City council rejects Johnny Ronan’s Dublin skyscraper -now approved.

CPTM

I was wondering what everyone's opinion was on this news that came out this morning.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/city-council-rejects-johnny-ronan-s-dublin-skyscraper-1.3141050

How can Dublin possibly compete with international cities if we refuse to build upwards? This decision is sending a message to the Brexit analysts across the water that are house-hunting as we speak; Sure Dublin wants to grow to become bigger and better, but we don't want to actually change things like our size, buildings and skyline

In order to take full advantage of the opportunities within Brexit, we need to be willing to change how our city looks and works.

Note: I am not in agreement with what was intended to be in the building itself (another hotel etc). But the reason for rejection was the damage the skyscraper would do to the city's skyline.

Teyla Emmagan

I think it was just in the wrong location. Further towards the bay and it would have been fine. But it totally dominated the proposed location.

.......

This post has been deleted.

wordofwarning

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I think it was just in the wrong location. Further towards the bay and it would have been fine. But it totally dominated the proposed location.

What is wrong with it dominating the area? Most of it is a dive. A high rise building could transfer the area due to the prestige it will bring. Plus having so many workers concentrated in the area will help other businesses eg coffee shops, Spars etc. Pushing it with 1km up to the quays will have zero effect, as the buildings are in fact lower rise there.

I have no issue with the height. I have an issue with the fact it is a horrible looking building. It looks like a generic 6 storey apartment block, that is now scaled to 88m. I would have no issue with it being 188m, if it was a nice building. But this one looks bland and dull.

Outkast_IRE

If you are going to be the tallest building by far in a given area, you need to submit a design with architectural merit.

This did not have any real architectural merit and i would fully welcome a resubmission for a building at the same height with some rework on the architecture front.

listermint

Tara street station area is a kip lets face it. It needs investment and DCC continually ere on the side of lack of foresight. There has to be balance and they dont seem to have it.

Much like the balance they had when constructing DCC county buildings and destroying a large portion of viking finds in doing so.

That sort of balance.

seamus

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

If you are going to be the tallest building by far in a given area, you need to submit a design with architectural merit.

Thing is, these aren't particularly tall buildings. And once one goes in, loads will go in. So asking for some outstanding architectural merit seems to be adding in a requirement for the sake of being difficulty.

If you wander around any US city with skyscrapers, it's the smaller skycrapers that have the history and the "architectural merit". Most taller buildings are just nice and clean. With the end result that the "special" buildings actually look out of place and out of date.

wordofwarning wrote: »

What is wrong with it dominating the area? Most of it is a dive.

That's it. It's not like the area is littered with fine Georgian architecture or former castles. It's a mixture of crumbling old shops, yards and ugly government buildings from the 70s and 80s.

loyatemu

ridiculous decision - the area has already been designated for tall buildings, and they've rejected it because of the affect on sightlines kilometres away. How does London manage to put up buildings that can be see from all over the city - they have a hell of a lot more historical buildings than we do? DCC made some terrible planning mistakes in the past, but it seems to have made them them completely timid in the current policies.

PixelTrawler

The trick is to build an assload of tall buildings and then one doesnt "dominate" the skyline.

But that would take a long term view...

Pawwed Rig

I think the idea of a mini Manhattan down the Quays towards the bay was a good one although they would need to sort out the infrastructure links before hand (which they have been unable to do historically).

The Tara Street area is not an ideal one for a hotel imo. I would not object to offices though as building a high density workplace beside a DART station is actually a very good idea given the lack of dwelling options in the city centre itself.

CPTM

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I think it was just in the wrong location. Further towards the bay and it would have been fine. But it totally dominated the proposed location.

I think this building would be too small for the area further down the quays. If we're talking about all the way down the end, I would be thinking of skyscrapers twice the size of this one. Then this one, where it is, would have been completely fine against that skyline. But as PixieTrawler mentions, it would take someone with a long term view.

wordofwarning

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think the idea of a mini Manhattan down the Quays towards the bay was a good one although they would need to sort out the infrastructure links before hand (which they have been unable to do historically).

Except if you looked the Progressive Democrats mock up for "Mini-Manhattan", it looked more like a Romanian Soviet Union style resort or a low rent New Jersey development. It was horrific and despite being suggested in like 2005, it was more suited to 1975. But it had height at least.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The Tara Street area is not an ideal one for a hotel imo. I would not object to offices though as building a high density workplace beside a DART station is actually a very good idea given the lack of dwelling options in the city centre itself.

Mixed office/hotel developments are common in high rise buildings in the US/Asia. You put on the offices on the lower floors where views don't matter too much. The hotel is at the very top to take advantage of the views etc. Dublin has a massive shortage of hotel rooms. I would rather hotels being built in at Tara St than in Ballsbridge or beside the Canals as is.

Beta Ray Bill

CPTM wrote: »

This decision is sending a message to the Brexit analysts across the water that are house-hunting as we speak; Sure Dublin wants to grow to become bigger and better, but we don't want to actually change things like our size, buildings and skyline

Aside from Brexit, that area is an absolute Kip!
It's an awful place.

A building like that might have encouraged more Regeneration around that area.

We have no choice now but to build upwards if the city is to grow.
IMO the M50 Ring is effectively where the city ends and County Dublin begins
Nearly ever bit of Green space within the ring has been built on. There is no where left to build so we must build upwards.

If the buildings are designed well they can look amazing (The Shard in London, Chrysler Building in NYC for example)

The one Major issue we have though in Dublin is transport.
Dublin Bus numbers are going down substantially and there more private cars commuting into the city than ever before.
It's clear that people in Dublin have no interest in public transport, and are prepared to sit in a car for over an hour each morning so long as they don't have to sit beside anyone else.

Since I've moved to the south side of the city I've noticed the traffic is even worse.
The south side is very old, the roads are narrow, Most of them don't continuous bus lanes on both sides of the road.

If we built upwards this would alleviate the congestion problem. I used to live in Spencer Dock and walked to work.
It was the handiest thing ever! I was able to walk to work in the morning, 15 minutes and I was at my desk.

High Rise building's in the city centre will make this an option for everyone.

There are a few caveats though:
1) No Social housing in High Rise buildings.... we all remember how Ballymun and Kilbarrack flats turned out.
2) Also no buying to rent within the first 5 years of ownership, Co Occupiers would also need to approve who you rent to after the 5 years.
3) No selling to Hedge/Vulture funds in bulk.
4) There needs to be ample under ground parking (Irish people like their Cars)
5) There needs to be a concierge/security on the door, Not just a door with a swipe card reader
6) Construction needs to be regulated by an external body (not self regulated by the builders)
7) No Balcony's

I think if they nailed the above points down, High rise buildings would be a great success.

But there will always be the oul biddy's that "don't want the sky line ruined". They'll hold us back forever me thinks

wordofwarning

[QUOTE=grahambo;103977766
The one Major issue we have though in Dublin is transport.
Dublin Bus numbers are going down substantially and there more private cars commuting into the city than ever before.
It's clear that people in Dublin have no interest in public transport, and are prepared to sit in a car for over an hour each morning so long as they don't have to sit beside anyone else.
[/QUOTE]

Eh? You are wrong. Use of public transport and bikes has increased since 2006, while car usage has declined. Between 2015 and 2016, more people used public transport and bikes, while the number of people using cars to get into the City declined

The numbers of people using sustainable modes of transport to travel into Dublin city centre increased further in 2016, and now accounts for over two thirds of all journeys.

According to the Canal Cordon Report 2016 published by NTA and Dublin City Council, 134,559 people travel into the city centre at peak time using bus, train, Luas, walking or cycling. This is up from 132,188 in 2015. By contrast, the numbers of people entering the city centre by car, is down from 67,755 in 2015 to 67,442 in 2016.

This means that the gap between people using sustainable modes and non-sustainable modes of transport continues to grow. Sustainable journeys accounted for 67% of journeys in 2016, compared to 66% in 2015. The number of sustainable journeys in 2010 was 59% and it has increased every year since.

https://www.transportforireland.ie/two-thirds-of-passengers-into-dublin-city-centre-use-sustainable-transport-modes/

People are more than willing to use buses and public transport. The jammed packed buses and stats show that

markodaly

Terrible decision yet not surprising. The building itself is not the nicest but then again developers almost know that these type of tall buildings will never get built so skim on the design. Dublin to grow sustainably will have to grow up. Has DCC any guidelines or strategy on this? Surely they have something other then rejection on a whim.

Beta Ray Bill

wordofwarning wrote: »

Eh? You are wrong. Use of public transport and bikes has increased since 2006, while car usage has declined. Between 2015 and 2016, more people used public transport and bikes, while the number of people using cars to get into the City declined



https://www.transportforireland.ie/two-thirds-of-passengers-into-dublin-city-centre-use-sustainable-transport-modes/

People are more than willing to use buses and public transport. The jammed packed buses and stats show that

I only read in an article a few weeks ago that numbers using Dublin bus were way down.
I'll dig it out.

Also I use my motorcycle to get to work and my GF uses her car. We both work in city centre. I can honestly say the traffic is worse now than it's ever been. She used to be able to leave at 7:30 to be in for 8. Now she needs to leave at 6:45 or forget it.

L1011

grahambo wrote: »

I only read in an article a few weeks ago that numbers using Dublin bus were way down.
I'll dig it out.

Also I use my motorcycle to get to work and my GF uses her car. We both work in city centre. I can honestly say the traffic is worse now than it's ever been. She used to be able to leave at 7:30 to be in for 8. Now she needs to leave at 6:45 or forget it.

They aren't going down.

% share for car can be reducing while the total number of car commuters rises due to the rising number in employment.

Beta Ray Bill

L1011 wrote: »

They aren't going down.

% share for car can be reducing while the total number of car commuters rises due to the rising number in employment.

Ah maybe that's what it was (I can't find the article)

So even though the actual numbers are going up, their percentage share of all commuters is going down.

It's still bad news for public transport in fairness.

I wouldn't use the bus to get around the capital, not reliable enough.

For me the order of preference would be:
1: Bike
2: Bicycle
3: Walk/Run
4: and the a Bus (Or just take the day off)

Sierra Oscar

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I think it was just in the wrong location. Further towards the bay and it would have been fine. But it totally dominated the proposed location.

Then why is the land zoned for 'high rise' by the council? It doesn't make much sense to me. Developers are getting conflicting signals - it's no surprise we don't see many ambitious proposals for tall buildings in the city.

Strong Life in Dublin

wordofwarning wrote: »

What is wrong with it dominating the area? .

Exactly! The ugly Liberty Hall building currently dominates the area, it would be a nice change for a newer building to dominate the area

cruizer101

It is a f**kin disgrace given we are in the middle of a housing crisis. Ok the building wasn't directly supplying housing but at least it was reasonably efficient use of space in the city centre. Is there anything the government can do to step in and give DCC a kick up the arse? I really despair at the downright idiocy of some of our public representatives.

CPTM

I don't think we have that bad a problem with traffic in the city when the schools are off. When the schools are back everyone notices a difference.

It would be great to have bus services specifically run by the schools, similar to what they have in America with their yellow buses.

Arcade_Tryer

It takes an astonishing sense of self importance to be able to so brazenly put off progress with pathetic excuses produced to pacify equally moronic and moralistic heritage groups.

shane6977

Update: An Bord Pleanala yesterday rejected the developers appeal meaning this scheme is now totally dead in the water. Although ABP's inspector recommended approving the project, the board ignored the recommendation and turned down the appeal.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ronan-group-bewildered-and-disappointed-as-plan-for-dublins-tallest-building-rejected-833594.html

VonLuck

shane6977 wrote: »

Update: An Bord Pleanala yesterday rejected the developers appeal meaning this scheme is now totally dead in the water. Although ABP's inspector recommended approving the project, the board ignored the recommendation and turned down the appeal.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ronan-group-bewildered-and-disappointed-as-plan-for-dublins-tallest-building-rejected-833594.html

Doesn't make any sense. The area is zoned for a building of that height, yet the proposal is rejected because it followed the zoning laws? If it has such a visual impact on so many areas, why don't they lower the height limit?

An Bord Pleanala is a joke.

retalivity

The metrolink north plan includes a cpo for buildings and an apartment block around tara st for an uograde to the station to make it a hun. Instead of incorporating a retail area, with offices, hotel apartments etc on a new build over the new station, watch them limit it to 5 floors of shoebox studios for yuppies.

expectationlost

the tara street are is a kip and dive because they've been running it down waiting to build huge buildings there

Interested Observer

shane6977 wrote: »

Update: An Bord Pleanala yesterday rejected the developers appeal meaning this scheme is now totally dead in the water. Although ABP's inspector recommended approving the project, the board ignored the recommendation and turned down the appeal.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ronan-group-bewildered-and-disappointed-as-plan-for-dublins-tallest-building-rejected-833594.html

I despair.

I think the developers have one remaining avenue FWIW, which is go to the High Court. This will obviously be very expensive etc so who knows if they will or not.

wakka12

It was an ugly building. So don't care really. But Im irritated that they refused it for the wrong reason, its height, rather than it being a bad design

cgcsb

wakka12 wrote: »

It was an ugly building. So don't care really. But Im irritated that they refused it for the wrong reason, its height, rather than it being a bad design

Hard to see how you can argue it's a bad design. Even the inspector recognized the good quality of the design to international best practice.

cgcsb

Im hoping that with Brexit and Dublin becoming the EU's Anglophone city of choice there will be pressure put on to weed oiut anti-progress elements in the planning system. That site is argueably the best site for high rise development in the state especially now that the proposed metro-dart interchange is to be located there. And of course the height is allowed for in the LAP, an absolute joke that Dublin is held back by people like this.