Docklands/IFSC, the DDDA

but didn’t he write an article suggesting that the docklands should be taller, espessially along the river, basically for all the reasons you mention. you have to be careful not to mix up opposition to the original spencer dock proposal, which was yucky and opposition to building higher in this area.

when was the last time you were on major st east of common st by the way, it isn’t urban but it is urban village in atmosphere.

I tend to agree with the general sentiments of above. As a residident and worker in the IFSC I am puzzeled as to the low rise nature of the district. It was an immense missed opportunity.
One remarkable fact is that, at seven storeys, the 1950s Busaras is still taller than any of the buildings built in the IFSC. The IFSC does lack the gravitas that hig-rise would afford the area. But all is not lost….

Take the Jurys Inn Carpark in the IFSC – It was horrendous and nothing mmuch besides. But as the scarcity of space has driven up the price of land and hence the site became extremely valuable- hence the building of two floors of offices above the multi-storey car-park. Now the building stands at seven storeys. Aside from the AIB centre, Bank of Ireland and the IFSC House, the other blocks in the centre are spectacular only for their banality.

I predict that within 10 years many will be demolished and replaced with much higher densities. The NCB, Statoil and Exchange buildings have to be the worst. They feel like the worst offerings of business parks. Hopefully the new extension of the IFSC will be much better.

As for FMcD, he deserves some credit – what he opposed – if I interpreted him correctly – was the building of poor-quality high-rises as were proposed in the original Spencer Dock plan. Though it seems planners exchanged poor quality high-rise for poor-quality low-rise. In fact, FMcD criticised the IFSC extension – Citibank et.al – for its blandness.

The area would not be missed if it was levelled in the morning. It has regenerated the city north-docks, but this is more akin to a visiting circus: its effects are short-term and a tent will only last as long as the crowds still come (in this case the international banks seekeing tax breaks).

@jimg wrote:

and the likes of Frank McDonald and other supposedly enlightened commentators have attacked every attempt to build high rise in the area.

Actually you’re totally wrong there about Frank McD because he has persistently criticised the low-rise nature of the IFSC extension, Citibank, etc. & pointed out the broader expanse of the river there could have taken much higher buildings. He also names the DDDA oficial (who has now moved on) responsible for laying down and enforcing the strict height guidelines.

Have you seen the plans for the Spencer Dock site, the last big site you refer to? Its appropriatness of scale & urban qualities are a big improvement on the hitherto north docklands development.

Here we go, blood boiling, but I have to say that the DDDA have created a woeful concoction that is the new Dublin Docklands . Peter Coyne and the rest of the suits in the DDDA are developing the most banal assortment of modern city buildings. Check out Custom House Square and the surrounding acres of mediocre office buildings, or are the appartments?, ….coz they look so lifeless. And that 3 stoey limit in height or whatever it is just adds to the forgetfulness of the whole place. Check out the southside quay too, what a non event, the only stand-outish building is the yoke with the pyramid roofs that was recently finished following a plan from a 1980’s/1990’s design. Typically Irish, so pathetic……I’d sack the lot in the DDDA, they are doing far more damage in the long run!

@GregF wrote:

Here we go, blood boiling, but I have to say that the DDDA have created a woeful concoction that is the new Dublin Docklands . Peter Coyne and the rest of the suits in the DDDA are developing the most banal assortment of modern city buildings. Check out Custom House Square and the surrounding acres of mediocre office buildings, or are the appartments?, ….coz they look so lifeless. And that 3 stoey limit in height or whatever it is just adds to the forgetfulness of the whole place. Check out the southside quay too, what a non event, the only stand-outish building is the yoke with the pyramid roofs that was recently finished following a plan from a 1980’s/1990’s design. Typically Irish, so pathetic……I’d sack the lot in the DDDA, they are doing far more damage in the long run!

I think you are all being too tough on the planners here as they can only approve or reject what is actually submitted. My guess is that the planners tried to enforce higher design standards and no developers bought in when the sites went on the market in 2000 by late 2002 the planners backed down. It is dissapointing but I don’t blame the planners the blame to me should be given to the bigger firms who took money to draw up the plans

A little injection of reality,

All decent spec commercial development is marginal between 8-10 storeys
All decent spec commercial development produces at a negative value above 11 storeys
This is assuming rental values of 450-520 euro per square metre.

It is pure speculation to assume that any developer would have developed tall buildings in the IFSC of any better design quality than what they actually built.

Dunloe did secure a virtually unopposed planning permission for an O’Muire Smyth design of 32 floors of offices, it would really have set an outstanding precedent and that particular developer was prepared to lose money on a feature tower to attract the necessary interest in the rest of his proposed scheme which was 6-8 storeys. Despite everyones blessing it was never built and the permission has lapsed.

What Frank McDonald did object to was Spencer Dock and in fairness to the Treasury team what will actually be built is a million times better than the legoland cad design that was originally proposed. Although it is a great pity that Kevin Roches conference centre was never built.

For those who complain wait for Spencer Dock to be completed and watch the developments that follow, no-one will recognise the place in 10 years time.

A bit of confusion in that post – Dunloe Ewart’s permission is for a twenty storey building, and it is indeed from O’Muire Smyth. Fabrizia have had an application under consideration for four years for a huge OMP designed development in Ringsend with a thirty storey office building, but the bizarre amount of time it has taken for a decision seems to have encouraged the developer to lodge another application, minus the tower, for the same site. The original application hasn’t been withdrawn. Finally, the Office of Public Works is awaiting a decision on a large Paul Keogh designed development with a thirty two storey residential building near Heuston station.

Your right it is 20 storeys or so, I can make out 22 possible but it is hard to tell, base line a huge pity it wasn’t built it really would have set a very desirable precedent in terms of design quality for tall buildings.
Personally I wouldn’t have had any objection to the Fabrizia (Liam Carroll) development for the former Aib site in Ringsend, realistically with the Pidgeon House so close a height argument on that side of Strand Rd wouldn’t make any sense at all, has it really been with the planners for 4 years? Surely it would have secured a default permission by now if that was the case.

I really feel that if the tall buildings study was to have had any creadibility then it should have selected the Sean Moore Park/ Ardagh site Area and a larger number of sites in the Docklands for Midrise up to 125m and the odd high rise 150m. I don’t know how Dolphins Barn was ommited either.

But instead a site that borders Irelands only 17th Century complex of buildings was chosen, this firm of London based consultants should never have been selected, local knowledge would have possibly selected McKee Barracks and the unused tracks to the other side of Heuston but nothing this close to the Royal hospital.

But you have hit the nail on the re the Ringsend example to a developer a bird in the hand and the sad fact is that a lot of the design quality is poor in these five storey riverfront groundscrapers

The figures are derived from CBREG, Lisney, DTZ, Colliers, GVA, Jones Lang et al

Navan land values recently hit 7m an acre for a well positioned site

Contrary to what a lot of people think the DDDA are not the only planning authority for the docklands as anyone who knows the section 25 system will know, in short the DDDA are more concerned with acheiving a percentage land use mix than anything else. I doubt that the DDDA ever capped height although I could wrong, I think that fell to peoples interpretations of ABP planning decisions

It’s probably just as well little or no high rise planned & designed more than 5 years ago was actually built if the George’s Quay yokes are anything to go by.

Georges Qy is a much older design. Dates from the late 80’s.

Anyone read Irish Times yesterday on about how the North Docklands are under serious threat because of the Barrow St/Grand Canal area? Good. North docklands deserve it. Souless horrendous “quarter”. Already the Grand Canal area looks far more eye catching and exciting.
Bolands Mills sold for €42m – will make for a spectcular re-development opportunity.

I know it is. But it’s only about 5 years since the first good high rise proposals for Dublin began to appear – the Duloe-Ewart tower or the newer plan for George’s Quay (which would have been great a little bit futher out).

It will be interesting to see how the Bolands Mill site is dealt with wont it. All those blank walls. Im looking forward to that…

Get the mural painters in… 🙂

@Diaspora wrote:

Contrary to what a lot of people think the DDDA are not the only planning authority for the docklands as anyone who knows the section 25 system will know, in short the DDDA are more concerned with acheiving a percentage land use mix than anything else. I doubt that the DDDA ever capped height although I could wrong, I think that fell to peoples interpretations of ABP planning decisions

Hmmm from the depths of my mind… wasn’t there some clause that in the docklands area, anything under 6 stories could have an excellerated planning process

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Hmmm from the depths of my mind… wasn’t there some clause that in the docklands area, anything under 6 stories could have an excellerated planning process

There very well could have been some unwritten rule of thumb applied to a similar effect. The current setup to qualify for section 25 planning adjudication is simple enough a minimum of 40% of Residential & 40% of offices and 20% either retail/Leisure or an additional 20% Office or residential.

Failure to comply with the Section 25 mixed use rules leave developers in a postition of needing to apply to DCC as though their site was not within the docklands area. Which is a slower process as decisions are slower and there is also a third party right of appeal which doesn’t exist in Section 25 applications. There are buildings virtually up that only submitted planning applications 15 months ago, outside section 25 this would probably take 2 years thus saving developers a good million per site or so.

Most sites are too small to acommodate more than one use at scale, thus developers are taking the easy option and deciding to go for fast returns which in return is keeping densities and heights down. Away from some peoples facination with height, the quality really does need to be raised, a lot of the latest stuff going down there should be better considering some of the practices that are capable of much better work.

I’m going to resurrect this thread because I can find nowhere better to comment.

I’ve spent a good bit of time running up the quays and around the surrounding areas in the last few weeks and I must say I really think much of the criticism of the redevelopment of the docks is seriously misguided.

The DDDA was tasked with creating a mixed use, family friendly urban quarter, built to a sustainable density, a flagship regeneration project for the city of Dublin.

I disagree with people’s comments about the height of buildings in the new docklands quarter. And I feel people are using an absolutely flawed argument for building higher.

First of all density: The city is sprawling out to the west in a relentless tide but people calling for high rise development to counter this are totally misguided.

The only way to arrest our urban sprawl is to convince people that city living is an attractive alternative to the established paradigm of the suburban, car dependent home.

There is now an established cycle in the UK and Ireland of living in the city centre when you’re young and as you grow older and economic and familial circumstances change there is an inevitable drift to the suburbs. The city centre is dominated by short tenure, young, economically disadvantaged and immigrant populations. This constant flux is labelled the conveyor effect and totally defeats attempts at community generation.

The only way to combat this is to create family friendly, higher density models for living in the city centre which are attractive to families convincing the people that the city centre is clean, safe, and has every amenity to allow us bring up our children there.

Family friendliness is achievable with things like: Secure private communal gardens, Parks, large balconies, lifts capable of handling families and buggies, plentiful storage, Safe, well lit streets, pocket parks, convenient local retail and health and leisure uses and quality, socially varied schools.

In the case of the docklands, the established height was a just response to creating a sense of enclosure to the river, while respecting the existing fabric of the city on both sides of the river, making the scale of buildings in new developments sympathetic to their receiving environment. Perhaps the buildings facing the river could have been taller given the width of the Liffey.

The newly creating streets and open spaces encourage permeability and provide an attractive pedestrian-orientated urban environment while the ratios of street width to building height allow sunlight penetration to the ground plane, residential courtyards and apartments in the lower storeys. The masterplan is also faced with the serious problem of naming height limits – if it does so every developer will attempt to build every building to this height – each one with a solid statutory grounding to argue that they should be allowed to this level – it is therefore extremly difficult to give height guidelines in statutory planning.

There is also now a string of landmark developments taking shape which are beginning to give the area increased legibility and sense of focus and place. Alto Vetro, Grand Canal Square, the new Liebeskind theatre, the Aires Mateus hotel and rounding the corner the new Calatrava bridge (please hurry) will give access to the incredibly enigmatic form of Kevin Roches new Conference centre.

I often moan about this desire to attract starchitects to a city but I must admit the new theatre is very exciting and certainly different, the hotel, while a poor rendering of its original concept looks quite well, the square is shocking but I think its great and the conference centre is to my enormous surprise looking as if it may be a fantastic civic addittion to the city.

I honestly think they’re slowly, slowly creating a nice, dense city quarter which will continue to develop, hopefully with some of the early building efforts getting makeovers or replacements. But overall I am quite impressed with the regeneration of the area.

Admittedly the height of buildings in the area is monotonous but this is a product of many factors and I often wonder if the people who are so quick to criticise this monotony and the density in the docklands would be particularly willing to live there, and more importantly raise a family there if density and heights were increased to the levels which they suggest.

Perhaps people could post what they think might improve the area.

I for one would love to see marinas, along the line of Marseilles’ vieux port fill the river with gently bobbing masts and cafes line the campshires.

Phew, long post.

there a number of blocks there that are just office, no reason not to make em tall, was it because some would have said they disturbed the view from the older nicer areas across on the south side of the liffey

how many families live in the new docklands?

and frank mcdonald has nothing to do with anything.

and frank mcdonald has nothing to do with anything

Ouch!
Apart from consistently writing about the city for as long as I’ve been interested in it (i.e. nearly twenty years); just because you disagree with someone, don’t turn it into an ad hominem argument – that’s the lowest form of personal attack.

Just like to point out I had nothing to do with the title. Just seemed to be the most suitable thread! I have a lot of respect for Frank McDonald and generally agree with his writing. Perhaps the title can be changed?

Great post reddy.

BTW, I think Frank had a bit of a return to form in the IT today, he had gone pipe and slippers there for a while.

Let me get this straight. This idiot insulted the guy who curated the Venice Biennale in order to get him back because he told the truth about the general shittiness of Irish architecture, and you think it was a good article?

@johnglas wrote:

Ouch!
Apart from consistently writing about the city for as long as I’ve been interested in it (i.e. nearly twenty years); just because you disagree with someone, don’t turn it into an ad hominem argument – that’s the lowest form of personal attack.

i have nothing against him, i just don’t think he makes the decisions, thus can’t take the blame the op has put upon him.

@shanekeane wrote:

Let me get this straight. This idiot insulted the guy who curated the Venice Biennale in order to get him back because he told the truth about the general shittiness of Irish architecture, and you think it was a good article?

So Frank McDonald is an idiot! that’s insightful.

This is the man who stood up and exposed to view (with very few others, notably Uinseann McEoin) the bastards who were busily destroying this city.

Not just that, more than anyone else, Frank McDonald is the man who introduced the subject of architecture into the daily debate through the medium of a daily newspaper, when all others treated architecture as a no-go zone, or just reprinted the developers press releases and promo pictures.

IMO, if it hadn’t been for Frank McDonald, public consciousness of architecture and planning in this country would still mentally be in the 1980s.

From what I know of Betsky, he is also a shrewd critic of architecture, but, by many accounts (not just Frank’s), he is a lousy curator of an architectural exhibition. To me, what made McDonald’s article interesting was his willingness to criticize the whole show, rather than just laud the various Irish exhibits, which is what the majority of his audience would have been expecting of him.

Every time the state of dress of an international architectural emperor is questioned by our own tiny architectural community, I see a glimmer of hope that soon we will have the confidence to shape our own architecture and stop being in awe of these people and the stuff they strut.

The less than effusive reaction to Foster’s offering at the Clarence and O’Laoire’s blunt rebuke to Liebeskind are other recent glimmers of hope.

Where I would suggest that Frank may have gone off the boil in recent times was on matters such as the current revised draft DDDA development plan, the whole ‘Liffey Island’ pprposal, the ‘high rise’ debate and several significant development proposals for sensitive city centre sites which have legitimate conservation issues in the process of being trampled into the ground.