Dublin City Council obstructing housing through mindless height limits?

cgcsb

blanch152 wrote: »

Read an interesting article on the YIMBY movement in California.

I am really surprised that it isn't something that one of the left-wing parties haven't taken on. Essentially, it is a group of young people looking for more building in their back yard so that they can live in the cities. Bascially, they lobby for more development rather than less development.

Unfortunately, in Ireland, our so-called left-wing parties are only interested in the negative, and never make any positive contribution.

Well we seen Janice, we need more housing, Boylan tell us how 45 floors is 'crazy'. I've requested a copy of her urban planning credentials or at least the name of the university she obtained them from.

Niallof9

maxsmum wrote: »

Well, I am biased. I own a house in the city and I bought it because we both work in the city and it vastly improves our quality of life to be near various amenities but also have no commute, so family life is maximised. If someone wanted to put up a skyscraper against my boundary wall of course I would exercise my right to object whether via planning objection, legal remedy (if there was a legitimate basis), whatever it is. You can't just obliterate the rights of those living in the city because there's a housing crisis. For what it's worth, I don't think residents' views hold much sway anymore but if a developer bypasses DCC with the strategic housing application to ABP then of course there has to be some appellate level open to residents if they have a legitimate right being infringed.
And yes I do think apartment blocks should have units suitable for families, that goes without saying. Families make kids who pay future taxes. Families are important.

but thats the issue, you bought a house in a city centre. complain away all you want if you bought the house in 1950 but anything else is just nimbyism and i have no sympathy for you whatsoever. you choose to live in a city, thats the price to pay.

blanch152

Niallof9 wrote: »

but thats the issue, you bought a house in a city centre. complain away all you want if you bought the house in 1950 but anything else is just nimbyism and i have no sympathy for you whatsoever. you choose to live in a city, thats the price to pay.

That is a good point. The world over, if you choose to purchase a two-storey house in the city centre, you run the risk of someone building a 45-storey skyscraper next door, or your property being CPO'd for such a development.

Them's the risks.

Yeah nothing is entitled. People on Mayor St giving out yesterday in the Independent about sunlight being blocked by new apartment builds which benefit wider society. Mind boggling that they even got a platform.

If you live in the city and it develops as it grows well tough luck. That's the risk you take by living in such a location.

cgcsb

Jude Loud Illness wrote: »

Yeah nothing is entitled. People on Mayor St giving out yesterday in the Independent about sunlight being blocked by new apartment builds which benefit wider society. Mind boggling that they even got a platform.

If you live in the city and it develops as it grows well tough luck. That's the risk you take by living in such a location.

Circa 1986 mostly the same heads were living there, the popular narrative then was that their area was 'forgotten about' there's nothing there for them etc. At that time there were a handful of houses and about 6 or 7 semi functional warehouses and heroine up to your ankles. Rest was derelict, vacant or occupied by junkies. HIV, although not as common in Ireland as in the rest of the western world was endemic in this area. People were genuinely terrified of it (a lot more than corona virus) and there was no government acknowledgement that it existed.

Now that their area is anything but neglected, the unhappiness continues. I do genuinely believe that's just how some people are, they don't know contentment and don't want to know it. I know one of them was offered a new apartment in one of the developments and a large sum of cash (possibly 6 figures) to vacate but remained and complained about the overshadowing.

maxsmum

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a good point. The world over, if you choose to purchase a two-storey house in the city centre, you run the risk of someone building a 45-storey skyscraper next door, or your property being CPO'd for such a development.

Them's the risks.

Yes I agree, but my point is there has to be an avenue of objection if legitimate and I am entitled to pursue that if available. You can't ride roughshod over rights either. Most likely the rights of hundreds who could be housed in a block beside me will outweigh my rights but I am entitled to my opinion even if it does delay development. And I am aware that there is no right to a view for example but there are certain rights to light and there are wider environmental concerns which are sometimes applicable.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

It is the easiest thing in the world to be against something, something that is bread and butter politics from many of the parties from the left.
Very different thing to be for something. If you want to build houses/homes, then you either have to build out or up, there is really no other choice.

FF/FG are for building PPP and private apartments not fit for families so private companies can rent/lease or sell them to us.

Pretty much everyone else wants more housing built for the state to be used and allocated by the state.
FF/FG are against that.

Building up is fine if done right.

Kermit.de.frog

Anti high-rise propaganda in the Irish Times. We can't have nice things because...

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/art-and-design/frank-mcdonald-johnny-ronan-s-docklands-towers-give-two-fingers-to-dublin-1.4492969?mode=amp

Birds. It says birds might fly in to it!!

It's desperate how hard they try to hold Dublin back

JDigweed

It speaks volumes of the city planners that our 3 most prominent landmarks are 2 industrial chimneys and a needle like sculpture.
This is the same council that stood by and destroyed large sections of georgian Dublin while littering the city with those hideous 4 floor flat complexes.
Even the civic office blocks are right in the middle of the medieval section of the city.

blanch152

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anti high-rise propaganda in the Irish Times. We can't have nice things because...

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/art-and-design/frank-mcdonald-johnny-ronan-s-docklands-towers-give-two-fingers-to-dublin-1.4492969?mode=amp

Birds. It says birds might fly in to it!!

It's desperate how hard they try to hold Dublin back

Can't read it, it's behind a paywall, but to be honest, it is not unexpected.

McDonald has been against any change for a long, long time.

Kermit.de.frog

Birds might fly in to it.

That's the argument.

What the actual fcuk?

How do other cities deal with this bird genocide?

Kermit.de.frog

This is what Dublin City Council wants to turn it's nose up to.

If the rest of the city wasn't an uncared for kip you could kind of understand.

Big bad evil developer wants to drag city out of the stone age - NO NO!!! - not having that.

We can't have anything nice because...

I don't understand why every bit of ambition is shot down.

Bubbaclaus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is what Dublin City Council wants to turn it's nose up to.

If the rest of the city wasn't an uncared for kip you could kind of understand.

Big bad evil developer wants to drag city out of the stone age - NO NO!!! - not having that.

We can't have anything nice because...

I don't understand why every bit of ambition is shot down.

It would certainly be the most impressive building in the city.

Instead they seem to focus on protecting old run down 3 story buildings because they were built in 1960s and are deemed historical as a result or some ****e like that.

Geuze

https://voxeu.org/article/worldwide-building-height-gaps-their-determinants-and-their-implications

Who does not build?
Table 1 gives those countries with the largest gaps (kilometres per million urban residents), which are also shown visually in Figure 2. The result support the common belief that Europe is more reluctant to build, despite its relative prosperity. Ireland, the number one country in the list, has no buildings taller than 100 metres and only five buildings taller than 50 metres (Barr and Lyons 2018), even though Dublin is one of the world’s ten wealthiest cities and a financial hub.

JDigweed

JDigweed wrote: »

It speaks volumes of the city planners that our 3 most prominent landmarks are 2 industrial chimneys and a needle like sculpture.
This is the same council that stood by and destroyed large sections of georgian Dublin while littering the city with those hideous 4 floor flat complexes.
Even the civic office blocks are right in the middle of the medieval section of the city.

I wonder are they overcorrecting for the mistakes made in the 60's. The Liberty Hall, Wood Quay monstrosities. The Bank of Ireland HQ on Baggot Street. The Ballymun flats.

Maybe they are paralysed by fear that they will be the ones who give the green light on something they will later regret? So they play it safe, unadventurous.

cruizer101

Geuze wrote: »

https://voxeu.org/article/worldwide-building-height-gaps-their-determinants-and-their-implications

Who does not build?

That is a very good article. Shows how far removed we are from other countries in terms of building up.

Every councilor should be made to read that, and realise the damage they are doing, increased house prices making housing unaffordable for many, increased congestion leading to productive time wasted and higher levels of pollution, urban sprawl leading to a much larger concrete footprint on the land than is required.

It really is a disgrace.

Kermit.de.frog

They had a public consultation for the docklands last year. Literally 90%+ of the feedback which I think is still online from the public told them they want to see higher or much higher buildings there.

The public were totally ignored.

That's what you're dealing with.

We only live here.

This is distorting the housing market and I'd like to see the media look in to it.

blanch152

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It would certainly be the most impressive building in the city.

Instead they seem to focus on protecting old run down 3 story buildings because they were built in 1960s and are deemed historical as a result or some ****e like that.

It is a great looking building and would be a fantastic addition to the Dublin skyline.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a great looking building and would be a fantastic addition start to the Dublin skyline.

FYP

Kermit.de.frog

Letter in the Irish Time's refuting McDonald's nonsense

Docklands towers plan not ‘two fingers’


Sir, – Frank McDonald labels Ronan Group’s planning application for the North Wall Quay a “Manhattan scale” development (“Johnny Ronan’s docklands towers give ‘two fingers’ to Dublin”, Opinion, February 27th). This farfetched claim is an extravagant inflation.

By Manhattan’s scale, the 167-metre apartment building is so puny it would fail to make any list of notable New York heights. In fact, one such list has 144 buildings catalogued. The last in this line-up, Avenue of the Americas, at 183 metres, would comfortably outstretch Waterfront South, as applied for in Dublin’s Docklands.

Those who spent decades successfully objecting to all high-rise building in the city centre have helped drive the capital’s planning and development policy into a cul-de-sac with only one option left, reverse.

Dublin’s growing population needs high-rise for local housing and employment. Ideally away from the city’s historic core, but close enough to walk or cycle to work, with open space, a growing retail trade and a pre-existing public transport network.

Luckily for Dublin such a place already exists – Docklands. – Yours, etc,

ALAN ROBINSON,

Chief Executive,

Docklands Business Forum,

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/docklands-towers-plan-not-two-fingers-1.4499411

AlmightyCushion

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Letter in the Irish Time's refuting McDonald's nonsense



https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/docklands-towers-plan-not-two-fingers-1.4499411

Unfortunately it is buried in the letters section whereas the original article was given a lot more prominence.

Kermit.de.frog

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Unfortunately it is buried in the letters section whereas the original article was given a lot more prominence.

The developers should get a right of reply. That article was filled with lies.

He also said half the development was build to rent. It's (all) build to sell!

No fact checking done. All propaganda.

McDonald and the Irish Times have held the city back for decades objecting to everything.

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

https://voxeu.org/article/worldwide-building-height-gaps-their-determinants-and-their-implications

Who does not build?
Table 1 gives those countries with the largest gaps (kilometres per million urban residents), which are also shown visually in Figure 2. The result support the common belief that Europe is more reluctant to build, despite its relative prosperity. Ireland, the number one country in the list, has no buildings taller than 100 metres and only five buildings taller than 50 metres (Barr and Lyons 2018), even though Dublin is one of the world’s ten wealthiest cities and a financial hub.

Incredible article that shows how the policies of Dublin City Council have left this country behind.

AlmightyCushion

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The developers should get a right of reply. That article was filled with lies.

He also said half the development was build to rent. It's (all) build to sell!

No fact checking done. All propaganda.

McDonald and the Irish Times have held the city back for decades objecting to everything.

Even if the developers did reply and the paper was willing to publish it, it would just be a footnote at the bottom of the article. You see it all the time with articles and it's not just the Irish Times that do it either.

The fact checking thing doesn't surprise me either. Sure remember that busconnects article the Irish Times ran about the blind guy who currently has to get 2 buses to work but under busconnects would become a 'six-stage ordeal' i.e he has to get 3 buses instead of 2. Six-stage sounds worse than 3 so obviously they went with that in the tagline.

Under the BusConnects plan, Mr Murray will have to walk farther from home to a different bus stop. Then he will travel away from the city centre towards Artane. There he will get another bus into the city. Then he have to change again.

Turns out none of that was true. Under busconnects, he could get a bus closer to his house and it would be one bus direct to his work place. That was also published in the letter section by the NTA.

These articles are incredibly influential and wrongly gives people a negative impression of these things. Publishing letters is a cop out that doesn't undo the damage done by the article.

Kermit.de.frog

Another member of the Dublin obstruction cult here. From the ludicrous to the absurd...when you have no credible argument jump to identity

https://twitter.com/Orla_Hegarty/status/1370721227703214082

Seriously

major interest

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Another member of the Dublin obstruction cult here. From the ludicrous to the absurd...when you have no credible argument jump to identity

https://twitter.com/Orla_Hegarty/status/1370721227703214082

Seriously

Saw that earlier....fairly bad taste using a topical issue like women’s safety and trying to shoehorn it into a completely unrelated debate on building heights and density. Bizarre.

Kermit.de.frog

It's a candidate for the 'wokeism' thread in after hours alright.

How do women survive in New York, London, Dubai...

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Another member of the Dublin obstruction cult here. From the ludicrous to the absurd...when you have no credible argument jump to identity

https://twitter.com/Orla_Hegarty/status/1370721227703214082

Seriously

What an absolute head case. Seriously, if anything, there needs to be a discussion about these clowns who populate the twitter echo chamber with their warped views. They seem to be stuck in an endless feedback loop to their own crazy beliefs.

Nut jobs.

AlmightyCushion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Even if the developers did reply and the paper was willing to publish it, it would just be a footnote at the bottom of the article. You see it all the time with articles and it's not just the Irish Times that do it either.

The fact checking thing doesn't surprise me either. Sure remember that busconnects article the Irish Times ran about the blind guy who currently has to get 2 buses to work but under busconnects would become a 'six-stage ordeal' i.e he has to get 3 buses instead of 2. Six-stage sounds worse than 3 so obviously they went with that in the tagline.



Turns out none of that was true. Under busconnects, he could get a bus closer to his house and it would be one bus direct to his work place. That was also published in the letter section by the NTA.

These articles are incredibly influential and wrongly gives people a negative impression of these things. Publishing letters is a cop out that doesn't undo the damage done by the article.

This is why I hate journalists. They often declaim, with good reason, about fake news on the internet. Therefore it is incumbent on them to not be propagandists themselves especially in the “paper of record”.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/collision/status/1372580947325947908


Excellent idea.