Why haven't we built upwards?

defrule

When you look at eastern cities, a lot of them build upwards even if they do have land. From first hand experience being in Hong Kong, although things are tightly packed it is incredibly efficient. Although it means you have to live in flats/apartments but some of they are amazing in design and spacious for small families, and come with their own gym, swimming pool, daycare services within the apartment complex.

Transport systems become so efficient you don't need a car to get around. Public transport is within minutes of walking distance and transport grids are expansive enough to take you anywhere.

It makes Dublin feel like an oversized town than an actual city

snubbleste

They clearly don't have 'family homes' in Hong Kong

Ken.

We can barely manage to build 5-6 storey buildings properly here. No way would I live in anything taller built by Irish builders.

NZ_2014

There was a 36 storey building called "The Watchtower" which started to be built down at the point village beside the O2(now called 3arena). Would have been tall compared to most in Ireland but average by international standards.

They built the foundations to ground level but the banks pulled the funding just before the global financial disaster hit in 2008.

Shame really..would have been a nice landmark. There was plans for a similar height building directly on the opposite side of the river.

henryporter

The usual reasons - shortsightedness, corrupt and ineffective local and national politics hampering the planning process, narrow minded developers out to make a quick buck rather than seing any merit in building for people's futures etc.

It's too late now in most areas to go mid/high rise as they have used up all the best land to build second rate unsustainable trash that will be around for the next 50 years before it's considered morally acceptable to tear them down and start over properly (even then what's the chances that the reasons quoted above will once again allow the same thing to happen).

Lantus

Most cities today are based on those established thousands of years ago. Dublin like many cities is a gradual unplanned sprawl where all the primary streets and arteries were established hundreds and hundreds of years ago long before cars, technology or anything lese that is relevant to a modern technologically emergent society. In that sense we cannot 'upgrade' current cities to the best they can be, only stick a plaster on them by demolishing the occasional building and trying to make something a bit better.

Its not a question of going up but rather designing the environments where we live to be relevant and intelligently designed so that our lives are enriched and enhanced. We cannot do that with outdated and antiquated cities any more than we can live in buildings from 500 years ago without electricity or other modern facilities.

If I was to suggest that you use a phone from ten years ago you probably would think me 'mad'. If I told you that the phone was our 'culture' and had 'values' and was something we should hang on to and pass onto our children without change you would think I was insane. We can improve year on year on this technology.

However, tell someone that we should redesign our cities from scratch and you wont get the same response. People will come out in droves to protect an antiquated environment that was built and designed thousands of years ago. We are not yet educated sufficiently to be able to understand how we can develop better cities in the same way we can develop better phones or technology. In that sense we are not yet civilised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PkgUay3bwI

Another way of thinking about city design. Building cities as a whole, designing the entirety from scratch which allows for change and constant improvement.

MouseTail

One of the historic reasons we are not as high rise as other European cities is that they had to undergo a rebuilding programme after WWII, whereas Dublin escaped the bombing. As NZ said, there were some plans for very high rise (by our standards) construction before the crash.

Mrs OBumble

I've been told that many Irish people bought into Dev's dream of Irish people being rural and largely untouched by the horrors of urban life (not his exact words, but the sense of what people have told me).

It's only in the last year or two that I've started to hear people look more critically at this dream, and what other aspects it included. (Corruption, church/state control).

hfallada

The mean reason is that there is a powerful lobby for planning in Dublin. They believe Dublin is an incrediblely beautiful city rich with heritage particularly Georgian houses. I agree with them.But they believe anything over about 7 storeys is destroying the city skyline and taking away from our Georgian housing. The new children's hospital at the mater being the prime example.

But they fail to acknowledge that huge amounts of the city is empty, derelict sites. That a lot of Georgian buildings are slowly crumbling due to uneconomic planning regulations( suggested by the powerful lobby). Our Georgian houses are mostly modern day slums on the north side of the city (Parnell square) and mainly offices on the south side. On both sides of the Liffey the houses are pretty much gutted from mismanagement over hundreds of years. They are not the amazing piece of Irish heritage like peopel make them out to be. Although they should be preserved.

But it makes no sense not allowing high rise because it will some how take away from the existing buildings in the city. We are basically forcing people to live in the suburbs as it's not possible to build enough apartments in the city to meet demand. Most developments scattered around the m50 house the same amount of people in a high rise building.

Another reason why high rise is not endorsed in Ireland, was the mess that ballymun turned into. But people the people housed in ballymun were people who were less educated and higher amounts of social problems than most people in Dublin before they moved to ballymun. The fact ballymun had no jobs or services worsenedthe problem. It's like the Manhattan. Some wealthy people in high rise thirved and lived normal lives. While others from disadvantaged backgrounds ended with drug addictions and high unemployment. The issue wasn't their housing, but the opportunities they had in live.

MouseTail

We do have a general high rise policy in Dublin City, particularly in special zones like Docklands. However, there is a very powerful anti hi rise lobby, mainly led by resident and community groups. I suppose for a while, they could point to Liberty Hall in support of their opposition.

Victor

We don't necessarily need to built tall or very tall buildings. With very tall buildings you need to provide very intense levels of services. We do need to improve density levels, which isn't the same thing.

Look at the plot size of the houses on Grosvenor Park. There are 46 3-storey, 4-bed houses on the same size plot as perhaps a dozen of the older houses (admittedly many of them now in flats, but many change back to private houses). The houses have their own, small gardens, but there is a good-sized green space in the middle.

http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,715003,731570,7,10

In contrast, at Clogher Road, there is the cemeteries, park and the overly-large school sites that devastate the density and service levels. There is Spar at the junction of Rutland Avenue and Clogher Road, but no other shops, hairdressers, pharmacies, doctors, dentists, pubs or cafés for at least 500 metres in every direction. But two cemeteries, 5 or 6 schools, a church, a private sports & social club and a park. This gets much worse for the resident of the cul de sac Rutland Grove, who have to add another few hundred metres

http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,713901,732093,6,10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

church control

I'm not usually one for church-bashing, but it appears that the Jesuits insisted that Cabra be built with houses, not apartments / flats so that visitors to housewives could be supervised.

Of course, a lot of those houses had rear lanes anyway.

the world wonders

The whole high-rise argument is a red herring. You don't have to go all the way to Hong Kong style high-rise apartments in order to massively increase density.


Look at this street right in the middle of Dublin's inner city a couple of minutes' walk from O'Connell Street -- imagine how much higher the density would be with two- or three story duplexes, never mind four story apartment buildings.

Paris is one of the most densely populated cities in the world and they have strict height restrictions

Joe Doe

MouseTail wrote: »

One of the historic reasons we are not as high rise as other European cities is that they had to undergo a rebuilding programme after WWII.

Could explain it, as Belfast has (pro-rata) more 'semi-skycrapers'.

Another factor is the low sun at 52oN for half the year, ideally new skyscraper type buildings would be highly reflective and with clear non-residential space to the north side of the building. Ensuring quality mixed use occupancy could be a factor also.

L'Enfer du Nord

Because where we have built flats or apartment blocks they mostly have been either been ****e quality and design (Celtic tiger) or for the poor (inner city corpo flats, or Ballymun), So even your average Dub (never mind a person from the country) sees an apartment block as either a poorly built set of shoeboxes for twenty somethings or as a rough place with high crime. There's an obsession with either semi-detached housing or period houses. This in part is because build quality is perceived as being higher in the golden age of the semi-D. The semiD declined in popularity in the 1970s when developers realised that for units over a certain size the saving from building a semiD were smaller than the premium they could charge for detached houses inches apart. The rise of the detached house as the dominant middle class suburban form coincided with a decline in build quality. As a result most people I know seem to aspire to is an 1940s-1960s semiD. Period houses appeal to but are considered harder to do up (getting work done is almost seen as a given).

Never mind the lack of high rise, we hardly even have any medium rise, I actually read someone on the propertypin say that you couldn't raise a family in a three story house!

If we had more Mespil flats and less Priory Halls it might be a different story.

CatFromHue

I wonder did we need to build up in the past as we had space to build out instead?

Joe Doe

the world wonders wrote: »

Paris is one of the most densely populated cities in the world and they have strict height restrictions

No shortage of high rise in paris, although sensibly it appears all located within one main area unlike Ldn, which has more of a pebble dash approach....

GreeBo

The worst thing that happened to Irish planning is not getting the crap bombed out of us during the wars.

Her name was Lola

Ballymun.

L'Enfer du Nord

For various reasons there are more apartment blacks around the periphery than the inner suburbs. But the funny thing is you often hear people complain when apartment blocks are proposed for brown field sites, what we need is more 'family home' i.e. Two story houses. Fine but good luck fitting many more inside the M50, where as it happens a lot of family homes are actually rented by single people sharing because there aren't enough one and two bed apartments!

GreeBo

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

For various reasons there are more apartment blacks around the periphery than the inner suburbs. But the funny thing is you often hear people complain when apartment blocks are proposed for brown field sites, what we need is more 'family home' i.e. Two story houses. Fine but good luck fitting many more inside the M50, where as it happens a lot of family homes are actually rented by single people sharing because there aren't enough one and two bed apartments!

The problem with the current "approach" is that we lash up apartment blocks estates that house 25K people in places like Stepaside but do nothing to improve the infrastructure of the area. We end up with stupid traffic and poor facilities.

L'Enfer du Nord

GreeBo wrote: »

The worst thing that happened to Irish planning is not getting the crap bombed out of us during the wars.

funnily enough I read recently that 'luxury' apartment blocks were originally proposed for the site that O'Devaney Gardens was later built on in the 1940s, but the developer went bust. It could have gone either way, but no other European capital has quite the same inner city flats=poor, suburban house=Middle class mindset. The problem is the middle class has grown so much many of them have to live in portlaoise or something in order to live the dream. Given the quality of Celtic tiger apartments I don't entirely blame them.

GreeBo

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

funnily enough I read recently that 'luxury' apartment blocks were originally proposed for the site that O'Devaney Gardens in the 1940s, but the developer went bust. It could have gone either way, but no other European capital has quite the same inner city flats=poor, suburban house=Middle class mindset. The problem is the middle class has grown so much many of them have to live in portlaoise or something in order to live the dream. Given the quality of Celtic tiger apartments I don't entirely blame them.

When the inner city is like what we have its very hard to be the first to try to build a nice area. The gasworks and docklands were an attempt, but the price to value ratio was so far off they are going to end up slumlike imo. Rented out for whatever they can get.

Joe Doe

Those pesky vikings weren't terribly great city planners, and the romans never came over nor gave much help.

Propose just building a new eco-city (kinda like they do overnight in China), in the geographical center of the island, served by maglev's, the trades folk and statisticians will have a good Christmas too...

Victor

Joe Doe wrote: »

No shortage of high rise in paris, although sensibly it appears all located within one main area unlike Ldn, which has more of a pebble dash approach....

Technically, that is La Defence, which is outside 'Paris'. Note the similar building heights in the foreground and middle ground.

GreeBo wrote: »

When the inner city is like what we have its very hard to be the first to try to build a nice area. The gasworks and docklands were an attempt, but the price to value ratio was so far off they are going to end up slumlike imo. Rented out for whatever they can get.

Eh, they are full of Google and Facebook employees on €100,000 salaries.

mr_seer

Victor wrote: »

Technically, that La Defence, which is outside 'Paris'. Note, the similar building heights in the foreground and middle ground.

Eh, they are full of Google and Facebook employees on €100,000 salaries.

I know a quite a few Googlers and Facebook heads and the one thing they have in common is that most are paid pretty badly

Del2005

CatFromHue wrote: »

I wonder did we need to build up in the past as we had space to build out instead?

Of course we needed to build up, or at least much much denser low rise, so that we could invest in heavy rail to move people instead of the stupid buses going miles around the place to pass by everyone's home.

syklops

ken wrote: »

We can barely manage to build 5-6 storey buildings properly here. No way would I live in anything taller built by Irish builders.

Irish builders built half of New York and large parts of other cities. Its not the builders who are the problem.

GreeBo

Victor wrote: »

Eh, they are full of Google and Facebook employees on €100,000 salaries.

They are "full" of people wondering why their 50sqm "house" is now worth 50% of their mortgage.
Just how many people in Google and Facebook in Dublin do you think are earning 100K?

Gone West

MouseTail wrote: »

We do have a general high rise policy in Dublin City, particularly in special zones like Docklands. However, there is a very powerful anti hi rise lobby, mainly led by resident and community groups. I suppose for a while, they could point to Liberty Hall in support of their opposition.

Actually the seat warmers in liberty hall objected to that glass complex on across the river on George's quay being more than 10 stories high. Afaik it was going to be 17 stories originally. SIPTU claimed that it would destroy the vista of the customs house across the river or something.
This, in an area full of derelict and uncared for buildings.
Not to mention that liberty hall is a dirty scar itself.

Lantus

Joe Doe wrote: »

Those pesky vikings weren't terribly great city planners, and the romans never came over nor gave much help.

Propose just building a new eco-city (kinda like they do overnight in China), in the geographical center of the island, served by maglev's, the trades folk and statisticians will have a good Christmas too...

cheaper to built something fit for purpose using the latest technology than try to retrofit an antiquated thousand year old city.

rivers were essential a thousand years ago for boats, water and life. Today they just cause a nuisance as bridges strangle cars and movement at every crossing. Having cities next to or built rivers is no longer relevant for our needs. We can pump water in and can built water features and elements intelligently into a pre planned city if those things are considered essential without compromising efficiency and amenity.

Existing cities can be demolished and materials recycled where possible for use in new ones. Examples of older buildings can be preserved if deemed necessary and the entire area put back to a 'green' field site for future generations to enjoy.

Shedite27

Victor wrote: »

Eh, they are full of Google and Facebook employees on €100,000 salaries.

mr_seer wrote: »

I know a quite a few Googlers and Facebook heads and the one thing they have in common is that most are paid pretty badly

While yes, they are paid "relatively" bad, a lot of them are given relocation fees/expences to rent out apartments in the area. As a European HQ, with Ireland's poor language skills, they routinely have to import staff with different languages.