Minister Noonan talks about building heights in Dublin

murphaph

We should also remember that there are thousands of retail premises with decrepit upper floors being used for a bit of storage or nothing at all. There is plenty of scope to encourage living above the shop but previous schemes failed to take account of the fact that it's not practical to convert the upper floors of a 200 year old building and adhere to modern fire safety regs but at the same time it's not possible to demolish the listed 200 year old building. Exemptions need to form part of the strategy here or the upper floors of thousands of older buildings in Dublin and elsewhere will continue to lie empty and simply decay further.

LeinsterDub

murphaph wrote: »

it's not practical to convert the upper floors of a 200 year old building and adhere to modern fire safety regs .... Exemptions need to form part of the strategy .

I'll avoid living in the death trap if it's all the same for you

murphaph

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'll avoid living in the dead trap if it's all the same for you

Your current house or apartment probably doesn't meet modern fire regs either 😉

bear1

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/race-for-dublins-tallest-office-building-title-heats-up-35677342.html

bear1

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-s-tallest-building-planned-by-johnny-ronan-1.3069078

bear1

First I've heard of a 17 story block on Tara Street.
How long till that's shot down I wonder.

MJohnston

22 floors actually, 88m. Commercial and hotel.



There's a LAP which this would fall under, which allows exactly what they have planned in height. The amount of time it took for this development to be resubmitted would suggest that they've worked closely with planners to ensure it'll be acceptable.

I find it bland and incredibly dull design wise, but at least it's got height I suppose.

Jayop

Incredibly dull is right. Not a lot of difference between that and the other boring box over the river that caused these problems iirc.

bear1

Anything fancy looking never seems to get off the ground, if it's done right and is easy on the eye I say what the hell.
Anyone know when planning permission will be sought?
I'd imagine due to that not being in the sdz this will be scrutinised quite a bit.

Peregrine

bear1 wrote: »

Anything fancy looking never seems to get off the ground, if it's done right and is easy on the eye I say what the hell.
Anyone know when planning permission will be sought?
I'd imagine due to that not being in the sdz this will be scrutinised quite a bit.

Its height is within the limit allowed in DCC's own LAP but so was the height of the Hawkins House/Apollo House redevelopment and they were still asked to reconsider its 'massing' and to consider a dreaded Dublin-style set-back floor. Joke of a planning department.

MJohnston

bear1 wrote: »

Anything fancy looking never seems to get off the ground, if it's done right and is easy on the eye I say what the hell.
Anyone know when planning permission will be sought?
I'd imagine due to that not being in the sdz this will be scrutinised quite a bit.

Details here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1805325&page=8

cgcsb

It'll end up being cut to like 15 floors at most. It is visible from the lawn in trinners and the quays, which is simply unacceptable for an taisce, Irish Georgian society, David Norris and various other folks who can afford to live where they want and simply couldn't give a toss about the ordinary joes and Janes forced to commute from Kildare.

Bray Head

To my eye it is not very different in scale or height from the Liberty Hall proposal that was shot down by ABP in 2012. 

CatInABox

Really hope that this is successful. A high rise tower in Dublin city centre, even a relatively bland one such as this, will prove that the world won't end suddenly with the construction of a tall building. It should make the Docklands even more attractive to developers once this gets built.

Victor

Bray Head wrote: »

To my eye it is not very different in scale or height from the Liberty Hall proposal that was shot down by ABP in 2012. 

A big part of the problem there was the plot ratio at 4:1. Possibly sustainable if Metro North was built, but not so without it.

Bray Head

Victor wrote: »

Bray Head wrote: »

To my eye it is not very different in scale or height from the Liberty Hall proposal that was shot down by ABP in 2012. 

A big part of the problem there was the plot ratio at 4:1. Possibly sustainable if Metro North was built, but not so without it.

Sustainable for construction in general or in this particular instance?

Transport infrastructure is a bit chicken and egg. Which comes first, the metro or the density?

bear1

Wasn't the liberty hall project refused cause of the heritage of the building or something?

Bray Head

bear1 wrote: »

Wasn't the liberty hall project refused cause of the heritage of the building or something?

No. From ABP: "[font=verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif]it is considered that the scale and in particular, the height of the development as proposed, would be  unacceptably dominant in  the city, would be visually intrusive in the streetscape  and  riverscape  and would  seriously injure the visual amenities of the city and  its  skyline.[/font][font=verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif] [/font]"

CatInABox

Bray Head wrote: »

No. From ABP: "it is considered that the scale and in particular, the height of the development as proposed, would be  unacceptably dominant in the city

This kind of thinking drives me absolutely insane. We can't build tall structures in Dublin because we don't have tall structures in Dublin.

Bray Head wrote: »

would seriously injure the visual amenities of the city and  its  skyline."

"Visual Amenities"? Like what? The Spire? Or do they think that a lack of any significant skyline is, in itself, an amenity?

I despair.

Bray Head

Maybe someone can help me out on this. There are a few principles for what any law should look like. As much as possible law should be clear, predictable, and equally applied.

Most civil disputes don't go near a court because it is reasonably clear who is in the right, and a negotiated settlement is cheaper and easier for both parties.

The application of planning law in Ireland does not to my eye obey any of these principles:

• Clarity: planners use completely subjective and vague language in justifying their decisions. No one can really define what 'visual amenity' is, yet the term has legal implications
• Predictable: the high share of rejected applications suggests to me that developers are genuinely unclear about what is likely to pass, and what won't
• Equally applied: for example planners allowed Croke Park and the Spire, both more dominant and higher than the children's hospital at the Mater, which they rejected

If the application of planning law in Ireland obeyed all of these principles you would only have dispute in the very small number of cases that are rubbing up against the boundaries of what is acceptable. There would also be a much lower need for planners.

MJohnston

CatInABox wrote: »

"Visual Amenities"? Like what? The Spire? Or do they think that a lack of any significant skyline is, in itself, an amenity?

I despair.

None of it makes any sense, because what 'injury' to any possible skyline or streetscape views could a replacement building have that Liberty Hall doesn't already?

Liberty Hall and Loop Line Bridge already destroy any aesthetic appeal that might exist in the area.

Victor

CatInABox wrote: »

This kind of thinking drives me absolutely insane. We can't build tall structures in Dublin because we don't have tall structures in Dublin.

"Visual Amenities"? Like what? The Spire? Or do they think that a lack of any significant skyline is, in itself, an amenity?

I despair.

Placing tall building directly next to much lower buildings is incongruous. However, using a stepped approach is usually much more harmonious, e.g. as used at George's Quay.

CatInABox

Victor wrote: »

Placing tall building directly next to much lower buildings is incongruous. However, using a stepped approach is usually much more harmonious, e.g. as used at George's Quay.

I wouldn't consider George's Quay to be a "high rise development" by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact is, any tall building in Dublin will look incongruous, at least until more buildings of similar size are built around it. They don't even have to be near each other, just look at London, where you can have a skyscraper right next to some Georgian size buildings. Does it look incongruous while standing right next to the two? Yes. Does it look incongruous while in context of the entire city? No.

cgcsb

My hope would be that once we have Exo, Capital Dock, Boland's Quay, Tara St and a new 16 floor at the poolbeg SDZ, anti high rise sentiment will die off.

knipex

cgcsb wrote: »

My hope would be that once we have Exo, Capital Dock, Boland's Quay, Tara St and a new 16 floor at the poolbeg SDZ, anti high rise sentiment will die off.

You mean like this

http://www.pbase.com/image/149332448

bear1

knipex wrote: »

You mean like this

http://www.pbase.com/image/149332448

That doesn't include the new 15 storey that's going in does it?
Limericks skyline will look quite nice with that addition.

knipex

bear1 wrote: »

That doesn't include the new 15 storey that's going in does it?
Limericks skyline will look quite nice with that addition.

Nope it doesn't. There is an artists impression of it but for some reason it excludes the Clarion..

The skyline coming in over the new bridge is pretty nice but coming in the Dublin road isn't so great nor to the Ballysimon road. The CEP plaza, while nice, sticks out as you come in that road..

In general teh city has seen some significant improvements over the last 5 to 10 years but the sooner they start on Patric street area the better, its a serious eyesore and pulls down the entire city...

bear1

Yeah when you're coming in from Galway it looks quite nice as you can see the buildings from a few km outside of the city.

Peregrine

So DCC is voting on the Poolbeg West SDZ (Glass Bottle site) at 3:30. Get your e-mails to councillors in ASAP if you want any hope of increasing the density.

BoatMad

Bray Head wrote: »

Maybe someone can help me out on this. There are a few principles for what any law should look like. As much as possible law should be clear, predictable, and equally applied.

Most civil disputes don't go near a court because it is reasonably clear who is in the right, and a negotiated settlement is cheaper and easier for both parties.

The application of planning law in Ireland does not to my eye obey any of these principles:

• Clarity: planners use completely subjective and vague language in justifying their decisions. No one can really define what 'visual amenity' is, yet the term has legal implications
• Predictable: the high share of rejected applications suggests to me that developers are genuinely unclear about what is likely to pass, and what won't
• Equally applied: for example planners allowed Croke Park and the Spire, both more dominant and higher than the children's hospital at the Mater, which they rejected

If the application of planning law in Ireland obeyed all of these principles you would only have dispute in the very small number of cases that are rubbing up against the boundaries of what is acceptable. There would also be a much lower need for planners.

While your comments are true in and absolutist sense, they fail to understand that planning is a subjective process .

so planners, must take into account, the nature of the development, the advantage to the locality, the economics, the quality of the development and its suitability

These are all mainly " subjective " decisions , hence logical clarity has little meaning

If you talk to planners , you will realise why many planning applications fail, (a) direct contravention of the regulations (b) inconsistent with development plan or (c) Design inappropriate to the location ( i.e. a try on )