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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

1356789

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Whatever about the economic argument for/against social housing in the CBD, the current red 1960s blocks are doomed.

    They use land wastefully, ruin old established street lines, and they look terrible. They kill just about every street they appear on.

    The trend in that era was to offset social blocks from the street and from eachother, and have lots of empty space around them. I guess the thinking was to provide a pleasant spacious atmosphere. This strategy clearly failed and needs to be remedied.

    This process has started in Charlemont and Dominick and the results will hopefully build the momentum to get rid of the other 60s blocks in the city centre. The sooner the better.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,789 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    Whatever about the economic argument for/against social housing in the CBD, the current red 1960s blocks are doomed.

    They use land wastefully, ruin old established street lines, and they look terrible. They kill just about every street they appear on.

    The trend in that era was to offset social blocks from the street and from eachother, and have lots of empty space around them. I guess the thinking was to provide a pleasant spacious atmosphere. This strategy clearly failed and needs to be remedied.

    This process has started in Charlemont and Dominick and the results will hopefully build the momentum to get rid of the other 60s blocks in the city centre. The sooner the better.

    At least the 60's blocks had some density worth mentioning in central locations. If you take a walk down Cathal Brugha street you'll see 1990's red brick terraced houses (HOUSES no less) complete with private gardens, back and front within eye shot of O'Connell street, thanks to the lobbying of Tony Gregory. Meanwhile Jane gets her hour and a half bus from Navan in every morning and same return in exchange for a disposable income marginally higher than a welfare recipient living in a terraced house right by O'Connell Street.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    cgcsb wrote: »
    At least the 60's blocks had some density worth mentioning in central locations. If you take a walk down Cathal Brugha street you'll see 1990's red brick terraced houses (HOUSES no less) complete with private gardens, back and front within eye shot of O'Connell street, thanks to the lobbying of Tony Gregory. Meanwhile Jane gets her hour and a half bus from Navan in every morning and same return in exchange for a disposable income marginally higher than a welfare recipient living in a terraced house right by O'Connell Street.

    I agree on your points about density for sure, and it goes to show that even as recently as the Haughey era we still didn't care about proper urban planning.

    But the 60s blocks aren't even that dense, their height isn't much more that a georgian terrace, and they take up more land. They've had their day and its time for something better.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,241 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    I agree on your points about density for sure, and it goes to show that even in the Haughey era we still didn't do urban planning.

    But the 60s blocks aren't even that dense considering the land take and height. They've had their day and its time for something better.

    In the Haughey era we did whatever the highest bidder wanted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,789 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    It's easier for developers to sell houses because they can sell one house while others are still being built and use the money to fund the construction. Where as every unit in an apartment block would pretty much have to be done before you could sell one. Also Irish psychology favours houses over apartments in general.


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Well, here's something....hopefully this will be approved...they could have gone with a bigger tower though!

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/kennedy-wilson-and-nama-submit-planning-application-for-capital-dock-1.2162545


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Very easy to say that the developer "could have gone with a bigger tower" when it's not you footing the bill! Don't you think they would have built higher if it were to prove financially viable? I'm pretty sure that's the site that allows up to 29 storeys of residential development. Obviously there isn't the appetite for such speculation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Aard wrote: »
    Very easy to say that the developer "could have gone with a bigger tower" when it's not you footing the bill! Don't you think they would have built higher if it were to prove financially viable? I'm pretty sure that's the site that allows up to 29 storeys of residential development. Obviously there isn't the appetite for such speculation.

    Don't agree with you at all there. The developer is Kennedy Wilson partnering with NAMA, and they have huge financial resources for this long term investment. It would almost certainly be financially viable with the FDI coming in, which further fuels the huge shortage of high quality residentail and office space in Dublin, that it's almost reaching crisis levels, mirrored by the incessant rapid rise in rents.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,854 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    people have been making the point on this thread, that it is expensive to build the higher you go, how in sandyford business park are many of the developments substantially higher density than in the city centre?

    Maybe it is the fact that there is still quite a lot of land available for development in the docklands, that means prices arent high enough to force higher density...

    Is that the site of the former proposed U2 tower?

    In relation to height, how in gods name do cork and belfast have higher buildings than Dublin, if the buildings in Dublin will achieve far more per square foot?

    We are using a huge amount of the last remaining development land in the city centre and the density is too low and designs crap IMO... There should be a minimum density in those areas, never mind a max density! Should the government stipulate the development be built for the max density / height that it has permission for in areas of critical demand i.e. all of Dublin and particularly the city centre?


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    people have been making the point on this thread, that it is expensive to build the higher you go, how in sandyford business park are the developments substantially higher density than in the city centre?

    Maybe it is the fact that there is still quite a lot of land available for development in the docklands, that means prices arent high enough to force higher density...

    Is that the site of the former proposed U2 tower?

    In relation to height, how in gods name do cork and belfast have higher buildings than Dublin, if the buildings in Dublin will achieve far more per square foot?

    We are using a huge amount of the last remaining development land in the city centre and the density is too low and designs crap IMO... There should be a minimum density in those areas, never mind a max density!

    Agreed. It's a one off opportunity with all this prime land. It will never be so cheap and plentiful. I agree with minimum density....we will regret it in future otherwise. An taisce object to every development in the state, but particularly Dublin. The SDZ's were meant to get around an taisce's influence on an bord planeala, by cutting the board out. But it looks like DCC is being conservative. Yes, it's the former U2 tower....

    does anyone know what height that would put the tower at, given that it is the residential section of the proposal, and the floors are not as tall as office space?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,854 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    I was just reading the article at the below link. Surely with what Grehan etc paid, they had far higher densities in mind to justify the price they paid, v what they will realistically get permission for?

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/former-jurys-and-berkeley-court-in-d4-for-over-120m-1.2160397
    Former Jurys and Berkeley Court in D4 for over €120m
    Developer Sean Dunne bought hotels at peak of boom for €380m

    The two Ballsbridge hotels bought by developer Sean Dunne at the peak of the property boom in 2005 for €380 million are to be offered for sale on the international market in the coming weeks.
    Initial valuations suggest that the former Berkeley Court and Jurys properties, now known as the Clyde Court and Ballsbridge hotels, are likely to sell for between €120 and €150 million. Savills and the US company Eastdil Secured will be handling the sale.
    The 6.8-acre site, once one of Ireland’s most expensive properties, is almost certain to be redeveloped for expensive apartments and a hotel as well as a leisure centre, restaurant and bar, cafes and a healthcare facility.

    The existing hotels with almost 600 bedrooms are currently operated by the Dalata Hotel Group on behalf of a two-bank consortium – Ulster Bank and Rabobank – which took over control of the hotels in 2009 after Mr Dunne was refused permission to redevelop the site.
    Dunne is currently appealing the High Court’s refusal to set aside his Irish bankruptcy.
    Separately, An Bord Pleanála granted a 10-year planning permission in April, 2011, for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site involving 11 interlinked residential blocks and a separate building to accommodate a 150-bedroom hotel with a conference centre and other facilities.
    The 11 blocks with arcaded walkways are to accommodate 568 large apartments aimed at the top end of the market.
    Most of the apartment blocks will range in height from six to 10 storeys.
    The development will also include a mixture of private, semi-private and public open spaces as well as winter gardens, a raised courtyard garden and a public plaza. The basement levels will accommodate 963 car spaces and 620 bicycle spaces.
    Dalata has already completed three years of a five-year management contract at the two hotels, which is understood to include a break option for the owners.
    About 18 months ago, the Blackstone investment group was reported to be attempting to position itself for a future tilt at the hotel assets by buying out the stake held by Icelandic bank Kaupthing.
    That does not appear to have happened and Kaupthing’s shareholding has since apparently been acquired by Ulster Bank.
    At about the same time, Blackstone paid €67 million for the Burlington Hotel which now trades as a Doubletree by Hilton.
    That price is less than a quarter of the €288 million property developer Bernard McNamara paid for the hotel in 2007.
    Ulster Bank, the lead financier for Mr Dunne’s purchase of the hotels, is believed to own about 65 per cent of the properties.
    The high prices paid for the Ballsbridge sites at the peak of the market were topped by developer Ray Grehan, who paid €171.5 million for the 2.02-acre former UCD veterinary college – the equivalent of €84 million an acre.
    The Comer Group subsequently acquired it in June 2013 for €22.5 million.
    Ongoing recovery
    The decision to proceed with the sale at this stage underlines the ongoing recovery in site values in the city, particularly those suitable for new office developments which are likely to be in strong demand even at inflated rents over the coming years.
    The turning point for site values came in June last year when a consortium led by Johnny Ronan and Paddy McKillen paid €40.5 million for a key office site beside the former Burlington Hotel.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Reuben1210 wrote: »
    Don't agree with you at all there. The developer is Kennedy Wilson partnering with NAMA, and they have huge financial resources for this long term investment. It would almost certainly be financially viable with the FDI coming in, which further fuels the huge shortage of high quality residentail and office space in Dublin, that it's almost reaching crisis levels, mirrored by the incessant rapid rise in rents.
    Law of diminishing returns. It's bloody expensive to build a 20th floor compared to a 10th floor. The rents they'd have to charge in order to make a 20th floor viable would have to be very high. Obviously the developer isn't willing to bet on whether somebody is willing to pay such astronomical rents.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Reuben1210 wrote: »
    [...]An taisce object to every development in the state, but particularly Dublin. The SDZ's were meant to get around an taisce's influence on an bord planeala, by cutting the board out. But it looks like DCC is being conservative. [...]
    1. An Taisce do not object to every development in the state. I don't know where you get that idea.

    2. SDZs do not cut ABP out. ABP approve SDZs. They're actually an intrinsic part of SDZs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 369 ✭✭liam24


    Aard wrote: »
    1. An Taisce do not object to every development in the state. I don't know where you get that idea.

    2. SDZs do not cut ABP out. ABP approve SDZs. They're actually an intrinsic part of SDZs.

    They only object to the interesting ones.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,022 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    There should be a minimum height imposed in certain areas like this. It's not high enough for that location. Simple as that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    What happens if you set the minimum too high and nobody builds because the marginal costs of the top floors would make the entire building non-viable? Tall buildings only get built in a frothy, speculative market.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,022 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    This is not tall enough no matter what way you spin it. 40 floors could easily be accommodated on this site. Fed up with this village mentality.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭crushproof


    Madness, extremely bland design and only 19 stories. For an iconic site this is pathetic.

    As I said elsewhere, it looks more like a suburban airport hotel.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    The existing Jury's hotel is 10/11 stories,to replace it with 6-10 stories seems odd. I know it'll be denser development but still.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Aard wrote: »
    What happens if you set the minimum too high and nobody builds because the marginal costs of the top floors would make the entire building non-viable? Tall buildings only get built in a frothy, speculative market.

    But what happens when someone comes along who wants to and can afford to build a tall building but can't do it because there are no sites with a >10 storey limit? Do you not see how heavy these height limits are?

    Once this is built, that leaves one site in the SDZ where a 22 storey commercial building can be built. If their owners don't want a tall building, that's gone too. And alas, now no one can build a tall building in Dublin.


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Aard wrote: »
    Law of diminishing returns. It's bloody expensive to build a 20th floor compared to a 10th floor. The rents they'd have to charge in order to make a 20th floor viable would have to be very high. Obviously the developer isn't willing to bet on whether somebody is willing to pay such astronomical rents.

    ok well this is true that every extra floor is marginally more expensive, but it's not as bad as you are making out, given the fact that the possible few high rise areas that Dublin might have in future are prime CBD areas, where rents are naturally going to keep going up now, given the recovery and in particular, the huge growth in our financial sector. Look at how over the last 20 years, London has seriously gone high rise - directly linked to demand/rents. It's quite obvious this is going to happen here from now on in terms of rents, except if there is another crash.

    The alternative if you have such draconian limits on height across the city, is that we are going to keep sprawling out like an American city, and somewhere like Sandyford will become the high rise centre, as was already beginning to happen just before the crash. In this situation, the extra costs in lost time and transport costs as a whole will make it very expensive anyway, and a hell of a lot less convenient for workers and businesses.


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Aard wrote: »
    1. An Taisce do not object to every development in the state. I don't know where you get that idea.

    2. SDZs do not cut ABP out. ABP approve SDZs. They're actually an intrinsic part of SDZs.

    Well if you look back at many big schemes across the country, from high rise plans in Dublin, Cork or Galway, to wind farm projects, to road projects, an taisce has often got right in the middle of it. Sometimes it is obviously warranted, but quite often, it just seems like they don't want any modernisation of the country.

    What i meant with the SDZ's was that once approved, the development of the zone is up to DCC, within the outline parameters agreed with the board for each zone.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 304 ✭✭Panda_Turtle


    36 or so storey 120m watchtower began construction in 2008 down at the point village behind the 3arena, before the money ran out and they pulled the plug on it after building the basement.

    http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=706176

    Would the planning permission for this have gone?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,731 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Its foundations are there so it's commenced in planning law which gives longer to finish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,670 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Somewhat off-topic, but is there any kind of thread on boards that discusses major Dublin city building projects, or should we just use this one?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 450 ✭✭sleepyman


    Yeah I was wondering were they in the Dublin city forum.The Central Bank one was there.
    Does anyone know have the Hannover Quay & Sir John Rogerson Quay developments been given the go ahead?I think planning permission was submitted in Dec 2014 but can't find where it's at


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    sleepyman wrote: »
    Yeah I was wondering were they in the Dublin city forum.The Central Bank one was there.
    Does anyone know have the Hannover Quay & Sir John Rogerson Quay developments been given the go ahead?I think planning permission was submitted in Dec 2014 but can't find where it's at

    This site on SJR Quay got planning permission 2 weeks ago. See details here.

    The same people also applied for planning permission for a very similar development here on Hanover Quay but it's still in the process. See details here. They had asked for more info a few weeks ago.

    Here's a summary of the two developments:
    There's a related proposal on Hanover Quay. Same client, same architect, same application date.

    This is 76 SJR Quay which got planning permission:

    Riverside office element:
    303a89b94eebb1254c525f8c177b60af.png

    Residential element facing the Chocolate Park site:
    313979173153829c73d2918406aef78a.png
    (One of the conditions was to lighten up this facade)

    Overall, ~9,500sq m of office space, 9 1 bed, 34 2 bed and 15 3 bed apartments (net 58) and 200sq m ground floor retail.


    The Hanover Quay site twice as big but has a shorter height limit. The council voiced concerns and requested additional information so it's still in the planning process. If the concerns are ironed out, it could be the next building to come through the SDZ planning process.

    Hanover Quay side view:
    4a5bc333b1df03010c2af3fbe2d064c9.png

    Horse Fair Road:
    image.jpg

    f3bb01443970a3de6e7c13da25d34801.png


    f2f2f6ff9fc5f3e72aa8238ba30cacf6.png

    40df0cc59ce1c029da43c9fdddc5b36d.png

    It's split up into two blocks. The western building will consist of almost 18,000sq m of office space while the eastern building will have 12 1 bed, 62 2 bed and 26 3 bed apartments and 665sq m of ground floor retail.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Somewhat off-topic, but is there any kind of thread on boards that discusses major Dublin city building projects, or should we just use this one?

    Feel free to continue posting here about tall building projects. If the thread gets a bit unwieldy I'll move posts to a dedicated thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,670 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Aard wrote: »
    Feel free to continue posting here about tall building projects. If the thread gets a bit unwieldy I'll move posts to a dedicated thread.

    Now you're going to have to define "tall" ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,854 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    I see these stupidly low limits as creating multiple problems, higher rents, longer commutes, more urban sprawl, eroding our competitiveness (both on rent and commercial rents, back to square one)... The local authority now with the property tax, water charge, broadcasting fee etc, benefit from higher density, is it time for them to maybe tax the developer less the more dense the development etc?

    when you look at that photo and how great that waterfront area could have looked, as opposed to how crap it does look, it is depressing! Maybe their should have been a competition like the u2 tower, to develop the entire docklands area...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭crushproof


    Cheers for the photos Nim.

    Once again suburban business park style development in the heart of a resurgent European capital. Can't believe the council "voiced concerns" about the height of one of the developments...did it break the 6 story barrier?!
    It's such a joke and it makes a parody of sustainable urban development. Once this land is used that's it, there's not much more free ready to go sites within the city core.

    On a side note it would be interesting to know the car > household ratio in that area, I'd imagine it could be a wake up call to city planners.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,854 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    I just read about one of the sites in the docklands having a 5 storey limit!

    meanwhile in Terenure...

    e8413518-d_m.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,789 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    yeah the old steam packet site. 5 storey limit on a south quays site facing the river, i.e. it's shadow is cast on the river, where nobody lives, still a ridiculous 5 storey height limit.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    I don't think the concerns were about height. I didn't read it at the time and it's gone now. They must have resumbitted the application or something.

    Edit:

    Re: the 5 storey limit

    3477a145292d44a3f873a243b95a7fc6.png

    Everything in blue is 5 storey commercial/7storey residential and pink i.e. half of the SDZ is 6 commercial/7 residential.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,934 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    crushproof wrote: »
    Cheers for the photos Nim.

    Once again suburban business park style development in the heart of a resurgent European capital. Can't believe the council "voiced concerns" about the height of one of the developments...did it break the 6 story barrier?!
    It's such a joke and it makes a parody of sustainable urban development. Once this land is used that's it, there's not much more free ready to go sites within the city core.

    On a side note it would be interesting to know the car > household ratio in that area, I'd imagine it could be a wake up call to city planners.

    They seem to pretend the car doesn't exist and everything is in walking distance, or situated on our disconnected transit lines, certainly that eejit Owen Keegan does everything he can to make accessing amenities by car as awkward as possible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    I just read about one of the sites in the docklands having a 5 storey limit!

    meanwhile in Terenure...

    e8413518-d_m.jpg

    Meanwhile in leafy leopardstown...
    4905603650_204af4a8b5_b.jpg

    Curious& random building heights around the city.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,854 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    in relation to the steam packet site, I read on independent.ie that it is likely to sell for 30 million and there is also the possibility of it having 3 set back stories, can the purchaser of the site not apply for new pp?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Reuben1210 wrote: »

    The alternative if you have such draconian limits on height across the city, is that we are going to keep sprawling out like an American city, and somewhere like Sandyford will become the high rise centre, as was already beginning to happen just before the crash. In this situation, the extra costs in lost time and transport costs as a whole will make it very expensive anyway, and a hell of a lot less convenient for workers and businesses.

    Maybe that's not so bad...Sandyford has better road, rail and public transport connections than many parts of the city.

    Banning/curtailing cars while providing no alternative efficient public transport is a recipe for stagnation.

    Suburban centres will continue to grow if the authorities don't get serious about a modern European standard of transport - that is DU, MN and
    several new Luas lines.

    They need to be built quickly and without decades of debate, discussion, waffle - in short anything except action.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia



    Curious& random building heights around the city.

    Which makes Dublin like virtually every other city in Europe!

    What is curious about Dublin is the absence of any high rise buildings anywhere near the centre.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Which makes Dublin like virtually every other city in Europe!

    What is curious about Dublin is the absence of any high rise buildings anywhere near the centre.

    Is that not just like Amsterdam and Copenhagen?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Amsterdam has a very interesting approach to high-rise. Kinda like Paris come to think of it. The "Zuidas" area is where all the high-rise is. It's on the main ring-road motorway, and also on a major rail route to Schiphol. So transport connections are second to none, and it also preserves the character of the old city centre. This also means less restriction to high-rise form than if tall buildings had been shoe-horned into the historic city centre environment.

    An analogous concept for Dublin might be around the Fonthill Road, especially if Dart Underground and Metro West are built and especially now that Newlands X is upgraded. That way there'd be frequent rapid transit to the retail core, Docklands, and the Airport. Also access from Galway, Limerick, and Cork would be the best in the country.

    There is a plan for the area known as Clonburris. Frankly I think we could do a Zuidas/Défense on it and go high-rise out there. Dublin is going to expand to the west. The north is sterilised due to the Airport, the east is sea, and the south is mountain. Planned extension to the urban area to the west is necessary. A planned high-rise zone near excellent transport connections could form the centrepiece of that extension. The advantage too would be that impact on landscape would be minimal. It'd basically be a Sandyford Mark II but more centrally located. The only negatives I can think of would be the huge pressure put on the M50 because of it.


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


    Aard wrote: »
    Amsterdam has a very interesting approach to high-rise. Kinda like Paris come to think of it. The "Zuidas" area is where all the high-rise is. It's on the main ring-road motorway, and also on a major rail route to Schiphol. So transport connections are second to none, and it also preserves the character of the old city centre. This also means less restriction to high-rise form than if tall buildings had been shoe-horned into the historic city centre environment.

    An analogous concept for Dublin might be around the Fonthill Road, especially if Dart Underground and Metro West are built and especially now that Newlands X is upgraded. That way there'd be frequent rapid transit to the retail core, Docklands, and the Airport. Also access from Galway, Limerick, and Cork would be the best in the country.

    There is a plan for the area known as Clonburris. Frankly I think we could do a Zuidas/Défense on it and go high-rise out there. Dublin is going to expand to the west. The north is sterilised due to the Airport, the east is sea, and the south is mountain. Planned extension to the urban area to the west is necessary. A planned high-rise zone near excellent transport connections could form the centrepiece of that extension. The advantage too would be that impact on landscape would be minimal. It'd basically be a Sandyford Mark II but more centrally located. The only negatives I can think of would be the huge pressure put on the M50 because of it.

    Dublin Industrial Estate near Glasnevin/Finglas is always highlighted as being prime for Housing Development. The New Luasline to Grangegorman and the Maynooth rail ine are basically at. Its extremely close to the city and a very pleasant place to live considering its basically surrounded by mature parks. The new Luas line can connect it to TCD and it will beside Grangegorman, so it could deal with the massive shortage of student accommodation. It also really close for professionals working in town.

    There is no logically reason to have an industrial estate basically beside the city, when it could be moved closer to the M50. Plus most of the units are glorified stores. There is basically no manufacturing in it. There is no need for the city to go West so soon, when so much of the Northside is underdeveloped.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Revelopment of Dublin Industrial Estate would make eminent sense. It is a different kettle of fish to a "Zuidas/Défense for Dublin" though, which was the tangent I was taking.

    And you're absolutely right that heavy/light industry is increasingly being priced out of central locations. Look at Sandyford for a highly advanced example of that. Even the industrial estate in Coolock beside the Malahide Road is continuously getting applications for non-industrial uses, like supermarkets and the like.

    The advantage to greenfield over brownfield is reduced/zero contamination and easier/cheaper to build infrastructure from scratch. With Dart Underground, Fonthill Road/ Clonburris would have the best catchment area in the country for a large greenfield site adjacent to an urban area. With DU its journey time to Dublin City Centre and Docklands would be excellent. Development of the Dublin urban area towards the west is inevitable, and I merely suggest we plan for that eventuality rather than waiting for it to happen and then trying to play catch up after the fact.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    monument wrote: »
    Is that not just like Amsterdam and Copenhagen?

    The centre yes, but these are exceptions. My point point was really in response to the idea that there was something odd about 6 storey apartment blocks in suburbs and a 16 storey block at a complex built over a Luas stop.

    Suburbs of every city of any size I've ever seen contain things like that - a six storey block of flats should be no more remarkable in any urban location than a two storey semi-d if we are to have any prospect of "densification" - and building a 16 storey block on a rail node is hardly remarkable?

    There is no reason why they shouldn't allow 20 storey plus buildings in the central area of the Sandyford Industrial Estate, except the bizarre anti-high-rise mentality that plagues the city.

    The chattering classes don't want high-rise in the centre (and I tend to agree with that so long has the centre doesn't include places like Docklands and out past Heuston)- but they also don't want sprawl and they also don't want new suburban towns such as Sandyford or Dundrum drawing people and economic activity away from the old centres like D1 and D2 or DL.

    And they also want to ban/restrict motor travel in the old centres! It simply doesn't add up to any coherent plan - so "no plan" takes over.

    We can see the result of this "thinking" in DL town centre.

    As for Sandyford being more "remote" than the Northern suburbs - I guess that depends on where you are looking from!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    There is no reason why they shouldn't allow 20 storey plus buildings in the central area of the Sandyford Industrial Estate, except the bizarre anti-high-rise mentality that plagues the city.

    The primary reason against allowing significant office space development in Sandyford is to avoid significant decentralisation of employment away from central Dublin.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    There's nothing wrong with high rise in Sandyford. It makes perfect sense.

    But the docklands is a wasted opportunity.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    I've put two gogle maps on two screens in front of me, both at the same scale - one of Dublin and the other Amsterdam.

    A couple of facts jump out:

    1) The old city centre, the Port area, Schiphol Airport, the Zuidas area and a whole motorway network - including a fully completed orbital motorway - are all contained in an area that easily fits inside the M50 C-ring.

    2) Their "M50" superimposed on Dublin would go clockwise from Glasnevin to Clontarf - under the river/bay roughly where the Pigeon House is - come ashore near Merrion Gates, through Clonskeagh, Terenure, Crumlin, Phoenix Park and Cabra before reaching Glasnevin again.

    That's the sort of motorway infrastructure that facilitates those admired city centres in many European cities that are so often cited as models Dublin should emulate.

    So let's get on with building the Inner Motorway and a web of other motorways connecting it to the M50!

    The High Rise Zones would start at the canals, we can have our Zuidas in Portobello.

    Then we can have a European City right here :)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Aard wrote: »
    The primary reason against allowing significant office space development in Sandyford is to avoid significant decentralisation of employment away from central Dublin.


    Indeed, but as I pointed out there is no modern transport infrastructure in central Dublin - containing Sandyford won't solve that problem - whereas trying to contain the suburbs without putting a proper metro in the centre linked to all the suburbs is a recipe for economic stagnation.

    We avoid that fate only by failing to contain the suburbs!


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


    Aard wrote: »
    Revelopment of Dublin Industrial Estate would make eminent sense. It is a different kettle of fish to a "Zuidas/Défense for Dublin" though, which was the tangent I was taking.

    And you're absolutely right that heavy/light industry is increasingly being priced out of central locations. Look at Sandyford for a highly advanced example of that. Even the industrial estate in Coolock beside the Malahide Road is continuously getting applications for non-industrial uses, like supermarkets and the like.

    The advantage to greenfield over brownfield is reduced/zero contamination and easier/cheaper to build infrastructure from scratch. With Dart Underground, Fonthill Road/ Clonburris would have the best catchment area in the country for a large greenfield site adjacent to an urban area. With DU its journey time to Dublin City Centre and Docklands would be excellent. Development of the Dublin urban area towards the west is inevitable, and I merely suggest we plan for that eventuality rather than waiting for it to happen and then trying to play catch up after the fact.

    In the US, some cities change the zoning of some areas and you need permission to keep the use of your property if it doesnt match the zoning. Meaning it possible to change an entire from industrial to residential extremely quickly.

    Eventually Dublin will move West. But with proper management we probably can delay it for years. Looks at NYC. There was huge parts of Brooklyn beside Manhattan, as in just across of the Hudson, that were empty warehouses/factories. Within the space of 10 years, these areas have gone from pretty ghetto areas with high crime to luxury high rises with rents higher than most of Manhattan. There is no reason with the proper planning and no high restrictions, that parts of the northside cant be like Willamsburg. Houses shouldnt be built within redeveloped areas of the M50. Ideally everything should be like the German way of housing within cities, which is 8 storey apartment blocks centred around a tram/u-bahn station.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Indeed, but as I pointed out there is no modern transport infrastructure in central Dublin - containing Sandyford won't solve that problem - whereas trying to contain the suburbs without putting a proper metro in the centre linked to all the suburbs is a recipe for economic stagnation.

    We avoid that fate only by failing to contain the suburbs!

    No modern transport infrastructure in central Dublin?! Central Dublin is the best connected place on the island!


Advertisement