nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Goodbye An Bord Pleanala!

bear1

Ok not for good but thank God they will be bypassed for this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/fast-track-plan-for-dublin-docklands-approved-1.1587697

I think this is what Dublin needs, a nice few skyscrapers and with some decent height.
Would make the city look so much more modern.
The U2 Tower would probably have been nice but I doubt that is going anywhere.
So it got me thinking, what other projects would have been completed if ABP were taken out of the equation altogether?
I seem to remember plans in the 00's of a huge theme park in Finglas I believe which was shelved by ABP.. could be wrong though

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MadsL

carlmango11 wrote: »

Yes because An Bord Pleanala did a great job during our construction boom.

They actually did, with the very strong prodding of An Taisce, prevent some really stupid stuff getting planning permission. A 51 story at James's Gate, A diamond 30 story at the Digital Hub, a cantilevered inverted L shape over the quays (I **** you not), skislope idiocy on O'Connell Street etc.

I don't really understand why high-rise fanboys jerk off quite so much with every announcement of fantasy of a tall building, Dublin is full of empty office space, no need to emulate some sad empty version of Frankfurt.

Cool Mo D

Gee Bag wrote: »

I agree with you 100% that tall buildings should be built in Dublin (and elsewhere).

I disagree with the notion that an Bord pleanala should be sidelined. During the boom ABP where just about the only organisation with teeth that stopped utterly inappropriate developments.

The planning and development laws and bylaws need to be changed to allow for taller buildings and then ABP can make appropriate descisions on individual planning applications.

This move to allows developers too much influence over the planning process strikes me as a return to the the bad old days.

I completely disagree. An Bord Pleanala try to do a good job, but their decisions are often contradictory and arbitrary. During the boom, getting as much past an Bord Pleanala was like a game for developers, and the arbitrary nature of the decisions made for completely hodge-podge planning.

What should happen is that a development plan is published for each area, specifying exactly what you can and cannot build. If I buy a piece of land, I should know exactly what I can and cannot build on it from day one.

The problem with an Bord Pleanala is that you never know exactly what is and what isn't allowed in advance. That is not good planning.

Maximus Alexander

MadsL wrote: »

They actually did, with the very strong prodding of An Taisce, prevent some really stupid stuff getting planning permission. A 51 story at James's Gate, A diamond 30 story at the Digital Hub, a cantilevered inverted L shape over the quays (I **** you not), skislope idiocy on O'Connell Street etc.

I don't really understand why high-rise fanboys jerk off quite so much with every announcement of fantasy of a tall building, Dublin is full of empty office space, no need to emulate some sad empty version of Frankfurt.

I actually agree with you. I'd be in favour of high rise buildings in Dublin if there were a need for them. There isn't though. It would only serve to create more pathetic wastelands like the Anglo building. Except bigger.

MadsL

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I completely disagree. An Bord Pleanala try to do a good job, but their decisions are often contradictory and arbitrary. During the boom, getting as much past an Bord Pleanala was like a game for developers, and the arbitrary nature of the decisions made for completely hodge-podge planning.

Which ones were arbitary and contradictory?

What should happen is that a development plan is published for each area, specifying exactly what you can and cannot build. If I buy a piece of land, I should know exactly what I can and cannot build on it from day one.

That's exactly what happens and is mandatory under the Planning Acts.

Here's the site for the Dublin Development Plan

The problem with an Bord Pleanala is that you never know exactly what is and what isn't allowed in advance. That is not good planning.

ABP take account of the Development Plan and compare the proposal against it. Much of the boom time crap that was proposed was proposed entirely flew in the face of the relevant Development Plan.

What you have described as the ideal, is actually how ABP work in practice.

Gee Bag

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I completely disagree. An Bord Pleanala try to do a good job, but their decisions are often contradictory and arbitrary. During the boom, getting as much past an Bord Pleanala was like a game for developers, and the arbitrary nature of the decisions made for completely hodge-podge planning.

What should happen is that a development plan is published for each area, specifying exactly what you can and cannot build. If I buy a piece of land, I should know exactly what I can and cannot build on it from day one.

The problem with an Bord Pleanala is that you never know exactly what is and what isn't allowed in advance. That is not good planning.

Not being a smart arse, but could you maybe give some of these arbitary descisions? I can'y think of any offhand.

Who comes up with the development plan? Your suggestion that there should be a development plan that stipulates exactly what can and can not be built at a given location is an invitation for cronyism and corruption.

County and Urban Councillors can veto descisions made by their planners. Laois county councils development plan in 2005 rezoned enough land for 39500 new homes in the county over five years! This would have been enough to accomadate the entire predicted population growth in Leinster. Fair play to Dick Roche for putting a stop to this madness. After the utter balls they made of planning I would be in favour of curtailing the powers of county councillors to have any significant input in the planning process unless it was subject to review by a body such as ABP.

Development is a business, same as any other business you have to take your chances. If a developer knows what they are doing and spend time preparing their application with the right advice they will know what they can and can not build. Letting developers decide what they want to do with their land without any checks or balances is a recipe for disaster.

We need more planning regulation not less.

MadsL

WilyCoyote wrote: »

At long last a bit of rational thinking and force to bypass those effing mandarins. If only this could have been done 20 years ago!

Had those "manderins" been bypassed no-one would have listened to An Taisce when they said that this development was "a bit" overscaled for Dublin's highest point, and that would have been another good few million to bail out.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/8485/dighubmodel2qb.jpg

An Taisce and the "manderins" actually saved about a half billion...

An Taisce estimates that appeals taken against inappropriate speculative development has reduced the value of impaired loans by at least €505m. These are loans which the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA) would have had to purchase, or if falling outside the scope of NAMA, would remain with financial institutions as non-performing burdens – liabilities which Irish taxpayers are currently underwriting.

http://www.antaisce.ie/Portals/27/publications/An_Taisce_(2012)_State_of_the_Nation.pdf

bear1

All valid points. Although IMO some nice tall buildings would be nice to see

MadsL wrote: »

I don't really understand why high-rise fanboys jerk off quite so much with every announcement of fantasy of a tall building, Dublin is full of empty office space, no need to emulate some sad empty version of Frankfurt.

^^ I wouldn't consider myself a "fanboy" of high-rises who jerks off to the idea of them, bit of a silly statement. I believe they make cities look richer, tidier somehow. Even nicer when flying into the city and you see them all lit up.
Just because a few people would like to see them doesn't merit this kind of statement.

Maximus Alexander

bear1 wrote: »

All valid points. Although IMO some nice tall buildings would be nice to see

The idea of them is nice, but the reality would be quite different. There is no way they would be filled. Look around Dublin at the amount of brand new Celtic Tiger buildings that are sitting idle. Even along the grand canal there are some state of the art office spaces that have never been used and are still to let.

MadsL

bear1 wrote: »

I wouldn't consider myself a "fanboy" of high-rises who jerks off to the idea of them, bit of a silly statement. I believe they make cities look richer, tidier somehow. Even nicer when flying into the city and you see them all lit up.
Just because a few people would like to see them doesn't merit this kind of statement.

You have no idea how many people use the argument how Dublin 'needs' tall buildings. Personally I think there is a phallic inferiority complex going on - the only impressive erection in town is a skinny needledick.

What Dublin really needs is the National Concert Hall replaced with a world class symphonic hall designed by Frank Gehry.

http://cdn.freshome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/frank-gehry-walt-disney-concert-all-LA1.jpg

bear1

MadsL wrote: »

You have no idea how many people use the argument how Dublin 'needs' tall buildings. Personally I think there is a phallic inferiority complex going on - the only impressive erection in town is a skinny needledick.

What Dublin really needs is the National Concert Hall replaced with a world class symphonic hall designed by Frank Gehry.

http://cdn.freshome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/frank-gehry-walt-disney-concert-all-LA1.jpg

That building is disgusting I think.
You quote penises like its meant to be funny, I may noy know how many people say we "need" them but I do know that I would like to see them eventually. It has nothing to do with Phallics or complexes.
The Spire looks good, probably would have been better if it was fully lit up.
Eventually Dublin will run out of space to build laterally and the time will come to build vertically. Many cities are doing it as its a space saver.
I agree that they should first have the unoccupied buildings sorted out first and then look at building their high-rises in the Docklands.
If they can sort all that out Dublin would become even more attractive than it is already.

MadsL

bear1 wrote: »

That building is disgusting I think.
You quote penises like its meant to be funny, I may noy know how many people say we "need" them but I do know that I would like to see them eventually. It has nothing to do with Phallics or complexes.
The Spire looks good, probably would have been better if it was fully lit up.
Eventually Dublin will run out of space to build laterally and the time will come to build vertically. Many cities are doing it as its a space saver.
I agree that they should first have the unoccupied buildings sorted out first and then look at building their high-rises in the Docklands.
If they can sort all that out Dublin would become even more attractive than it is already.

Get back to me when Dublin runs out of space - Dublin city is a awash with empty buildings, brownfield underutilised land and brand new never been occupied celtic tiger speculative office blocks.

If Dublin let had planning and need rather than financial gain drive development as people like An Taisce kept reminding everyone, Ireland would not be in such a financial mess.

stoneill

The Council give themselves powers to build what they want without appeal by the planning board?

Jasus!

Blisterman

bear1 wrote: »

Ok not for good but thank God they will be bypassed for this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/fast-track-plan-for-dublin-docklands-approved-1.1587697

I think this is what Dublin needs, a nice few skyscrapers and with some decent height.
Would make the city look so much more modern.
The U2 Tower would probably have been nice but I doubt that is going anywhere.
So it got me thinking, what other projects would have been completed if ABP were taken out of the equation altogether?
I seem to remember plans in the 00's of a huge theme park in Finglas I believe which was shelved by ABP.. could be wrong though

Skyscrapers have neither been a modern nor innovative thing for a long time. Just go to any third world city and you'll see hundreds of random tower blocks from the 60's.

Which is not to say I'm necessarily opposed to well designed tall buildings, provided they're appropriately sited and relate well to their surroundings. And that's exactly why good town planning is needed. You can't just randomly place a few modern buildings, and expect it to automatically regenerate an area.

The best cities are the ones where new and old work together harmoniously. Each adding to the other, rather than being in an awkward conflict.

bear1

Blisterman wrote: »

Skyscrapers have neither been a modern nor innovative thing for a long time. Just go to any third world city and you'll see hundreds of random tower blocks from the 60's.

Which is not to say I'm necessarily opposed to well designed tall buildings, provided they're appropriately sited and relate well to their surroundings. And that's exactly why good town planning is needed. You can't just randomly place a few modern buildings, and expect it to automatically regenerate an area.

The best cities are the ones where new and old work together harmoniously. Each adding to the other, rather than being in an awkward conflict.

Yes, which is why I hope that mistakes from the past can be learnt and new elegant buildings can be made.
For instance I think New York looks too chaotic with its skyscrapers but London looks ok with them, they sort of blend in and it would be an approach I would approve Dublin to take.
Not just plump a 30 storey building next to the GPO and say "looks mighty"
As you said, properly planned.

Dyr

Last thing dublin needs is to give the council more power and less oversight

end of the road

carlmango11 wrote: »

Yes because An Bord Pleanala did a great job during our construction boom.

i'd still trust them more then the wannabe politicians in DCC

WilyCoyote

darragh16 wrote: »

I don't agree with the 22 storeys, surely they could cap it at say 15 storeys instead?

Why on earth not?

hmmm

Not all of us want to live in Leixlip and commute for 2 hours a day because a few people want to retain the low-rise "character" of inner city Dublin. We need high density accommodation and retail in the city centre. I'm delighted with this move, I don't think ABP do altogether a bad job, but we've spent long enough talking and it's time to start building.

Peregrine

From what I can remember from reading the SDZ development plan a few months ago, 22 stories was only allowed in one or 2 sites. That's one or two buildings.

For half of the docklands, they still advocated building the 5-8 storey shoeboxes like the ones built during the 2000s.

Also, the section 25 powers aren't new. They were simply transferred from the DDDA.

I don't see why people are opposed to building high rise buildings in the docklands. I'd be against building them in the inner city but for **** sake the docklands is neither inner city nor historic. And all this ****e about "there's no demand for them" is simply not true.

end of the road

hmmm wrote: »

Not all of us want to live in Leixlip and commute for 2 hours a day

get the train, much quicker then driving, anyway in this day and age 2 hours 1 up and 1 back is nothing.

hmmm wrote: »

because a few people want to retain the low-rise "character" of inner city Dublin.

inner city dublin is of historic signifficance, it was people of your opinion who destroyed and continues to allow the destruction of anything historic, so therefore the "few" who want to keep high-rise buildings out of there are more important then those who want to build more buildings we can't fill.

hmmm wrote: »

We need high density accommodation and retail in the city centre.

we have enough empty buildings as it is, preserving the natural essence of the inner city is more important then those who want us to build more buildings nobody wants for nama to snap up

hmmm wrote: »

I'm delighted with this move

i'm sure you are, all though no doubt when the whole lot goes to s//t you will be paying for it and whining about it.

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think ABP do altogether a bad job

alot better then DCC, they don't deserve the right to give themselves any powers, only a government agency should have the right to give councils more powers and the councils will have to prove that they earn the right to those powers, and doing so should be as difficult as possible.

hmmm wrote: »

but we've spent long enough talking and it's time to start building.

no its not time to start building buildings nobody wants when we can't fill what we've got.

Sheep Shagger

Believe it or not there's actually a shortage of large quality office space in the city centre right now.

An Bord Pleanana are just another useless quango that need shutting down and starting again.

Peregrine

end of the road wrote: »

get the train, much quicker then driving, anyway in this day and age 2 hours 1 up and 1 back is nothing.

To you, maybe.

end of the road wrote: »

inner city dublin is of historic signifficance

Please enlighten me of the historic significance of the Docklands SDZ area and which parts of it you want to remain preserved.

hmmm

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

Believe it or not there's actually a shortage of large quality office space in the city centre right now.

True, the IDA have already come out and said this. There isn't a single large unoccupied office space in Dublin city centre, with the exception of the old Eircom building.

hmmm

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

And all this ****e about "there's no demand for them" is simply not true.

You only have to look at the price of pokey size apartments in Grand Canal dock to see there's a demand.

High rise would allow us to build bigger apartments more in the European norm.

There's a worldwide move by younger people to repopulate city centres, it's only a small but vocal group in Dublin who seem determined to leave us with a crumbling and dilapidated city centre populated entirely by junkies while forcing people to move into urban sprawl to find affordable housing.

end of the road

hmmm wrote: »

You only have to look at the price of pokey size apartments in Grand Canal dock to see there's a demand.

High rise would allow us to build bigger apartments more in the European norm.

There's a worldwide move by younger people to repopulate city centres, it's only a small but vocal group in Dublin who seem determined to leave us with a crumbling and dilapidated city centre populated entirely by junkies while forcing people to move into urban sprawl to find affordable housing.

yeah, their called the residents of the inner city, and their opinion is the only one that matters.

hmmm

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, their called the residents of the inner city, and their opinion is the only one that matters.

No. This is a living city where 1.5 million people live and work. A small group of people do not get to decide the future of a city, that's the essence of NIMBYism.

We have thousands of young people living in the arse end of nowhere, and having to commute for hours, because of the lack of affordable and modern city centre housing. We have families living on top of each other in pokey little houses and apartments because we can't build over a certain size. We have a city centre that is choked by traffic and buses trying to get people to and from their housing on the far outskirts of the city.

All those 1.5 million people get a say in how the city develops.

Blisterman

You don't necessarily need high rise buildings to achieve high density. The densest city in Europe is Paris which has very few high rise buildings. Being characterised by 6-7 storey boulevards.

As a matter of fact, the Georgian City Centre of Dublin is reasonably high density. It's the sprawling suburbs with large back gardens which lower Dublin's density.

The reason houses and apartments are small in Ireland and the UK is due mostly to the fact that developers have figured out they make a lot more money from selling two pokey 70sqm apartments than one family friendly 140sqm apartments which cost the same to build. You allow larger buildings, you'll just get more apartments, they won't be any bigger.

Personally I think they should bring in minimum space standards as part of the planning process. If more medium density developments were built suitable for families, with a reasonable amount of space, it'd make a much bigger difference than building a handful of skyscrapers.

deandean

During the last couple of years of the boom those a$$holes in DCC planning gave approval to pretty much everything. The only logic they seemed to apply was hey we need the money and we get 32,000 per new apartment / house. I lost all respect for DCC planning and I would not trust them 1 inch let alone 22 stories.
In fairness ABP did a very good job keeping DCC in check during recent years. At this stage it is only a power grab if DCC are trying to cut ABP out of the planning process.
I do feel very strongly that the entitlement should always remain for anyone to appeal a planning application to ABP including the docklandds. Plenty of developing bordering on the criminal went on there in recent years because the docklands authority bullied its way through applications and they are not to be trusted.
Out of interest do you know who founded bord pleanala? It was one c.j. Haughey. Before that there was no appeals process at all.

end of the road

hmmm wrote: »

A small group of people do not get to decide the future of a city

in relation to the area they live yes they do

hmmm wrote: »

We have thousands of young people living in the arse end of nowhere, and having to commute for hours

boo hoo, people live in "the back arse of nowhere" and commute for hours in many countries, they chose that lifestyle

hmmm wrote: »

because of the lack of affordable and modern city centre housing.

affordable city centre housing? LOL, city centre housing will always be at a high premium

hmmm wrote: »

We have families living on top of each other in pokey little houses and apartments because we can't build over a certain size.

its nothing to do with being able to build over a certain size, even if we built up the houses would still be pokey because the bigger the appartments, the more they cost, so people will choose pokey if it means they can afford it.

hmmm wrote: »

We have a city centre that is choked by traffic and buses trying to get people to and from their housing on the far outskirts of the city.

and? cars and busses have to come from and go to somewhere, some people actually want to live on the outside of the city so public transport will have to be provided, unless you suggest herding everyone who lives on the outside of the city into the city whether they want to go or not, and then scrap public transport to the outside of the city? good luck with that.

hmmm wrote: »

All those 1.5 million people get a say in how the city develops.

when it comes to the parts of the city they don't live in, no they don't, i've no right to force something on the residents of another part of the city who don't want it the same as they don't get a say in my area

Gee Bag

Blisterman wrote: »

The reason houses and apartments are small in Ireland and the UK is due mostly to the fact that developers have figured out they make a lot more money from selling two pokey 70sqm apartments than one family friendly 140sqm apartments which cost the same to build. You allow larger buildings, you'll just get more apartments, they won't be any bigger.

Personally I think they should bring in minimum space standards as part of the planning process. If more medium density developments were built suitable for families, with a reasonable amount of space, it'd make a much bigger difference than building a handful of skyscrapers.

I totally agree with this,

The idea that DCC will just rubber stamp any auld shlte being built in the docklands without any body to review it fills me with dread.

There is enough space in that area to build decent size, liveable apartments. I've no objection to some high rise buildings. Given what they have allowed happen in the recent past, I can't help but think that DCC will give in to developers without stipulating minimum floor space requirements or storage space.