So theyâre fucked either way then is what youâre saying?! 
If weâre going all Manhattan can we at least get a Scottyâs diner for our troubles?
2 Likes
High rise gets increasingly expensive to build the higher you go, thatâs why itâs essentially for high end apartments only. Thatâs not what we need in Ireland or in Dublin. To increase density in Dublin we need a lot more buildings of in around 6 stories. Thereâs loads of space for these in Dublin, Dublin 8 and 7 especially. These need to have good amenities and be serviced by public transport and ideally the city would be more cycle friendly too. This is how density should be raised, not one off high rise luxury apartment buildings for tech company employees which will do nothing to help the people affected by the housing crisis.
Thatâs a terrible starting point for a policy to address a crisis, isnât it?
How about moving homeless people out of Dublin?
How about ethnic cleansing while youâre at it.
1 Like
Do you think Australia would fall for that again?
4 Likes
What an incredibly stupid comment, even by your standards.
4 Likes
No, what Iâm saying is that extra supply, particularly in central locations, will help those at the bottom even if those units arenât occupied by those at the bottom.
1 Like
What? You think we should restrict employment growth in Ireland? Itâs somehow a bad thing? I appreciate with a safe civil-service job that growth in employment might seem like an inconvenience but itâs fairly useful for everyone else
Iâd say youâre right. Issue is planning and construction capacity.
How so? Forced transfer of people due to ethnicity is not ok but forced transfer of people due to poverty is grand?
There is an empty hotel down in oughterard that would be an ideal location to pilot this initiative.
1 Like
We are talking about housing policy. I think that taking Facebookâs possible expansion needs as a starting point is stupid. Iâm sure you agree.
What? Where is that suggested above or where is that policy - other than we need to attract and grow companies so that people can have jobs.
Are you suggesting that this is a bad idea?
Well done, not only have you topped the last comment but youâre also demonstrating a misunderstanding of the meaning of homeless and ethnic cleansing
1 Like
You were going on about 4-6 floors earlier, now itâs 6 or so. Get off the stage.
6-8 is optimum density, however, that has to be in the context of a city with 5 or less floors in the majority of the CBD.
Building up is more costly, especially when elevators start getting involved. And erecting a skyscraper in New York City involves additional costs (site preparation, legal fees, a fancy architect) that can push the price even higher. But many of these are fixed costs that donât increase with the height of the building. In fact, once youâve reached the seventh floor or so, building up has its own economic logic, since those fixed costs can be spread over more apartments. Just as the cost of a big factory can be covered by a sufficiently large production run, the cost of site preparation and a hotshot architect can be covered by building up. The actual marginal cost of adding an extra square foot of living space at the top of a skyscraper in New York is typically less than $400. Prices do rise substantially in ultra-tall buildingsâsay, over 50 storiesâbut for ordinary skyscrapers, it doesnât cost more than $500,000 to put up a nice 1,200-square-foot apartment. The land costs something, but in a 40-story building with one 1,200-square-foot unit per floor, each unit is using only 30 square feet of Manhattanâless than a thousandth of an acre. At those heights, the land costs become pretty small. If there were no restrictions on new construction, then prices would eventually come down to somewhere near construction costs, about $500,000 for a new apartment. Thatâs a lot more than the $210,000 that it costs to put up a 2,500-square-foot house in Houstonâbut a lot less than the $1 million or more that such an apartment often costs in Manhattan.
Places like Houston and Dallas are cheap because have horrible sprawl and everyone drives. You can lash up 2 floor homes no bother, but weâve tried that before. Do you not care about the environment?
The Hague, Rotterdam, Tallin, OsloâŚto name a few. All going up in places but wanting a few 20 floor buildings is trying to be âManhattanâ.
1 Like
The building regulations cannot be compared to the shoddy practices of the construction boom in the mid 00âs. there have been multiple regulation changes since, the most notable one being the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 or BCAR as its most commonly know. The Building Controls Act of 2013 also has come into play in terms of monitoring bother design team practices and regulated builders.
Plus there is constant amendments to the actual building regulations since then, a huge amount. The most up to date amendment is the NZEB regulations which came into play this year and from November onwards, all buildings must be built to these requirements.
In essence, the BCAR has an assigned certifier. This is a separate contract to an individual who must stand over the construction of the build (usually the architect or engineer). This certification requires early notification from the builder of all key milestones, eg foundations poured, rising walls built, and must be inspected by the assigned certifier before work can continue further. The certifier is ultimately the one whos Profesional Indemnity insurance will be first hit for any defects, so they charge appropriately to do this work and for the most part, do the work properly. Iâm sure the nod and wink still happens on some things, but its not the builder/developer taking the short cut who will be first hit, its the certifier, so it really is not in their interest to let the builder proceed with defective work. Iâve worked on a lot of government led housing building over the past 5 years and these projects have been by far the most stringent in terms of having the BCAR followed properly.
Iâve also worked on other public service buildings where the planning office involvement in terms of DAC (Disabled Accessibility Certificate) and FSC (Fire Safety Certificate) have caused months of delays until the development was altered to suit the requirements of the planning office. They are monitored extremely closely and then come under the the BCAR regulations where the design team element ensures that the job is built as per the approved planning design.
All materials have to be certified and approved. All relevant certs and details of the material have to be provided. All concrete cube tests, block tests, mortar, etc all have to be included and signed off on before works are approved. There is a huge amount of work involved in complying with the BCAR regulations now, and honestly, I dont see what more could be done.
Even in terms of the NZEB requirements now, I dont know of any of these magical other European countries who have such a high level of energy requirements. NZEB is at a better requirement than anything the UK have anyway. People talk about high rise apartments etc, but most of the hotel developments in Ireland are multiple storey developments but I dont off hand recall any issues in terms of defective work or the issues plaguing developer led apartment builds. So its not a case of it cant be done, itâs pretty simple stuff really.
NZEB regulations aligned with an assigned certifier for the build itself under BCAR, genuine question, what more can be done or should be done to improve standards?
13 Likes
Great post - really informative.