Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

cgcsb

Johnny Ronan is getting involved afaik

brownbeard

cgcsb wrote: »

Johnny Ronan is getting involved afaik

His face is the pic for the article.

MJohnston

Speaking purely from an architectural standpoint (because the political side is a minefield I don't want to enter), Ronan is surely one of the better options to be involved here - CCD and Barrow Street are great modern buildings, imo.

crushproof

MJohnston wrote: »

Speaking purely from an architectural standpoint (because the political side is a minefield I don't want to enter), Ronan is surely one of the better options to be involved here - CCD and Barrow Street are great modern buildings, imo.

Wouldn't agree fully with the CCD. Frontage yes, but the huge bare wall facing out onto the canal is ridiculous. They could have done so much more with it.

Lord Arsraptor

cgcsb wrote: »

Most European Cities generally don't have an issue mixing old and new in their historic core

Paris keeps them very separate - not sure which one I'd advocate though.

Schadenfreudia

Lord Arsraptor wrote: »

Paris keeps them very separate - not sure which one I'd advocate though.

http://cdni.wired.co.uk/1240x826/o_r/paris_1.jpg

I'd definitely go with Paris. They don't seem to worry about the "vista" from some obscure angles in the core being ruined by the distant new buildings.

Like the anti-tall buildings at Heuston/Docklands brigade do here.

There is even an active anti-tall buildings in Sandyford lobby. ffs.

cgcsb

The Paris/Amsterdam model of having the main office hub outside the City is a bit of a community disaster, it means that Amsterdam Zuid and La Defense are DEAD after 6pm and it also means people must commute to these areas which puts a greater strain on the transport system. We sould encourage multi use communities and walking/cycling short distance commutes.

1huge1

I think we can have some sort of mixture of the two in Dublin though, we have a great opportunity with the north docklands, the area between PWC and the 3 Arena, there is still loads of land there to develop, but if we have a mixture of residential/commercial/hotels/concert venues/restaurants etc we won't have to worry about the issue of it being dead after 6pm as you say, while also not being anywhere in eyesight of the "precious" georgian dublin.

This will take some clever planning, and with the exception of the lack of high rise, I think the Grand Canal Dock area has done a good job of mixing commercial, residential and nightlife.

Ren2k7

Frankfurt has the right idea with a built UP city core comprising high rise scattered among low rise:



No worries about shadows being cast, sightlines and other stupidity.

Schadenfreudia

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Frankfurt has the right idea with a built UP city core comprising high rise scattered among low rise.

No worries about shadows being cast, sightlines and other stupidity.

Yes but seriously....Frankfurt? No great vistas to ruin!

1huge1

Agreed, those buildings in Frankfurt were just replacing horrid 1950s style apartments thrown up after the war.

Ren2k7

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Yes but seriously....Frankfurt? No great vistas to ruin!

The RAF did the Germans a big favour.

Schadenfreudia

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The RAF did the Germans a big favour.

Surely it was better before that?

I've often wondered what would have remained of "Georgian Dublin" had we taken the advice of the "belted earls" and joined WW2!

loyatemu

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The RAF did the Germans a big favour.

really hope your being ironic.

Zebra3

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The RAF did the Germans a big favour.

Yeah, the Germans were delighted.

http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

:rolleyes:

Ren2k7

loyatemu wrote: »

really hope your being ironic.

Hey, at least Germans don't have to worry about conservationists making nuisances of themselves. :pac:

FreudianSlippers

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Portland_and_Mt_Hood.jpg

Portland does it quite well and they have real views to worry about.

D.L.R.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Surely it was better before that?

I've often wondered what would have remained of "Georgian Dublin" had we taken the advice of the "belted earls" and joined WW2!

Sure the Irish State made up for that in the 60s when they went on their own little blitzkrieg.

MJohnston

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Portland does it quite well and they have real views to worry about.

Standard US city though - nearly every building in that photo is ugly as sin

cgcsb

Portland doesn't have an historic core in all fairness now.

Ren2k7

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Portland_and_Mt_Hood.jpg

Portland does it quite well and they have real views to worry about.

They don't have to worry about an entire city centre full of old Georgian and Victorian Tat.

crushproof

To be far comparing to North American cities is a non-starter. It's a different culture over there.

Unfortunately I said 15 years that Dublin needs some medium-rise and here we are again at the beginning of another (potential) boom in construction. Yet I fear that in 10 years there'll be nothing of note built.

Potential Areas (at the mercy of NIMBYs)
Connolly - the An Post land/car park is ideal commuter wise for ~30 stories
Tara - As above, probably won't get permission for anything over 15 though
St James Gate - So much potential.
North Wall & GCD - As previously planned, a handful of iconic 40 - 50 landmarks. In an ideal world all apartment blocks would be 8 - 10 stories with adequate facilities.


*The irony of this is that I am An Taisce member, yet the know-it-alls in the group hinder any development in the city centre. Yet this leads to the destruction of our countryside, the mind boggles.

FreudianSlippers

cgcsb wrote: »

Portland doesn't have an historic core in all fairness now.

Totally, but we have London for that comparison. I was simply making the point with regard to high-rise and the "view".

MJohnston

Who even has a backyard in Connolly, Tara, or GCD to NIMBY things?

cgcsb

MJohnston wrote: »

Who even has a backyard in Connolly, Tara, or GCD to NIMBY things?

Well An Taisce has a back yard everywhere.

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

Well An Taisce has a back yard everywhere.

That's true, but it'd be good not to call it NIMBYism - I suspect in most of those areas, the residents would be quite happy with the addition of extra population, resulting in better services for themselves.

Carawaystick

MJohnston wrote: »

Who even has a backyard in Connolly, Tara, or GCD to NIMBY things?

People in Coburg Place, or Seville place. Pretty much adjacent to Connolly station.

There's houses on Barrow st, right beside GCD station.

crushproof

Carawaystick wrote: »

People in Coburg Place, or Seville place. Pretty much adjacent to Connolly station.

There's houses on Barrow st, right beside GCD station.

IMO having one and two story dwellings next to a major transport hub is a joke. Demolish and build some high apartments.
Alas too far fetched for the city fathers.

Carawaystick

How much extra tax would you volunteer to pay to cpo these homes?

crushproof

Carawaystick wrote: »

How much extra tax would you volunteer to pay to cpo these homes?

Well I wasn't exactly saying it would ever happen. Regardless I'd happily provide tax money for something like that rather than a superficial half-baked LUAS line to the airport - but that's going off topic.

Back on topic, is there any brownfield sites left in Smithfield that could be earmarked for a couple of landmarks ~ 20 stories?

Bits_n_Bobs

I believe that the best spot to commence high-rise building in Dublin is D4. The only building that I consider of any architectural merit is the Aviva stadium, it would presumably be gentrified and thus avoid the remaining stigma from Ballymun and I imagine it has a very low population density to annoy.

monument

crushproof wrote: »

IMO having one and two story dwellings next to a major transport hub is a joke. Demolish and build some high apartments.
Alas too far fetched for the city fathers.

Are you suggesting they be CPOed? Where are the "city fathers" being to get the cash for that at the moment?

crushproof wrote: »

Well I wasn't exactly saying it would ever happen. Regardless I'd happily provide tax money for something like that rather than a superficial half-baked LUAS line to the airport - but that's going off topic.

Back on topic, is there any brownfield sites left in Smithfield that could be earmarked for a couple of landmarks ~ 20 stories?

Very few if any.

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

I believe that the best spot to commence high-rise building in Dublin is D4. The only building that I consider of any architectural merit is the Aviva stadium, it would presumably be gentrified and thus avoid the remaining stigma from Ballymun and I imagine it has a very low population density to annoy.

What population density do you think D4 has? Why do you seem to think it's low?

Bits_n_Bobs

monument wrote: »

What population density do you think D4 has? Why do you seem to think it's low?

Actually I have no idea, however there seems to be plenty of houses on their own plots of land which is what would lead me to believe it has a relatively low population density vs areas with terraced housing etc.

cgcsb

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

I believe that the best spot to commence high-rise building in Dublin is D4. The only building that I consider of any architectural merit is the Aviva stadium, it would presumably be gentrified and thus avoid the remaining stigma from Ballymun and I imagine it has a very low population density to annoy.

Dublin4 is quite densely packed, probably more dense than even Dublin 1 or 2. And there are many architectural gems from the victorian and georgian period.

cgcsb

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Actually I have no idea, however there seems to be plenty of houses on their own plots of land [/B

Where???

bnt

markpb wrote: »

Irish Times

I'm still lost about what the "intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city" actually means. I'm absolutely in favour of protecting historic buildings and vistas, I just wonder if there's something else at play here.

I personally think that it has to do with the example set by other European cities such as Rome or Paris. In both those cities, the centre is low-rise "heritage" buildings, and any skyscrapers are exiled to the outskirts. Paris has La Défense, for example.

I don't have a problem with the first part of that idea, but Dublin planners need to think about the second part. Allowing skyscrapers in the IFSC would be a good start, given the international nature of business there. Another possibility is Sandyford, but given that its single 10-story building has been an unfinished shell for years, I doubt the demand is there.

Bits_n_Bobs

cgcsb wrote: »

Where???

Shrewsbury, Ailesbury, Merrion, Simmonscourt, Nutley Roads off the top of my head.

Idbatterim

Allowing skyscrapers in the IFSC would be a good start, given the international nature of business there. Another possibility is Sandyford, but given that its single 10-story building has been an unfinished shell for years, I doubt

the 5-6 storey rubbish they have been throwing up there for years in the docklands is a big part of the problem. Look, one or two towers wont put a dent in the demand here. If they have a problem with "high rise" they could be negated by simply going 9-10 storey with the other buildings, that would make a much bigger difference to supply than one or two towers are going to make. Despite the fact I do think that a few towers could look great...

I was looking at accommodation options in Leeds as I am over there frequently enough. They have huge amount of very compact one bedroom studios they call them, but they look to be what we would call apartments here. I am not sure of the size, but I am guessing 30-35sq m. My point is, I would bring down the current 45sq m size, down to 30-35 sq meter. Pretty much everyone I know in dublin would love to live on their own, but non can afford to or are prepared to pay what it costs...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-53638829.html

Pete_Cavan

Idbatterim wrote: »

I was looking at accommodation options in Leeds as I am over there frequently enough. They have huge amount of very compact one bedroom studios they call them, but they look to be what we would call apartments here. I am not sure of the size, but I am guessing 30-35sq m. My point is, I would bring down the current 45sq m size, down to 30-35 sq meter. Pretty much everyone I know in dublin would love to live on their own, but non can afford to or are prepared to pay what it costs.[/url]

The national standard is 45sqm but DCC's standard is 55sqm for a one-bedroom apartment. DCC are considering coming in line with the national standard but councillors may not pass it given the hysteria which will ensue;

http://www.newstalk.com/Why-are-Dublin-City-planners-looking-to-allow-smaller-darker-apartments

Idbatterim

55 sq metre is an absolute joke! The whole thing is a joke! I have been in bedrooms recently even in modernish apartments, 10 years or so old, where you can barely swing a cat in the second bedroom. There should be a minimum bedroom size. I would say 8m sq or so, at least enough to walk around the bed properly on both sides and have some space for storage, then 2-3m sq for shower room with w.c and what 15 for kitchen cum living room. So lets round up, factor in hall way space and say 30 sq m for one bed apartment.

We have a massive housing crisis here, high build and land costs and they think that 55sq metre isnt a big problem?! Put it way down, at least people might then have a choice! At the moment, these regulations are making things far worse than they need to be! Its madness, why dont we go banning all other one beds that are less than 55sq m, either they are acceptable or they are not... Moronic! I absolutely do not agree with current situation...

I just read that newstalk article, we absolutely need both! we need smaller apartments for singletons, couples or students and bigger apartments for families. I totally agree. In my opinion in apartments, there needs to be another "living room" away from the current kitchen / living room / dining room. (particularly for families). That article doesnt seem that accurate...

Schadenfreudia

bnt wrote: »

Another possibility is Sandyford, but given that its single 10-story building has been an unfinished shell for years, I doubt the demand is there.

It is the only building left unfinished from the Great Crash and I believe it was/is entangled in some NAMA legal stuff. (I think it's called "The Sentinel")

They are building again in the Central Park area - I doubt demand is a problem.

Bits_n_Bobs

I for one would like to see some definite facts about what effect reducing the minimum size would have on the number of apartments being built - would it lead to a 10% increase? A 50% increase? Or just an increase in profits?

I cannot understand why the plebs in Leinster house do not implement;
- a penal empty/vacant site tax
- a 5 year reduction in building VAT rates (which we already did for the hotel industry)
- the idiotic aversion to high-rise development is not tackled by planning rules

Ste.phen

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

I cannot understand why the plebs in Leinster house do not implement;
- a penal empty/vacant site tax

We have this already, in Dublin at least, it's rarely enforced, there's many loopholes and i think Dublin City Council are almost afraid to use it for fear of having to defend legal action from the people who own the derelict sites - there's tons of places in the city left idle for years that should have been redeveloped during the bubble or since and aren't because someone's sitting on the site for some reason

BoJack Horseman

DCC did a survey a couple of years ago.

In their area of responsibility they said there is 160 acres of unused land.
That is: land with no structure in it, but isn't a garden/park/or have any function at all.

Whatever happened to compulsory purchase?

cgcsb

We're getting a vacant site tax, which is great. The ban on going over 6 floors needs to end. If we're condemning people to hour commutes form Kildare or expensive shoe boxes in town, we need a better reason that our eyes being offended by modernity in the same postcode as derelict georgian tat.

Idbatterim

We're getting a vacant site tax, which is great. The ban on going over 6 floors needs to end. If we're condemning people to hour commutes form Kildare or expensive shoe boxes in town, we need a better reason that our eyes being offended by modernity in the same postcode as derelict georgian tat.

+1000000 The current situation is totally off the wall and to me is a far bigger issue than them throwing us back a few euro in income tax decreases and few euro welfare increases in the upcoming budget. It seems as that is all they need to do every budget. Its time they started getting real and sorting out the SERIOUS issues, the appalling transport system here, massive housing crisis, HSE etc...

Gumbo

Idbatterim wrote: »

There should be a minimum bedroom size. I would say 8m sq or so, at least enough to walk around the bed properly on both sides and have some space for storage, then 2-3m sq for shower room with w.c and what 15 for kitchen cum living room. So lets round up, factor in hall way space and say 30 sq m for one bed apartment.

We do have minimum standards.
11.4 Sq. M is the minimum area of at least one bedroom in a dwelling, after that, all others can be a minimum of 7.1 Sq. M. for a single room.

Main bathroom has to be a minimum of 4 Sq. M.
we also have minimum areas for storage etc

Ren2k7

cgcsb wrote: »

We're getting a vacant site tax, which is great. The ban on going over 6 floors needs to end. If we're condemning people to hour commutes form Kildare or expensive shoe boxes in town, we need a better reason that our eyes being offended by modernity in the same postcode as derelict georgian tat.

Central Govt needs to step in and create more SDZ around the capital but with the caveat that any development proposed must have a minimum number of floors (ideally 20), and DCC cannot reject planning applications if it adheres to criteria established.

Though if it were up to me I'd establish one giant SDZ for everything between the canals, the removal of planning authority from DCC and all applications to go through the Dept. of the Environment.

Idbatterim

We do have minimum standards.
11.4 Sq. M is the minimum area of at least one bedroom in a dwelling, after that, all others can be a minimum of 7.1 Sq. M. for a single room.

what I often find is, one bedroom is overly big and the other a joke. This has ruled out lots of the 2 bed apartments I was previously looking at. There should be a minimum bedroom size, full stop IMO...

This one big bedroom and one box room as found in many apartments, is a joke IMO...

MJohnston

Love that the rantings and ravings of people on Boards are usually contradictory: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057468602