Dublin Port – Feasible or not?
- This topic has 100 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
who owns the port ? the government ?? That cash could help fund the eastern bypass tunnell, any dykes that are needed and any other infastructure that you can think of.
@Maskhadov wrote:
who owns the port ? the government ?? That cash could help fund the eastern bypass tunnell, any dykes that are needed and any other infastructure that you can think of.
The above displays a great niaivity of the way that local politics dominate in Dublin as well as the way urban land markets function.
If you released 500 acres of land in less than 10 years the value would fall from €50m per acre to less than €20m or less
What about global warming and rising sea levels? (I think someone may already have posed this question).
Aren’t these low lying areas precisely the sort of places that should be avoided?€210m Balbriggan development given the go-ahead
05/09/2007 – 17:29:12The Drogheda Port company has today been given the go-ahead to develop Bremore Harbour in Balbriggan, at a cost of around €210 million.
Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey told today’s meeting of the Cabinet that he intends to allow the company enter into a joint venture arrangement to develop the facility.
It’s intended the Balbriggan port will deal with vessels of larger capacity than nearby Drogheda Port
.
http://WWW.BREAKINGNEWS.IE
How will this affect dublin port?
Will it increase the chances of re-locationOh this will defo spell the eventual end for Dublin Port for commercial travel but I can see passenger ferries still operating. If the Dublin Port Company wishes to continue in the business then they better wise up and get a slice of Bremore Port together with Drogheda Port. If not they will make a nice tidy sum from selling the land in Dublin Port.
Of course they could keep the land and change their business solely to property. If they get investors on board they could make a nice few bob from building and then leasing all or most of buildings that would be built in Dublin Port. :confused:
Dublin City Council has just published on their website a report called “Report on Dublin Bay – An Integrated Economic, Cultural and Social Vision for Sustainable Development”. Some interesting basic designs of a possible future Dublin Port which I have to say are lights years better than the shite the PD’s brought out. 🙂
Thanks for the link
Had a quick skim over it
WOW!!!! Thoroughly under-whelming, almost apologetic,
DCC have gone above and beyond to NOT offend anyone….except people who may want a visually stimulating, exciting city quarterLooks like another DDDA docklands snoozefest
Although some interesting info about the bay area,
i couldnt believe the amount of landfill that makes up the port areaFrom today’s IT
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: The 650 acres of prime development land that makes up Dublin Port is significantly undervalued in its current use and the Government can no longer ignore its potential.
DUBLIN PORT IS undoubtedly one of Ireland’s most valuable pieces of real estate, involving approximately 263 hectares (650 acres) of prime development land that is significantly undervalued in its current use. The potential of the port cannot be overstated and can no longer be ignored.
It is anticipated that Dublin Port will have reached operational capacity by 2008. This leaves the Government with mainly two possible options: reclamation of some 21 hectares (52 acres) amounting to 0.04 per cent of Dublin Bay; or relocate the port.
Reclaiming the land may give rise to a number of damaging issues, such as increasing the risk of flooding in city centre areas and ecological threats. Furthermore, this option can only be seen as a short term solution to a long term problem.
Should the Government choose to relocate the port, they would be freeing up one of its high net value assets. Relocating the port and releasing up to 650 acres of city centre lands may enable rezoning to mixed uses. Under the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 the majority of the port lands are zoned “Objective Z7”, providing for mainly industrial use.
On appraising the potential relocation of the port, you would have to take into account the significant potential that Bremore Port has to offer. Located just north of Balbriggan, Bremore is a deep water port with room for expansion as it has an existing land bank of up to 1,000 acres.
Castle Market Holdings, a subsidiary of Treasury Holdings, was successfully selected by Drogheda Port as partners for a joint venture that will see Bremore transformed into a modern state-of-the-art deepwater facility. Drogheda Port will control a 51 per cent stake in the development while Castle Market Holdings will hold the remaining 49 per cent.
Bremore appears to tick all the boxes as a suitable relocation for facilities at Dublin Port with the process of preparing a port masterplan for Bremore already underway with Bremore expected to be fully operational by 2012.
In September 2007, Dublin City Council carried out a study – Dublin Bay – An Integrated Economic Cultural and Social Vision for Sustainable Development – which is seen as the initial step in preparing a strategic framework plan for the Dublin Bay area, including Dublin Port.
The study identifies seven options for Dublin Port which can be narrowed down to four and sorted into three realistic scenarios.
The first scenario is to re-develop about 51 hectares (126 acres) of the port lands, to accommodate at least 12,000 residents.
The second is to re-develop about 50 per cent of port lands, to accommodate about 32,000 residents.
The final option is to re-develop and relocate the entire port to create accommodation for about 55,000 people.
Opting to relocate the port would undoubtedly be met with stiff opposition as about 10,000 people work in and around the port, and relocating the port would require significant capital expenditure on the upgrade of infrastructure in the new location. Further difficulties may also be faced in securing planning permission in the chosen location.
Having said that, relocating port facilities would allow for strategic and proactive planning, to enable the successful development of modern purpose-built facilities to cater for future needs.
Also, the direct effects that accompany construction work is somewhat lower when choosing to relocate rather than upgrade existing facilities.
Upgrading existing facilities would have considerable impact on the day-to-day lives of locals and workers in the area, with a problem of increased traffic.
Under the National Development Plan 2007-2013, around €481 million of investment in transport is to be allocated for ports facilities.
In Budget 2008, the Minister for Finance Brian Cowen announced significant expenditure in the upgrade of transport facilities.
A budget of €3,837 million was allocated with a number of key improvements which are to be delivered in 2008 and over subsequent years. However, investment in ports did not figure on the list which could lead to the conclusion that Dublin Port is not high on the Government’s list of transport priorities.
The relocation of a significant port facility is not unheard of. In Finland they have opted to relocate the north and west harbours of the Port of Helsinki to Vuasaari Harbour.
Vuasaari is north-east of Helsinki’s port. Initial construction works began in 2003 with the new port due to start operating at the end of 2008.
In order to facilitate the successful and efficient operation of the new harbour there has been significant capital expenditure to improve the infrastructure in the area surrounding Vuasaari, include the construction of a new motorway and the upgrade of rail services.
Closer to home, there are plans to relocate trading activities from Cork’s City Quays to alternative facilities in the Ringaskiddy area of Cork Harbour.
The relocation of the facilities will allow for the significant re-development of Cork’s docklands.
Through a joint venture between the Cork Port Company and Howard Holdings, an application was lodged to Cork City Council for a €1 billion development of Cork’s docklands to include two hotels, office accommodation and residential units and a landmark building.
A new metro system is also planned to service the area and Cork City Council is seeking tax incentives from the Government for designated areas within the docklands.
Preparations for the development of Ringaskiddy appear to be taking shape as in November 2007 the Port of Cork Company lodged a planning application for the development of a new container terminal at Oyster Bank in Ringaskiddy.
In light of the recent media coverage surrounding the purchase of shares in ICG, the Dublin Port Authority has come strongly to the fore playing down the development potential and value of the 33-acre ICG site. The ICG site and port lands have undoubtedly got development potential and, while the Dublin Port Authority may choose to disregard this potential, the Government can no longer overlook the high value alternative use that Dublin Port can offer.
Surely it’s a contradiction to underutilise such a strategically placed asset when strong emphasis is placed on energy efficiency and sustainability.
Mairead Furey works in the development land division at DTZ Sherry FitzGerald
© 2008 The Irish Times
some crackin stuff on helsinki here
do the PD’s realise that Dublin is in fact not Helsinki or Copenhagen? If this proposal goes ahead, what would’ve been the point of the expensive port tunnel? would it take on a new role? maybe become another clogged up artirial route into the city for private cars? Beside such a developement opportunity presented itself to DCC before. The redevolpement of Georges and Spencer docks were waisted. Now we have low rise low density areas that do little to combat urban spawl. Grand canal dock has proved a success however in that it is satisfactory in it’s density. I can’t imagine that developing the rest of the docks would be a worthwhile excersise. The DDDA would probably start building semi-d’s just to irritate the public and then proceed to claim more land from the sea and use it for “an exciting new high density developement”. We’ve heard this song before. Time to change the record!
@cgcsb wrote:
do the PD’s realise that Dublin is in fact not Helsinki or Copenhagen?
I’ve heard this argument so many times and I really don’t understand it. Its absolutely ridiculous to keep our heads in the sand and not examine case studies in cities comparable to Dublin. i.e Barcelona, Copenhagen, Lyon and many others in Europe.
Dublin is in fact very similar to many cities in Europe in terms of climate, population, infrastructure, government etc.
If we examine these cities and take lessons learnt in their development surely it can only be a good thing, helping us to avoid mistakes which can only be seen with the benefit of hindsight.
We can also begin to see differences in the cities which may highlight deficiencies or positives in the way our planning and development of the city is proceeding.
Lets not close ourselves off to the experience and vision of other cities.
@cgcsb wrote:
do the PD’s realise that Dublin is in fact not Helsinki or Copenhagen?
In what way is examining other European capitals and their redevelopment incompatible with Dublin City? Where do we learn from? Here? the great redevelopment of our own coastal areas?
If this proposal goes ahead, what would’ve been the point of the expensive port tunnel? would it take on a new role? maybe become another clogged up artirial route into the city for private cars?
Oh I dunno use your imagination. The best damn bus priority in Ireland? Perhaps a LUAS powered from beneath, cycle tracks – who knows? The whole East Wall area could be radically reimagined if the Port fecked off. Although you are correct to bring it up. Phase 1 of the Eastern bypass springs to mind
Beside such a developement opportunity presented itself to DCC before. The redevolpement of Georges and Spencer docks were waisted. Now we have low rise low density areas that do little to combat urban spawl.
I’m fairly certain that the planners and architects who will be guiding the redevelopment of the Port will be different people to those that have been senior officials overseeing this for the past 2 decades. Councils change, and this proposal is decades away possibly
Grand canal dock has proved a success however in that it is satisfactory in it’s density. I can’t imagine that developing the rest of the docks would be a worthwhile excersise. The DDDA would probably start building semi-d’s just to irritate the public and then proceed to claim more land from the sea and use it for “an exciting new high density developement”. We’ve heard this song before.
Yeh maybe we should develop the rest of Leinster instead. That’s way better and more worthwhile.
Time to change the record!
Yes. Yes it is. Let’s take the “jaysus we can’t be doin that” record off and put on the “let’s build modern Ireland’s first truly great urban place”. I like the second one. If you let the last song play there’s a hidden track which tells you how we’ll do it…
Anyway before any of this proceeds the complex legalities of ownership of the port must be addressed. Apparently oil companies and Dublin Port and a few private companies all own bits and pieces or have 999 year leases n stuff. It will be at least 50 years before the entire process of decommissioning, decontamination, movement, and redevelopment is finished. Better start soon so…
@cgcsb wrote:
what would’ve been the point of the expensive port tunnel? would it take on a new role? maybe become another clogged up artirial route into the city for private cars?
fast access to the new docklands perhaps ratther than sitting in traffic in whitehall? Think it may be less clogged than Drumcondra give there is only one point of access/egress
http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1216817414108253.html
dublin port’ studied to death’ say broughan
Now instead of real decisions being taken on the Port and Bay we have more ministerial gridlock because of an apparent Green-Fianna Fail turf war on this issue
anybody heard anything about the progress bremore
Major parts of new port to be built in Meath
http://www.meathchronicle.ie/articles/1/34641
A major change in planning for the new €300 million port at Bremore in north Co Dublin will result in large parts of the infrastructure for the port being transferred from Fingal into County Meath because of the presence of important archaeological monuments on the original site, the Meath Chronicle has learned.i can’t see how they can build the port on the bremore nose and avoid the passage graves
Marine centre plans may be axed after council pulls €3m funding
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/marine-centre-plans-may-be-axed-after-council-pulls-euro3m-funding-1599941.html
sweeter axed
seems there slowing things or timming down although i thought this project was urgent.When you go down to Poolbeg, the thing that strikes you most is the vast waste of space, the rusting containers, the empty industrial facilities, the sheer abandonment of potential. Dumping a waste incinerator down there just seems to bring this process of dereliction of duty to the city and it’s god-given natural setting to it’s logical conclusion.
In the draft Dublin City Development Plan, all the big issues are parked:
the presence and/or further development of the port,
the continued poor management of port lands and the detrimental effect this has on the interface between the city and the Bay,
the continued dominance of an industrial zoning objective, with it’s hollow assertions on ”employment creation”,
the place in the schedule of priorities that should be afforded to the wildlife that currently clings to the default environment left over by haphazzard development.
whether Poolbeg is a ‘peninsula’ in isolation, or a potential stepping stone in the arc of the Bay,
We should just not accept yet another Dublin City Development Plan that doesn’t even attempt to write the brief for a future comprehensive vision for the city’s junction with the Bay, let alone produce that vision itself.
Gunter, I would like to Echo what you said. However, it is more then just indolence on the part of DCC and other Government bodies which are preventing the port area being feasibly developed into a citizen friendly interface with the Bay.
Firstly, when the Port was proposed to be moved initially to Loughshinny in the 1980s and more recently to Breamore, there was a corus of protest from many quarters to keep the port in the City. Granted some of it was vested interest, but, some was that mindless anti-change element which usually dominates in any planning debate.
Secondly, the proposed incinerator will cement the ports position as an industrial area. I have always had a problem, not with the incinerator iiself, but with the contention that the best position for heavy industry in Dublin is effectively the best bayside location. We are always told the Bay is the Citys best asset, yet, access to it is grudgingly small. To my mind the best location for an incinerator would be in some semi rural locale near Dublin, but crucially, not in an area of high pupulation density. Actually, Braemore if the new port is Developed there would be ideal. Unfortunatly this means moving it from one persons backyard to anothers…..that is only bound to cause more controversy!
C
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
