Dublin planners seem ready to allow high-rise anywhere, contrary to their own policy, writes Michael Smith.
More than a decade ago An Taisce - a charity - announced that it would appeal all unplanned high-rise in Dublin City. From Georges Quay to Spencer Dock to Ballsbridge to Smithfield it has been mostly successful in these Bord Pleanála appeals.
High-rise has, since 2000, been planned only for Docklands and around Heuston. Outside of these areas An Taisce has taken a stringent stance and on at least 20 occasions got Dublin City Council decisions overturned - for breaching its own development plan. The pressure for high-rise has been unrelenting for all that time, even though communities do not want it.
However, some city council officials appear to think otherwise and seem happy to press on with high-rise. For years senior management would overrule the city's chief professional planner, Pat McDonnell, who took a sceptical stance on high-rise. Since Pat McDonnell retired and was replaced by Dick Gleeson, senior management don't even have to overrule planners, as those in favour of high-rise are in the ascendant in the planning department, too.
City council management and planners are unduly deferential to developers, and do not seem to appreciate that human scale is a big part of the city centre's international appeal and bolsters our fragile sense of community.
Dublin City Council has granted permission for 10 tall buildings in the last two years. An Taisce, often alone, made submissions to An Bord Pleanála which, for example, overturned permissions for a 16-storey development on the north side of Thomas Street, a 13-storey apartment block at the Tivoli Theatre, a 12-storey residential scheme at School Street and a 13-storey building at Bridgefoot Street.
An Taisce is currently involved in other Bord Pleanála appeals including the Arnotts redevelopment which involves a 16-storey element, a 13-storey development on Merrion Road, and the proposed demolition of most of the Clarence Hotel. The city council is also encouraging a Liberty Hall-height sky-borne ski-slope structure at the Carlton site on O'Connell Street.
Inevitably these applications are dressed up in property supplement-speak as "crystalline", "sculptural", "breathtaking" and as heralding Ireland's arrival in the big time. The reality - as we know from O'Connell Bridge House, Liberty Hall, Georges Quay etc, as well as from much of England, is that there can be few urban aesthetics as depressing as an unplanned, incoherent skyline.
Whose interest does senior management at the council think it serves? Developers perceive that the council is a pushover. This is why Treasury Holdings want their 35-storey hotel to the rear of the Convention Centre to be considered by the city council and not the Docklands Authority (which has actually objected to the council over the scheme).
That is why Manor Park Homes are chancing their arm with first a 51-storey application for Thomas Street and now, after rebuff, a 32-storey version. That is why Seán Dunne's company is trying to get the council to agree area plans that allow high-rise in Ballsbridge - he knows that without them An Bord Pleanála will overturn any speculative permissions the council may grant him. But city councillors are not giving their management a free rein. In a major blow to Seán Dunne, among many other developers, they rejected management's recent plans to allow height "flexibility", even in areas where high-rise was not supposed to be allowed.
Dublin city is probably the only local authority in the State where the elected representatives have a more solid view of good planning than officials. It is evident that councillors are increasingly unhappy with the advice from management.
Under pressure from their communities we expect councillors to reject the charter for widespread high-rise that management has recently presented - Maximising the City's Potential: A Strategy for Intensification and Height.
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.
We should all be able to agree on height. Dense development tends to serve the common good and the environment by allowing provision of an intensity of amenities and public transport. This is why An Taisce has opposed a lot of one-off housing in the countryside.
All things being equal (which they often are not) high can be good. But it must not interfere with the historic integrity of the city or diminish the amenities for locals. It is also true that high-rise structures are seldom energy-efficient and that the vague prospect of high-rise contributes to speculation and associated dereliction. 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.
So, where is high-rise desirable? The answer is we do not know. All we have is a confusing, incomplete and preliminary 2000 study, by DEGW, understood to be a firm of UK planning consultants. Outside Dublin city, it is possible that, if green fields have to be rezoned, consideration should be given to high-rise where there is excellent public transport. Much soulless suburbia could actually be improved by attractive high-rise.
An Taisce favours plan-led high-rise in suitable parts of Docklands, particularly, subject to improved accessibility, on the Poolbeg Peninsula where they could serve as portals to the city; and on specific sites near Heuston.
There may be other possibilities: Ballymun can absorb some high-quality high-rise. Perhaps some of the commercial/industrial areas in Walkinstown, the Naas Road, parts of Crumlin and parts of Finglas might derive some architectural interest from height punctuation.
These suggestions are not definitive because they are not rooted in proper research and proper local consultation. And of course, even if the site is right for high-rise, it may not be suitable for ultra-high-rise - each planning application should be subjected to a rigorous assessment. It is crucial, too, that once particular areas have been deemed suitable, there should be a rigid commitment not to build high-rise - unplanned - anywhere else.
We do not know where high-rise may be desirable since the proper study has never been done of the capacity of areas to accept high-rise. National and European law requires a strategic environmental assessment to be carried out on the effect of its proposals. This has not been done. An Taisce in Dublin city is looking for residents' groups to join it in its opposition to unplanned high-rise: adminplan@antaisce.org
Maximising the City's Potential: A Strategy for Intensification and Height, will be on display in the Civic Offices at Wood Quay until March 7th.
Michael Smith is a former chairman of An Taisce.