Planning & Tall Buildings in Dublin

Ren2k7

I actually quite like that revised tower with the winter gardens. Given Irish weather it's far more pragmatic.

Cool Mo D

I think the real problem facing Dublin's sustainable growth is not building tall building in the City Centre, but how to increase density in the already developed low-rise suburbs inside the M50.

It's absolutely crazy to think that during the boom, when people were crazy for building and buying, the population of basically everywhere inside the M50 but outside the canals remained static or actually fell! And this is some of the most expensive, desirable land in the country, so it's not as if no-one is interested in living there.

Currently in Seattle, the mayor is considering loosening the zoning in the suburbs to allow single family houses to be rebuilt as larger duplex or triplex units, and allowing granny flats in back gardens and basements. Predictably, this has thrown up a massive protest by people afraid that their parking will disappear, their views will be gone, and poorer people may be able to live in their neighbourhood.

I've no doubt it would be just as controversial in Dublin, but the city badly needs development and densification in its inner suburbs to allow people to live closer to work and to take some pressure of the crazy rental market around the city centre. Amending planning laws to encourage conversion of houses to small duplexes would also have the bonus of allowing older people to downsize in the same place they currently live while getting access to the money tied up in their property.

Also, fast track planning for apartments near train and luas stations is badly needed. It's bizarre how much undeveloped land there is close to the city along the Maynooth and Kildare railway lines especially.

Ben D Bus

Cool Mo D wrote: »

It's absolutely crazy to think that during the boom, when people were crazy for building and buying, the population of basically everywhere inside the M50 but outside the canals remained static or actually fell! And this is some of the most expensive, desirable land in the country, so it's not as if no-one is interested in living there.

The older suburbs inside the M50 are full of empty nesters. People grow up, move out of home and move to the outer suburbs with young families. And the family sized homes inside the M50 are left with 2, then 1, elderly occupants. The population in these areas falls.

As the empty nesters die off, 3/4 bedroom homes will once again hopefully have families move into them and the population of the inner suburbs will grow dramatically again.

But yes, I agree with increasing the density of development within the city proper.

my friend

Ben D Bus wrote: »

And the family sized homes inside the M50 are left with 2, then 1, elderly occupants. The population in these areas falls.

As the empty nesters die off, 3/4 bedroom homes will once again hopefully have families move into them and the population of the inner suburbs will grow dramatically again.
.

A finely tuned property tax system could correct this issue

monument

Cool Mo D wrote: »

It's absolutely crazy to think that during the boom, when people were crazy for building and buying, the population of basically everywhere inside the M50 but outside the canals remained static or actually fell! And this is some of the most expensive, desirable land in the country, so it's not as if no-one is interested in living there.

This is just not correct.

Dublin City and most of the DLR area has descent population densely. I'd have the check again for DLR, but Dublin City is comparable to Amsterdam population densely. Due to lack of open land etc, already densely populated areas will hardly ever grow as fast as open countryside which is being open for development.

Can Dublin do better? Yes. Is it as bad as you're making it out to be? No.

It's just not correct to say that everywhere inside the M50 but outside the canals remained static or actually fell in population between the last census and the one before it.

The attached census map can be visually misleading, but it still does not support you -- it shows large tracks on land with increases between the two censes.

Schadenfreudia

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I think the real problem facing Dublin's sustainable growth is not building tall building in the City Centre, but how to increase density in the already developed low-rise suburbs inside the M50.


I've no doubt it would be just as controversial in Dublin

You can say that again!

New residential areas that incorporated "townhouse" type dwellings and the much hated apartment blocks are widely regarded (ironically) as "bad planning" by the denizens of existing semi-d land.

During the boom much of the emigration to Navan, Maynoooth, Wicklow etc was precisely because new semi-d's weren't being built in Dublin so the few new or second-hand houses that came on the market were at crazy prices (and still are).

I know many people who say that if it's a choice between a semi with a front and back green patch they'd rather commute from 40 miles out rather than being reduced to living in an apartment/townhouse in Dublin.

I don't see much signs of that changing, despite all the tut-tutting we do about it

FreudianSlippers

IMHO North Dublin inner city is prime for serious redevelopment whether it's through new planning relaxations, tax rebates or re-zoning. It's the most criminally underused land in the city.

Pete_Cavan

Sustainable development in Dublin has no chance while 50 acre farmers in county Meath are considered "an ideal one-off housing opportunity". That mindset needs to be eliminated before we see any meaningful increase in density in the city centre.

monument

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMHO North Dublin inner city is prime for serious redevelopment whether it's through new planning relaxations, tax rebates or re-zoning. It's the most criminally underused land in the city.

Exactly which part/s of the north inner city are you talking about?

FreudianSlippers

monument wrote: »

Exactly which part/s of the north inner city are you talking about?

Rough boundary: Quays, Amiens St, Canal, Phibsborough Rd/Church St. with particular emphasis on redeveloping area around Connolly/Gardener St area (Gardiner St. is a disgrace IMHO) and Four Courts.

monument

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Rough boundary: Quays, Amiens St, Canal, Phibsborough Rd/Church St. with particular emphasis on redeveloping area around Connolly/Gardener St area (Gardiner St. is a disgrace IMHO) and Four Courts.

A good chunk of those areas have a population of 10,000 or more people per square km.

FreudianSlippers

monument wrote: »

A good chunk of those areas have a population of 10,000 or more people per square km.

You'd argue they're well used and developed?

Population density is a part of the bigger picture is it not?

I'd rather have those areas be functional parts of the city than filled with people.

MJohnston

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Rough boundary: Quays, Amiens St, Canal, Phibsborough Rd/Church St. with particular emphasis on redeveloping area around Connolly/Gardener St area (Gardiner St. is a disgrace IMHO) and Four Courts.

imo you lose a lot of Dublin's inner city character with those boundaries, if you're just being general. I certainly see individual spots in areas that could do with development though - most of north O'Connell Street, most of Parnell Square North, empty lots on Dominick Street and Dorset Street near Wellington Street.

FreudianSlippers

MJohnston wrote: »

imo you lose a lot of Dublin's inner city character with those boundaries, if you're just being general. I certainly see individual spots in areas that could do with development though - most of north O'Connell Street, most of Parnell Square North, empty lots on Dominick Street and Dorset Street near Wellington Street.

I'm not saying knock and rebuild. I'd consider Gardiner St. an area of architectural value that is basically in squalor at the moment. There are some areas as well which I would advocate knock an rebuild, but that's a different story.

There are some examples on the South Side of areas of character and value that haven't lost character.

MJohnston

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not saying knock and rebuild. I'd consider Gardiner St. an area of architectural value that is basically in squalor at the moment. There are some areas as well which I would advocate knock an rebuild, but that's a different story.

There are some examples on the South Side of areas of character and value that haven't lost character.

Yeah, I didn't think you meant that at all to be honest, not really targeting you, just the general idea of everything being densified! I'm living up near the Blessington Basin, and it's pretty low density, so it'd be ripe for some overzealous "we must high densify" person to target, but I think it's up there with Stoneybatter for providing a lot of charm and character to the city. Then, on the other hand there's Blessington Street itself which seems to be mostly dumps at this point.

FreudianSlippers

MJohnston wrote: »

Yeah, I didn't think you meant that at all to be honest, not really targeting you, just the general idea of everything being densified! I'm living up near the Blessington Basin, and it's pretty low density, so it'd be ripe for some overzealous "we must high densify" person to target, but I think it's up there with Stoneybatter for providing a lot of charm and character to the city. Then, on the other hand there's Blessington Street itself which seems to be mostly dumps at this point.

I'd certainly cite cities like Portland as examples of mixed density city centres (or at least a part of their city centre) with a vibrant live/work/play atmosphere.

monument

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You'd argue they're well used and developed?

Population density is a part of the bigger picture is it not?

I'd rather have those areas be functional parts of the city than filled with people.

What exactly do you mean by functional part of the city? Functional for whom or for what?

I'm not being smart here, just that in the context of the thread I don't know what you're talking about...

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMHO North Dublin inner city is prime for serious redevelopment whether it's through new planning relaxations, tax rebates or re-zoning. It's the most criminally underused land in the city.

If you're not talking about density, what did you mean by "criminally underused"?

I know there's sites which are underused, many of which will be developed sooner or later, but you're talking about a very wide area -- an area which the data clearly shows is not underused. It's the opposite: it's some of the most used land in the country.

FreudianSlippers

monument wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by functional part of the city? Functional for whom or for what?

I'm not being smart here, just that in the context of the thread I don't know what you're talking about...



If you're not talking about density, what did you mean by "criminally underused"?

I know there's sites which are underused, many of which will be developed sooner or later, but you're talking about a very wide area -- an area which the data clearly shows is not underused. It's the opposite: it's some of the most used land in the country.

Let's just take Gardiner St. for example. It's mainly hostels and god-knows-what. Allowing redevelopment of the main street (protected structures) whilst allowing demolition of some of the older but not protected buildings for medium-rise (well, for Dublin) would allow for increased population density plus an increase in office space and restaurants, etc. which will allow people in the city to live closer to work/play.

There are plenty of pockets like that around the North inner city, which are misused or underused. Regardless of whether on paper they are densely populated, they aren't used properly with regard to the mix of use and density. It's no good cramming a bunch of unhappy people in an area without amenities or jobs nearby.

monument

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Let's just take Gardiner St. for example. It's mainly hostels and god-knows-what. Allowing redevelopment of the main street (protected structures) whilst allowing demolition of some of the older but not protected buildings for medium-rise (well, for Dublin) would allow for increased population density plus an increase in office space and restaurants, etc. which will allow people in the city to live closer to work/play.

There are plenty of pockets like that around the North inner city, which are misused or underused. Regardless of whether on paper they are densely populated, they aren't used properly with regard to the mix of use and density. It's no good cramming a bunch of unhappy people in an area without amenities or jobs nearby.

You're going a bit overboard with the generalisations and that's coloring your view of the area.

First you were talking about underuse, now you're talking about different issues altogether.

There's far more than hostels on the street.

There's also many restaurants areas developed or in development across the city and the types of offices which these houses could be used for are already underused in the south city centre area.

FreudianSlippers

monument wrote: »

You're going a bit overboard

So do you believe that area is being used properly then?

Guy:Incognito

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Indeed. Image how vastly better more phallic it would look if the two outer buildings were half the height and the middle one twice the height...

FYP

Havnt looked at the plans for this but I assume the original Bolands buildings that are staying in place are getting converted in to apartments too? Good to have sites like that revamped. Old derelict buildings do nothing for the city.

monument

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So do you believe that area is being used properly then?

I just edited my post, I mistakenly pressed post while still writing.

FreudianSlippers

monument wrote: »

I just edited my post, I mistakenly pressed post while still writing.

Fair enough. I spend a good bit of time in the area and I detest it. It just feels like an area ripe for (re)development to me.

Schadenfreudia

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

FYP

Havnt looked at the plans for this but I assume the original Bolands buildings that are staying in place are getting converted in to apartments too? Good to have sites like that revamped. Old derelict buildings do nothing for the city.

You misquoted me

I can only assume that my aesthetic taste is better than yours.....:cool:

What's wrong with phallicism?

Ren2k7

MJohnston wrote: »

imo you lose a lot of Dublin's inner city character with those boundaries, if you're just being general. I certainly see individual spots in areas that could do with development though - most of north O'Connell Street, most of Parnell Square North, empty lots on Dominick Street and Dorset Street near Wellington Street.

Good. Large parts of Dublin can legitimately be described as complete sh*tholes and not worth saving. Better to encourage large scale redevelopment of much of north inner city Dublin. As for urban sprawl the government really needs to put into place a green belt around Dublin and force Dublin to grow UP rather than grow out. Sprawl and one off housing are a cancer in Ireland and needs to be stamped out.

Finally Dublin doesn't suddenly end at the M50 and Phoenix Park so it's time for local authorities to recognise this reality. Merge all four Dublin authorities together, abolish all four mayors and provide for a single directly elected mayor of the capital.

Reuben1210

Agreed. But when is the next time there will be a chance of a vote on that again??:(

MJohnston

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Good. Large parts of Dublin can legitimately be described as complete sh*tholes and not worth saving.

Yeah, and large parts are the opposite too, that was my point. And additionally, some ****holes can be rescued without losing the character, Stoneybatter being an area that springs to mind very quickly.

FreudianSlippers

MJohnston wrote: »

Yeah, and large parts are the opposite too, that was my point. And additionally, some ****holes can be rescued without losing the character, Stoneybatter being an area that springs to mind very quickly.

IMO mid-rise (in the true international sense) mixed in with "character" neighbourhoods doesn't remove the charm. There are plenty of examples of areas that are mixed in a proper way that retain their charm.

monument

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMO mid-rise (in the true international sense) mixed in with "character" neighbourhoods doesn't remove the charm. There are plenty of examples of areas that are mixed in a proper way that retain their charm.

Mid-rise replacing the charm of Stoneybatter?

FreudianSlippers

monument wrote: »

Mid-rise replacing the charm of Stoneybatter?

Properly mixed in appropriate areas. Did I say demo the whole place and replace with mid? There's a lot of assumptions and mis-reading here it seems.