'Shaping the city' -Dublin as a low-rise capital

Gumbo

sdonn wrote: »

@Dublin City representatives on this forum:

Dublin's public transport network cannot currently cope with the sprawl this antiquated and frankly stupid policy of low-rise only development has produced. This is not the way forward. I'm not suggesting 50-storey buildings on every street but there would be nothing wrong with more mid-hight delevopment along the lines of Grand Canal Apartments or the developments c. 12 storeys in the docklands, or perhaps a little higher, punctuated by the odd high-rise.

I read a report about a year ago that said the Dublin commuter area was roughly the same size as that of Los Angeles; but with 12.5% of the population of same. That sort of sprawl is fine where there are road tunnels, underground railways and light railways, upgraded roads with underpasses rather than roundabout after endless roundabout, signaled junction after signalled junction. But we don't have that for reasons not really relevant. What is relevant is that at the rate we're going, Wexford will soon be a dormitory town for the capital.

The planning - or lack thereof - as regards integrating our transport infrastructure in the city has failed epically in the past 20 years. The problem is exacerbated by the low-rise culture. We need to build up at this stage to avoid clogging the city's arteries more than they are - and currently a metaphorical heart attack in that context occurs in certain spots twice each and every weekday. There are people living in the lives of Navan, Kildare, Wicklow etc who have young children they barely see for getting up so early and arriving home so late. By housing those suited to apartment life higher above the city, houses can be built closer and when integrated ( a word this city just doesn't seem to understand) with public transport efficiently, quality of life will improve dramtically for hundreds of thousands.

There is in my opinion no case for NOT building up rather than out. It is the socially responsible course to take. Altering the character of an area to the objection of a decidedly small minority of people is not a reasonable excuse for ruining the quality of life for those not even able to afford living in the same county as where they work. The character of Dublin can be happily maintained with the addition of higher buildings, just look at New York or even European cities like Brussels, Frankfurt or Paris, for example.

We have seen compromise and counter compromise destroy developments in this city. Take Aviva stadium, sliced in capacity by c. 10,000 seats because about 10 people didn't want their gardens to be in the shadow of it. There are some occasions when the greater good demands that some objections by turfed rapidly back at those who submit them. Had the state or the city compulsorily purchased perhaps ten properties in the Lansdowne Road area, would would have a world-class stadium capable of seating 80,000 rather than the half-baked compromise we got stumped with. Yes a certain level of democracy, red tape etc is required to make planning decisions, but it's high time this country stopped beating about the bush, stopped taking ten or even twenty years to make decisions that are needed yesterday, get rid of the unnecessary red tape and rubbish that is the scourge of progress and get what needs doing done WHEN in needs to be done rather that a decade in retrospect. And it's high time that the capital city and the decsion making powers within it (that's you guys) started to lead the country by good example.

submit it before the 12th March to make any kind of influence!
putting it on here makes no difference at all imo, it has to officially submitted.

gollem_1975

gumbo wrote: »

what would the benefit of this be?

if there is anybody genuine serious about getting their opinion heard, you must submit you suggestions before the 12th March.

http://www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie/

1) DCC's offices are obscuring the view of Christchurch cathedral ( one of the cities most impressive buildings and important tourist attractions )
can you imagine how good it would look with a sloped public park leading up to Christchurch instead ?

2) wood quay was the site of a viking settlement.. perhaps a reconstructed viking settlement could be built there ( as a tourist, heritage attraction )

I don't know how old your are but there was a lot of opposition to the building
of DCC's offices on the wood quay site back in the day. Dublin Corpo built 2 modernist bunkers on the site , smack bang in front of christchurch... would the french have thrown up 2 ugly tower blocks in front of Notre Dame ? I don't think so.

Gumbo

gollem_1975 wrote: »

1) DCC's offices are obscuring the view of Christchurch cathedral ( one of the cities most impressive buildings and important tourist attractions )
can you imagine how good it would look with a sloped public park leading up to Christchurch instead ?

2) wood quay was the site of a viking settlement.. perhaps a reconstructed viking settlement could be built there ( as a tourist, heritage attraction )

I don't know how old your are but there was a lot of opposition to the building
of DCC's offices on the wood quay site back in the day. Dublin Corpo built 2 modernist bunkers on the site , smack bang in front of christchurch... would the french have thrown up 2 ugly tower blocks in front of Notre Dame ? I don't think so.

yeah i can see your point, i wasnt been smart just curious to your reasons, which are good tbh.

billybigunz

gollem_1975 wrote: »

1) DCC's offices are obscuring the view of Christchurch cathedral ( one of the cities most impressive buildings and important tourist attractions )
can you imagine how good it would look with a sloped public park leading up to Christchurch instead ?

2) wood quay was the site of a viking settlement.. perhaps a reconstructed viking settlement could be built there ( as a tourist, heritage attraction )

I don't know how old your are but there was a lot of opposition to the building
of DCC's offices on the wood quay site back in the day. Dublin Corpo built 2 modernist bunkers on the site , smack bang in front of christchurch... would the french have thrown up 2 ugly tower blocks in front of Notre Dame ? I don't think so.

I saw a program about this recently. I couldn't believe how great the Cathederal looked on the hill, something I had never seen before.

I think the council offices are actually decent enough looking but just not in that location.

gollem_1975

the offices that were built in the last decade along the riverfront are quite nice from the outside and also from the inside ( i still think the "Vista" would look better if they weren't there though )

the 2 Bunkers were DCC's only footprint on the site for the 1980s and much of the 1990's

I think it was a mistake to put the bunkers there and Dublin Corporation instead of admitting the mistake and tearing them down ( as they have done with all but one of the original 15 story towers out in Ballymun ) they put the new riverfront offices in to hide the bunkers and consolidate the site as a location for their offices ( this is how it seemed to me.. as an ordinary Dub mind you )

perhaps a cost-benefit analysis could be done on the relocation of the DCC offices, perhaps to Ballymun, Docklands or Eastpoint Business Park, and the re-development of the Wood Quay site as an amenity/heritage site for Dubliners and Tourists alike ?

sdanseo

I've submitted my rant above as an offical one - for all the difference it'll make.

DCC Planning Secretariat

The closing date for receipt of submissions on the Draft Development Plan was last Friday, March 12th. We’d like to thank everyone who got involved in the discussion and especially those who posted replies or made submissions about the plan.

The next step is the preparation of a report on the submissions/observations received. This will be submitted to members of the City Council who will consider it until mid-August 2010. Any material amendments agreed to the Draft Plan will then be put on public display for four weeks. It is envisaged that this display will take place during September.

We’ll post notification of the dates closer to the time. In the meantime, keep an eye on www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie and www.dublincity.ie for updates on what’s happening.

Regards,
The Development Plan Team

Kintarō Hattori

Damn I wish I had seen this sooner. Personally I'm a fan of Dublins low-rise skyline. It is a pretty unique feature among capital cities and does give it a close knit feel to the city.

If Paris toyed with the idea of high rise and decided it failed I don't see why folk would imagine it'd work here. Keep the buildings low and if you must build high rise, take it out of the city area.

markpb

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

If Paris toyed with the idea of high rise and decided it failed I don't see why folk would imagine it'd work here. Keep the buildings low and if you must build high rise, take it out of the city area.

But other cities toyed with the idea of high rise and accepted it. I don't see why one city's decision would have any affect on us. In any event, Paris is a low-rise, medium density city which is why they can support the Paris metro and RER. Dublin is a low-rise, low density city which is (one of the reasons) why we have such crap public transport.

Japer

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

we need to go up, sprawl hasnt worked so far and as another poster said it leaves people driving thousands of miles per year to work as public trasnsport doesnt exist in dublin

+1. Hundreds of thousands of people driving / commuting for an hour or two to the city just is not good planning.

syklops

Im from galway, and grew up about 15 miles from Galway City, so out in the countryside. I remember when I was about 12 my mother commented on all the building going on and sai that in a few years it will be built up all the way out to Oranmore. At the time I thought she was mad. Now it is built up almost all the way out to Oranmore.

At the rate of building in the area over the last few years, within my lifetime my parents house will be surrounded by buildings. To me, that is a terrifying prospect.

Now I know this thread is about Dublin, but the situation is the same. We have to start building up and we have to start doing it now.

Take Dun Laoighre. Wikipedia describes Dun Laoighre as a town situated approx. 12 kilometres from Dublin ciy centre. The fact that it is described as a town suggests it is actually, well, a town. However, if you travel to Dun Laoighre from Dublin city, there is no part where it stops being Dublin city and becomes a seperate town. Its built up all the way out to Dun Laoighre. If that continues, then it will get to the stage where there will be no point on a journey from Dublin to Galway where it stops being Dublin city.

DCC Planning Secretariat

Thanks to everyone who commented on the Draft Plan earlier in the year. We’ve posted an update on the submissions and the subsequent Council meetings that have taken place since – you can view that on the News section of the Development Plan website, here. You can also download the Proposed Amendments and related documents such as modified zoning maps etc., here.

‘Shaping the City’ (Chapter 4 of the Development Plan) relates to the urban structure and built form of the city and corresponds to standards on height and density. It drew a significant number of comments and observations. The main aspects of the proposed amendments to the draft that have resulted relate to:

• a greater emphasis on Dublin as a low-rise city
• changes to the height range for the inner city
• additional assessment criteria for high buildings
• Density standards – the specific criteria for each of the three density bands has been replaced with the more general requirements of the national and regional guidelines
• the term ‘economic corridor’ – this has been replaced through the draft plan with the term ‘innovation corridor’
• in those limited areas identified for higher buildings, a local area plan (LAP) must now be approved first.

What do you think of these changes? Is this the best way forward for the city? You can comment on the amendments and send your observations to Dublin City Council using the online submission/observation form on the site.

---

Dublin City Council's 'Draft Development Plan, 2011-2017' explains City Council strategy on everything from allotments and accommodation for artists to new economic corridors, new neighbourhoods, green spaces and low rise buildings.

Proposed amendments to the plan are currently available to view and for comments.

We’re encouraging Dubliners to look at the Proposed Amendments, discuss any issues on these boards and make a comment directly to Dublin City Council via the online submission form.

You can find out more at www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie, where there are videos, text summaries and an interactive map of Dublin in 2017.

---

gollem_1975

DCC Planning Secretariat wrote: »

• the term ‘economic corridor’ – this has been replaced through the draft plan with the term ‘innovation corridor’

wowsers DCC know how to use "Find and replace" . now thats what I call innovation

would be nice if a DCC representative would have engaged with the public in an online forum.

As in DCC can't do that , thats not a good idea because...or no we can't do that because it would cost x million euro.

but perhaps thats not realistic or feasible.

gollem_1975

syklops wrote: »

If that continues, then it will get to the stage where there will be no point on a journey from Dublin to Galway where it stops being Dublin city.

over the last few years Ireland built more than we'll need for a long time and in fact ghost estates in the middle of nowhere between Dublin and Galway will be knocked down because theres no demand for them.

we'll be riding in Space elevators before Dublin City stretches as far as Galway.

bonerjams03

DCC Planning Secretariat wrote: »

• a greater emphasis on Dublin as a low-rise city

What?!

Dublin has a huge problem with Urban Sprawl and hideous housing estates creeping away from it. The sooner more at least semi-tall buildings start replacing derelict old ones the better.

Also, there's a lack of use of roof terraces, greenhouses and other such things on roofs.

hmmm

Well that's another generation of young people sacrificed to a 2 hour commute.

But as long as it allows a small group of people hang on to gardens in the city centre it seems to suit the council.

gollem_1975

DCC Planning Secretariat wrote: »

Thanks to everyone who commented on the Draft Plan earlier in the year. We’ve posted an update on the submissions and the subsequent Council meetings that have taken place since – you can view that on the News section of the Development Plan website, here. You can also download the Proposed Amendments and related documents such as modified zoning maps etc., here.

‘Shaping the City’ (Chapter 4 of the Development Plan) relates to the urban structure and built form of the city and corresponds to standards on height and density. It drew a significant number of comments and observations. The main aspects of the proposed amendments to the draft that have resulted relate to:

• a greater emphasis on Dublin as a low-rise city
• changes to the height range for the inner city
• additional assessment criteria for high buildings
• Density standards – the specific criteria for each of the three density bands has been replaced with the more general requirements of the national and regional guidelines
• the term ‘economic corridor’ – this has been replaced through the draft plan with the term ‘innovation corridor’
• in those limited areas identified for higher buildings, a local area plan (LAP) must now be approved first.

What do you think of these changes? Is this the best way forward for the city? You can comment on the amendments and send your observations to Dublin City Council using the online submission/observation form on the site.

---

Dublin City Council's 'Draft Development Plan, 2011-2017' explains City Council strategy on everything from allotments and accommodation for artists to new economic corridors, new neighbourhoods, green spaces and low rise buildings.

Proposed amendments to the plan are currently available to view and for comments.

We’re encouraging Dubliners to look at the Proposed Amendments, discuss any issues on these boards and make a comment directly to Dublin City Council via the online submission form.

You can find out more at www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie, where there are videos, text summaries and an interactive map of Dublin in 2017.

---

where can we see the online submissions from members of the public ?

what proof is there that any heed was paid to them ?

DCC Planning Secretariat

Hi,

You can track online submissions from the public and the Council's response to them in the Manager's Report. Volume 1 of the Report lists the submissions received, assigns each of them a number and indicates what part of the draft plan they relate to.

Volume 2 then addresses the submissions - summarising the issues raised and providing a response and a recommendation.

Both volumes of the Report are available to download from the Development Plan website, here.

Regards,
The Development Plan Team

---

Dublin City Council's 'Draft Development Plan, 2011-2017' explains City Council strategy on everything from allotments and accommodation for artists to new economic corridors, new neighbourhoods, green spaces and low rise buildings.

Proposed amendments to the plan are currently available to view and for comments.

We’re encouraging Dubliners to look at the Proposed Amendments, discuss any issues on these boards and make a comment directly to Dublin City Council via the online submission form.

You can find out more at www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie, where there are videos, text summaries and an interactive map of Dublin in 2017.

---

monument

IRcolm wrote: »

What?!

Dublin has a huge problem with Urban Sprawl and hideous housing estates creeping away from it. The sooner more at least semi-tall buildings start replacing derelict old ones the better.

Here's a little bit of insight into the thinking of councillors on this issue and how we ended up with all the low rise focus:

Council challenged on “anti-social” height limits

...Cllr Deirdre Heney (FF) claimed that people think that seven storeys is high rise.

Heney said, “We are living in a low rise city. Nobody at any residents’ association meeting I have ever attended consider seven storeys low rise, they consider seven storeys high rise. And, whether the city manager likes it or not, the people in Dublin do not want to live in a high rise city. People in Dublin like low rise.”

She said she has serious concern over proposals for 16 storeys at areas like the North Fringe and Clonshaugh Industrial Estate...

Not all councillors have the same kind of stances as the above, but if you have a different view you need to be contacting councillors and making submissions to get your voice heard.

Cookie_Monster

Heney said, “We are living in a low rise city. Nobody at any residents’ association meeting I have ever attended consider seven storeys low rise, they consider seven storeys high rise.

How and why do they consider 7 stories high rise I'd like to know.

30+ is high rise
15-30 is medium
<15 is low
IMO.

Dublin need to be built up, not out further. Poor decision from the DCC. high rise = greater density = better transport and service, better value for money on public infastructure, shorter commute time, less cars due to better public transport, less pollution from vehicles, etc etc etc.

But no, why bother when we can just let people commute from suburbs such as Gorey, Kildare and Dundalk...

gollem_1975

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

How and why do they consider 7 stories high rise I'd like to know.

30+ is high rise
15-30 is medium
<15 is low
IMO.

Dublin need to be built up, not out further. Poor decision from the DCC. high rise = greater density = better transport and service, better value for money on public infastructure, shorter commute time, less cars due to better public transport, less pollution from vehicles, etc etc etc.

But no, why bother when we can just let people commute from suburbs such as Gorey, Kildare and Dundalk...

Cllr Heney represents the constituency of Clontarf at Dublin City Council.

Dublin City Council remit is for the Dublin City Council area.. not Gorey, Kildare and Dundalk.

what I am trying to convey is that DCC don't have responsibility for development and planning for the entire eastern seaboard area. Cllrs like Heney are representing the beneficiaries of urban sprawl equation ( people already living in the DCC area in low-rise ) who don't want high-rise and not the people who are living outside of the DCC area.

Perhaps , and I say perhaps because it would have to be a state department run by civil servants and politicians , development of the Dublin and greater Dublin metropolitan area is too important to leave in the hands of DCC and should be looked after by central government.

syklops

the people in Dublin do not want to live in a high rise city

Is this feeling by the People of Dublin simply borne from the experiences they have had with highg rise in the past. Mainly a direct result of disasterously poor management on the behalf of the Dublin City Council. For many people High rise and Dublin in the same sentence conjures up the images of places like Fatima Mansions. Poor infrastructure, few local resources, small unmaintained flats, non-functionion lifts sometimes for months at a time.

Is this the reason that it seems people dont want high rise?

If thats the case then I can understand their concern. Hopefully if planning permission was given to high rise developments, they would be in the hands of Private and Corporate bodies, who could maintain the buildings to the high standard that they require.

gurramok

Yes, what happened to the Ballymun Towers is what comes to some people's minds when 'high rise' is mentioned.

Another example of low rise stupidity is East Point. I can see these tiny buildings from the southside banks of the Liffey. They could be easily doubled in height and yet it would never affect anyone's sunshine as they are not near a residential area. In fact if they were doubled in height, they would be an attractive addition to the skyline and yet save building more commercial blocks on the outskirts in places like Blanchardstown/Sandyford.

expectationlost

still no good way to comprehend all the info the dcc websites are limited

Cianos

the people in Dublin do not want to live in a high rise city

Says who? Was there a survey done? Was 'high-rise' even properly explained, or just used as a scary buzz word?

Not only is it a misused term as Cookie Monster has pointed out, most Irish people relate high rise to two things; New York City skyscrapers, and Ballymun.

• a greater emphasis on Dublin as a low-rise city

A greater emphasis? As in, to make it more low rise? When so many workers face life-ruining commutes, living in areas with zero infrastructure and facilities?

• Density standards – the specific criteria for each of the three density bands has been replaced with the more general requirements of the national and regional guidelines

Higher density does not mean worse living conditions. If done properly, it means much more rewarding living environments;

• more local businesses being initiated and supported by the resident population
• much better efficiency for public transportation
• much better efficiency for services such as waste collection
• local schools being within walking distance for more children
• less car dependency, less traffic
• much safer streets with more pedestrian traffic.

JuliusCaesar

Well, I hope you are all putting your opinions on the plan, and not just here. They won't pay ANY attention to the opinions here, so if you want your voice to be heard, put it on the plan itself.

sdanseo

gollem_1975 wrote: »

Cllr Heney represents the constituency of Clontarf at Dublin City Council.

...and thus represents middle-aged and elderly people in the extreme majority, and those with a relatively high income. In other words, people who have already made their money and want their splendid isolation in a perfect world to continue. The sort of people who sit on residents' associations in Clontarf are older and set in their ways - not nesecarily a bad thing but they tend (and I cannot help but generalise) to be a closed-minded bunch.

Dublin needs to plan for future generations, not pander to the delusions of the upper classes.

Higher density is not something which in my opinion can be ruled out so staunchly by DCC as it has been and is being. The sprawl of the city and its commuter belt is such that the Irish Independent not sol long ago compared it in land area to the size of Los Angeles - but with about 12.5% of the population. That's not character, it's a bloody disgrace and a direct result of a total lack of planning and the epitome of the typical Irish "ah it'll be grand" attitude which is so obvious is many of our towns and cities.

Obviously, we need to ensure that by increasing the density of the city we plan for higher volumes of traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular, and facilitate public transport infrastructure to get people around the city without the need for the private car.

I saw a reference by the DCC poster here comparing Dublin's "unique low-rise character" to Copenhagen and Amsterdam. That's all very well, but there's limited use in comparing us with societies totally at odds with our own. I don't live in Amsterdam or Copenhagen. I live here. And chances are that the way we're going it's going to be impossible to get around the city in 20 years time, and that I'll end up having to commute from Westport to be able to afford a house. And the train line to get there will still be single track, no doubt! I could go on but I'd be purely repeating myself from my previous post on this thread.

The plan to maintain lower density is nothing more, in my opinion, than a cop-out by the council to avoid the huge amount of planning and work that's involved with allowing higher density. Using the excuse of the city's character is simply convenient - and if DCC think I'm wrong in this assumption then I welcome a direct response on this forum. There were far, far too many "Retain as existing" comments in Vol. 2 of the Manager's report linked to above - if the council was listening to people there would be, and should be, amendments to everything.

Rant over. Sorry.

monument

sdonn wrote: »

The sprawl of the city and its commuter belt is such that the Irish Independent not sol long ago compared it in land area to the size of Los Angeles - but with about 12.5% of the population. That's not character, it's a bloody disgrace and a direct result of a total lack of planning and the epitome of the typical Irish "ah it'll be grand" attitude which is so obvious is many of our towns and cities.

Not to undermine Dublin's problem of sprawl, but that was total nonsense. The continuous urban area in Dublin is still only a fraction of the same in LA.

Dublin is tiny compared to LA.

sdanseo

monument wrote: »

Not to undermine Dublin's problem of sprawl, but that was total nonsense. The continuous urban area in Dublin is still only a fraction of the same in LA.

Dublin is tiny compared to LA.

I mentioned it before and I think it may have been yourself that objected.

Maybe the article was comparing the urban area of LA with the commuter belt of Dublin, which would be similar?

Cool Mo D

sdonn wrote: »

I mentioned it before and I think it may have been yourself that objected.

Maybe the article was comparing the urban area of LA with the commuter belt of Dublin, which would be similar?

The commuter belt of Dublin is not all built up at all though - most of Meath, Kildare and Wicklow, and a good bit of Dublin is undeveloped rural.

And the Los Angeles commuter belt is larger than the entire island of Ireland.