The issue of town planning and the development of towns and cities has always interested me. I spent some time living on the west coast of America in large towns that employed a design model that was completely alien and repellent to my European sensibilities. As anyone who has been to L.A or Sacramento will testify, it is common for American cities to constitute numerous suburbs and exurbs, desperately lacking a focal point, downtown or city centre.

On a related theme, there has been a considerable debate generated around the density issue in Dublin City. There seems to be broad agreement that the urban sprawl that continues to seep out of what was traditionally defined as the city limits has created a series of undesirable consequences for those living in the 'commuter belt' and for city residents grappling with incresaing traffic, patchy public transport and environmental pressures. Some of the problems facing those who have relovated to the commuter belt are outlined in Dominic Hannigan's Commuter Survey which was released a couple of weeks ago. Some of the key points include:

• 30% of residents believing that their quality of life has got worse
  

• Over half of respondents have no involvement with their local community due to lack of spare time
  

• People have the perception that their journeys to work have increased
  over the last five years by an average of 30% - they need to spend an
  additional 80 hours of commuting time a year just to get to work
  

• Whilst 90% of people live within walking distance of a public house, only half live within walking distance to a playground
  

If we can agree that a four hour commute to work that disallows engagement with the local community is a bad thing, then is it time to revisit the density debate in relation to Dublin City? As Auditor mentioned on another thread, there is considerable opposition to the suggestion that we begin to look up as part of a new strategy to combat urban sprawl, address environmental issues and improve the quality of life for thousands of our citizens.

In an article in the Sunday Tribune in February 2008, Michael Smith, former Chairman of An Taisce argued that any attempt to impose a new 'model' that incorporates high-rise development would be ill-advised.

No European capital has
successfully superseded an intact low-rise historic core by high-rise.
So why in 2008 is Dublin trying to? Our models should be Paris, Rome
and Helsinki, which have continued to thrive without succumbing to the
extreme hypertrophy characteristic in American urbanism. Strict
specific limitations on height must be established. We should not
repeat the mistakes of London or Belfast, borrowing a pretend modern
model which was developed at the turn of the last century in the US.

He goes on to draw out the distinction between high-rise and high-density:


And of course high-density development need not be high-rise. The Georgian Fitzwilliam area is very high density. In
Dublin city much can be achieved through high-density rather than
high-rise. For example, we know that there are 350 hectares of Z6- and
Z7-zoned land in the outer city (Naas Rd/Park West, Dublin Industrial
Estate, Coolock Industrial Estate, etc) near public transport
corridors, which could be developed to high densities. That,
combined with a possible 250 hectares in the port area would allow for
the provision of up to 120,000 dwelling units in very high-density developments
at 4/5/6-storey heights, with 200 units per hectare. This suggests that
mere demographics and economics do not require the city council's
indulgence of high rise.
My own knowledge on this issue is very limited and I would be really interested in hearing other poster's suggestions and insights on how they might like to see Dublin City develop into the future.

Great post unaligned, I'll be back to this one with great interest, with my hod and shovel in hand !

No better time to think about planning than a recession.

Strict specific limitations on height must be established. We should not repeat the mistakes of London or Belfast, borrowing a pretend modern model which was developed at the turn of the last century in the US.


Belfast?*??* What did I miss when I was last there? There is nothing particularly high rise about that place.

As for London there is very careful control of the London skyline and the views towards St. Pauls.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with high rise, you can get good and bad. In fact I think one of the interests in London is the variations in scale. What is wrong with high rise office blocks?

I agree that you do not have to go to the skys to achieve high density but you do need to make use of every corner. Often this happens when land values are high.

If you are ever in the Gare Montparnasse, and have a bit of time to kill, facing the platforms go left to the end and up a stair. It will lead to a landscaped garden over the platforms. It is pleasant enough and is complete with weather monitoring devices, playgrounds and water features. The whole is surrounded by office blocks. The architecture is not exactly stunning but it shows what can be achieved.

http://wiki.worldflicks.org/gare_montparnasse.html#

Close down the middle bit. The entire garden is over the railway station.

High-rise needs to be considered in Dublin if it's not too late. High-rise office would surely free up living space in other parts currently used as offices. A CBD culture might entice young and uncommitted people to use high-rise apartments but the whole thing would need to be coupled with a successful public transport system.

Relevant thread on p.ie started by patslatt early this year ...
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=160&t=31581&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Quote :

In a February 8th article in the Irish Times,"High Rise Obsession Must Be Resisted",Michael Smith,former Chairman of An Taisce, accused Dublin City Council's senior management and its planners of having a high rise obsession. Some key points in the article,which can only be accessed by subscribers,are:

[]An Taisce has been mostly successful at Bord Pleanala appeals in resisting proposals for unplanned high-rise in Dublin city.
[]"High rise has,since 2000, been planned only for Docklands and around Heuston."
[]"...human scale is a big part of the city centre's international appeal and bolsters our fragile sense of community."
[]"...there can be few urban aesthetics as depressing as an unplanned,incoherent skyline."
[]"In Dublin city,much can be achieved through high density rather than high rise." At 200 units per hectare (80 per acre), 120,000 dwelling units could be built in 600 hectares of land in suitable areas of the outer city and Docklands.
[]"An Taisce favours plan-led high rise in suitable parts of the Docklands..."

The article outlines many seemingly reasonable views on planning and urban development.

But the article fails to explain why Dublin city has failed to produce housing at reasonable prices to meet very strong demand from the rapidly growing workforce and immigration.Given that high density of 80 units per acre should be highly profitable to develop,why aren't they being developed on a large scale? Why haven't high rises of 20 to 40 stories,which would be hugely profitable to developers, been built in "suitable parts of the Docklands"? Is it lack of transportation facilities? Objections from local councillors responding to their communities' desire to resist change in Dear Old Dirty Dublin? Excessive requirements for expensive planning consultancy reports? Protracted,vexatious,legalistic objections?* Dublin needs to "get the lead out of its ass",as Americans say.

At present,only people on the highest incomes can afford the prices of even the shoebox apartments. Will that "bolster our fragile sense of community"?

**PS. February 10th Sunday Times article, "Developer lays into planning democracy", quotes developer Richard Barrett complaining that some objectors go on and on: submitting to a local development plan,objecting to applications under that plan,then launching a series of successive appeals to Bord Pleanala,the High Court, the Supreme Court and even the European courts. None of his projects took less than ten years to develop. He complains about the lack of a mandatory time limit for a Bord Pleanala decision on an appeal.

But didn't Bord Pleanala promise the government swift action on important
infrastructural projects when the government was planning to legislate a fast track planning agency for those projects a few years ago? Maybe the fast track also needs to be applied to large projects that,though not purely infrastructural,are still important to the economy and housing?

Well, if money and land wasn't a factor I would say we need to go up in limited areas and then we need to knock down vast developments and rebuild them as family homes. We don't need acres of one bedroom apartments out in the suburbs. The suburbs should have low lying family homes with good public transport links. The centre should have high density commercial and residential development. Most people living in one bedroom shoeboxes out on the Stillorgan dual carraigeway or in the middle of the Sandyford industrial estate would prefer to live in the city centre in the same sized apartment anyway, I would imagine.

I simply cannot understand why there is nothing higher than 5-6 stories down in the docklands. My building is 5 and there is nothing around higher than it. Down there would be the perfect place for high-rise and leave the city centre free from horrible office blocks (yes dame street/dublin castle building, I'm looking at you).

Burj Eire would be nice too.

I would love for a La Defénse-style cluster of high rises located out in the Docklands. We could transform our reputation as a financial centre by attracting huge global banks like HSBC, Mizuho, Santander and the like to have headquarter functions there.

We should have a cluster of a few dozen building 20 stories+ out there in the Docks definitely. I would preserve the generally low-rise character elsewhere.

We also need to see a return to good Georgian splendour in Dublin and we need, at street level, for the likes of Spar to be hounded for their atrocious signage. If you look in Archiseek, about 60-80% of all the street-level eyesores are caused by gaudy and ridiculous Spar "Temporary Signs".

Liberty Hall also needs a complete refurbish. If it was restored to its initial clean and classy look, the criticism would wane away to nothing. It complements Custom House beautifully and forms part of a vista with that building which is postcard-perfect.

Other buildings like the Four Courts need to be preserved but the roofs of the Four Courts should be changed. They are too weak and insubstantial at the moment. A previous configuration looked much better.

We also need for College Green to be in some way pedestrianised as it would be a fine civic square to rank amongst the best in Europe. It would also make a Luas link through there more practicable.

What are all them apartments going to look like in 30 years? Tenements for the new century?

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

What are all them apartments going to look like in 30 years? Tenements for the new century?

Not necessarily if the right care and attention is paid to ensuring that the surrounding area is well-served, jobs are provided and the occupiers actually own the flats. If that happens then they can mature and gentrify magnificently.

Problem with the Docklands is that they allowed individual firms to commission their own buildings. So you have the likes of PWC, McCann Fitzgerald, Citi, MOP all commissioning their own buildings for their own sized firms - roughly 5 or 6 stories high. There are more coming on stream I believe with KPMG and William Fry both about to build considerable buildings down there.

Rather than doing this the DDDA should have been building much bigger buildings and renting their space. Rather than having McCann Fitzgerald, MOP and William Fry each build a building there should have been a 20 story building housing all three. You could then use the additional space to have decent sized high story apartments for all the young execs down there.

I best not criticise too much or else I'll get found out - one of my mate's dad was head of the DDDA when half this was built .

Busaras also needs some love. I'd love them to move the busses from there and make it into something nice. It's an awful place to be at the moment.

I do *heart* liberty hall, bit that area of the city is a shithole, if you excuse my French.

Trinity need to be shot for what they've done to pearse street.

johnfás wrote:

Problem with the Docklands is that they allowed individual firms to commission their own buildings. So you have the likes of PWC, McCann Fitzgerald, Citi, MOP all commissioning their own buildings for their own sized firms - roughly 5 or 6 stories high. There are more coming on stream I believe with KPMG and William Fry both about to build considerable buildings down there.

Rather than doing this the DDDA should have been building much bigger buildings and renting their space. Rather than having McCann Fitzgerald, MOP and William Fry each build a building there should have been a 20 story building housing all three. You could then use the additional space to have decent sized high story apartments for all the young execs down there.

I best not criticise too much or else I'll get found out - one of my mate's dad was head of the DDDA when half this was built .

Do you know who is going into the one which has sort of a askew cylinder on the front of it. It's just being glazed at the moment. I think it looks smashing and I want to work there even if it's full of dentists or something.

It is the new convention centre being built by Treasury Holdings.

johnfás wrote:

It is the new convention centre being built by Treasury Holdings.

That's what it is. Thanks Johnfas.



Looks great, doesn't it?

Yea its fairly cool. I don't like Treasury Holdings' fugly building/house on Burlington Road though so it always puts me off them! Horrible pretentious looking thing.



I think the bridge across the Liffey there is cool. Very much needed as well, I had to walk all the way down to one of the law firms on Sir John Rogerson's Quay and then back to an accountancy firm on the opposite side once, a bridge nearby would have been helpful!

Unsure how this Liffey Sculpture thing will pan out either.

cookiemonster wrote:

johnfás wrote:

It is the new convention centre being built by Treasury Holdings.

That's what it is. Thanks Johnfas.



Looks great, doesn't it?

A bit like an elephant having a drink, cookiemonster.

johnfás wrote:

I think the bridge across the Liffey there is cool. Very much needed as well, I had to walk all the way down to one of the law firms on Sir John Rogerson's Quay and then back to an accountancy firm on the opposite side once, a bridge nearby would have been helpful!

I know your pain. Have you used this?

What do people think of this yoke?

johnfás wrote:

What do people think of this yoke?

I don't like it. I like the idea but I think it's too big and it will attract seagulls and I really don't like seagulls.

I don't think it is going to suit the area at all.

johnfás wrote:

I don't think it is going to suit the area at all.

It's too big for a start. And the seagulls, has any body thought of the seagulls.

I do like those light boxes in O'connell street with the people walking.

Yea the Julian Opie things. They're cool!

They really are and they don't attract seagulls.

More of those kind of things please, less of those awful street advertsement things and stupid giant men in the Liffey.

cactus flower wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

johnfás wrote:

It is the new convention centre being built by Treasury Holdings.

That's what it is. Thanks Johnfas.



Looks great, doesn't it?

A bit like an elephant having a drink, cookiemonster.

It looks like a extractor pipe from a large underground tumble dryer