Planning application for 28 story building at Junction6

blanch152

larbakium wrote: »

Hi, are you aware of these intends?
Some of us think that such a project could have detrimental social, local traffic, environmental and geographical impact. What is you opinion?

Below are shared details of the planning as well as where you can sign to support the objection/concern, if you choose to do do.

Objection form:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfqmyysv-PtoM6AnA7DI4uT100O8XVjwKMSffz64Xzt4pz3lw/viewform

Planning details;
1.http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00671672.pdf
2.http://planning.fingalcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=FW20A/0142&theTabNo=8

Pretty much have an open mind on it.

Good location for high-rise in Dublin 15 as it is away from housing development but close to transport nodes.

Will have a look to see how they intend to provide pedestrian access to the train station as that would be important.

beauf

blanch152 wrote: »

A sensible use for the location. It was silly to leave it there when they built the junction, and it is sort of cut off from the rest of the village.

Why is it problem for Junction 6, Gym etc. But not for a hotel?

beauf

jack presley wrote: »

Yeah that's true but how often is that car park full? With a hotel and multiple office blocks, they all will be and there will be more people coming and going at peak times as opposed to now.

But as I said, my biggest objection to this is to do with any further development on this site basically killing off any chance of any further upgrade of the M50 interchange that will someday be needed.

We keep doing this. Build right up to things, like schools, transport infrastructure etc. So when it needs expansion, we have a problem.

Look at the constricted location for the children's hospital same thing. Sold off all the land for Blanch Hospital too.

beauf

larbakium wrote: »

Hi, are you aware of these intends?
Some of us think that such a project could have detrimental social, local traffic, environmental and geographical impact. What is you opinion?...

I think some people yes to every development regardless. You can't point out any issues, as you are being negative. So why bother.

As for this specific location it doesn't really matter. Always thought it was poorly designed, they should have compulsory purchased that site when they were building the M50. They didn't and twisted everything around it. So its done now. Lot of locations in D15, are pretty much AVOID at peak due to poor planning and over development.

I don't think this development will make much of a difference.

beauf

Losing the original pool and hydrotherapy was big loss. I've never really recovered from that.

jlang

Looks like a very dense development, but the buildings are relatively narrow. So it's actually not that ugly but there's a relatively low floor area for the amount of walls/windows. My suspicion is that it's a first bid in the planning process and they're setting up for multiple rounds. After the wrangling, they'll get approval for a downsized squatter but slightly uglier development.

How does the hotel rank in the tallest building in Ireland competition? I think the top few floors that have very few rooms may be trimmed off by the time planning is approved.

It's fine that city centre offices are are discouraged from offering parking but users of suburban and motorway-adjacent hotels and offices would surely be expecting reasonable levels of car access. 232 parking spaces sounds like a lot but that has to cover quite a lot of offices as well as the 459 rooms of the hotel. How many hotel users will be arriving by bike or humping suitcases across from the DART+ station at Castleknock? The bus access will be good once Bus Connects gets done and obviously there's good access for taxis. I wonder if they eventually expect to mark out additional parking on the exposed podium/plaza level. Or maybe the co-living guys from Brady's not-apartments will all walk to work here.

I presume the internal plans for the hotel are indicative as there don't seem to be function rooms suitable for conferences or weddings (although with limited parking, neither are likely to be a significant feature). Looks like just a gym and reception/bar/lounge on the entrance floor and restaurant upstairs.

Larbre34

This has, very unsurprisingly, been refused by Fingal CoCo.

143m high. Lol.

beauf

Was it not tall enough?

Phil.x

beauf wrote: »

Was it not tall enough?

Ha yes, knowing how corrupt fingal are I'd say theres a bigger project in the plans.

Larbre34

Phil.x wrote: »

Ha yes, knowing how corrupt fingal are I'd say theres a bigger project in the plans.

Quite a statement. Care to back it up?

No, I thought not.

Phil.x

Larbre34 wrote: »

Quite a statement. Care to back it up?

No, I thought not.

You must be onboard. Its glaring, most of their accounts are unpublished.

Larbre34

Phil.x wrote: »

You must be onboard. Its glaring, most of their accounts are unpublished.

Most of Fingal County Council's accounts are unpublished?

Oh, this should be good. Which ones? And why?

kravmaga

I wonder will the developers revise and downsize the plan.

It did appear too dense for the area in question.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/property/irelands-tallest-building-plans-massive-19217307

raheny red

https://amp.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/appeal-lodged-after-planning-refused-for-states-tallest-hotel-39796972.html

Fred Cryton

Great i hope they get this through planning. The height phobia in this country is something else and truly pathetic.

Phil.x

raheny red wrote: »

https://amp.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/appeal-lodged-after-planning-refused-for-states-tallest-hotel-39796972.html

7000 office workers!! Beside the who and everything else, we'd need another few lanes on the m50 and a overpass on the N3.
I'd be able to wave to the people on the top floor from my back garden 4 miles away

Larbre34

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Great i hope they get this through planning. The height phobia in this country is something else and truly pathetic.

As a town planner involved in some speculative applications myself over the years, I can tell you these guys are dreaming on their feet.

Increased height is desirable in the right place, which this isn't.

The Crowne Plaza nearby, has set the bar locally at 14 stories, or equivalent top-out height. They might get that, if they stop playing games. It depends on the new densities at a lower level, associated services and parking etc.

Polar101

raheny red wrote: »

https://amp.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/appeal-lodged-after-planning-refused-for-states-tallest-hotel-39796972.html

Makes me wonder who'd stay in that hotel, I guess business travelers (and Manhattan Peanuts), but 459 rooms sounds crazy.

Fred Cryton

Larbre34 wrote: »

As a town planner involved in some speculative applications myself over the years, I can tell you these guys are dreaming on their feet.

Increased height is desirable in the right place, which this isn't.

The Crowne Plaza nearby, has set the bar locally at 14 stories, or equivalent top-out height. They might get that, if they stop playing games. It depends on the new densities at a lower level, associated services and parking etc.

town planning is exactly the problem, you guys plan our cities to be low rise. The less "planning" the better.



There is never any downside to height. The developers are the ones taking the financial risk.

Brock Turnpike

Fred Cryton wrote: »

town planning is exactly the problem, you guys plan our cities to be low rise. The less "planning" the better.



There is never any downside to height. The developers are the ones taking the financial risk.

Can you expand on the bolded part please?

liamog

I didn't see this particular development as a problematic height, it was grand really. It was more the overall density of the site without a decent connection to PT.
The J6 Island is fairly marooned in middle of the roads.

Larbre34

Fred Cryton wrote: »

town planning is exactly the problem, you guys plan our cities to be low rise. The less "planning" the better.



There is never any downside to height. The developers are the ones taking the financial risk.

I could name you perhaps 20 downsides to height in the wrong location.

I'm all for increased height and density in our city cores and in designated special development zones. But, not plonked in isolation in a poorly accessed area, with no potential for sympathetic scale to develop around it.

beauf

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Great i hope they get this through planning. The height phobia in this country is something else and truly pathetic.

I assume the issue most people would have with development isn't the height.

Fred Cryton

Larbre34 wrote: »

I could name you perhaps 20 downsides to height in the wrong location.

I'm all for increased height and density in our city cores and in designated special development zones. But, not plonked in isolation in a poorly accessed area, with no potential for sympathetic scale to develop around it.

All those downsides to height would be subjective and in your mind. Which doesn't give them much weight. Phrases like "sympathetic scale" are completely meaningless outside your planning bubble.


Why do people care so much how private developers spend their own private money? Or think they should have a say in how they spend it. Seems arrogant.

beauf

Fred Cryton wrote: »

All those downsides to height would be subjective and in your mind. Which doesn't give them much weight. Phrases like "sympathetic scale" are completely meaningless outside your planning bubble.


Why do people care so much how private developers spend their own private money? Or think they should have a say in how they spend it. Seems arrogant.

If you can measure it it's not subjective.

They don't care how they spend their money. They care if they do something that negatively impacts them in some way. Like increasing traffic congestion beside them or devalue their property.

Larbre34

Fred Cryton wrote: »

All those downsides to height would be subjective and in your mind. Which doesn't give them much weight. Phrases like "sympathetic scale" are completely meaningless outside your planning bubble.

Why do people care so much how private developers spend their own private money? Or think they should have a say in how they spend it. Seems arrogant.

If you think its arrogant, I can't change your mind, but a big part of my job is to make sure investors maximise their return and aren't stuck with either a) a failed planning application or b) a white elephant. I've been doing it 25 years and I'm not bad at it. Put it this way, If I was selling snake oil to private developers, my phone would stop ringing pretty quickly.

My suggestion would be to look at other European countries and cities where ad-hoc high rise is permitted and ask yourself do you like the environment they create and a visual you'd be happy to look at everyday. If you do, fine, but experience tells me there'll be holy war locally if the J6 plan was approved as is. Quite apart from the fact it doesn't comply with the Fingal County Development Plan, after which all other considerations are moot.