Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

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...

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?

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!!

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

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 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.

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.

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 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>

My bad, sorry about that Dubhthach.

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

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.

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