Lack of tall buildings in Dublin

Goat Paddock

What can be done to combat the adversity to tall buildings in Dublin? Planning permission was given to the watchtower at the point village, which would have been about 35 stories (which is a start)..construction commenced but stopped when the recession hit in full force.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-09/design-chosen-for-the-largest-residential-tower-in-nsw/7233954



People in Dublin would object to 9 storeys being too high, let alone 90!!!

Look at our cousins in Australia, planning a 90 storey residential tower in Sydney (above image) , with plenty of skyscrapers around the country. Granted the population is higher, but look at cities with similar population to Dublin e.g brisbane, Perth, Auckland:



Point is Dublin can do better to contain urban sprawl.

stampydmonkey

Capital dock will be 24 stories or something like that

bricky06

I pass by the capitol dock site regularly, it is a large investment for the economic climate as it stands but, really, we need to be doing better.

One of the two residential buildings there will be 19 stories, the other being smaller.

DCC and the government (when we finally get one) really need to invest in and incentive high density residential construction.

I have read that the country needs to be producing 25000 residential units per year to meet demand with 60% of these required in Dublin. We are currently producing about 10000 nationally.

The introduction of some sort of vacant site tax or similar would go a long way to aid construction in general. Too many developers sitting on sites right now, watching the value tucking up before they bother investing.

jayjay2010

I've always been amazed at the lack of tall buildings in Ireland.

I think they help to shape a city's skyline and give them some focal point.

And a few tall residential buildings would mean great views of the city/mountains!

I can't wait for Ireland to get its first skyscraper. I don't count the Elysian in Cork as one....

MarkAnthony

There's absolutely no need for them for a start. Moving on from that there's not the infrastructure to support them. Let's stick 1000 apartments in D1 and watch the already gridlocked Quays get even worse. Thirdly it's almost impossible to get any sun in Dublin as it is let alone in there were a load of 'Skyscrapers' thrown up.

Dublin is very small city with just over 500K people in the actual city, why is there a need for tall buildings?

rebel.ranter

MarkAnthony wrote: »

There's absolutely no need for them for a start. Moving on from that there's not the infrastructure to support them. Let's stick 1000 apartments in D1 and watch the already gridlocked Quays get even worse. Thirdly it's almost impossible to get any sun in Dublin as it is let alone in there were a load of 'Skyscrapers' thrown up.

Dublin is very small city with just over 500K people in the actual city, why is there a need for tall buildings?

You have answered your own question. Grid locked quays are the result of people having to commute from a oversized catchment area precisely because we do not have the right type of accommodation in the city where the people go about their working lives. If they lived within the city then public transport would be used, would attract more investment and the gridlock could be eased.

The city is stagnant at 500k people because of the lack of accommodation. Cities need to grow, growth attracts investment and jobs.
We need a good mix of 1,200-1,500sq ft apartments and smaller stater homes to grow the city, like most other modern cities. The other choice is more urban sprawl in to Louth, Meath and Kildare with monstrous commute times and inadequate infrastructure.

4068ac1elhodqr

Belfast with about half the population of Dublin, has 8 out of 17 of the tallest on the island, and the top 3 of the leaderboard.
One of the tallest is about to get a bit of a refurb job across 24 floors and £30m.

Build them high, just make them shinny to reflect the sun,
or better still place another (artificial) sun up in the sky.

MarkAnthony

rebel.ranter wrote: »

You have answered your own question. Grid locked quays are the result of people having to commute from a oversized catchment area precisely because we do not have the right type of accommodation in the city where the people go about their working lives. If they lived within the city then public transport would be used, would attract more investment and the gridlock could be eased.

The city is stagnant at 500k people because of the lack of accommodation. Cities need to grow, growth attracts investment and jobs.
We need a good mix of 1,200-1,500sq ft apartments and smaller stater homes to grow the city, like most other modern cities. The other choice is more urban sprawl in to Louth, Meath and Kildare with monstrous commute times and inadequate infrastructure.

Well let's build them as soon as we move people away from wanting to live in houses. I'd say 2 - 3 generations at most.

You're also assuming sticking all the Jobs in central Dublin is a good idea, it isn't. I work for a company in D4 and our limiting factor at the moment is getting power into the building. It's not just a case of whacking up a load of buildings, the entire infrastructure would need to change.

The other issue is what's the problem with Dublin stagnating? Well firstly it isn't, it's growing faster than can comfortably be coped with* but putting that aside the next biggest 'city' is Cork, after that we've a collection of small towns. In short the rest of the country is bloody empty, there's no need to be Dublin centric.

*Tall building aren't the solution to that either, it's building houses people want to live in affordably.

JohnnyChimpo

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Well let's build them as soon as we move people away from wanting to live in houses. I'd say 2 - 3 generations at most.

Why can't this be led by governmental foresight and planning in the construction industry? People talk like the Irish are genetically predetermined to hate apartment living, but if you build a lot of high-quality apartments which are fit for long-term habitation then people will go where market forces lead them

You're also assuming sticking all the Jobs in central Dublin is a good idea, it isn't. I work for a company in D4 and our limiting factor at the moment is getting power into the building. It's not just a case of whacking up a load of buildings, the entire infrastructure would need to change.

Nobody is suggesting that new builds will not also necessitate investment in local infrastructure. That is obvious.

The other issue is what's the problem with Dublin stagnating? Well firstly it isn't, it's growing faster than can comfortably be coped with* but putting that aside the next biggest 'city' is Cork, after that we've a collection of small towns. In short the rest of the country is bloody empty, there's no need to be Dublin centric.

The reason high-density cities exist all around the world is because they offer advantages of scale and organisation which facilitate certain kinds of commercial activity that don't work in low-density areas.

*Tall building aren't the solution to that either, it's building houses people want to live in affordably.

These are not mutually exclusive goals

MarkAnthony

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Well let's build them as soon as we move people away from wanting to live in houses. I'd say 2 - 3 generations at most.

*Tall building aren't the solution to that either, it's building houses people want to live in affordably.

Me and a few friends were talking about this recently. We all said we would love to live in an apartment close to the city centre.
We are in our 30's & 40's.
My mam recently said the same, she would feel a lot safer in an apartment complex.
The only stipulation would be that they were decent sized apartments, if they had separate utility areas, maybe storage areas in the basements for bulky items. Sounds perfect to me.

Goat Paddock

Goat Paddock wrote: »

People in Dublin would object to 9 storeys being too high, let alone 90!!!

I don't think the people in Dublin would have any problems with this. Its very much in the interests of making the city a better place to live (improved transport infrastructure etc).

However, the planners seen to have a problem with height, seemingly believing that Dublin being a flat city is a 'good thing'. I suspect this attitude might be a legacy of the decades of corruption which focused on expanding the city westward as much as possible so that lands could be re-zoned...

the_syco

Generally speaking, "high" seems to be 16 floors in Dublin, and I think there's only a few of them. And even then, they tend to be shoeboxes.

We need 40 floor apartment blocks which are wide, as opposed to 16 floor apartment blocks which are the bare minimum size.

So instead of 30 shoeboxes squashed into 3 floors, they are built up, so that the 30 apartments are built over 15 floors. This way the apartments are built so that families can live in them, and not just couple who have a child in the storage room.

MarkAnthony

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

Why can't this be led by governmental foresight and planning in the construction industry? People talk like the Irish are genetically predetermined to hate apartment living, but if you build a lot of high-quality apartments which are fit for long-term habitation then people will go where market forces lead them



Nobody is suggesting that new builds will not also necessitate investment in local infrastructure. That is obvious.



The reason high-density cities exist all around the world is because they offer advantages of scale and organisation which facilitate certain kinds of commercial activity that don't work in low-density areas.



These are not mutually exclusive goals

Dublin has enough office space to facilitate the business that is here, or that wants to be here. Now maybe over the next 100 years that might change, who knows?

The issue with your solution is spending hugely more per sqm than simply building houses that people prefer living in. Granted some nice City Centre apartments would be nice, they don't need to be 40 stories. All that needs to happen is current buildings, say the huge amount of old houses around central Dublin need to be converted to nice flats rather than bed sits.

You point on market forces is well taken - market forces are dictating our current building patterns.

MarkAnthony

bubblypop wrote: »

Me and a few friends were talking about this recently. We all said we would love to live in an apartment close to the city centre.
We are in our 30's & 40's.
My mam recently said the same, she would feel a lot safer in an apartment complex.
The only stipulation would be that they were decent sized apartments, if they had separate utility areas, maybe storage areas in the basements for bulky items. Sounds perfect to me.

There are near to 100sqm apartments all over the vicinity of the CC.

Tabnabs

What could have been...

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

There are near to 100sqm apartments all over the vicinity of the CC.

Where?

MarkAnthony

intheclouds wrote: »

Where?

This is just D1

http://www.myhome.ie/residential/dublin/apartment-for-sale-in-dublin-1?minsize=80

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

This is just D1

http://www.myhome.ie/residential/dublin/apartment-for-sale-in-dublin-1?minsize=80

There is only one on that list that is 100sqm.

The rest are mostly in the 83sqm range. I live in an 82sqm apartment and there is not enough room for storage, certainly not enough room to raise children.

Personally I think 100sqm is far too small for an apartment that should be a family home and we should be looking at larger than that. Although if there was storage and laundry facilities available elsewhere in the building then perhaps 100 sqm would be more reasonable.

MarkAnthony

intheclouds wrote: »

There is only one on that list that is 100sqm.

The rest are mostly in the 83sqm range. I live in an 82sqm apartment and there is not enough room for storage, certainly not enough room to raise children.

Personally I think 100sqm is far too small for an apartment that should be a family home and we should be looking at larger than that. Although if there was storage and laundry facilities available elsewhere in the building then perhaps 100 sqm would be more reasonable.

This is frequently brought up and is rubbish to be honest.

My house, a 4 bed semi is just over 100Sqm and has loads of room for me, the wife and a lodger and eventually kids, a dog and all the ****e we've accumilated over the years. I was brought up in a much smaller house.

An apartment becuase it doesn't have a stairwell is even bigger than a 100Sqm house. There are plenty of 100Sq m apartments in Dublin, granted there isn;t huge availability and I'd happily see a few more built but there's no need to go higher than Spencer Dock.

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

This is frequently brought up and is rubbish to be honest.

My house, a 4 bed semi is just over 100Sqm and has loads of room for me, the wife and a lodger and eventually kids, a dog and all the ****e we've accumilated over the years. I was brought up in a much smaller house.

An apartment becuase it doesn't have a stairwell is even bigger than a 100Sqm house.

Eh, Im no really sure how to respond to that. Im sorry that you feel that my experience of living in 82sqm is "rubbish" but that is my experience. Its too small.

Perhaps you need less space than others?

MarkAnthony

intheclouds wrote: »

Eh, Im no really sure how to respond to that. Im sorry that you feel that my experience of living in 82sqm is "rubbish" but that is my experience. Its too small.

Perhaps you need less space than others?

Perhaps you need more. Everyone's experiance is different, but if you take the average household in Dublin, I expect it's under 100Sqm. If you've kids sqm floor space isn't generally the issue, it's having access to a garden and other amenities better suited to living in a house.

As for wanting more space, I'm not disagreeing that the option should not be there for people, I'm simply saying it's possible with the current building patterns. The issue is the market for €750K+ apartments is always going to be small. Building 9+ Stories is not going to cut that cost when infastructre and the advanced building techniques needed are taken into account.

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Perhaps you need more. Everyone's experiance is different, but if you take the average household in Dublin, I expect it's under 100Sqm. If you've kids sqm floor space isn't generally the issue, it's having access to a garden and other amenities better suited to living in a house.

As for wanting more space, I'm not disagreeing that the option should not be there for people, I'm simply saying it's possible with the current building patterns. The issue is the market for €750K+ apartments is always going to be small. Building 9+ Stories is not going to cut that cost when infastructre and the advanced building techniques needed are taken into account.

I think I probably do need more. I have a lot of "stuff".

I disagree on your last point. There is an economy of scale in building tall buildings so large apartments need not be 750k+. Other countries seem to manage it? Why cant we?

MarkAnthony

intheclouds wrote: »

I think I probably do need more. I have a lot of "stuff".

I disagree on your last point. There is an economy of scale in building tall buildings so large apartments need not be 750k+. Other countries seem to manage it? Why cant we?

There are economies of scale to standard apartment buildings. People here seem to think that a New York style Skyline would do something to solve our current issues. I'm not a civil engineer so I'll defer to one, but given the costs of putting in very large buildings I can't imagine it would.

MarkAnthony

I was going to use Beetham Tower as an example of OMG look how expensive but to be fair €2200 per month does get you a 2 bed corner apartment. Link Doesn't seem an over big apartment though.

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

There are economies of scale to standard apartment buildings. People here seem to think that a New York style Skyline would do something to solve our current issues. I'm not a civil engineer so I'll defer to one, but given the costs of putting in very large buildings I can't imagine it would.

Well it would immediately allow people to live in the city and cut out loads of the traffic and public transport congestion we currently suffer.

Perhaps it would also improve the look of certain areas of the city which are old and run down and could do with some developing.

Im not really too pushed what the skyline looks like although I have to say that I have admired plenty of city skylines in my travels so perhaps it is worth considering.

The biggest plus imo would be the eradication of this constant pushing of the suburbs out and out and out with no infrastructure in place, no character, just miles and miles of anonymous housing estates, with no access to proper public transport, shops, pubs, restaurants etc.....

MarkAnthony

I'm not sure it would help with congestion to be frank, quite the oppisite I would imagine but that can be argued from both sides.

Personally I think we'd be much better off making sure land was properly developed in the City and it's surrounds, and that investment went into dealing with the social problems in the rougher areas of Dublin City. My wife and I are a couple of relatively limited means, c. €70-80K a year between us, pretty average IMO. We've been able to afford living 20 minutes by DART from the City, I don't think it's beyond the means of most to do the same.

I'm not sure I agree with this sprawl argument. London has loads of tall buildings and loads of sprawl. TBH I think the sprawl comes first then the high rises becuase they're needed. Frankly moving some of Dublin's innercity population around might not be a bad idea. Getting back to the sprawl though, Blanch is my idea of hell but it has decent public transport. Sword is relatively well linked. I'm struggling to think of somewhere that's really a pain in the rear other than the boom moves to mental places like Wexford. Meath and Kildare, meh, you'll always have people living in commuter towns.

Anyway it's been an interesting back and forth, I actually don't think we completely disagree, I think we certainly have the same ideal in mind, better living and more options. I actually don't disagree that one or two well done High rises might not be a bad idea. Anyone whough who thinks we're going to solve the current squeeze by just building up though is, in my opinion, just not thinking it through - I'm not suggesting that's you.

MarkAnthony

OSI wrote: »

This is very far from the truth. Trying to find adequate office space in Dublin is a massive issue at the moment.

Adequate being the opperative word. There's plenty of actual space.

We're in a six story, realtively new build and as I say the issue is we can't draw anymore power. You need to solve those sort of issues before you start building up.

FalconGirl

MarkAnthony wrote: »

There's absolutely no need for them for a start. Moving on from that there's not the infrastructure to support them. Let's stick 1000 apartments in D1 and watch the already gridlocked Quays get even worse. Thirdly it's almost impossible to get any sun in Dublin as it is let alone in there were a load of 'Skyscrapers' thrown up.

Dublin is very small city with just over 500K people in the actual city, why is there a need for tall buildings?

No logic in this post. There's every need for them. If there were high rise buildings then less people would be forced into their cars in order to commute out of the city just to find somewhere affordable.

NiallBoo

MarkAnthony wrote: »

We're in a six story, realtively new build and as I say the issue is we can't draw anymore power. You need to solve those sort of issues before you start building up.

you can see that the problem there is too much demand for current infrastructure but not enough to justify the upgrade? Committing to higher density helps greatly in solving this kind of problem.

MarkAnthony

FalconGirl wrote: »

No logic in this post. There's every need for them. If there were high rise buildings then less people would be forced into their cars in order to commute out of the city just to find somewhere affordable.

See below. Although I reject the premis that there isn't affordable accomadation in Dublin. I did a thread a few months back about how a couple on minimum wage could service a mortgage in Balbriggan. An average couple can afford a 3/4 bed semi in D5; 20 minutes out of the centre.

The issue is actually affordable single person accomadation, that isn't solved by anything put forward in this thread.

NiallBoo wrote: »

you can see that the problem there is too much demand for current infrastructure but not enough to justify the upgrade? Committing to higher density helps greatly in solving this kind of problem.

Upgrading the infastructure would render any potential saving moot. Also building costs sky rocket (no pun intended) once you start adding floors. You're talking about massively increasing the electricity supply, telecoms, and sewers, something that would take years and create huge disruption. To cope with the transit demands, think spokes on a wheel at the moment, you'd have to invest in a proper metro system. Of course we'll eventually need this anyway, but it will happen gradually - trying to put even one or two 40+ story buildings in Dublin would create massive local issues.

NiallBoo

Infrastructure upgrades need to happen anyway and still wouldn't be cancelled out, especially when you take into account other life benefits.

You're also overstating the added added construction costs -especially when land costs are such a big factor.

An added benefit is that it would help reduce the unsustainable growth of house prices across the whole city and surrounding areas.

You really seem to think that developing infrastructure is a bad thing and ignore all of the city-living benefits that go along with it.