profit.

When we go down to the single developer level there's other factors at play such as if the developer has the means to think big.

Single houses or semi-detached houses are relivilty easy because you can sell them off one-by-one and fund them off the backs of sales, you'll find it harder to do that with an apartment block which needs to be pritty much fully finished before anyone can move in.

hfallada · 12-03-2015 12:30am

Aard wrote: »

It's easy to say "let's build tall buildings" when it's somebody else's money they're talking about. There is at least one Dublin developer not taking full advantage of SDZ permitted storeys due to financial considerations. The rule of diminishing returns means that tall buildings only get built when the financing is cheap and the property market bubbly. Those extra few storeys on top are *very* expensive. Gotta be certain you can rent/sell them at a price that will cover your costs+profit.

Ireland doesnt have a functioning banking system. It doesnt matter if interest rates are super low, as they are. When you dont have banks willing to lend. Plus most of the big developers are now gone. There is very few developers that would be in the position to build a high rise building at the moment.

With QE and the weakening Euro. Billions are flowing into the eurozone at the moment. Look at how the DAX has soared in the last month. Expect money to start flowing into development projects here. Most existing returns on commercial property is about 4% here. Meaning high rise commercial property development is highly desirable. Plus rents are soaring in Ireland. You are certain you will be able to rent/sell your development if its built.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ci%C3%A9-seeks-partner-to-build-office-block-in-tara-street-dublin-1.2133771

CIE wants to build Tara and get a poor deal for it. Either lease the site or get 10% of rent return. They want someone else to build it. Realistically the national pension reserve fund should bank roll it and keep it, as an asset. Its a safe investment with a good return. Which is something that should be in a portfolio of a pension fund.

Idbatterim · 12-03-2015 2:19am

the docklands are an embarrassment, it honestly looks like something you would see in some british etc backwater city. Not in the silicion docks, Irelands "canary wharf" according to noonan. there should be nothing permitted under 10 stories where there is a massive demand for housing, where people actually want to live! there should be a minimum, rather than maximum density! Nothing has been learned from the boom anyway, I wouldnt expect any different, rocketing rents, low density, unimaginative, rubbish architecture for the docklands... I came across the below image and it simply highlights how brutal it is down there!

AngryLips · 12-03-2015 10:07am

crushproof wrote: »

This has been ongoing for at least 15 years now, I can remember these plans floating about in the early 00's.
Hopefully the plan they have is more modern version of what was planned previously, it is a vital transport artery and therefore large scale development should be allowed.
Alas, it will be appealed, and shot down. You can't seriously think that you can have a monstrous 22 (Yes, that's right, 22!!!) skyscraper in a 21st century capital city?!

*then again, it is a state company so maybe it will get the go ahead

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Kermit.de.frog · 13-03-2015 4:52am

Don't forget the shinners make up a good portion of dublin city council so they will side with the "community" against high rise.

Yes, believe it or not, there are consequences to your local vote.

hfallada · 13-03-2015 12:14pm

There is still tons of low density social housing in the city. That should be knocked and replaced with high density office/residential. Like the DCC flats beside St Stephens Green should be offices and would be offices in any other major city in Europe.But they are social housing here.

There will be tons of sites/buildings coming up within the next few years when DIT is moved out to Grangegorman.

Carawaystick · 13-03-2015 3:50pm

hfallada wrote: »

There is still tons of low density social housing in the city. That should be knocked and replaced with high density office/residential. Like the DCC flats beside St Stephens Green should be offices and would be offices in any other major city in Europe.But they are social housing here.

And where would these residents live then?

And how is 5 story housing low density?https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.339273,-6.264374,3a,75y,82.88h,90.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siR9iIA4vG8QCddkZOm7aAg!2e0?hl=en

There's only 4 main DIT sites in the city centre, Bishop st, Kevin st, Bolton st and Cathal Brugha St.

Not far from St Stephen's Green you have surface car park and unused land between Cuffe's lane and York St
Then there's Hume St Hospital - abandoned
Further away you've surface carparking on Great Ship street; a whole virtually unused block on St Grt Georges st from Stephens st lower to Exchecquer st; a vacant office block on Peter st, a vacant site beside Kevin st garda station; loads of surface carparking off Pembroke lane, and behind the buildings on Merrion Square South.

monument · 15-03-2015 12:05am

Carawaystick wrote: »

And where would these residents live then?

And how is 5 story housing low density?https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.339273,-6.264374,3a,75y,82.88h,90.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siR9iIA4vG8QCddkZOm7aAg!2e0?hl=en

Not sure of the ownership (ie if council owned or not), by maybe he was talking about here: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.338365,-6.263676,3a,75y,211.71h,82.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sG_Klf_PXKk_dVcoD6TNgYQ!2e0?hl=en

Two storey houses 80 meters from St Stephens Green.

Aard · 15-03-2015 1:03am

In fairness, I doubt anybody would defend the retention of those terraces on Cuffe Lane. There are, however, many single- and two-storey houses in and around Heytesbury Street that would be contested by some if they were proposed to be redeveloped.

hfallada · 15-03-2015 2:24pm

monument wrote: »

Not sure of the ownership (ie if council owned or not), by maybe he was talking about here: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.338365,-6.263676,3a,75y,211.71h,82.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sG_Klf_PXKk_dVcoD6TNgYQ!2e0?hl=en

Two storey houses 80 meters from St Stephens Green.

They are privately owned. I have actually viewed them before when one was for sale. Im talking about the generic DDC 5 Storey rough red brick apartment blocks with the stairs outside. There is no reason why they should be within in the CBD in 2015. They are too low density. The residents should be moved out to the suburbs. I personally know that part of Stephens green close to the flats, has a high rate of crime. It might be a coincidence, but I highly doubt it.

DDC should help with the housing shortages in the city by demolishing their low density, City Centre housing and replace it with high rise residential apartment blocks for people working in the city. They would get a cheap bond to finance it or use a REIT floated on the stock exchange (therefore they still retain control). They could rent the apartments and use the profits to constantly fund their social housing. They could move the existing residents into the new buildings(like the way NYC encourages high rise luxury developments to house low income people. But there is strict vetting of tenants to reduce social issues and they must have a job).

Pete_Cavan · 15-03-2015 10:14pm

hfallada wrote: »

They are privately owned. I have actually viewed them before when one was for sale. Im talking about the generic DDC 5 Storey rough red brick apartment blocks with the stairs outside. There is no reason why they should be within in the CBD in 2015. They are too low density. The residents should be moved out to the suburbs. I personally know that part of Stephens green close to the flats, has a high rate of crime. It might be a coincidence, but I highly doubt it.

DDC should help with the housing shortages in the city by demolishing their low density, City Centre housing and replace it with high rise residential apartment blocks for people working in the city. They would get a cheap bond to finance it or use a REIT floated on the stock exchange (therefore they still retain control). They could rent the apartments and use the profits to constantly fund their social housing. They could move the existing residents into the new buildings(like the way NYC encourages high rise luxury developments to house low income people. But there is strict vetting of tenants to reduce social issues and they must have a job).

Not sure why you keep referring to council blocks of flats as low density, they are higher density than most of the city and probably represent Dublins first move towards higher densities. If they were replaced with modern buildings, I doubt the density of the site would substantially increase given our planning restrictions.

Not sure why you want to move the residents out to the suburbs either, do you only want high density for certain classes of people? We should be aiming for a good social mix in any such new developments, particularly those in public ownership. You are right in that there are numerous large central sites with huge development potential which needs to be realised (Dominick Street flats, Pearse House, Tom Kelly Road flats, etc.). The PPP model failed so we need to examine other methods of getting private sector investment as DCC wont have the funds for redevelopments. The last thing that should happen is for sites to be sold off for apartment blocks for people working in the city while creating sprawling ghettos in the suburbs.

Aard · 15-03-2015 11:37pm

The Docklands SDZ will house tens of thousands of people in a plan led manner where infrastructure is in place from the start. The redevelopment of a few innercity social housing blocks is a comparative drop in the bucket. Plus look at fiascos like O'Devaney Gardens. These things are not easy.

I won't comment on “moving people out to the suburbs”. But suffice it to say that that is not within the remit for planners, and for good reason.

D.L.R. · 16-03-2015 5:26pm

Aard wrote: »

In fairness, I doubt anybody would defend the retention of those terraces on Cuffe Lane. There are, however, many single- and two-storey houses in and around Heytesbury Street that would be contested by some if they were proposed to be redeveloped.

And rightly so, Heytesbury St area is a gem.

Zebra3 · 16-03-2015 7:37pm

hfallada wrote: »

The residents should be moved out to the suburbs.

Nothing like a spot of class cleansing.

Any other parts of the city you'd like to see people who aren't up to your social standing turfed out from?

Maybe bang through some legislation to stop them returning just to be on the safe side.... :rolleyes:

Aard · 16-03-2015 8:14pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

And rightly so, Heytesbury St area is a gem.

There you go. I'm sure a lot of people, most even, would agree with you. And it's that sentiment that allows single-storey buildings within a stone's throw of the most expensive land in the country.

D.L.R. · 16-03-2015 10:43pm

Aard wrote: »

There you go. I'm sure a lot of people, most even, would agree with you. And it's that sentiment that allows single-storey buildings within a stone's throw of the most expensive land in the country.

Its pretty expensive land in its own right because of its heritage and well planned layout. And its a living neighbourhood.

Can't say that for any of the corpo flats in the centre really, well past their sell by date.

Carawaystick · 17-03-2015 12:43am

hfallada wrote: »

They are privately owned. I have actually viewed them before when one was for sale. Im talking about the generic DDC 5 Storey rough red brick apartment blocks with the stairs outside. There is no reason why they should be within in the CBD in 2015. They are too low density. The residents should be moved out to the suburbs. I personally know that part of Stephens green close to the flats, has a high rate of crime. It might be a coincidence, but I highly doubt it.

There's a place on St Stephen's Green North that stole 38,000,000,000 euros, so yeah, its a high crime area alright thereabouts.

None of the commercial buildings nearby are much higher than 5 storeys, so why would any re-developed building on the housing stock land be higher density?

Ben D Bus · 17-03-2015 12:59am

Does anyone have some numbers that compare the density of central Dublin (roughly within the canals/circular roads) to other European cities?

Same question for the city proper (DCC area?) the 4 Dublin Local Authorities combined and the Greater Dublin Area?

hfallada wrote: »

The residents should be moved out to the suburbs.

How did that work out last time it was tried?

Reuben1210 · 17-03-2015 1:01am

Carawaystick wrote: »

There's a place on St Stephen's Green North that stole 38,000,000,000 euros, so yeah, its a high crime area alright thereabouts.

None of the commercial buildings nearby are much higher than 5 storeys, so why would any re-developed building on the housing stock land be higher density?

Because there is a gradual realisation the last decade that the continuing sprawl of Dublin affects people's standard of living and economic growth negatively...
Still a long way to go though to try and convince the likes of "An Taisce", who object to everything without exception!!!

Aard · 17-03-2015 1:08am

An Taisce are a lot better than people give them credit for. Most of the time they simply act as a watchdog, making sure that development goes ahead according to how TDs/Cllrs voted. If local authorities upheld their own rules, a lage part of An Taisce's work would be made redundant.

Zebra3 · 17-03-2015 9:37am

I think people get confused when they talk about Dublin with regard to low density and other cities.

The big problem with Dublin is the sprawl in the suburbs and beyond, not so much the city centre. In Copenhagen for example, pretty much only apartments (anything from 4 -10 storeys) have been built since the 60s/70s along the 4 suburban rail lines. This means they have large population densities along the main transport corridors, with those living in housing estates further away from the train lines being fed into them by buses. Few get buses into the city centre.

Compare this with what's built around most suburban train stations in Dublin.

One only has to look at Lucan and how it was built almost equidistant between two train train lines.

JeffK88 · 17-03-2015 11:19am

This kind of development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development. Adamstown is a failed development that resembles this.

Dr_Bill · 24-03-2015 2:37pm

Sadly I suspect that this Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin debate will rattle on into the future like it has done for the previous twenty years.
I see no issue with high rise buildings and you can look for plenty of examples around the world in different cities where high rise has been successful.

For some reason, be it a lack of foresight or ambition our planners appear stone cold set against it. Increasing density makes metro's and such projects cost effective, build it and they will come other ventures will find opportunity.

Meanwhile look elsewhere as one of the highest structures in the city is a needle in the mire.

monument · 25-03-2015 11:21am

Dr_Bill wrote: »

Sadly I suspect that this Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin debate will rattle on into the future like it has done for the previous twenty years.
I see no issue with high rise buildings and you can look for plenty of examples around the world in different cities where high rise has been successful.

For some reason, be it a lack of foresight or ambition our planners appear stone cold set against it. Increasing density makes metro's and such projects cost effective, build it and they will come other ventures will find opportunity.

Meanwhile look elsewhere as one of the highest structures in the city is a needle in the mire.

The issue is made worse by some councillors, they insisted on having far more restrictive guidlines than the planners suggested.

Reuben1210 · 25-03-2015 11:41am

monument wrote: »

The issue is made worse by some councillors, they insisted on having far more restrictive guidlines than the planners suggested.

this is all for ensuring the votes from their particular communities who, for example, would not want tall buildings near them, to the detriment of the greater good of the city.

Aard · 25-03-2015 1:16pm

Planners are consistently blamed, whereas it is the elected representatives (as mentioned) who push for these things. Show me a planner who doesn't support strategic high density high rise!

FredFunk · 25-03-2015 4:51pm

Don't forget there are 10s of 1000s people who don't qualify for social housing as they have a decent job, who are forced out to the likes of Meath and Kildare to buy a house. Nobody should be entitled to live 200 yards from Stephen's green in property which is not their own.
Don't get me wrong we need to learn from the mistakes of Ballymun , Darndale and Jobstown.
There is nothing wrong in these people being moved in time to smaller pockets further out in the suburbs.

AngryLips · 25-03-2015 5:57pm

FredFunk wrote: »

Don't forget there are 10s of 1000s people who don't qualify for social housing as they have a decent job, who are forced out to the likes of Meath and Kildare to buy a house

There are no restrictions on who can apply for social housing.

Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Comments