Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

carlmango11 · 15-09-2015 9:23am

Possibly already mentioned but just saw this today

crushproof · 15-09-2015 9:28am

What is this? Unreal how their are architects in 2015 who believe that is a classy design. Bulky and hidious. This will simply give the anti high-rise bridge more fuel for their fire.
God help us if this gets approved, will have lost all faith in DCC if it does.

FreudianSlippers · 15-09-2015 9:41am

What an ugly joke. I think I now understand why people in this country are so against high-rise if this is the crap that attempts to get permission.

Idbatterim · 15-09-2015 11:40am

What an ugly joke. I think I now understand why people in this country are so against high-rise if this is the crap that attempts to get permission.

already a thread on it on skyscrapercity and I wouldn't worry about that being given permission, its appalling. It will be sent back for revision or drawing board...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=127099867&posted=1#post127099867

cgcsb · 15-09-2015 11:47am

What a disgusting building. And at 17 storeys, it's well below the permitted 22 storeys.

irishmover · 15-09-2015 11:51am

It looks like a tetris block. Dumbest design I've seen in a while.

Stereomaniac · 15-09-2015 11:57am

Well I guess you can all lodge your objections to it then and hopefully it won't get granted permission.

cgcsb · 15-09-2015 12:39pm

we can't object to it if it fits the terms of the SDZ

Idbatterim · 15-09-2015 1:35pm

we can't object to it if it fits the terms of the SDZ

observations can be made similar to the tower across the road, which DCC requested be increased in height...

Ren2k7 · 15-09-2015 6:26pm

I mentioned over on SSC that this will just give ammo to the anti high-rise mob who will rightly call it hideously but incorrectly claim this is proof all high rise should be banned in Dublin. Seriously, what is wrong with these architects?

Idbatterim · 15-09-2015 6:33pm

I mentioned over on SSC that this will just give ammo to the anti high-rise mob who will rightly call it hideously but incorrectly claim this is proof all high rise should be banned in Dublin. Seriously, what is wrong with these architects?

its appalling, do these "architects" have any experience of building towers or is it the usual 5-6 storey cardboard box their area of expertise? it would explain a lot. It wont get cleared anyway. Bloody awful and even the revised tower across the liffey is far from great. I dont get why they couldnt go with 88m version of the U2 tower and watchtower respectively...

I mentioned over on SSC that this will just give ammo to the anti high-rise mob

what dublin is getting isnt even really high rise and the design are crap. I wonder what they would make of the shard, Gherkin etc, anyone who is simply anti high-rise, hasnt a clue to be honest...

steve-o · 15-09-2015 7:49pm

The client brief: Make it uglier than Hawkins House.

Peregrine · 15-09-2015 9:06pm

steve-o wrote: »

The client brief: Make it uglier than Hawkins House.

Let's not say things we can't take back :eek:

Schadenfreudia · 15-09-2015 11:45pm

steve-o wrote: »

The client brief: Make it uglier than Hawkins House.

It is clearly nowhere near as ugly as Hawkin's House.

Equally, it is clearly a crap design without any visual merit.

"Squat" is the word that springs to mind....

Schadenfreudia · 15-09-2015 11:48pm

If there is one thing that indicates that this proposed box is a pathetic blob, it is that the Irish Times isn't shrieking about how "inappropriate" it is.....:cool:

cgcsb · 16-09-2015 8:57am

A friend who is a recent engineering graduate who was heavily involved in designing the super structure. I would expect that the architecht is also a recent grad. Grad labour is very cheap at the moment, experienced architects cost a fortune just to get them to come to the office.

Dr_Bill · 16-09-2015 11:50am

I've seen stuff built in Minecraft that look better than that, it looks terrible. What is more hilarious is that 73m is considered high rise.
The Shard in London is 309m, The Gherkin is 180m, I don't see why we can't don't allow planning for such structures?

Idbatterim · 16-09-2015 12:17pm

I've seen stuff built in Minecraft that look better than that, it looks terrible. What is more hilarious is that 73m is considered high rise.
The Shard in London is 309m, The Gherkin is 180m, I don't see why we can't don't allow planning for such structures?

10/10 on the minecraft reference! Look as much as I love it if we had London size structures, we dont and other comparable cities dont either. I think 120m i.e. the original height of the proposed U2 and watchtower were reasonable... I agree 73m is a joke, they should be built to the 88m limit...

Its actually an insult to dublin the proposals that have been come up with on both sides, they are meant to act as landmarks, landmarks in terms of s**t design alright and the height isnt exactly head spinning either, still at least the bull**** 60m limit has been broken. I think it looks silly all the "towers" in the area being pretty much the same height, if you look at Millenium tower, montevetro, altervetro, now the boland mill site, all pretty much the same height... Very dull and boring and unadventurous, sums up the docklands though, doesnt it?

crushproof · 16-09-2015 2:52pm

1003537_509199822494711_1183174749_n.jpg?oh=5c9ab2c59e6d6c060e4b70610d4974c5&oe=565FDD32

Maybe not to everyones taste, but this is the type of skyscraper that should be at a location like this. Tall and sleek and Bright & colourful at night, making a brilliant statement on the skyline of Dublin. This is meant to be 171m, so maybe we'd have to accept a slightly scaled back version. .

But if a firm in Georgia (this is in the awesome city of Batumi) can come up with something like this, why the f*&k do we have settle for the mediocre crap we've seen presented to us in the past year?

I don't agree with the fact that a graduate architect may be the designer....surely a graduate would be more ambitious and daring, wanting to make an impact career wise?!

Garghhh, with this and the DU, it's been a frustrating week!!

Idbatterim · 16-09-2015 2:55pm

the above is bang on, you have to ask in a rich country, in silicon docks, with outrageous land prices and commercial rents. How is it that this rubbish is accepted / tolerated?! when you look at other cities that arent thriving european capitals, that dont have silicon docks with the who's who of global technology companies and off the wall land price and rents etc. DCC are ultimately at fault for allowing this rubbish, the entire docklands is appalling IMO...

FreudianSlippers · 16-09-2015 3:00pm

I'd pay fairly big money to live in a nice high 3bed apartment in Dublin.

Schadenfreudia · 16-09-2015 3:11pm

Dr_Bill wrote: »

I've seen stuff built in Minecraft that look better than that

my "quote of the day" !

Ren2k7 · 17-09-2015 5:31pm

We'll never get London sized skycrapers in Dublin so there's not much point in wishing for such tall structures. It's fantasy that will never happen here, especially when you consider our enlightened and noble leaders seize up with convulsions when anything approaching 100m is proposed to them. 100m isn't even tall by international standards though you'd swear it was the Burj from the reactions of some on DCC and the IT.

It's not like we're asking for much, is it? Just buildings that make as efficient use of such prime land in Dublin City Centre as possible. For me this is something every politician should be pushing given all this new environmental awareness. But it seems this talk is merely code for anti-development. True environmentalism rejects low-rise urban sprawl and seeks efficiency, so building UP is something the Green Party should be aggressively pushing.

Schadenfreudia · 17-09-2015 8:03pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

True environmentalism rejects low-rise urban sprawl and seeks efficiency, so building UP is something the Green Party should be aggressively pushing.

The irony here is that those who most bemoan "one-off" houses in the countryside and semi-D suburban sprawl are also those most likely to protest against any realistic alternative proposals.

Ren2k7 · 17-09-2015 11:35pm

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

The irony here is that those who most bemoan "one-off" houses in the countryside and semi-D suburban sprawl are also those most likely to protest against any realistic alternative proposals.

I've never heard any Veggie politician or activist demanding, rightly, the end of large scale "one-offs". They probably see rural living as getting back to nature, rejecting modernity or some such rubbish. Ireland's Green Party are the furthest you could get from actual green politics.

FreudianSlippers · 18-09-2015 9:13am

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

The irony here is that those who most bemoan "one-off" houses in the countryside and semi-D suburban sprawl are also those most likely to protest against any realistic alternative proposals.

They're the same people that don't understand the phrase "urban regeneration" and think of North Dublin only as the place they go through on the Luas from the Red Cow to get to the match.

:mad:

Bray Head · 18-09-2015 9:50am

We have got to the point where half of all new builds in the country are one-offs, mainly outside urban areas. I do not know of a country in the developed world where this would happen.

Yet DCC planners can relax because close to zero of them are built inside their boundaries.

Isn't it time to move away from 40-odd seperate planning authorities and have some kind of national set of principles?

The new 'relaxed' regulations on studio apartments in Dublin have an absurd list of conditions attached which make it likely in the short run that they won't get built:

The studios would be 45sq m (484sq ft), as against the current minimum size of 55sq m (592sq ft), but could be built only in certain circumstances. They would be permitted only in schemes of more than 100 apartments that have communal facilities such as common rooms and gyms and could make up just 7.5 per cent of the overall complex.

The complexes, which can be in the inner city or docklands only, must be for renters, not owner occupiers, and must be in single ownership for at least 20 years, during which time they cannot be sold off piecemeal.

There is a huge, obvious need for one-bed apartments in Dublin to house a growing number of one- and two-person households. Single occupancy is something like 40% in Paris. A casual glance at the Census data will show thousands of semi-Ds in Dublin occupied by disparate 20- and 30-somethings. These people would not be house-sharing if living in smaller units was vaguely affordable.

It's depressing how the planning establishment and councillors have responded to this obvious need.

Schadenfreudia · 18-09-2015 5:01pm

Bray Head wrote: »

There is a huge, obvious need for one-bed apartments in Dublin to house a growing number of one- and two-person households. Single occupancy is something like 40% in Paris. A casual glance at the Census data will show thousands of semi-Ds in Dublin occupied by disparate 20- and 30-somethings. These people would not be house-sharing if living in smaller units was vaguely affordable.

It's depressing how the planning establishment and councillors have responded to this obvious need.

Indeed it is...but most councillors are by dint of age profile more likely to think in terms of what might be best suited to - or be the the preference of - young families - which could well be semi-Ds.

They also bring the semi-D "values" to the table...which still largely involves opposition to "apartment blocks" of any kind - and fails to distinguish between the urban centre and their suburban areas.

1huge1 · 27-09-2015 11:05am

Article in todays Sunday Business Post

Giants on the horizon?

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Property/Cover+Story/Giants+on+the+horizon%3F/id/2a82d7bb-8067-4c1a-8200-f49cbadf3105

I would publish the article but it is behind a pay-wall so I am unsure If I am allowed simply copy and paste it onto boards.

However I paid the €2.50 for the digital version, this article is well worth a read and speaks about NAMA forcing a change in ideology in Dublin towards more high rise developments, facilitated by a change in heart as of late from Dublin city council.

If I am allowed paste it in, let me know and I will do so.

Reuben1210 · 27-09-2015 12:49pm

1huge1 wrote: »

Article in todays Sunday Business Post

Giants on the horizon?

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Property/Cover+Story/Giants+on+the+horizon%3F/id/2a82d7bb-8067-4c1a-8200-f49cbadf3105

I would publish the article but it is behind a pay-wall so I am unsure If I am allowed simply copy and paste it onto boards.

However I paid the €2.50 for the digital version, this article is well worth a read and speaks about NAMA forcing a change in ideology in Dublin towards more high rise developments, facilitated by a change in heart as of late from Dublin city council.

If I am allowed paste it in, let me know and I will do so.

I'd be very interested in reading this....you definitely can paste it. Just copy and paste.
I wonder why the change of heart from DCC? surely they havn't replcaed many personnel recently?

1huge1 · 27-09-2015 1:18pm

Reuben1210 wrote: »

I'd be very interested in reading this....you definitely can paste it. Just copy and paste.
I wonder why the change of heart from DCC? surely they havn't replcaed many personnel recently?

Here you go

Giants on the horizon?
03:55, 27 September 2015 by Barry J Whyte

Dublin City Council has asked the public if taller buildings should be added to the city skyline. Picture: Thinkstock
A penny for Harry Crosbie’s thoughts right now.

<snip>

dubhthach · 27-09-2015 1:45pm

Folks, in future please don't post full articles from newspapers, there are issues with regards to copyright, plus also in this case because it's article that's behind a paywall.

1huge1 · 27-09-2015 2:05pm

My bad, sorry about that Dubhthach.

Worth a read anyway for anyone willing to pay the fee.

Reuben1210 · 11-03-2016 12:59am

From the independent today....more pressure coming on, but I fear the vested interests will strongly oppose increasing densities!

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/council-plans-will-create-standards-for-years-ahead-34526203.html

Schadenfreudia · 11-03-2016 6:58pm

Reuben1210 wrote: »

From the independent today....more pressure coming on, but I fear the vested interests will strongly oppose increasing densities!

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/council-plans-will-create-standards-for-years-ahead-34526203.html

Interesting that the outgoing Regime have loudly proclaimed that the increased population, reduced unemployment, increased demand for homes in Dublin was all a direct and intended result of their policies.........and yet, they excuse their failure to get home building going again; abandon DU and generally cease investment - using the rationale that earlier projections these plans were based on were pre-crash.

Obviously they either idiots with no ability to do joined-up planning or they never actually expected any serious recovery - the one they are now claiming they cunningly engineered.

crushproof · 31-03-2016 7:30pm

Well folks, that hideous yoke at the Point has received permission. Is this all we can aspire to our capital city? A 1960's style bulky block?
Bewildering decision.

MJohnston · 31-03-2016 9:34pm

crushproof wrote: »

Well folks, that hideous yoke at the Point has received permission. Is this all we can aspire to our capital city? A 1960's style bulky block?
Bewildering decision.

Expect it to be sold and then re designed. That application was purely to get permission for a particular size of building, therefore increasing the sale value, and nothing more, imo.

Schadenfreudia · 01-04-2016 12:56am

MJohnston wrote: »

Expect it to be sold and then re designed. That application was purely to get permission for a particular size of building, therefore increasing the sale value, and nothing more, imo.

Hopefully!

irishmover · 01-04-2016 9:54am

It would make sense considering they must have had a 5 year old draw it.

crushproof · 03-04-2016 3:28pm

irishmover wrote: »

It would make sense considering they must have had a 5 year old draw it.

This is the thing. Fair enough if it was designed just to max out the floorplan etc. It's all about profit.

But to me that's not the point, sure they submitted the hideous design.... But it was the planning authorities that approved it. Absolutely no imagination, it baffles me who is on the planning committee, surely they spent years studying town planning / architecture and know what is good or bad for the city. Garrghhhh!!

jobbridge4life · 03-04-2016 3:31pm

crushproof wrote: »

This is the thing. Fair enough if it was designed just to max out the floorplan etc. It's all about profit.

But to me that's not the point, sure they submitted the hideous design.... But it was the planning authorities that approved it. Absolutely no imagination, it baffles me who is on the planning committee, surely they spent years studying town planning / architecture and know what is good or bad for the city. Garrghhhh!!

I think it has to do with the quality of local government in this country. It is dire. Its bad enough in Dublin but when go to some other parts of the country it is almost criminal.

Idbatterim · 04-04-2016 6:51pm

From the independent today....more pressure coming on, but I fear the vested interests will strongly oppose increasing densities!

http://www.independent.ie/business/c...-34526203.html

but when you look at who the vested interests are, who are they? An taisce and NIMBYS... People that would probably lodge complaints if semi d's were being built in the docklands... Really who cares about their opinions, other than local Councillors seeking votes and this is one of the big problems...

Hardly much opposition or big business...

Schadenfreudia · 04-04-2016 10:18pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

but when you look at who the vested interests are, who are they? An taisce and NIMBYS... People that would probably lodge complaints if semi d's were being built in the docklands... Really who cares about their opinions, other than local Councillors seeking votes and this is one of the big problems...

Hardly much opposition or big business...

While stopped at lights today I noticed that new apartments built just off the N11 at Brewery Road (in Stillorgan) were 10 storeys high.

You'd hardly notice them, there was no "controversy" surrounding them - suggesting the worst thing our planing system does is to practically beg for objections.

newacc2015 · 06-04-2016 7:05pm

crushproof wrote: »

This is the thing. Fair enough if it was designed just to max out the floorplan etc. It's all about profit.

But to me that's not the point, sure they submitted the hideous design.... But it was the planning authorities that approved it. Absolutely no imagination, it baffles me who is on the planning committee, surely they spent years studying town planning / architecture and know what is good or bad for the city. Garrghhhh!!

Have you seen where it is located? It is beside a hideous shipping port and not much else. Why would they spend millions on a decent designer when most things over 4/5 storeys get rejected from planning without any consideration? It makes more sense to put in a half-assed planning application and then pay a decent designer when a certain height/size has been decided by DCC.

An Taisce seem to be experts on planning. Yet couldnt careless if Dublin had no housing,as long as whatever housing in the city was low density. If we had 40/50 storey apartment blocks, you would have developers spending serious money to get them designed properly. But when you have 5 storey being the max, you cant really blame developers going for whoever is cheapest

Cravens · 07-04-2016 12:55pm

Well, if cheap and cheerful is what the developers is looking for, they may as well build something similar to that 30 storey building that the Chinese put up in 15 days, quickly done and as architecturally boring as could possibly be. I would send a link to the video, but being an infrequent poster, I've not yet got the privilege to send links to videos.

Schadenfreudia · 07-04-2016 5:02pm

Cravens wrote: »

Well, if cheap and cheerful is what the developers is looking for, they may as well build something similar to that 30 storey building that the Chinese put up in 15 days, quickly done and as architecturally boring as could possibly be. I would send a link to the video, but being an infrequent poster, I've not yet got the privilege to send links to videos.

The point is not that developers are looking for cheap and cheerful; it is that with the planners and objectors we are saddled with there is no point proposing anything else.

Hard to disagree with that - who'd employ world-class architects to design something that some philistine from An Taisce or cowardly planner will chop the top off?

Reuben1210 · 27-04-2016 12:57pm

From the Irish times today...I winder if any of these articles recently and lobbying by the likes of IBEC and ianroid Eireann will put any pressure on Councillors in relation to the revision of heights in the city development plan 2016-2022 this year!

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/barely-scraping-the-sky-why-dublin-s-tallest-buildings-are-too-short-1.2625282

Bray Head · 16-05-2016 6:56am

Frank McDonald (who else?) back with a blast against high rise today.

Frank McDonald: Dublin s character is threatened by high-rise plans

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Councillors should oppose a city project that would put the capital s human scale at risk[/font]

But Dublin s essential character is now under threat again, this time from an almost Orwellian use of language in the draft city development plan, which councillors will debate over four consecutive days, starting at the end of this month.
The draft plan, which would run from 2016 to 2022, earmarks four areas for high- rise buildings (Docklands, Heuston, Connolly, George s Quay), nine that would have mid-rise buildings while the rest would be low-rise .
Here s the rub: under the plan, low-rise is to be interpreted as anything up to 28m (92ft), equivalent to nine residential storeys.
This would be double the height of a typical Georgian house, which has defined Dublin s scale for 250 years.
The proposal is to change the definition of low-rise for different areas of the city; if this is approved by city councillors, it would pave the way for buildings of up to 28m in the inner city, between the Royal Canal and the Grand Canal.

Peregrine · 16-05-2016 8:46am

28 metres?

Oh, noes! Skyscrapers!

Reuben1210 · 16-05-2016 6:38pm

Bray Head wrote: »

Frank McDonald (who else?) back with a blast against high rise today.

Who is he and why does he get airtime?
That's a ridiculous article!!
On another note, anyone heard anything about the heights or cluster being discussed in terms of changes from the previous plan?

Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Comments