Planning permission granted for 471 apartments at former Chivers site

Thelonious Monk

mariaalice wrote: »

Thelonious Monk does it bother the perception people have of D5 Cooolock or that Coolock = Darndale or do you think its human nature to categorise. I worked near enough for years but I suppose if you only hear about it in the news and its not always good news.

I couldnt care less. Raheny is D5 which has some million euro houses.

JDigweed

When are we going to stop rolling out the same tired old Ballymun comparison for any block of apartment over 5 stories. We need to build up end of story, the current urban sprawl is not sustainable. The towers in Ballymun were a disaster for a dozen reasons and nothing to do with height. The towers have been replaced with terraced 2/3 storey housing with parks, football pitches and a leisure centre and it still has the same social problems

Thelonious Monk

Yeah wtf is with the ballymun thing? I mean do people really think if we built 20 storey blocks in Clontarf or Sandymount there'd be horses in the lifts and needles everywhere before you know it?

L1011

There's planning in at three sites in Howth Village for nearly 1000 apartments. Does anyone think that'll make it a "new Ballymun"?

Thelonious Monk

L1011 wrote: »

There's planning in at three sites in Howth Village for nearly 1000 apartments. Does anyone think that'll make it a "new Ballymun"?

Howth village is ruined by cars already, what the hell will it be like on a sunny day when these open, and the dart will be full by the time it gets to Kilbarrack!
They should really be upgrading public transport at the same time that these developments are happening.

suicide_circus

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

They should really be upgrading public transport at the same time that these developments are happening.

youre right of course but do you think the people screeching about the housing crisis will accept that new housing needs to be delayed until proper infrastructure is in place?

Thelonious Monk

suicide_circus wrote: »

youre right of course but do you think the people screeching about the housing crisis will accept that new housing needs to be delayed until proper infrastructure is in place?

They'd be screeching about bits of their gardens missing if we tried to build their infrastructure though. Jesus this country...

Thelonious Monk

It's actually miraculous the howth development got the go ahead in Gaybo and Vogue Williams's howth, how did that happen?

Sheeps

3 storey duplexes are a horrible blight on this city. This is high density development and what the city needs. We should be building far more of this in Dublin.

L1011

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Howth village is ruined by cars already, what the hell will it be like on a sunny day when these open, and the dart will be full by the time it gets to Kilbarrack!
They should really be upgrading public transport at the same time that these developments are happening.

Howth is likely to be changed to a shuttle service DART to increase capacity on the mainline also - stopping the trains to Howth having to cross active paths on the line towards Connolly. Not anytime soon as there's actually no spare trains to do it with; but when new DART units arrive in 5/6 years.

That the NTA are pissing around not ordering even the limited bit of train capacity they have the go-ahead to order (extra units for middle distance services) should be a major political issue but for some reason it isn't.

johnmcdnl

lola85 wrote: »

Everyone ranting about the homeless and the government doing nothing, now it’s coming back to bite them as they are building everywhere now.

I’m delighted it has people angry.

NIMBYS.

****ing Eoghan Murphy and ****ing Leo Vradkar won't do ****ing nothing for the homeless. Shower of ***** the whole lot of them should be put out and made build houses.

****ing Eoghan Murphy and ****ing Leo Vradkar wanting to build houses and apartments in places that I disagree with for some reason. ****ing government useless shower of *****.

****ing Eoghan Murphy and ****ing Leo Vradkar and ****ing FG ****ing ****

It gets tiresome after a while.

mrslancaster

Looking at the picture here it looks very similar to how Ballymun looked before the towers were demolished.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/anger-as-planning-permission-granted-for-471-apartments-at-former-chivers-site-946479.html

This doesn't affect me by the way so no NIMBYism here before anyone jumps in but imo it looks so wrong in an area that has mostly low rise buildings.

Surely it would be better if the government insisted that affordable homes were built by this developer? Even if part of the development was built-to-rent I could understand that but the entire 471..seems crazy imo.

Building another Ballymun-like estate is just pure greed on their part and they do not give a rats about the existing properties or people who live in the area. They could have built a mix of 4/5/6 stories and typical terraced and semi houses that would have blended in better with the surroundings.

Is this latest trend of all new apartment developments being built-to-rent instead of being offered for sale a good idea? Well obviously for the greedy developers but long-term it can't be good for people who will face rent increases every year and who wants to still be paying rent to a private LL when they reach retirement age?

Thelonious Monk

^^^ this is what we're up against

mrslancaster

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

^^^ this is what we're up against

So you think only you're opinion is relevant?

Thelonious Monk

The way it's being reported is nuts

"Locals 'gobsmacked' as 'monolithic' Dublin apartment complex to go ahead"

What locals? I'm a local. Cities change. That's how it is. These things need to be done for the greater good. I f*cking hate this country sometimes.

Thelonious Monk

mrslancaster wrote: »

So you think only you're opinion is relevant?

Are you a developer by any chance?

No I'm someone from Dublin, living close to this development, that is sick to death of semi-ds and car reliance in Dublin and wants a denser city with better public transport links, and I want my fellow Dubliners to actually have places to live.

Birdie Num Num

lola85 wrote: »

Everyone ranting about the homeless and the government doing nothing, now it’s coming back to bite them as they are building everywhere now.

I’m delighted it has people angry.

NIMBYS.

We over built up to 2008 and we'll over build again. And it will do nothing to solve a homeless crisis. This is not about providing affordable homes. None of these are even being sold as homes.

mrslancaster

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The way it's being reported is nuts

"Locals 'gobsmacked' as 'monolithic' Dublin apartment complex to go ahead"

What locals? I'm a local. Cities change. That's how it is. These things need to be done for the greater good. I f*cking hate this country sometimes.

Most people would agree that things need to be done for the greater good but it's how that happens that is being discussed.

IMO building another Ballymun-like estate is not a good idea and there's no reason that the available site could not be designed to include a better mix of properties, ie apartments and houses, and also to include both for sale and for rent units.

and it does look monolithic from the photos IMO

Sheeps

Hopefully with a few more of these across South Dublin we could finally see the the possibility for an underground system into the area due to the increased density they require to make it worthwhile. Clear out a few of the massive gardens and gold courses within the m50 to make it happen.

Thelonious Monk

mrslancaster wrote: »

Most people would agree that things need to be done for the greater good but it's how that happens that is being discussed.

IMO building another Ballymun-like estate is not a good idea and there's no reason that the available site could not be designed to include a better mix of properties, ie apartments and houses, and also to include both for sale and for rent units.

and it does look monolithic from the photos IMO

It looks gorgeous to me.
There's no other way of saying this - Ballymun was a failure because it was full of knackers, this wont be by the sounds of things.

Thelonious Monk

Well there is another way of saying that. Ballymun needed more than just apartments, it needed lots of social services and facilities for it not to turn into a ghetto.
I just remembered my uncle had one at one stage in the 80s, and I was in it a few times, they were actually quite spacious and nice on the inside.

DellyBelly

Looka like another Ballymun I'm afraid...we learn nothing from history

Sweet.Science

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It looks gorgeous to me.
There's no other way of saying this - Ballymun was a failure because it was full of knackers, this wont be by the sounds of things.

Im not as sure as you. 491 units to rent doesnt sound great to me. HOwever we will see how it pans out. Hopefully they arent an eye sore

mrslancaster

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It looks gorgeous to me.
There's no other way of saying this - Ballymun was a failure because it was full of knackers, this wont be by the sounds of things.

That is an outrageous slur on the people who lived in the Ballymun estate. Just because a handful of people living in an area may be badly behaved does not mean everyone should be tarred with the same brush.

Thelonious Monk

mrslancaster wrote: »

That is an outrageous slur on the people who lived in the Ballymun high rise estate. Just because a handful of people living in an area may be badly behaved does not mean everyone should be tarred with the same brush.

You're basically saying anyone not in a semi-d will turn to drugs and crime and wreck the flats though in a roundabout way.

Thelonious Monk

DellyBelly wrote: »

Looka like another Ballymun I'm afraid...we learn nothing from history

Is this sarcasm?

mrslancaster

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You're basically saying anyone not in a semi-d will turn to drugs and crime and wreck the flats though in a roundabout way.

I'm not saying anything in a roundabout way.

The site looks very large and IMO it could have been designed differently but the developers are looking to maximise profits and as an earlier poster observed, they are probably looking to avail of the government HAP scheme which is guaranteed income for them.

Also, not everyone wants to live in a high rise apartment - a mix of houses and apartments might have been better in that part of the city. Again just my opinion..

Thelonious Monk

mrslancaster wrote: »

Also, not everyone wants to live in a high rise apartment - a mix of houses and apartments might have been better in that part of the city. Again just my opinion..

We have to live in high rise apartments though. We can't expand outwardly in low density housing, it's causing way too many problems already.

Sweet.Science

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We have to live in high rise apartments though. We can't expand outwardly in low density housing, it's causing way too many problems already.

I agree . But 491 units mostly HAP recipients may cause issues in an area trying to move on from them. I can see why people think like that
We will see though
Seems to be ok at the Hilton but there is a big mix there and not every apt is rented

L1011

Sweet.Science wrote: »

I agree . But 491 units mostly HAP recipients may cause issues in an area trying to move on from them. I can see why people think like that
We will see though
Seems to be ok at the Hilton but there is a big mix there and not every apt is rented

There is nothing to even base an assumption that it'll be mostly HAP tenants off.