Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

24567…14

Comments

  • #32
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    PRAF wrote: »
    The Dublin City Plans are too wishy washy at the moment. They should just make is absolutely clear that high rise is ok in those areas. There are too many grey areas in the plans and the anti-high rise mob, and a notoriously conservative ABP, will use any excuse they can to block it.

    Didnt the 2011-2017 Development Plan sort this? As in pin point key locations where low/medium/high rise would be considered.


  • #33
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    PRAF wrote: »
    Was in Paris yesterday, a famously low rise city

    It's high density though is it?

    Dublin is low rise low density which seems to be the worst of both worlds.


  • #34
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Re Liberty Hall I've always thought a facelift would do wonders, not only for the building itself but that whole part of town.

    Its not my favourite Dublin building but it does have a certain charm that the new design doesn't. Its 1960s awkwardness and slightly unsuitable location are part of the fabric of Dublin now, but I'm not sure swapping it for another tower is the right thing for the city. Maybe for SIPTU but that's another matter..

    Return to the old glazing and give her a wash.. job done.

    liberty_hall_1965_350.jpg


  • #35
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    Return to the old glazing and give her a wash.. job done.

    liberty_hall_1965_350.jpg

    It's not just the glazing which was changed, here's a good documentary on Liberty Hall which covers the changes after the bomb and also shows the before and after differences:

    http://www.paddycahill.com/projects/liberty-hall


  • #36
    JeffK88
    Registered Users Posts: 627 ✭✭✭JeffK88


    Bump. With talk of Deutsche Bank scouting about the docklands near the new central bank site, could we see some tall buildings spring up in the next few years if others follow suit ? Read somewhere that they are looking for alot of office space


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    JeffK88 wrote: »
    Bump. With talk of Deutsche Bank scouting about the docklands near the new central bank site, could we see some tall buildings spring up in the next few years if others follow suit ? Read somewhere that they are looking for alot of office space

    Yeah apparently they're looking for a site for a building to base 1,000 employees in near the new Central Bank HQ if the Sindo is to be trusted.


  • #38
    ongarboy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,201 ✭✭✭ongarboy


    Nimrod 7 wrote: »
    Yeah apparently they're looking for a site for a building to base 1,000 employees in near the new Central Bank HQ if the Sindo is to be trusted.

    Irish Times have reported that Deutsche Bank have signed up to a vacant 7 storey building in Eastpoint. It looks quite an attractive building.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/commercial-property/deutsche-bank-for-eastpoint-1.1457960


  • #39
    JeffK88
    Registered Users Posts: 627 ✭✭✭JeffK88


    So much for the development of a building near the New central Bank HQ


  • #40
    brownbeard
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭brownbeard


    It seems NAMA is going ahead with a mini U2 tower with Kennedy Wilson;

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nama-plans-to-get-u2-tower-off-the-ground-29452530.html


  • #41
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Chopped to 18 floors

    I think it's just a completely new plan probably won't even be called that.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    brownbeard
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭brownbeard


    Yeah, I doubt they have any involvement in it. It's just NAMA and KW. Attention grabbing headlines by the indo.

    I think this is going to be the first bit of land that Kennedy Wilson actually develop in the city, so it should be interesting to see to what standard it will be done.It's a fairly prominent location, I hope they get a good design for it.


  • #43
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    re the post upthread, La Defense isn't in Paris, its outside Paris, in Hauts de Seine department (no. 92, not no. 75) and so its like Kildare Co Council allowed high rise be built in Leixlip or similar, as La Defense is about the same distance from the city centre ( defined as notre dame church)

    Any way
    back in Ireland, the Elysian tower in Cork seems relatively short due to the geography of the city, especially the ridge of the Old Youghal road/Montenottee as its so steep and probably higher than the building


  • #44
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Just a general comment on high-rises. Considering that Dublin is at quite a high latitude, light is at a premium especially in winter months. A way of getting around this problem is to have wider streets, but then you run the risk of creating windtunnels. Tall buildings in isolation or small clusters create an unpleasant atmosphere at their bases, due to wind being deflected downwards. In cities like New York, there are so many of them that the wind is more likely to just pass over, also New York is far more southerly than Dublin so it gets better light.

    Vibrant neighbourhoods are usually found in more human-scaled areas. La Defence isn't exactly the best place to hang out in Paris for example. Even in Melbourne's CBD there is a height limit along the main retail streets to allow light in and keep things small-scale. This might be a good example to follow if high-rise becomes a necessity here.


  • #45
    That username is already in use.
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭That username is already in use.


    We're not talking about building clumps of 50-storey skyscrapers in Dublin.

    We cannot continue building 4-storey shoe boxes in the docklands as it is completely unsustainable.

    All buildings in the Docklands should be 8-storeys minimum, with ~14-storeys along the quays and watersides. Some 32-storey landmark building should be allowed in key areas like Grand Canal Dock and Point Village.

    Instead what we have is 3-storey town houses in prime city centre locations, well connected by bus and DART. This is absolutely ridiculous.

    Dublin simply will not grow if planners continue to zone housing estates in the middle of nowhere with no transports links, and stumpy shoe boxes in the middle of the city.


  • #46
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    That username is already in use. wrote: »
    We're not talking about building clumps of 50-storey skyscrapers in Dublin.

    We cannot continue building 4-storey shoe boxes in the docklands as it is completely unsustainable.

    All buildings in the Docklands should be 8-storeys minimum, with ~14-storeys along the quays and watersides. Some 32-storey landmark building should be allowed in key areas like Grand Canal Dock and Point Village.

    Instead what we have is 3-storey town houses in prime city centre locations, well connected by bus and DART. This is absolutely ridiculous.

    Dublin simply will not grow if planners continue to zone housing estates in the middle of nowhere with no transports links, and stumpy shoe boxes in the middle of the city.

    Thanks -- you saved me writing something along those lines.

    A great practical example is Copenhagen -- high density without the skyscrapers.

    Here in Dublin we have councilors claiming people think that seven storeys is high rise! -- http://dublinobserver.com/2010/07/council-challenged-on-“anti-social”-height-limits/
    That username is already in use. wrote: »
    Instead what we have is 3-storey town houses in prime city centre locations, well connected by bus and DART. This is absolutely ridiculous

    In fairness, those are 5 story buildings -- not a good as 8 but not as bad as 3.

    It does not matter if some of the homes have their own street-level entrances.


  • #47
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Oh don't get me wrong in my post above - I would not consider 8 storeys as "high rise" at all. Even 14 storeys are barely high-rise.


  • #48
    That username is already in use.
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭That username is already in use.


    monument wrote: »
    In fairness, those are 5 story buildings -- not a good as 8 but not as bad as 3.

    They are 3-storeys with "one setback" - that desperate phrase used by developers to get past the ridiculous height restrictions set by DDDA.

    The ground level is not counted as a floor in Europe.


  • #49
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    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.


  • #50
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    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.


  • #51
    That username is already in use.
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭That username is already in use.


    Aard wrote: »
    we risk labelling the area as "soulless"

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


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    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.


  • #53
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    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.


  • #54
    becost
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 328 ✭✭becost


    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:


  • #55
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    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.


  • #56
    becost
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 328 ✭✭becost


    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.


  • #57
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    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.


  • #58
    joe_bloggs_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2 ✭joe_bloggs_


    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.


  • #59
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    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


  • #60
    richiek83
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭richiek83


    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


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    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.


Advertisement