Dublin South Bank Strategic Development Frame work fi nal report for Dublin City Council

November 2002 DCDU007.2906.206 PROJECT HISTORY

Document History Issue No. Issue date Summary

A June 2001 Current Tenancy Issues / Stakeholder Consultation

B June 27 2002 Draft Final Report submitted to City Council

C Nov 14 2002 Final report submitted to City Council

Presentation History Presentation No. Date Summary

1 22.08.01 First Client Steering Group presentation

2 26.07.01 Second Client Steering Group presentation

3 17.10.01 Presentation to City Managers and Client Group

4 08.07.02 Presentation material to D Gleeson for Councillor mtg

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 i CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary 5.0 Design Framework The case for the Poolbeg Peninsula 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Character Area Approach 5.3 Landscape and View Structure 2.0 Introduction 5.4 Movement & Access 2.1 Background to the Project 5.5 Land Use Pattern 2.2 Study Integration 5.6 Amenity Provision 2.3 Repositioning the Project 5.7 Volumetric Expression 5.8 Potential Capacity 5.9 Phasing 3.0 Evaluation of a Unique Site 3.1 Physical Characteristics 3.2 Stakeholder Current Needs Appendices 3.3 Open Space 1 Statutory Planning context 3.4 Statutory Constraints and Environment 2 Waterfront development scenarios 3 Design Options 3 Trip generation and defi cit calulation 4.0 Drivers for Change 4 Development Capacities 4.1 Identifying Drivers for Change 4.2 Location & Site Character Signifi cance 4.3 Demand Context 4.4 Consolidation of Utilities 4.5 Service Capacity of the Site

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 ii 1.0 executive sum ma ry

1 DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 The Case for the Poolbeg Peninsula ar gu ments relate to: tu ni ties’ as well as the short and long term • Statutory designation at this point as a In March 2001 the Dublin City Council • The signifi cance of the ge o graph ic imposed ‘constraints’. Fur ther more in the tool for moderating speculation on (formerly Dublin Corporation) issued location of the South Bank site in the context of the City of Dublin, the peninsu- sites. briefs calling for Urban Design and Land context of the overall penin su lar as a lar (other than potentially the operational Use Studies for three specifi c areas in gateway location with potential for harbour area to the north of the Liffey in 2. Role of the ‘Plan’ within a context of Dublin City; Heuston Station and En- establishing a new image and charac the long run) is the only large undevelop- uncertainties vi rons, City Markets Area and the South ter; able tract of land open to unique concepts The second major challenge for the Bank Road Environs. All three areas • The relationship of de vel op ment for large scale city wide amenity close the proposal for an overall plan deals with either responded to pressure from current sites to the large scale topo graph i cal city centre, which Dublin lacks in relation the level and number of uncertainties for planning applications, or had a particular features running across the peninsu- to other European cities. The relatively the future development of large parts of potential for regeneration. A com pre - lar; large scale and semi-in sti tu tion al land the site. On the peninsula these prima- hen sive detail framework opens the op- • The wider scale impact of the future of own er ship pattern of the area renders rily relate to the future of the utilities and tion for a comparative review of proposals the utilities and harbour, and such an opportunity more ‘realistic’ in the associated in fra struc ture plans as well as well as pro vid ing the criteria for the • The lack of strong character of the long term than other parts of the city. as the city wide transport plans currently assessment of individual applications. immediate physical built context. under review. The key challenge here is how a de vel - All three areas were identifi ed within The study bound a ry has been extended op ment framework can capitalise on the Whilst the long term view (based on the Dublin building Heights strategy to include the entire Poolbeg peninsular. unique character of the site by fulfi lling in ter na tion al practice and technological - ‘Man ag ing Intensifi cation and Change’ short-term de vel op ment objectives while de vel op ment of city services provision) (DEGW, 2000) as areas with high poten- From the very early stages of initial area in parallel preserving the long-term op por - suggests the retraction or relocation of tial for change and in need of consoli- evaluations the study recognised three tu ni ties for ‘a unique place’ for Dublin city. most of the current uses, the short-term dation of character, intensifi cation and major challenges. Our recommendations This study suggests: plans suggest the expansion of some of amenity base. have taken a position towards these chal- • Full development of the peninsular will the current utilities. The danger of such lenges. considerably compromise both asset unpredictability is the tendency toward A signifi cant diversion from the original and social cultural value of the area piecemeal intervention with out the clear brief for the South Bank is the extension 1. The Poolbeg Peninsula - a unique and therefore proposes a 3- zone understanding of im pli ca tions for the to the given site boundary that in clud ed char ac ter character concept; overall future of the peninsular. In paral- The Poolbeg Peninsula is quite clearly a de vel op ment land to the south-eastern • Allowance for a signifi cant level of city lel, infrastructure plans (such as those unique site in the context of Dublin in al- corner of the peninsular and currently wide amenity and preservation of relating to potential road in fra struc ture) most every way - physical / top o graph i cal, identifi ed as ‘de vel op ment’ sites. At the sites for future facilities including a are assessed within criteria relating to ecological character, existing land use outset of the project the case was made large reserve for public open space; the needs of particular land-ownerships, for the need to review those sites in the and land ownership, cultural context and again without consideration of the implica- • Further review of ecological char ac ter context of the Poolbeg Peninsula. Such connotation and relationships to the city. tions for future options for the wider area. and concept design of existing assets; Uniqueness relies equally on the ‘op por - The key challenge here is to identify the

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 2 remit and role of a ‘development frame- repositioning of the site; related public trans port de vel op ment. work plan’ con sid er ing the un cer tain ties • The need to Inform the South Bank Therefore identifi ed the clear need to and long term potential opportunities. planning application; establish alternative benchmarking Central to this is the ability of the plan standards with traffi c management to • The review of infrastructure servicing to consider and in cor po rate at an early give priority to brown fi eld sites close on basis of capacity need that takes stage im ple men ta tion pa ram e ters, which to the city centre; into consideration overall levels of are necessary to safeguard the incredible development not only individual sites. • Capacity to be based on good opportunities of the site. The response on practice, sustainable development this issue involved: 3. A defi nition of capacity and char- principles and area character; • The level of fl exibility of the plan. ac ter outside of an existing context • Favour low traffi c generating types of The plan fi xes only primary infra- and service plan. development and land use (eg. structure and zoning of develop Regeneration or redevelopment area housing, leisure, rec re a tion al amenity ment capacities. Flexibility is main- plans within cities are informed by the po- etc), including actively en cour ag ing; tained on all other fronts in clud ing tential of the existing context. ‘Con tex tu al experimental car-free development. different plans and designs within drivers’ may include the existing char ac ter • Establishing the principle for areas defi ned by the primary infra- and historic context, existing and po ten tial residential development on the site- structure; infrastructure capacity, market demand, on the basis of inherently insuffi cient • The proposed structure plan to allow aspirations and need for new amen i ties to service capacity; for implementation of potential service a wider context and potentially, a • Very high quality design par tic u lar ly of changes to utilities and other pro- new image. In the current case all these initial developments; posed infrastructure without compro factors as the ‘drivers’ for new character mising the integrity of the overall are either non-existent or loosely de- • Emphasis on restructuring the site to intention (assumes ‘clean’ utilities); fi ned, or char ac ter ised by uncertainties include additional public space and adding high value outdoor active (This in itself opens up the pos si bil i ty ren der ing them unsuitable as starting • ameni ties. Suggests the need for a for housing on the site); points. The chal lenge here is to identifi y and con struc tive ly justify key drivers that detailed landscape plan, and distribu • The allowance for large scale facilities will inform ca pac i ty and character. This tion of existing open space; - fl exibility for land use development approach led to the following. • Need for an overall plan open to over time in relation to demand, piecemeal implementation. contribution to the city centre and to • A preliminary evaluation that tested a local amen i ties, live li ness and charac full capacity scheme within a reason ter; able time frame found that it could not be supported on the existing road • Taking a position towards road plans; network and could not self-fi nance rail • The role of short term uses for

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 3 2.0 introduction

4 DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

across the 3 locations are ex hib it ed on: The brief for the South Bank Road • Local accessibility; Environs study (fi g 1), hereon called the South Bank, called for consultants to • Character and content of existing review the area’s potential as a signifi cant physical form; em ploy ment location and to develop an • Levels of potential infi ll (physical urban design and use framework. Such and economic). frame works that seek to defi ne new areas through design guidance neces- The potential of parallel commissions sarily require in the fi rst instance clarity of allows the development of a com pre - the context on which to draw character. hen sive un der stand ing of ‘city potential’ Where clarity is not present, or adjacent as well as positioning ot specifi c areas development character is inappropri- on the ‘supply/demand’ map of Dublin as ate for the site, new char ac ter defi ni tion a whole. Although the brief does not call should be based upon a city-wide design for a com par a tive eval u a tion, our study context, the ‘demand’ side of the de vel - takes into con sid er a tion the overall city op ment potential and urban design good centre de vel op ment context on the basis fi g 1: The three Area Framework studies (Dublin City Council brief) practice. The subject area must then be of previous research. of suffi ceint scale to generate con tig u ous character of environment. Any arbitrary defi ni tion of new character is neither de- The broader aim of the study has been to sirable nor sus tain a ble in the city context. develop a number of ‘strategic scenarios’ for future change. The common characteristic of the 3 areas identifi ed within the report ‘Man ag ing That aim is met by a number of more Intensifi cation and Change - A Strategy detailed objectives: for Dublin Building Height’ (DEGW, 2000) • To review the as pi ra tions and physical is that they are areas with high potential requirements of all stakeholders for change (fi g 2) and in need of con sol i- including the current land oc cu pi ers da tion of their character and amenity bas- and owners; es. All exhibit a parallel relationship to the city centre and city centre edge sites and • To understand the present role of the therefore can potentially attract a similar South Bank as principle public utility location for Dublin city and identify the cleintele. Signifi cant differences however fi g 2: Zones for change, DEGW 2000

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 5 future needs and potential retraction of those activities; • To explore the op por tu ni ties afforded by this waterfront location to enhance the City and defi ne a framework for development; • To explore the potential capacity of the study area and set out a structure for development in coordination with public utility demands; • To provisionally assess the transport infrastructure required; and, • To set out time-scales and phasing for development based on public utility growth and change, design scenarios and unde ter mined transport param- eters.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 6 2.2 STUDY INTEGRATION

2.2.1 Relationship to other studies trans por tation. Discussion with the DDDA and public utility facilities in the medium op ment Plan review study papers for This study is one of a number of similar has identifi ed the need for co-or di na tion to long term. New waste treat ment plant, 2003/2004. studies pro gress ing in parallel, however with the current study (to avoid overlap power generation plant and pontential depending upon the nature of the built in baseline analysis) and to present a re fur bish ment of the older Poolbeg Power context and city-wide positioning and commonly agreed series of development station set clear pa ram e ters on future de- timing, differences in study levels can be scenarios. Future public display and con- vel op ment and the possibility for change noted. Urban De sign and Use Frame- sultation on both studies is an tic i pat ed. of use. works for the City Markets area and Heuston Station are in locations of clear The DDDA, as secondary authority, were Balanced against this is the future poten- and sig nifi cant built context and known included in the key stakeholder con sul - tial of key city centre brownfi eld sites with systems of public transport and road tations for the South Bank. Their work waterfront locational char ac ter is tics such access. As a conse quence these studies sup port ed many of the initial ideas on as the Poolbeg Pe nin su la and the rapid can con trib ute to more detailed guidance what the Poolbeg pe nin su la could poten- growth of the Dublin economy in the last in the re spec tive areas for short term tially be come. 10-15 years. Though the take up of offi ce de vel op ment guidance. space has slowed in the last 2 years (of- 2.2.3 Project ouputs – timing & scale fi ce vacancy rates now at 20% cf. 2% in In contrast the South Bank calls for long er The most useful contributions of the study 1999/2000) the strength of city centre / term scenar io identifi cation and in cludes a for the Dublin City Council at this stage in wa ter front / high amentiy lo ca tions such higher degree of uncertainty af fecting the the lifecycle of the Poolbeg pe nin su la are as East Point and Spencer Dock is clear. potential timing of bringing this area of the threefold: Further development in these locations city ‘on stream’. The economic po si tion ing • defi nition of the roles of the area; however must have regard to other busi- of the South Bank will be in fl uenced by ness locations, particularly those to the other sig nifi cant de vel op ments in the city • identifi cation of its future potential in a west of Dublin (Park West, City West) and must be mutually sup port ive in this Dublin wide context and; that are ex pe ri enc ing higher than average regard. Potential markets will need to be • setting out of a number of ‘design’ va can cy levels. eval u at ed in light of the sug ges tions of scenarios based on clear assump other stud ies. tions towards retention/retraction of Given the need to balance the above po- current tenan cies. sitions, a repositioning of the project was 2.2.2 Relationship to the DDDA necessary (described in section 2.3). This A study initially undertaken in 2001 by In this sense it is important to rec og nise shifted the levels of enquiry of the study Urban Projects, Dublin and continued the role of this study in relation to the from those of detailed design guidance to by the Dublin Docklands Development timing of any development on the South that of a strategic framework for the entire Au thor i ty (DDDA) reviewed the future of Bank. The primary issue in this regard peninsula. This opens up the potential for the South Bank in terms of land use and is the continued presence of both Port the current study to feed into the De vel -

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 7 2.3 REPOSITIONING THE PROJECT

Early enquiry into the study raised a fi g 3, is too small to gen er ate con tig u ous number of important issues in relation to character and therefore a neigh bour hood No immediate provision of amenity ex- the original brief. Of these the most criti- plan. It is also too small to add any ists on the South Bank (except for open cal being the need to reposition the study signifi cant content of built space and space) to support or direct particular to best equip Dublin City Council with the there fore drive change in its own right. development types and functions. Within broad parameters for evaluating individual Such change would include con tri bu tions the adjacent communties of Ringsend and site developments on the South Bank. to major infrastructural im prove ments and Irish Town however there is a level of pro- a much larg er quantum of development vision of amenity and ‘soft’ in fra struc ture. The need for a repositioning of the study would be re quired to drive ex ten sions to The ques tion over amen i ty is central as 0 100 500m was driven by four key issues: the light or sub ur ban rail sys tem. it is this which facilitates the diversity of com mu ni ty. Encouraging a mix of use and fi g 3: Initial study area • Size of the study area con sid ered in 2.3.2 Extent of Built Context tenure suggests that people who live on relation to the peninsula context; – Charac ter Defi nition the South Bank may also work there. • Lack of built context of character and In principle the site is too isolated to draw type appropriate to set future design from its context. The lack of any imme - guidelines; di ate or signifi cant character context on • High degree of uncertainty over key the site and wider peninsula predeter- strategic issues (infrastructure, port, mines the extent to which it is appropriate public utilities) and; to evolve a defi nition of new character if wider sustainability objectives are to be • Absence of a clear vision over what met. Such objectives include mutually the South Bank could become. supportive local and regional economic fi g 4: Minimal character of existing utilities strategies, fl exible building types and 2.3.1 Size of the Study Area range of tenure and appropriate area The ability to develop de tailed design/ character that refl ects a broader vision. townscape guid ance and site specifi c briefi ng is dependent upon three key fac- The site area does not exhibit a tra di tion al tors: city block structure. The adjacent residen- • the size of the site; tial layouts of Ringsend and Irish Town • the amount and type of built space; terminate on the boundary of Sean Moore Road and do not extend into the site. • its physical character. Similarly the defi nition of a public realm network is weak and the site is poorly In relation to the size of the site and im- connected into the wider area. mediate area, the current site, shown in Local amenity - Sandmount

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 8 2.3.3 Key Strategic Issues Uncer- planning applications. tainty The relationship between land use and 2.3.4 Defi ning a Clear Vision movement/access is complex. The A clear strategy for the future of the South character of an area will be infl uenced Bank needs to be established on the by the nature of its connection into both basis of: local, regional and European movement • the identifi cation of the as pi ra tions of networks. all stakeholders and their physical/ spatial expectations; The future character of the South Bank as part of the city structure should be diverse • the particular site and local area and draw from as wide an area as possi- characteristics; ble. As a con se quence current uncertainty • a confi rmation of certain key strategic over the East Link’s at grade junc tion on issues and; the subject lands and con nec tion into • the aim to contribute positively to the the local network and Dublin Port Tun nel city design context of Dublin. project is of major signifi cance. This study deals with the majority of these The question over a future junction on issues but cannot address issues outside fi g 5: Access network will drive land use and character the site could be viewed both in terms of of its control. Whilst as much information its ability to of fer direct access to the city as possible on the baseline position has wide network and a future in ter na tion al been obtained through discussion with business mar ket (airport connection), or key stakeholders (NRA, City Council, Port simply as a means to enable greater HGV Authority, Land owners and occupiers) access to the port, public utilities. resolution on certain issues has not been possible. Prime amongst those include: Current servicing capacity to the South Bank (public transport and road) is • long term future of the Port; in suf fi cient to enable large scale change • potential Thermal Treatment plant; and growth across the whole peninsula. • alignment and at-grade junction The ability of a long term bus focused connections of the East Link and; public trans port strategy will only support a limited quantum of de vel op ment as • extensions to the light/suburban rail networks. ev i denced by capacity studies of recent South Bank area bus connection with the DART a 15min walk

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 9 2.3.5 Key Implications offi ce employment locations. As such Dublin are signifi cant. Understanding of A redefi nition of the project has im pli ca - any avail a ble brownfi eld land in close the role of each area and recognition of tions for two main areas within the study: prox im i ty to the city center is a focus of the need for mutually supportive em- 1. The need for a more strategic view of attention for de vel op ment. Further, any ploy ment locations has opened up the the role of the peninsula in the wider expansion within the docklands area calls dis cus sion on the need to evaluate at the Dublin context and; into question the role of this whole east- level of the city region the performance 2. The expansion of the project bound- ern city edge as a new waterfront location of characteristics of market sectors. This ary to include the overall southern that could be ex pressed equally as civic is broadly evaluated within the study but peninsula necessarily takes into gateway or open space amenity. The site calls for more detailed evaluation. iden ti fi ed by Dublin City Council for the account the current public utilities. fi g 6: Area of recent planning enquiry con sult ants’ ex am i na tion lies within the Summary of physical potential These two redefi nitions immediately raise south docklands peninsula and critically Based on the boundary expansion posi- a number of different issues that where at the junction point with ad ja cent com- tion a com par a tive analysis was made noted. If however the entire pe nin su la is therefore included in our brief. munities. Implicit in the brief, there fore, on the potential for change (table 1). con sid ered then there exists far greater is a review of the docklands, in terms of This table suggests that if the potential po ten tial, especially for improvement to • the role of the public utilities, port and its waterfront value, its functions and its is de ter mined within the boundary of public trans port, car movement, scale and their future development; relationship to the city. the initial site area then only moderate image of future development. • the future role of the peninsula in change is possible over the key elements regard to its open space, ecological 2. Expansion of the boundary and historic value and the balance An expansion of the project boundary to with potential development; include the entire peninsula not only takes • the relationship of individual planning in the majority of Dublin’s utility opera- applications to a comprehensive tions but simialry expands the discussion framework for the peninsula; South Bank

on the growth of the city east wards to its Public Transport Mobility Proximity to Centre Size Image Historic Importance • the connection of the peninsula into sea border. Expansion of the size implied contribution to Actual perceptual Dublin’s position the wider movement and access by the south bank peninsula (108ha) will memory networks and the capacity of these; inevitably redefi ne the city as it is today Existing -+- -- views • direction on the phasing of develop and this study therefore explores possible small chimney + + ment in relation to other key city sites; future scenarios for the wa ter front charac- ter of the city of Dublin. Potential to +++ +++ + change (+++) +++ medium 1. The Role of the peninsula The market implications of the type of Development pressure within Dublin - Weak / negative impact centre remains high despite the afore- change suggested through the de vel - + Good +++ High Potential to improve men tioned vacancy levels of city fringe op ment of three key areas in the city of table 1: Comparative site audit

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 10 3.0 Evaluation of a Unique Site

11 3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS - OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS

3.1.1 Strategic Position of the SIte Part of the uniqueness of the South Bank The signifi cance of this site and its poten- lies in its relative isolation, which though tial relies on a number of factors. These being largely perceptual is never-the-less factors relate to the location of the site in reinforced by the ‘cul-de-sac’ structure of a city-wide context, to Dublin within a Eu- the peninsula, (ie not a through location). ropean growth corridor and to the regen- Characteristic of this type of location is eration initiatives of adjacent areas.The a limited in fra struc ture ca pac i ty (poorly importance of placing Dublin in a Global connected to access networks, road con- context, in relation to other world cities, is gestion already high and a purely local to understand the effect of this position on amenity base) coupled with a strong and the success of recent de vel op ments such ongoing public utility and port presence. as Eastpoint and po ten tial ly those on the These are key factors affecting the area’s subject lands. Dublin has, and still is in capacity for change. SIte specifi c issues relating to capacity potential are delt with the process of max im is ing this opportu- fi g 8: The South Bank as part of an eastern edge growth corridor nity. in section 3.3.

In locational terms the site occupies a stra tegic position within the broader city context, lying within the eastern linear edge development of Dublin city (fi g 8). This position is infl uened further by the locational char ac ter is tics of current devel- opment as mapped below (fi g 9), which indicates three broad locational types: fi g 7: Dublin sits within the European ‘Blue • City core; Banana’ • City periphery and; • Satellite (eg. Swords township).

Central here is the positioning of the site in relation to the current city centre boundary defi nition. Given the previ- ous extension of the boundary east to the Grand Canal Dock the site could be Part of the regional strategy (SPG, 1999) fi g 9: New development locations in the Greater Dublin Area

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 12 viewed as a further extension to this core • Potential to improve key infrastruc area. This has implications for connection ture. Poor public transport isolates into the existing public transport network the peninsula and restrains the future and in spatial design terms suggests a potential quantity and type of develop redefi nition of the city’s relationship to the ment. Enabling the site to be Bay. accessed from a much wider catch ment, including direct airport access The great opportunity presented by the will open up employment and other South Bank is driven by: opportunities; • The proximity of the site to the city • Adjacency of other regeneration centre (areas of which are cur rent ly initiatives. East Pont, Grand Canal fi g 10: Current commercial core boundary fi g 11: Potential new character area undergoing signifi cant change). The Dock and Spencer Dock schemes consolidation of the fi nancial services have established a particular built and sector along the north quay and market context and initiated discus supporting space developments sion on the future of the eastern (Eastpoint) suggest the area is docklands as a whole. The potential in a stage of positive growth and now exists to completely change the expansion. image and perception of this location. • Signifi cant environmental char ac ter of the ‘waterfront’. In refer ence to the worldwide waterfront agenda (see section 4.2), the current study area adjacent to the Liffey and Dublin Bay holds signifi cant potential due to its location. European and North Ameri can examples have indicated that such locations that were traditionally working ports are trans formed into centres for sophisticated recreational amenity, leisure, specialist residential fi g 12: Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme, 2000 and employ ment.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 13 3.1.2 Movement and Access Road proposals include: Discussions with the Roads Department 1. Eastern Bypass motorway link and and Environmental Traffi c Planning within junction. Dublin City Council, the National Roads The Eastern Bypass Strategic Study, Authority (NRA) and the Dublin Transport (NRA, 1999) recommended that a po- Offi ce (DTO) identifi ed the current initia- tential link between the southern end of tives (proposed and under con struc tion) the Dublin Port Tunnel and the M50 in and other transport/traffi c con sid er a tions the south be taken forward for detailed salient to the subject lands. feasibility. This link is a key unresolved determinant, which could potentially affect The DTO’s ‘A Platform for Change - strat- the South Bank area depending on two egy 2000-2016’ (Sept 2000) sets out an factors: integrated transportation strategy for the • its alignment and vertical location Greater Dublin Area. The public transport (viaduct, tunnel, cut); network is targeted for con sid er a ble ex- • the potential to connect at grade or in pansion along with new road construction. cut to the study area.

The South Bank peninsula is at present Motorway Alignment effectively by-passed by all rail transport As shown in fi g 13 three potential align- systems (fi g 13). There are no pro pos als ments have been identifi ed. within the DTO’s strategy to extend light A1 - Overland option on elevated struc- rail / suburban rail systems onto the ture from Dublin Port Tunnel on align- fi g 13: Existing rail networks by-pass the peninsula South Bank peninsula at least for the next ment of East Wall Road, dropping down 15 years and there fore no public money to low level crossing of East Link Bridge. available for such projects. Any transport Motorway adjacent to East Link Road programme would have to be funded, at then in cut/cover section under South Port least in part by private development. entrance to interchange adjacent to Irish Glass factory. Bus routes into Sandymount / Ringsend A2 - Underground option from Dublin Port (nearest bus connections) currently suffer Tunnel under the Liffey with no at grade from road congestion though bus prior- interchange on the South Bank area. ity measures and extension of the QBC A3 – Elevated motorway option with no are indicated within the DTO strategy to interchange on the South Bank area. upgrade the network.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 14 A1(at grade/cut) A2(tunnel) A3 (viaduct option)

Key

East Link Options (Arup study)

Road in tunnel

Potential junction land take 4.2ha

Alternative location for East Link junction on Port land

0 100 500m

fi g 14: Motorway link proposals

15 Junction Interchange junction solely for the relatively small Port an extension of South Bank Road (off Extension of the LUAS line into the South The question over interchange access on Lo-Lo use would seem ir ra tion al. Sean More Road) east to provide greater Bank peninsula could potentially be ac- the South Bank area from the proposed access along the peninsula adjacent to commodated along the Toll Road, swing- Eastern Bypass fundamentally affects An alternative scenario could consider the Irishtown Nature Park. ing southeast into South Bank Road. future development potential in the follow- location for an interchange on Dublin Port ing ways: lands to the southern edge of the Liffey Other current proposals over next 6 6. Suburban rail • Interchange at present to serve truck (see fi g 13). This would negate the need months include the calming of Sean Construction of an ex ten sion to the access only for Dublin Port. Would for the cut and cover section of alignment More Road to traffi c, reducing lanes and suburban rail line through Spencer Dock not offer wider accessibility to the A1 and consolidate Port related truck ac- surface treatment as well as other traffi c connecting into Pearse Station and further national road network; cess on Port lands. calming measures in the local traffi c cell. west to the Heuston Station interchange. • Interchange would not alleviate local 2. Dublin Port Tunnel Suburban Rail / Light Rail proposals traffi c congestion as it deposits cars Discussions with the Dublin Port Tunnel too far south – people still would want include: Project Team identifi ed that construction 5. LUAS to get to and from the city centre from of the Port Tunnel to link into the M1 to the South Bank area; Construction of an extension to the LUAS the north (Coolock interchange) and south network from Abbey Street / O’Connell • Large land take (5.5ha) required by onto the northern peninsula (East Wall Street east to The Point Depot (identifi ed junction / road infrastructure; Road) has begun and will run through within the DTO Strategy and the DDDA • Junction in key central location that to September 2004. Connection into the Draft Planning Scheme 2001 for the Ex- would affect development on all proposed eastern by-pass is undefi ned tended Custom House Docks Area). boundaries; though a full orbital system is envisaged. • Phasing of junction / motorway would The DDDA planning Scheme 2000 for the 3. Bridge link Grand Canal Dock proposes an ex ten sion require large ‘hole’ to be set aside in Construction of a new bridge linking Guild overall development strategy. to the LUAS corridor east along Sir John Street across the Liffey to Macken Street Rogerson’s Quay to the Toll Road via a to combine public transport / vehicular The rationale behind providing an in- new bridge across the entrance to the access. Currently proposed to ac com - Grand Canal Dock. terchange on the subject lands from mo date a bus corridor though discussions the Eastern Bypass therefore needs with the Light Rail Project Offi ce indicated careful consideration. Alleviating traffi c that consideration is being given to a Different ways of accommodating a light con ges tion due to truck Port access is a LUAS corridor. rail system were explored by the Light real concern though given the non truck Rail Project Team (on street / separate dependent utilities (Ringsend and Pool- cor ri dor) through examining Strasbourg beg CCGT, waste water treatment plan) a 4. Peninsula and local roads. and Grenoble as case studies. The DDDA Master Plan (1997) indicates fi g 15: Port Tunnel

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 16 3.1.3 Land Ownership and Occu - On the South Bank the Port shares major- Industrial activity – leased land pa tion ity ownership with the City Council. Some A number of ‘dirty’ industrial type activities The South Bank currently accommodates £60m have been spent by the Port in then cur rent ly take place on the South Bank. a large proportion of Dublin city’s public last 10years on capital in fra struc ture. The Irish Glass Bottle Company - Long utility activities and is zoned for industrial term lease from Dublin Port (now decom- and employment use. Major land owners The historic Pigeon House electricity missioned). and oc cu pi ers in the area include: works is a protected structure and consid- Scrap metal yard - renewable lease from • Dublin City Council (sewage treat eration needs to be given to its future use. Dublin Port. Operate on the northern ment plant, parks and Strand); It is located on a small harbour, adjacent edge of the South Bank, heavy con tam i- to public utility struc tures and includes an na tion of the site with truck access. • Dublin Port Company (container old hotel. The old station falls within the Cement Works - renewable lease. Large storage, LOLO terminal); ownership of ESB and may be put on the amount of infrastructure, high truck ac- Cement works • ESB – Electricity suppliers and market. ESB is also aware of the com- cess and gen er a tor of dust pollution for Networks, part of Irish Electricity; mercial value of its property and this may the South Bank. • The Irish Glass Bottle Company Ltd. affect the long term options for its current Molasses storage tanks - lease from (now relocated off site); location. Dublin Port. Truck access required but relatively ‘clean’ non-emitting activity. • ZOE Developments; The existing sewage treatment plant • Scrap metal trader and cement works. run by Dublin City Council is a modern, enclosed system with strict control over A number of other activities take place on odour emissions. Along with several other land leased from Dublin City Council and locations, a site adjacent to the exist- the Dublin Port Company including: ce- ing sewage treatment plant has been ment works; scrap metal yard; mo las ses iden ti fi ed as a potential location for a storage tanks and a rowing club. Part of new thermal treatment plant and is pres- ESB’s land is also used as a golf course ently under review. A report published in though this is temporarily used as a November 1999 considers options for the construction site for their new gas turbine thermal treatment of waste and builds plant. Through current con sid er a tion of on the 1997 ‘Waste Management- A Container store the South Bank’s potential for a thermal Strategy for Dublin’. That study identi- waste treatment plant it may be viewed as fi ed targets for waste man age ment (59% an appropriate location for con sol i da tion recycle, 25% thermal, 16% landfi ll) given of existing activities. that Dublin city’s current landfi ll sites are rapidly nearing capacity.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 17 lease to Cement / scrap metal

Lease plan 'C' long lease to Irish Glass Bottle Co.

Lease plan 'B'

Lease plan 'A' - expired 3yr lease to Dublin City Council

"fee simple - to and for the benefit of the public forever".

Dublin City Council ZOE Development

Dublin Port Company ESB private

0 100 500m

fi g16: Existing ownership 18 3.2 STAKEHOLDER CURRENT NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS

The following section presents the range • Break bulk – mixed goods (timber/ of tenancies currently operating on the steel/paper); Rapid growth in the 90’s and continued, subject lands. These include both land though reduced, growth today has led to • Bulk liquid – oil/petroleum/molas- owners and those operating under lease. a shortage of hard standing space adja- ses, and; Issues particularly to do with growth, cent to deep water. To respond the Port space needs and change are described. • Bulk solid – grain/animal feed/coal. Company has made an application for re- This review is based on face to face in- claimation of land to the north of the Liffey terviews held in May and June 2001 with Two key problems faced by the Port are: while a smaller area to the southern side each of the tenants. 1. Access and; (10 acres) is being infi lled. The recent 2. Capacity Gov ern ment position on bay reclaimation 3.2.1 Dublin Port Company has referred the application to DCC for The Dublin Port Company, formerly Access planning permission, leading to a focus on known as the Dublin Port and Docks The majority of cargo is now transferred the MLT Termi nal for relocation of LOLO Board, has operated since the late 1700’s by road with the proportion of rail cargo activity, allowing expansion of the RORO and changed over to its current structure reducing. The railroad holdings on the to the north. Port activity on the north docks in 1997. The Port’s main activity takes northern Port lands are underutilised. place on the northern pe nin su la, which 3.2.2 ESB Access by HGV is problematic, with Port includes the majority of its land holding. A semi-state organisation with a sig- traffi c passing through city centre routes nifi cant land holding on the subject lands. to get out to the west. This is slow and The Dublin Port Company operates under Ownership includes the historic Pigeon has negative effects on the city centre remit from the Dublin City Council to House, now a listed structure, the existing environment. Alleviating this problem has transfer sea cargo to land. Approximately Poolbeg power station and a new com- been a long standing concern for the city 95% of goods arrive in Ireland by sea and bined cycle gas turbine plant at Ringsend, and the new Port Tunnel (due for com ple - the Port’s throughput has increased from currently under construction. They feed tion in 42 months) along with the potential 7m to 21m tons in the past 8 years. With into the national grid ‘networks’ who are Eastern By-pass will tackle this issue. growth expected to continue at around on site adjacent to the new CCGT plant. 5-7% annually, tonnage will rise to 29.4m ESB will seek to maximise the value of Capacity by 2005. their lands and consolidate existing op- Current land holding of around 160 acres erational space (already relocating from of which approx 8% is leased for non-Port The Port Company has 5 key areas of their centre city offi ce location further out activity (Irish Glass Bottle Co., concrete, activity, including: beyond the city core). scrap metal works and some sold for the • RORO - roll on / roll off; relatively recent (late 80’s) East Point • LOLO - load on / load off; Business Park.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 19 Office/mixed use Port Industrial Vacant

Residential Utility Park Historic

0 100 500m fi g17: Current landuse 20 Current holdings on the South Bank lands 140,000 sq.m gross in July 2000 (#1777/ 3.2.5 Dublin City Council will continue for the medium term given 00). Development to allow for 7,000 popu- The Council’s holding includes: the 25yr life span of the new CCGT plant, lation and 2,200 car parking spaces. This • Ringsend Sewage Treatment Works though with developments in technology, application has not been decided on. located between the two ESB gener- deregulation of the sector and increasing ating stations; development pressure raising land values The development seeks to include a res- the future requirements in the present i den tial element where such use is ‘per- • Irish Town Nature Park, Sean Moore location are undefi ned. missable’ in the statutory zoning policy. Park, Rinsgend Park, Irish Town Stadium; Main constraints include costs associated 3.2.4 Irish Glass and Bottle Company • Mobility, access and services Infra with cabling infrastructure (three levels (main activity relocated off the subject structure; lands) 1 – Air Grid, 2 – Networks, 3 – Supply). • Sandymount Strand, foreshore and Poolberg power station Further re quire ments include: The following description pre-dates the beaches along the southern edge of current ob jec tives of this organisation that the South Bank lands; • Fuel supply (natural gas) are to develop the site as a commercial • Cooling water (closed system – free / mixed-use scheme. The Company are • Pigeon House western harbour border cooling) keen to initiate discussion with the City and Liffey edge. • Cabling Council to identify ac cept a ble parameters for future development. The DCC faces the challenge to see the Docklands area as a whole regenerated The Poolbeg power station chimneys The former factory operated on land and meet the de mands of a bur geon ing form an important historical landmark in leased from the Dublin Port Company and ter ti ary em ploy ment sector whilst re tain ing the wider city structure and traditionally has traded in the current location since and con sol i dat ing the public util i ty activi- marked the ‘end’ of the city. These ele- 1966. Majority of suppliers and custom- ties of the city in the same location. The ments are listed structures and will need ers are located to the west of the city and issue of Port activity is one under con- to be protected. access is a clear problem. Operate 40ft sideration by the Minister for the Marine ar tic u lat ed lorries. and Natural Re sourc es, though support 3.2.3 ZOE Developments Primarily constrained by their furnace in- appears forth com ing from the Coun cil for Acquired the land located between the frastructure (run 2 furnaces with life spans ex ten sion and growth of the same with Irish Glass Bottle Company and Sandy- of 7-10 years with a further 3-5 years to the Port Tunnel con struc tion and land Glass factory mount Strand. Submitted an application run). Also require a large power source reclaimation. for the construction of pri ma ri ly offi ce and use gas and heavy fuel oil. space (120,495 sqm) with ancilliary The DCC have a clear objective to ‘clean retail, leisure and hotel making a total of up’ Dublin Bay through the Dub lin Bay

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 21 Project to meet Eu ro pe an clean water guide lines. This £200m project is due for completion in 2002 and will: • Upgrade existing sewage treatment at Ringsend to secondary and tertiary levels of treatment; • Construct Sutton pumping station to collect all North Dublin fl ows presently dumped untreated of Howth point; • Construct a submarine pipeline to connect Ringsend to Sutton and; • Establishe a Sludge Disposal New tertiary waste treatment plant Management Plan.

Sandymount Strand

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 22 3.3 OPEN SPACE - DUBLIN WIDE AND LOCAL CHARACTER

Strategic Value of Dublin’s Open Space Local Spaces has current plans to expand and improve obtain views back into the city. The character of Dublin’s open space can The South Bank and its immediate envi- its club house facilities. The park is also be defi ned across a number of distinct rons include a number of signifi cant public a feeding ground for Brent geese and The foreshore as the point of in ter ac tion types that include: open spaces. These include: other wintering wildfowl. Grants of around with Dublin Bay and as a link from Beach • Small structured urban parks; • Sean Moore Park; £0.5m have been made available from Road to the Great South Wall fullfi ls an the DDDA to upgrade the pitches. important function. Parts of the foreshore • Public / Georgian squares; • Ringsend Park; are in need of cleaning up within the • Linear open space routes; • Irishtown Stadium; Ringsend Park and the adjacent run- broader Dublin Bay project. Two beaches • Phoenix park; • Irishtown Nature park; ning track has recently received a have formed along the south ern stretch of £2.5m upgrade. The park suffers from the South Bank and are unique elements • Rural large scale green belt and; • Sandymount Strand; its relatively enclosed location with poor offering a different kind of recreational use • Eastern sea board ‘Strand’. • Poolbeg - South Wall; entrance visibility. Safety on the park after other than the tidal Strand fl ats. • Beaches (3 No.) and; dark is a concern for local residents. This Of these, Phoenix Park to the west with is currently the subject of improvement its elevated topography and the Poolbeg • Foreshore. schemes under the remit of the DDDA peninsula to the east contribute to the along with other local road surface treat- feeling of generous large open space These spaces are managed by Dublin ments. within the city and visibility from the City Council Parks Department and fall ‘outside in’. In terms of ‘urban memory’ under the remit of the Parks Su per in - Irishtown Nature Park is a well used and historic reference the Poolbeg has tend ent. amenity, frequented by walkers and bird allowed city inhabitants and visitors to ex- watchers. It developed on the site of a perience Dublin as a background setting The Poolbeg peninsula forms an im por - landfi ll and has evolved into an ec o log i- from a position of open space. tant and fi nal element in the continuity of cal ly diverse landscape with a good range open space running west to east through of fl ora. It forms the only high point on the city and con nect ing with Dublin Bay. the South Bank (apart from the embank- The perception of this publicly ac ces si ble ments) and along with the ‘two chimneys’ area is re in forced by the extension that is is an important element in the overall the Great South Wall. landscape of the peninsula. Car access to the park is limited. Sean Moore Park is used primarily as a recreation ground for various sports activi- The Great South Wall is an important ties. The Clannagael Fontenoy Gaelic amenity for a range of users and enables Importance of large open spaces to Club is the local club enjoying the use of people to distance themselves from the the park as its home ground. The club experience the city enclosure of the urban city condition and Local improvement scheme at Ringsend

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 23 Evolving an Approach to Open Space In principle there is a strong argument for holding development back from the water edge that can be defi ned as: • Increasing public access (visual and physical) to the waterfront; • Maintaining continuity of current users experience and; Local Parks: Sean • Allowing joint experience of peninsula Moore & Ringsend and water (often an edge walkway will only allow appreciation of the water body itself).

In the broader city-wide context the role of the South Bank and its con tri bu tion to Dublin’s open space network can there- fi g 18a: South Bank as built extension to the city fore be defi ned across two broad pos- si bil i ties (fi gs 18a & b). The fi rst indicates the South Bank as a fully developed (in yellow) extension of the city of Dublin, Increasing amenity of effectively forming a ‘plug between the Irishtown Park two tidal strands. The second (fi g 18b) indicates the possibility for the peninsula to form part of a contig u ous eastern open space structure with reinforced green links along the Liffey to Phoenix Park. As a currently accessible part of Dublin’s open space amenity this role should be reinforced drawing the South Bank closer to the city in per cep tual terms.

Foreshore offers access and recreation fi g 18b: South Bank as open space element in tidal edge

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 24 3.5 STATUTORY CONSTRAINTS AND ENVIRONMENT

3.5.1 Planning Context industry incu bat ed companies 3.5.3 Ecological ternatives to greenfi eld fringe sprawl, and (Refer to Appendix 1 for detailed list of knowledge based and R+D parts of The value in the South Bank as a natural which seek to maintain the com pact ness documents appraised). industry), Type B offi ces (defi nition environment is described within the DDDA and character of the city. Improved living see page 59) ie ad min is tra tion, study1 . This covers its role to both fl ora and working environments will draw those Reviewed Planning Policy affecting the research and dispatch uses in and fauna and identifi es key des ig nat ed seeking healthier lifestyles back into the South Bank lands highlighted the fol- fl exible offi ce type buildings and some parks and beaches. centre and infl uence the demand for local low ing: residential and; amenity and services. • Residential density guidelines are The Strand (700ha) is covered by four key • High degree of policy fl exibility for fl uid at the moment and to be driven environmental designations that include: The South Bank benefi ts from direct the area suggested by the notion of by local character/site specifi c issues. • Special Protection Area (SPA); access to open space and a range of enterprise/ B1 type use and the Appropriate locations for Increased recreational activities made possible from • Special Area Conservation (pcSAC) shore, bay, park and beach landscapes. technopol proposal and also potential densities should be identifi ed. City proposed candidate; for some residential; Centre/Brownfi eld sites plot ratio 1.0 – This key quality differentiates it from any 2.5 suggested. • Areas of Scientifi c Interest (ASI’s) and; other location in the city and should be • The current zoning for Industrial use held as a priority for infl uencing change. may have been Infl uenced by the • Proposed Natural Heritage Area 3.5.2 Planning applications (pNHA). former Irish Glass Bottle Company 3.5.4 Heritage and to protect existing public utility A number of planing applications are ac- These designations are de scribed further tive on the subject lands, including: in the DDDA study. The peninsula is one of Dublin’s distinct activities. With relocation of the Glass places in as much as its land formation factory there is the potential to rezone • Extension to Gaelic Fontenoy football and former uses epitomises the city’s his- the area for enter prise/B1 use; club builidngs; Arguments for underlying prin ci ples of city design in sus tain a ble terms that toric development. In particular the South • As the site sits adjacent to res i den tial • Reclaimation for extension to waste move to wards zero environmental im pact Bull wall and lighthouse testify to a mari- and local residential amenity there is treatment ponds; and which recognise non commercial time trade dependency while the interest- an argument to be made for including • Works to the existing sewage pump forces for shaping growth are becoming ing roles of the Pigeon House Harbour a mix with housing – which is of ing station (MLPS) on Pigeon House increasingly salient. The current Dublin area tell their own story. The highly visible course in high demand; Road; Bay project recognises the importance twin chimneys of the Poolbeg power sta- tion form an important mnemonic device • Although the technopol is not indi • Extension to boating club facilities; of creating a healthy environment for city cated for this site specifi cally (see users with emphasis on minimising the for residents and landmark the site from page 152 DDDA) there is scope for is • Upgrade to Ringsend stadium destructive impact of city by-products local and strategic vantage points. In gen- inclusion; • Improvements to access points for with a view to increasing the recreational eral preserving the experience of history Ringsend park; amenity of the bay and shore. Key brown in the area is a key driver in any future • Area has the potential for a mix of development. education/knowledge based busi • Feasibility for Thermal waste treat fi eld sites (Grand Canal Dock, North Lotts, Heuston station environs, South nesses and industry (particularly ment plant 1 Unpublished study - Poolbeg Peninsula, Bank etc.) are seen as development al- Land Use and Transportation, DDDA.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 25 A1(at grade/cut) A2(tunnel) A3 (viaduct option)

Exisitng under utilised Railroad Holding Relocation of Reclaimation for Cruise Liner Docking Dublin Port LOLO Terminal RORO expansion LUAS extension

North Lots Planning Scheme

Sea Cat docking

Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme

Planned LOLO Terminal Ringsend Park Reclaimation Cement Works

Stadium Upgrade Potential at- grade junction Chimneys Historic Pigeon House Station Sean Moore Rd Calming Beach Feasibility for Thermal Waste Plant Possible new road Development Application Beach Sean Moore Park Irish Town Nature Park Submarine pipeline to Howth

Lansdowne Rugby Ground

Dublin Bay Project / Strand Conservation Area

Eastern By-Pass Options DART line 0 100 500m

fi g19: Infrastructure condition 26 3.4 Utilities & Infra struc ture

A number of current initiatives, planning mission and distribution systems. Large other more hazardous material. Current applications, designations and site condi- amounts of buried ESB cable exist along industry such as scrap metal, oil storage, tions are active on the subject lands. At three primary corridors (EL1, EL2, EL3), cement works will have contaminated the the time of this study the following have each with a 16m wayleave. (EL1 – 2 No area further. been identifi ed. 38kV cables carry power to DART, 2No 110kV cables, 2 No 220kV cables; EL2 Remediation is likely to be extensive Sewer Drainage - – 2 No 220kV cables, 1 No 110kV cable; due to EPA assessments and the neces- New waste treatment & pipeline EL3 – 3 No 220kV, 1 No 110kV). sary Environmental Impact assessments As part of the overall Dublin Bay project and risk assessments. Measures could two major pieces of infrastructure are Road infrastructure include excavating material, capping infi ll, under construction. A new tertiary waste Described in section 4.0 are the poten- remediating ground water though these treatment plant (enclosed building and tial alignments of the eastern by-pass measures will be dependent upon the ponds) will be fed by a new 1422mm (A1,A2,A3) and the possible location of intended end use and level of stringency. submarine pipeline from a pumping sta- an at grade junction. The DDDA Master tion on the Howth peninsula to the north Plan (1997) identifi es a potential new road Water, Gas and Oil lines (Add Diagram) of the Bay. running east west along the edge of Irish The Irish Glass Bottle Company has a Town Nature Park. direct feed 250mm oil pipe from the north Two main 2290mm siphons (MS1) carry shore line. The status of this will be re- sewage from the Main Lift Pumping Sta- Some calming measures are already viewed due to the relocation of the glass tion on Pigeon House Road to the waste underway (Sean Moore Road) and others factory off the subject lands. treatment plant. The sewers run under planned for particular traffi c cells in the South Bank Road and to the southern adjacent area. Two natural gas piplelines, each with boundary of the new CCGT Ringsend 8m wayleaves connect into the Poolbeg power station. A second main sewer trunk Reclaimation and contam ina tion power station and new CCGT plant south MS2 (1800mm) runs from Rathmines As shown in fi g 20 - a ge o log i cal survey of the older station. G1 runs from Sandy- and Pembroke Road sewer. This sewer map of 1912, much of the current pe- ford to Poolbeg and G2 from Dublin City. is located under Pigeon House Road and nin su la was reclaimed during the twenti- runs to an outfall on the South Bull Wall. eth century. Ringsend park, Grand Canal A 300mm water main runs along Sean Dock and the north docklands area is Moore Road to serve the Ringsend power Transmission/Distribution networks classifi ed as ‘intake’ as opposed to river station. Two smaller mains (2 No 225mm (Add Diagram) gravel terraces and raised beach. Due and 1 No 150mm) run under Pigeon Construction of a new CCGT power sta- to the infi ll for reclaimation a range of House Road. tion (Ringsend) is complete along with the possible contaminants are present from necessary connections into the trans- builders rubble to ash, organic waste and fi g 20: Geological map 1912

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 27 fi g 21: Services infrastructure, DDDA study unpublished, 2001

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 28 4.0 drivers for change

29 4.1 IDENTIFYING DRIVERS FOR CHANGE

The strategic signifi cance of the site can be realised through repositiong the pe- ninsula in the wider Dublin context. This chapter reviews the following parameters that can potentially drive change: Scenario 1 Minimum intervention 1. Physical characteristics; Ec olog i cal Park 2. Development needs in current market condition; 3. Future of utilities and port and; 4. Accessibility and transport capacity vs development maximising. Scenario 2 In theoretical terms the capacity of the Medium intervention site can vary enormously. The three initial Development node & options developed in the early stages of the study (fi g 22) highlighted the scale and potential range of intervention pos- sible from a design concept-led approach. The need for a parallel approach to site potential that emcompasses both exist- Scenario 3 ing physical constraints and design is Maximum intervention an important methodological process Full development that is iterative and avoids the danger of fi g 22: Strategic design scenarios highly involved analysis with little design response.

With the three broad design scenarios (minimum to maximum) in mind the fol- lowing defi ntion of drivers sets the context for review. Section 4.5.2 presents the arguments and preconditions associated with each level of intervention.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 30 4.2 LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTER SIGNIFICANCE

The major opportunity for the South Bank 4.2.1 Development of the Site in the the role of the South Bank in terms of its lies in recognising the future potential of Docklands Context function, open space con tri bu tion to the the area as a signifi cant waterfront loca- Dublin, and specifi cally its waterfront has, city and spatial structure. tion. Precedent for this type of regenera- unlike many of the port cities of the world tion and fundamental change of function lagged behind the general regeneration As can be seen in Fig 23, the de vel - and perception abound across the globe. trend (described this section). Only re- op ment of Dublin city is one which has The signifi cance of the site’s location in a cently is the city experiencing the terti- progressively engaged with the shoreline, a. Port as part of city core city wide context includes: arisation of its economy that would apply though the nature of that engagement has development pressure to city-centre har- been as a separate industrial and port • Proximity to the city-centre; bour sites on the north and south banks. related activity. Very little change to this Placing Dublin within a general model of scenario has occurred today and indeed • Adjacency to Dublin Bay and the change in the re la tion ship between city consolidation of this relationship has Liffey and port we fi nd that it locates itself within taken place recently through de vel op ment • Large ‘brownfi led’ tracts of land and ‘stage c’ as shown below (Fig. 23c) of public utility infrastructure (waste treat- b. Port spreads along the quays, new character potential and; ment and proposed thermal treatment fl ow of goods past • Local regeneration intiatives (Grand The pre-modern beginnings of the city of plants). Canal, North Lotts) Dublin in di cate a port that was very much part of the settlement core where the This situation has increasingly created a These characteristics are typical of the harbour was the fi nal destination. Growth state of tension as harbour areas have conditions within which other waterfront of the port as a center for distribution grown (in particular the North Bank and sites have been redeveloped and thus required a re defi ni tion of the relation- now expansion of LOLO activity onto the place Dublin’s South Bank in an op- ship between the port’s infrastructure, South Bank), more noticeably in the latter por tun is tic position. A recent focus on open rural landscape and city. That same half of the nineteenth century and early c. Separation of the specifi c functions Dublin’s Port1 has reinforced the need to re la tion ship is salient in the con text of the twentieth century. The traditional quay, - city & port identify strategic issues facing the func- current project, which calls into question which used to form a link between the tioning of ports in relation to their host city. international port and local city scales has disappeared, with the result a permanent tension between the two very different spatial systems. In comparison, Dutch quays were very much part of the city street network, lined with housing and 1 Established Dec 2000 by Minister for Marine and also part of the ocean going world-wide d. port become part of a network of Natural resources in which two new groups will trade network. functions examine the effect of the successful Irish economy on 16th century: Port part of the enclosed city its Ports. (Dublin A Celebration, Pat Liddy, 2000) fi g 23: models of city-port relationship

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 31 Compounding this is the disparity in scales of function that have increased as distribution systems and their tech- nol o gies have simply enabled greater unit sizes, requiring ever larger infrastructure. Dublin’s road network has struggled to cope with this growth and has prompted 1685-1783 the construction of the new Port Tunnel, though with Port growth at 5-7% per year, predicted tonnage of 29.4m by 2005 (21m today) and a current shortage of deepwa- Dublin docks in the C18th and the port today ter hard standing space the future of this location must be called into question.

The beginnings of functional change have begun to take place with the IFSC 1824-1897 and Planning Schemes for Grand Canal Dock and Spencer Dock (North Lotts), pro posed as mixed use and employment focused developments.

1897-1956

fi g 24: Dublin City growth 1958-1975 (Dublin A Celebration, Pat Liddy, 2000)

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 32 4.2.2 The ‘Urban Waterfront’ Agenda city wide character, open space, primary on: – World Context and secondary economies and character 1. Enterprise Zones Waterfront development has grown into neighbourhoods. 2. Transportation Links a speciality over the last 20 to 30 years, 3. Housing Projects refl ecting the colossal scale of waterfront The context of the waterfront agenda regeneration internationally. The shift from has also been driven by changes in both Enterprise zones gave a high degree of Industrial to Post-Industrial activities and social and environmental conditions. freedom to private investment to en- their implications on the spatial structure Lifestyles of those living in cities demand cour age and promote the area as a future of the city (transport and industry moving greater sophistication in levels and types offi ce location for the primary and high out of city-centre lo ca tions) has gener- of amenity and recreation. Places that technology econ o mies. Such de vel - ated a surplus of unused harbour sites. include water/shoreline have a fun da - Barcelona waterfront - open space network op ment re sult ed in the privatisation of the In particular, changes in technology and men tal attraction and also form historical historic Docklands area. Housing projects decreased railroad holdings have caused connections with the earliest reasons for dou bled the amount of new dwell ings ports to relocate out of their traditional settlement. Specialist forms of retail and from 1981 to 1991 (17,000 units, only city-centre sites, as shown in London and recreation have utilised waterfront sites 2,000 of which were local authority Amsterdam. (Cosmo Square, Osaka) contributing to owned) but these were exclusive en- the overall ‘offer’ of the city. claves around the most characterful parts In addition world wide pressure to ‘clean- of the area (basins, Thames banks etc.). up’ waterways, harbours and bays 4.2.3 Waterfront Warning Signs Money was then spent from 1981 to 1985 prompted regeneration and public invest- Not all waterfront regeneration schemes on the DLR system without any parallel ment on environmental grounds. Dublin’s have met with success. Many of the development or contribution to signifi cant docklands is undergoing major in vest ment large scale transformation projects went public open space. This system had a in new waste treatment plant as part of through stages of modifi cation or trim ming limited capacity of ~6,000 passengers an the move to establish a clean and usable down or simply remained on the drawing hour and was not designed for the scale public bay. board (as is the case of de vel op ment of of Canary Wharf. Along with its relative the IJ Shore in Am ster dam), some were isolation from the City and inadequate Many of the more ‘interesting’ cities economically fl awed or undermined by the public transportation system, uncertainty (Barcelona, Helsinki, Rotterdam, New local politics of their environments. in the market led to real-estate de vel op ers Pacifi co Yokohama, Japan York, Rio de Janiro, Hong Kong to name Olympia and York going bankrupt in 1992. but a few) are known for their waterfront London’s Docklands and in particular the Despite this tentative start the de vel - character. These have dem on strated that Canary Wharf ‘heart’ to the area (1985/6) op ment today has grown with the recent the waterfront aspects of cities have been was affected by a number of factors. The construction of two new high rise towers. able to adapt to changes in technolo- then new London Docklands authority gies and create new op por tu ni ties for (LDDA) developed a strategy that focused

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 33 4.2.4 Changing the ‘Backyard’ activ- city. A key concern was to safeguard port ity activity. Major infrastructure de vel op ments Due to the nature of port activity during included the Marseille railway station the latter half of the twentieth century that (addition of TGV) and placing existing tended towards poles for specialised dis- motorways that crossed the site under- tribution and transhipment, huge industrial ground. Infrastructure was de vel oped areas relocated from traditional city centre prior to private residential / com mer cial sites to fringe land. Examples of port development. relocation include: • Liverpool: port moved to Birkenhead; Area: 300ha Phasing: Planning in progress • Bordeaux: port moved to Verdon and; Functional programme: 100ha port • New York: port moved to Port Eliza activity, 100ha existing industry and new beth. commercial, 100ha new housing.

To enable regeneration of these industrial Canary Wharf, London Docklands areas required signifi cant changes in pub- lic perception, initiated through relocation of the former activity. Not all ports howev- er followed this trend and some remained in their original locations.Where this is the case such ports and cities either improved there infrastructure; experienced mobility and access tensions (Dublin) or; evolved their port/city re la tion ships into a hybrid of integrated functions (Marseille).

Integrated port functions – Marseille Euromediteranée La Joliette Euromediteranee was initiated by the municipality of Marseille, and aimed to es- IJ shore, Amsterdam tablish a prestige tertiary sector to act as an economic motor in the heart of the port Port development of Marseille seen in strategic context

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 34 Relevant issues heavy truck usage that com pounds the 4.2.5 Designing the Utility - Copen - The city engine and ports Most Docklands regeneration projects negative perception of the area. ha gen Copenhagen contains a number of port rely on the relocation of the port’s in dus - The experience of cities like Copenhagen facilities, old and new and leading edge tri al activity. The Marseille port project has shown the potential and opportunity public utility infrastructure. Of the ports demonstrated an alternative approach for dealing with the necessary city func- (inner, southern and northern) the north- where port activities remain but are mixed tions described above in a positive way. ern port, Faergehavn Nord, has plans for and integrated with other urban functions. Two principle points are worth describing extension while the older inner city ports For the mu nic i pal i ty, the synergy between in relation to their approach: (Vesterbro and Kongens Enghave) are the port and the built up area is key to the • Use of open space – greening the city; subject to urban re de vel op ment. Each launching of new tertiary facilities. has been identifi ed wihtin the District • The city ‘engine’ and ports. Planning Schemes with a stra te gic over- Due to the pe riph er al character and loca- view for development. tion of such sites they may include public Greening the city utility type functions. This activity often Three types of open green space have A programme of sustainable and re- stigmatises an area and in per cep tu al ‘Dirty’ activities constrain development been allowed for in Copenhagen’s city new a ble energy has been developed with terms turns it into the city’s ‘backyard’. structure. The larger of these, the Nature four combined heat and power plants Once ‘backyard character’ has been Park (2,500ha) was set aside to re gen - distributed across the city districts. District established, public ac cept a bil i ty of further er ate after former military uses moved heating (steam and hot water) began in con sol i da tion in these locations be comes out. Other reclaimed land has been des- the 1930’s and now covers the whole easier (likely to draw fewer objections to ig nat ed as Beach Park (7km length) and municipality. Amager is a combined power expansion of utilities for example). Re-vis- both contribute to a memorable system of and incineration plant of high quality iting of the area as an op por tu ni ty for high large open spaces. The value in this type industrial design that sits promonently on value amenity or inclusion in the city’s of space has been recovered through al- the eastern sea board for visitors to Swe- open space struc ture requires signifi cant lowing residential development along the den to glimpse when arriving by ferry and changes in per cep tion. edges, now seen has high value locations cruise liner, along with the well designed and through a signifi cant open space pub- Lynetten sewage treatment plant. Wind- The Poolbeg peninsula functions both as lic amenity that is part of the ‘townscape’. farm and biogas locations have also been the waste process ing/power generation Historic reference has also been made to considered. ‘engine’ of the city and operates an indus- the former city defences through the crea- trial transhipment port with the spin off tion of a linear ‘urban’ green structure, activites one would expect to fi nd (scrap again contributing to the value of adjacent metal, cement works, man u fac tur ing development. and the like). Servicing of these requires Habitat, Herbert Giradet, 1998

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 35 Reclaimed land set aside as Nature Park, 1950 Beach Park, 1975 Preservation of historic open space elements

Amager incineration and Northen port and power power plant station

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 36 4.2.6 The potential of port/industrial for such a de vel op ment is unlikely due to sites – Scenario development the city-wide demand profi le and existing A general review of the current water- IFSC lo ca tion. front regeneration agenda has identifi ed Other key preconditions relate to the South Bank Gateway Eco Park Primary Industry Service Industry City wide Amenity Specialist Residential Specialist Use Transport seven generic development types (fi g revenue potential of particular forms of Type 1 Type 2 Type 3a Type 3b Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7 25), which can be broadly categorised development and indicate that though an as ranging from full civic scale develop- ecological park would be of signifi cant Existing ment of city gateway (type 1) to specialist national value it never-the-less would not ++ em ploy ment/retail locations (types 3-6) pay for itself and would require funding. Potential to minimum intervention/ecological park (type 2). These types are described fur- Preconditions Size No land Size Public Size Size Deep ther in Appendix 2. m’way value demand transport public demand water public invest mobility public A review of the potential for each of the transport public transport seven scenarios was carried out against transport mobility the specifi c physical constraints of the South Bank location. This review tested table 2: Viablility of the seven scenarios Minimal possibility / none the degree of potential of the respective for the South Bank Some potential sce nar i os in the current situation and against the future redevelopment of the Good potential use entire peninsula. It showed that certain High Success types of development would be more suit- + able (likely to succeed) than others for the South Bank.

Preconditions for each scenario were identifi ed based on review of the case study parameters. That review is sum ma - rised in table 2 and indicates that, for ex- ample, a signifi cant new gateway devel- opment must have suf fi cient land size, a mo tor way connection and public transport access. Similarly for new primary em ploy - ment however in this case the possibility

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 37 1. GATEWAY 2. ECOLOGICAL PARK 3. EMPLOYMENT 4. CITY WIDE AMENITY Site specifi c/high mixed-use Walkway / recreation Primary &/or service industry leisure / entertainement

fi g 25: Seven waterfront development 5. SPECIALIST RESIDENTIAL 6. SPECIALIST USE 7. TRANSPORT types Waterfront housing Wholesale / retail / market Passenger terminal, interchange

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 38 4.3 DEMAND CONTEXT

This section establishes market pa ram e- Service vs manufacturing • spread of offi ce and industrial space this has continued to current levels of ters for the development strategy with a Total businesses in Dublin area total in the suburbs has given response to around 20%. The slow down in new offi ce view to the future outlook of the city. The 40,000 (excl. self employed) of which: the reverse commute phenomenon – construction is likely to cause this to fall. review was carried out in June 2001. Key whereby people prefer to live in the In early 2001 286,000 sqm of new space prin ci ples include: Service companies: 37,000 (92.5%) city centre and are prepared to was under construction, the majority of • maximise success by setting the Manufacturing companies:1,300 (3.25%) commute outwards. which is in suburbs such as Park West, framework; City West, Sandyford, and Blanchards- Company size Strategic Planning Guidelines town. By the end of 2002 111,480 sqm of • maximise potential value; 89.8% of companies employ < 10 people Concentrate development on areas with space will come on stream, 60% of which • lead and infl uence Dublin future 9.6% of companies employ < 50 people developed infrastructure therefore: will be City Centre. redevelopment and; 0.5% of companies employ > 200 people Consolidation of development within 0.1% of companies employ > 1,000 • The majority of demand (52%) is in the • benefi t from creation of high profi le the city centre; opportunity for Dublin. people city centre, 38% of demand is for sub- • Naas-Newbridge-Kilkullen recom ur ban locations to the south of the city Population growth and housing mended as primary development while the north and west attract only 7% centre; Main business sectors –initial fi ndings In the past 5 years the population in the and 3% respectively. Development on the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) has increased Balbriggan, Drogheda, Navan and South Bank could offer rentals at two- SECTORS CURRENT FASTEST CLUSTER LOCATION • LEADING GROWING by approximately 9%. (128,000 people Wiclow should become development thirds the cost of city centre; Software/teleservices ● bringing the population to its current level centres; Electronics/ ● GUINNESS CENTRE of ~1.5m). Demand in city centre has increased engineering (MULTI MEDIA) • Swords and Bray-Greystones- Financial services ●● rental prices. City centre rental levels Tourism ● ●+ Delgany should be further developed; Business & ● In the next 10 years the population is £390 per sq.m. Higher quality suburban commercial services Construction industry ● forecast to increase by 15% (bring- • ‘dormitories’ not ideal but rec og ni tion development £200 per sq.m. Food ◗ Drink ◗ ing population to an estimated ~1.7m). of function as ‘commuter belts’. Tobacco ◗ Forecast Offi ce Absorption 1999-2005 Paper ◗ 184,000 more houses or apartments will Printing ◗ FORECAST NET OFFICE ABSORPTION ◗ Banking be needed to accommodate them. Current situation (BASED ON NEW JOB CREATION) SQ.FT Telecoms ◗ Public administration ◗ • Demand for property higher than Trends recently registered: supply 1999 1,593,000 table 3 • Pressure for higher den si ties 2000 705,257 • population spread in adjoining towns + under tourism but not in other 2001 749,000 sections of same document along transport arteries; Offi ce accommodation 2002 612,000 At the end of 2000 Dublin offi ce stock 2003 432,000 • population returning to live in the city 2004 370,000 centre; was approximately 1.85m sqm, vacancy 2005 348,000 levels at 2%. A very signifi cant increase in 2001 lead to a vacancy rate of 8% and table 4: Dunloe Ewart Plc, Sept 1999

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 39 Industrial • extended DART and suburban rail Shortage of incubator type space for services small and start-up companies, although upgrade light rail to metro system the Guinness Enterprise Centre has pro- • vided much needed space. • rail link to airport • network of Quality Bus Corridors Development of a multi-media district (QBCs) adjacent to the Guinness Centre is likely to bring more space in this part of city into Commuting play (MIT Multi Media Lab already moved Commuting fl ows are substantial / con- into Guinness Hop Store). Conversion of gestion common. Consequences are: existing buildings in light industrial space. • pressure on transport in fra struc ture; Conference centre • higher transport costs caused by Plans still current for the construction of a congestion; 2000 seater National Conference Centre • environmental costs and; in Spencer Dock. • social costs as individuals leisure time is reduced by commuting time. Multi sports stadium Commuting stress likely to impact on Plans still current for a new combined all work produc tiv i ty. weather sports stadium. Potential lo ca - tions to be assessed

Major infrastructure projects (Overall cost estimated at £14bn) • the Dublin Port Tunnel • completion of the M50 Ring Motorway • an Eastern Relief Route to complete ring road around the city • a city centre metro system, including a circular line linking central rail stations

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 40 4.4 CONSOLIDATION OF UTILITIES

The South Bank area is the principle and emissions on the environment are Port / ZOE development / Irish Glass Bot- Area 7 – 8.4ha location for the majority of Dublin city’s considered or perceived as harmful. tle Company – long lease from Port). This Currently owned and occupied by the Port public utilities. In particular the ESB power area holds the most immediate potential for container storage with a small amount generation plants at Poolbeg and Ring- Figure 27 indicates the future de vel - for development with the relocation of the of industry. This is a prime high value lo- send, and the new waste water treatment op ment of the proposed thermal waste glass factory, current planning applica- cation overlooking The Strand and Dublin plant are the largest and most ‘fi xed’. treatment plant and compared to a tions on the ZOE lands and large size. It bay with good views towards the Wicklow The previous need to discharge primary development picture without the TWTP, is edge conditions vary from low density mountains. Bounded to the north by the treat ed sewage into the Liffey Estuary indicates a sig nifi cant ly re duced area residential to park to coast to utility plant. ESB plant and potentially constrained with the raw sludge waste dumped at of fl exible (yellow). Figure 26 shows the further by the possible future thermal sea outside Dublin Bay made sense for de vel op ment po ten tial if no thermal plant Area 4 – 2.5ha treatment plant. the location of this activity on the east ern were con structed. An area in Port ownership currently oc- edge of the city. Dra matic changes in cupied by cement works and scrap metal Area 8 – 17.2ha technology, however, now afford greater Development areas with proposed merchants. A ‘soft’ area with potential for Solely owned and occupied by Dublin City op por tu ni ties for location and proximities thermal treat ment plant change, high value due to adjacency of Council’s tertiary waste water treatment for these ac tiv i ties. The current ex pan sion Eight specifi c areas are identifi ed below: the Liffey though bounded to the south by plant. The plant is a new fi xed facility, and consolidation of utilities (new CCGT Ringsend power plant. integrating with Sutton pumping station plant at Ringsend & Poolbeg, feasibility Area 1 – 16.1ha and north Dublin sewers thus classifi ed a for thermal waste treatment plant, terti- Currently in Dublin Port ownership and Area 5– 18.9ha ‘hard’ area not expected to change in the ary waster wa ter treatment plant, Sutton operating as container store for Lo-Lo This area includes the new ESB Ringsend near future. Contains some small historic submarine pipeline) and the relocation of activity and expanding eastwards along power plant and allows for the possibility elements linked to the former Pigeon- Dublin Port’s Lo-Lo activity to the south the Liffey edge. This area oc cu pies prime of a new thermal waste treatment plant house precinct. side of the Liffey (fi g 27 Area 1) es tab - location on the southern edge of the Liffey (on Port lands). It forms part of a relatively lish es a constraints picture for the site. and as gateway into the South Bank area ‘hard’ core of utilities that include Areas 5 Area 9 – 28.5ha This is described in terms of: as a whole. Classifi ed as blue (hard) due and 7. A small part of the area adjacent to A large area in ESB ownership with good to the growing short age of hard-stand- Pigeon House Road is in private owner- potential for change though contains the • Short (yellow) & long (blue) term ing space for the Port’s activity. Future ship smaller and relatively new CCGT plant potential for change based on the depends upon Port strategy. south of the older Poolbeg power station. lifespan and likelihood for relocation Area 6 – 2.8ha This latter station contains two generat- of utilities; Area 2 – 4.2ha This small area has been identifi ed sepa- ing furnaces with limited lifespans (5yrs), • Implications on land take – realistic This central area of land is in Dublin Port rately due to its adjacency to the waste currently under review for a major refi t. development area available taking ownership and is vacant except for a local treatment ponds in Area 7. It is likely that The future of the station will depend upon into account consolidation of utilities; rowing club. such an area will be necessary to form a ESB strate gy and power demand from • Restrictions on land use – due to Area 3 – 14.5ha buffer to development in Area 3. Dublin city. The 19th Century Pigeonhouse proximity to activities whose impact In dual ownership and tenancy (Dublin Harbour, Hotel and former electricity

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 41 station transferring to DCC own er ship are listed structures along with the twin Poolbeg station chimneys. As an area adjacent to the southern coastal edge that includes two beaches giving access to the South Bull Wall and Poolbeg Lighthouse it has the potential to con trib ute to a wider amenity/recreation offer for the city.

Development areas without a thermal (16.1ha) 1 4(2.5ha) treatment plant 6(2.8ha) The proposed TWTP has sig nifi cant 2(4.2ha) impact on the de vel op ment potential of 5(6.2ha) 9(28.5ha) 10(10.3ha) 8(17.2ha) the study area. Figure 26 in di cates the 3(14.5ha) greater amount of ‘soft’ land avail a ble for 7(8.6ha) new non-utility type de vel op ment. In par- Key ticular when the constraints en gen dered 1 Hard - Dublin Port LOLO site - new infrastructure 2 Soft - Port 3 Soft - Port / Irish Glass on 99yr lease / ZO 4 Varies - short lease to Irish Cement and Hammnd through proximity to a per ceived pollutant Lane scrap metal 5 Hard - 30yr+ Ringsend CCGT plant / Thermal Plant 6 Hard - Buffer to Waster Treatment Plant emitting thermal plant are removed, Area 7 Hard - Container storge & Engineering Co. on long lease from Port. Cement manufacturing on 5yr rolling licence arrangement 10 (10.3ha) becomes a large develop- 8 Hard - Waste Treatment Plant 9 Hard - 40yr Poolbeg station refit, 15yr CCTG ment site link ing both Areas 4 and 7. 10 Soft - Requires storage tank relocation 0 100 500m fi g 26: Development areas without a thermal plant

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 42 (16.1ha) 1 4(2.5ha) 6(2.8ha)

2(4.2ha) 5(18.9ha) 8(17.2ha) 3(14.5ha) 9(28.5ha)

7(8.4ha)

Key

1 Hard - Dublin Port LOLO site - new infrastructure 2 Soft - Port 3 Soft - Port / Irish Glass on 99yr lease / ZO 4 Varies - short lease to Irish Cement and Hammnd Lane scrap metal 5 Hard - 30yr+ Ringsend CCGT plant / Thermal Plant 6 Hard - Buffer to Waster Treatment Plant 7 Varies - Container storge & Engineering Co. on long lease from Port. Cement manufacturing on 5yr rolling licence arrangement 8 Hard - Waste Treatment Plant 9 Hard - 40yr Poolbeg station refit, 15yr CCTG

0 100 500m

fi g 27: Development areas with thermal treatment plant 43 4.5 SERVICE CAPACITY OF THE SITE

The South Bank is char ac ter ised by its 4.5.1 Infrastructure Provision cul-de-sac confi guration in overall struc- - trans porta tion limitations on devel - 3. What quantum of development is tural terms, with a similarly ‘non-through’ opment poten tial needed to fund/sustain such public trans- access condition (fi g 28). A minimal road The current accessibility/mobility con di - port solutions? netwrok does exist through simple site tions and potential for expansion of these subdivision on the basis of land take from as a driver for the nature and extent of 4. What are the “car trip”; “public trans port current industry and public utilities, though new development paints a very clear trip” and “parking defi cit” impli ca tions of a this is of a coarse block grain. Adjoining picture of what is possible on the sub- range of potential de vel op ment scenario? residential communities to the south west ject lands. Understanding this trans port demonstrate a more per me a ble block capacity-led potential revolves around two 5. What implications has the above for structure, while those to the west (Ring- key issues: development potential/capacity? send) fail to connect well. • How can car dependency for the To answer these questions a basic set In built form terms these adjacent areas proposed development be reduced to of as sump tions have been made, which exhibit building types and den si ties of a level compatible with the limited relate to the South Bank area and local around (plot ratio) 0.3, which are in ap pro - spare capacity on the existing (or market condition. These include: pri ate for the site’s future potential and even poten tial ly improved) road • A 70:30 public transport : private car con tri bu tion to Dublin’s housing stock network? modal split is the best that can needs. • Can a viable public transport proposal conceivably be assumed (DTO target); The question of the ‘starting point’ for new be developed to meet the demand for physical confi guration therefore becomes public transport from the proposed • Approximately 50% of all parking critical and should be considered on two development? spaces empty or full in peak hour; fronts: • Offi ce occupancy rates are 14sq.m/ To answer these questions fi ve more person and; • Transport capacity as key driver and specifi c enquiries need to be made that constraint; include: • Parking defi cits are deemed to be met • City Design and tenancy types as in adjacent areas (fi gures quoted are criteria for defi nition of new character 1. What is the available spare capacity on defi cit in peak-hour and are approxi and amenity networks. the existing (or on the realistically achiev- mately 40% of total parking defi cit). a ble) road network?

2. What is the potential capacity of viable public transport solutions?

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 44 The Point Luas stop

R2

R3

R4

Key

Lansdowne Rd Key 'feeders' into the study area DART Station Potential major access routes

DART / Luas 300m R1 Quality Bus Corridor

600m

00 100100 500m500m

fi g 28: Existing access condition 45 1. Available spare capacity on the road ing the South Bank area were to travel However this quantum of development Thus the high density scenario is entirely network. at 5 minute intervals in both directions, presents effectively “unsolvable” road incompatible with any transportation The key constrained “feeders” to the approximately 1500 trips per peak hour network problems and indicates that improvements particularly of the roads South Bank area are (see fi g 26): could be accommodated. However it is shuttle buses are the only likely viable network. The implication therefore is • Strand Road to South; (ref. R1) diffi cult at this time to see precisely what option. The above fi gures would ob vi ous ly that the only jus ti fi a ble possibility (from routing is feasible. reduce if Government were to provide a trans por ta tion view point) is to propose • East Link to North; (ref. R2) part funding. a low density solution with the maximum • Ringsend Bridge to City; (ref. R3) A LUAS link on the surface could ac- possible housing content (though this • Church Ave. to South City; (ref. R4) com mo date around 4000 trips at a cost of 4/5. Trip generation/parking impli - presents real public transport diffi culties). about 40m euro which would need about ca tions. The current 2-way use/capacity of these 500,000sq.m of development for funding. (The following data was compiled on the 4.5.2 City Design as generator links at peak hour are of the following Once again the routing is problematic basis of trip generation assumptions by The second approach to defi ning new order: and an underground routing is inevitably use type and is illustrative only. Tabu- site character and development potential (Based on brief traffi c counts – require non-feasible. lar pres en tation of fi gures are given in ignores transport limitations and takes confi rmation against offi cial DCC/NRA Appendix X based on an eclectic range a design led and future tenancy profi le data). LUAS funding calculations are based on of data drawn from previous experience approach . levy rates for LUAS extensions elsewhere and EIS’s). A “low” density scenario (of and are of the following order: Described below is such an approach for Capacity (pcu’s) Use (pcu’s) Spare Capacity 100,000sq.m) will produce anywhere from R1 2400 2400 Nil the subject lands based on rec og ni tion of R2 2650 2550 100 • 6,000 - 8,000euro/residential unit; 220 to 1680 car trips depending on use R3 1800 1650 150 the following: R4 800 800 Nil mix. Only one scenario is compatible with • 60 - 80euro/sq.m of offi ce/commer cial • the unique character of the location; table 5: Exisring & potential road capacity. development. the ca pac i ties quoted in 1 above. The associated public trans port demand could • the city-wide need for particular This suggests 250 spare 2-way capacity vary from 440 to 2080 trips. Only two of amenity/recreation facilities The likely cost of the LUAS extension • preserving the historic and ec o log i cal with little obvious improvement potential (in clud ing stops) @ 20m euro/km on sur- the options considered could be accom- (other than a future motorway linkage). modated by a single QBC and the higher value of the peninsula; face would be of order 40m euro, which • phasing utilities within a clean green An upgrade of R4 capacity would require therefore would need the following order fi gures will need Luas but cannot fund it. demolition of a row of houses. However a range of other public trans port framework and; of mag ni tude of development to totally • support through expansion of accessi fund the Luas Extension: facilities will come into play. 2/3. Public transport capac ity funding. bility conditions. • 250,000sq.m of housing + A QBC towards the City Centre would A “high” density scenario (of clearly provide signifi cant linkage to other 250,000sq.m of offi ces; Based on the scenario development in 500,000sq.m) produces very much section 4.2.6 several preferred de vel - public transport facilities. It could be • 450,000sq.m of housing and; greater fi gures (by a multiple of 5) and provided at minor cost but would need op ment options were identifi ed. The three • 550,000sq.m of offi ces. the associated car parking defi cits are options described below represent in- to displace other traffi c. If buses serv- potentially huge (up to 12,000 spaces).

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 46 creas ing levels of built intervention on the South Bank, from the designation of the majority of the area for large scale ecolog- ical regeneration (ie. a ‘minimum’ option) to medium and full built de vel op ment options relating to retraction of existing industry and increased ac ces si bil i ty.

Table 6 sets out the basic pre con di tions and pa ram e ters for the varying levels of intervention of each option. A key pre con - di tion relates to the accessibility criteria of each option. Described in fi gure 29 is the city-wide implication of an East Link / mo- torway connection on the South Bank, a requirement of the full development (civic gateway) option.

Parameter Option 1 - min Option 2 - med Option 3 - max Access / Transport line Wider transport Transport extension Infrastructure diversion diversion Rail lines / motorway Population ~3,000 + say 20,000 ~7,000 + visitors ~15,000 visitors p.wk. Ownership Consolidation of Negotiation for land Negotiation of land ownership / Comp swap release over time Funding of International funding, Public contribution to Private contribution Infrastructure min private contrib’n open space thru joint venture Policy Framework International compt’n, Spatial structure, Action Plan Design & Briefi ng open space dgn, Dev & Detailed plan. Development Frmwk table 6: Review of three development options fi g 29: Signifi cant infrastructural change will drive the development scenarios

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 47 1. Minimum intervention International Ecological Park

48 Option 1 Development requirements/ Dublin Bay and its environs are already consid er a tions internationally important nature con ser - requires large tracts of land; va tion sites. The South Bank Peninsula • would becomes a key part of this re- • could still be achieved with utilities source. Its main role would be to provide in place – but public access in key valuable new urban habitats on the edge areas would need to be restricted; of the Bay and to provide an educational • relatively low development costs – and interpretative facility for the whole high opportunity costs; city. • limited opportunity for revenue; likely to attract grant aid. Key objectives • • to provide a major contribution to wildlife and nature conservation resources and increase biodiversity in the city;

• to provide educational and interpreta tive facilities, thus raising awareness 0 100 500m of the importance of Dublin Bay to fi g 30: minimum intervention residents and visitors alike;

• to elevate Dublin’s international standing on environmental issues.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 49 2. Medium intervention Coastal Amenity Park

50 Option 2 Development requirements/ A coastal amenity park with a very strong consid er a tions emphasis on sustainability. It would share • requires large tracts of land, but many of the characteristics of the previ- could be developed incrementally; ous option. However, the nature con ser - • could still be achieved with utilities va tion aims would be much more mod- in place – but new public access est. The park would base its at trac tion would be required into areas on ecology, water and energy and would currently restricted; have a strong educational theme. • public access onto key areas would need to be restricted; Key objectives • relatively high development costs; • to provide the city with a major new • major visitor attraction with park; revenue opportunities; • fi ne grain commercial / residential; • likely to attract grant aid. • cultural value. • to raise awareness on sustainability issues and to provide educational facilities; • to provide a major visitor attraction – Irish Eden? • to elevate Dublin’s international fi g 31: medium level intervention standing on environmental issues.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 51 3. Maximum intervention Full Development- civic gateway

52 Option 3 Development requirements/ A high density, fully urban extension to consid er a tions the city of Dublin. This would contain a • requires high public transport and primary de vel op ment zone to en hance mobility access; value, create new activity and new pop u - • requires a phased development la tion. The vision would seek to establish programme to bring sites on-stream a new image and gateway into the city and as the city needs demand; redefi ne its built relationship to the shore. • good public acces must be main tained to waterfront and views/links Key Objectives established; • to provide for a high density mixed use • likely to be funded largely by private development supporting and driving investment with subsidy for special Dublins economic needs; ‘new typology’ areas (eg car free • to provide a primary employment housing); function with amenity; • To signifi cantlly reposition thw SOuth Bank area in image and perceptual

terms; 1:5000 @A1

• to extend motorway mobility with at 0 100 500m grade junction. • To extend public transport rail access fi g 32: full development into the area;

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 53 Preferred Option ture tenancies and accepted good urban • Safe assumptions will be that housing require bulk of space but very high Identifi cation of a preferred option took design practice. needs to be ruled out on basis of value and constructive in terms of place over the course of a number of appropriate density levels, supporting activity, facilitating the reviews with the client Steering Group. 5.5.3 Potential Tenancy Profi le sustainability etc. Con sid er ing the growth of new economic activity in the The key concerns revolved around the A review of the current market and trends proximity to city centre and the city and compat i ble to a primarily following issues: for space types and needs was presented relatively fringe character of the area residential character. • the need to balance the various needs in Section 4.3. Key fi ndings relevant to and also the site character (wa ter front • Business services sectors have the on the site while maxim is ing its future the development potential of the South etc) a primarily residential character to same characteristics and will be potential; Bank include: most of the site is appro pri ate. potentially attracted by location • the need for a longer term view • Population forecast to increase by Furthermore because of the rel a tive ly character (fringe centre); recognising that other areas of the city 15% in the next 10 years (bringing limited land availability and the need • Provide range of development types are more suited for immediate population to an estimated ~1.7m); of a certain level of population to to accommodate different stages in development (and therefore the • 184,000 houses/apartments re quired; support local amenities (we have organisation growth (table 7). Allow for nature and level of the study); • Population returning to live in the city population fi gures for the overall zone start-ups, serviced space to HQ; • transportation limitations requiring a centres; 1 of the site which we can refer to. locations for mature companies. phased and limited quantum of • 80% of companies employ fewer than Employment • Other appropriate sectors which can development under current access 10 people; • At present discrepancy between be reviewed – private health and conditions; • 52% of offi ce space demand is in city supply /demand of offi ce space in educational sectors (growing interna • the need for suffi cient private develop centre; Dublin between city centre and city tionally). ment to fund/ enable other environ • Net offi ce absorption for 2002 fringe. Extensive supply of business Amenity ment improvements. 61,000sq.m; park type space will increase the City wide and local amenities inlcude: • Shortage of incubator type space for discrepancy. All weather stadium; Conference centre; This requirement led to a focus on a small and start-up companies; • Business park environments not Sports/recreational facility; Cultural centre medium scale level of in ter ven tion (op- • Need for specifi c city-wide amenity - appropriate for city centre lo ca tions – / art gallery; Passenger ter mi nal; eco / tion 2) and forms the basis of the design current plans for 2,000 seater confer recommendation for city centre type sustainable energy centre. framework in section 5. Option 2 allows ence centre and multi-sports stadium. offi ce space in mix areas (i.e. east Entrepreneurial / Craft / Low Tech High Tech for a con tin ued public utility and Port pres- Housing point model not appropriate – too low Established Own building ence through explicit defi nition of zones of • There is a clear demand for city density, mono-functional, and requires Single function character and further, a shift in char ac ter centre housing, - do we have any large sites which will compromise the Mature Own building Own building Mixed function for other areas to ac com mo date new resi- indication of what type – if not we can opportunity for a ‘prevailing charac- Youthful Multi-tenanted Design centre Shared service dential and em ploy ment uses. Defi nition suggest that there is a need for a ter’) Infant Business centre Incubator units within these new char ac ter areas is driven more detail review of pro por tions of • The location character of the site is Embryo Innovation centre Homework by un der stand ing the ‘demand side’ or fu- size of apartments needed; appropriate for ‘secondary’ start up • Reference to affordable housing; employment sectors – does not table 7: Organisation stages profi le

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 54 4.5.4 Urban Design Principles 2. Zones of ContiguousCharacter with recreational and em ploy ment needs. in commercial tenant type. Current best practice in urban design is Broad distinction of areas of contiguous New connections into the area and quality more recently established in England character to support and consolidate links to waterfront areas. 8. Continuing the Built Edge and re fl ected in the newly adopted gov- particular development forms. Allows Compliance to a common building line to ern ment guides that include the Depart- for comprehensive vew and a diverse 6. Movement and Integrating the Trans- enclose spaces and streets. ment of the Envi ron ment Transport and en vi ron ment. port Location of main entrances on streets or Regions By Design: Urban Design in the Providing pedestrian, cycle and vehicular to reinforce legibility of corners. Planing System: Towards Better Practice 3. Spatial Structure -a fl exible urban net works. Make connections between Private building-public space defi nition to documemt and the Urban Design Com- grid. places. New development should take ac- be clear. pen di um. (Other rele vant doc u ments Adequate servicing capacity, per me a bil i ty count of the needs of the elderly, mobility Design guidance for building fronatage include the Urban White Paper, 2000 - and safety of the street system. Market impaired and small children. Sup port ing to be developed to control fenestration, Our Towns and Cities: The Future, along ro bust ness and ability to accommodate the site through QBC ex ten sions and links soild to void proporions, skyline, canopy with the Com pan ion Guides to PPG3 and different uses. Creating a hierarchy of to rail (DART). Shuttle bus con nec tions to struc tures, signage and the like to ensure Design Bulletin 32). These promote urban routes and spaces. and from the city and other transort point. visually rich and ordered appearance. design ob jec tives to be considered at Ac com mo dat ing the car - parking pro- a range of levels from setting up de vel - 4. Greening and the Public Realm vi sion on site and regard to capacity on 9. Sustainable objectives op ment projects to designing schemes to The peninsula is largely a wasted natural exiting routes. Environmental issues that are bassed eval u at ing proposals. The urban design asset. Opportunity for major lansdscape on high accessibilty but low resource framework for the South Bank peninsula con tri bu tion to harmonise the range and 7. Uses and Types use (walking, cycling, PT). Use mix and builds on those objectives. scale of built form. Complexity of environment to support compactness with suffi cient residential to long term sustainability. Active, working support local amenity. While every place has a specifi c physical, Range of types of public space. Over- and living neighbourhood. Commercial, Micro-climatic design issues - yearly irra- cultural, social and economic context (as looked streets and lively publicy oriented retail as well as community facilities diance levelson building faces and streets de scribed earlier in this study) there are ground fl oor uses, Micro-climatic design (lesiure,sport, creche etc.) and local facili- to create pleasnt environments. Building general principles that can help guide the issues. Natural materials and rich detail. ties (pub, corner shops and the like). Mix design and building relationships - com- development of concepts. Those prin- Public art and street furniture to con trib ute of uses focused on main distributor routes bined effects on street space. ci ples are described below in regard to to local identity. and squares. Master plan layout and servicing - maxim- the South Bank condition. ise site positioningin design of spaces. 5. Network of amenity - linking to the Flexibility of form - storey and a half Socio-economic issues to create well 1. City to Shore - A Civic Role context ground fl oors to allow conversion to used and cared for places. Local econ- First point of city conatct with the sea. Mutually supportive condition with existing retail/offi ce in areas of future change o mies to support city-wide economic strat- Unique and special character. Major local ‘soft’ infrastructure. Sup port ing both and typology variety in residential units egy. Employment and living op por tu ni ties waterfront opportunities and location for city-wide and local needs. Recognise (apartment-duplex combinations, terraced for alldependent upon range in type and city-wide amenity. cultual and ecological function in parallel houses etc.). Large plot sizesfor fl exi bil i ty tenure of built for.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 55 5.0 design framework

56 5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the design frame- Figure 30 overleaf identifi es three distinct work for the peninsula and, as discussed zones of character and development in the preceding section, sets out a phasing (see section 5.9) while the dia- solution that seeks to respond across two gram this page suugests that an important principle conditions: principle is to establish com mon connec- tions across all three through a landscape 1. Balancing the current and future strategy (fi g 34). The ration ale for each interests and; zone is de scribed below. 2. Maximising the potential of the site. Zone1 Primary development zone to enhance On this basis the framework addresses value. New activity and population. Crea- the following issues: tion of a new image and gateway

• The present character of the site and Zone 2 its value in the setting of a Dubin wide Suffi cient development to establish water- context; front related development character.

• Insuring future fl exibility for develop Zone 3 ment and functioning of public utilities; Area of different activity based on open • Allowing suffi cient development to character, ecological and cultural value. Continuity in character change enhance or generate urban char ac ter/ Strong role to establish historic value and activity; memory. • Allowing suffi cient development to act as integrator (gateway) of pe nin su la to city; • Minimising the impact on in suf fi cient transport capacity.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 57 5.2 CHARACTER AREA APPROACH

A broad defi nition of areas of different Zone 1 • Gateway opportunity at South Port to Dublin city as if from the ‘outside in’. character have been established based Adjacent to Sean Moore Road and the entrance off East Link Road. on: Ringsend residential community to the Site specifi c drivers for character include: • The consolidation of utilities; west, this area establishes connection Figure 30 also indicates the potential • Natural and man-made landscape • The land take of Dublin Port and; with the existing built context. With plot to extend Zone 1 along the northern juxtaposition; • The physical characteristics and ratios of around 0.3, average quality and and southern edges of the peninsula. • Large industrial type structures, active access conditions of the respective low scale, the Ringsend residential de- These extensions would occur as a later and decommissioned; parts of the South Bank area. velopment does not establish ap pro pri ate phase, maximising their waterfront posi- • interesting supporting in fra struc ture precedent on which to draw character. tion and serving to im prove the environ- including the former passenger dock The classifi cation into three distinct zones Other existing development includes the ment around the Ringsend power station. (late 18th Century) at Pigeonhouse allows for a phased strategy that pre- decommissioned Irish Glass Bottle build- Harbour; serves the functioning of critical public ings. Zone 2 • The historic South Bull Wall, con utilities and their potential expansion in Site specifi c drivers for character include: A core area retained for public utility func- structed by the Ballast offi ce in the the immediate future. • Potentially large development area tions that would allow for limited further early 18th Century as channel protec (Irish Glass, Port and ZOE sites); expansion of the same (potential thermal tion and access way; This approach also rec og nis es the need • Flexibility through deep plot sub- waste treatment plant). • Dublin-wide recreation area – walking, to consider the peninsula in its en tire ty division; Primary potential for intervention includes fi shing, beach; such that the in di vid u al development of • Possibility to allow for future Eastern environmental improvement measures • Potential re-use of decommissioned sites contributes to a coherent vision for Bypass interchange through landscape strategy to increase utility structures for cultural / recrea the South Bank. A landscape structure, • Waterfront opportunity to south ern accessibility of coastal routes, Irish Town tion activ i ties; described later, cross links the three edge of the Liffey; Nature Park and through access to South • Historic and highly visible twin zones ensuring continuity of access and • Building massing response to Sean Bull Wall. Poolbeg chimneys. environment that redresses the jux ta - Moore Road context and opposite po si tion of the man made and natural housing; Longer term potential to accommodate land scapes at present. • Waterfront opportunity and prom development extension zones to northern enade extension along south east and southern edges. The three character zones shown in fi g 30 edge; are described below. • Environmental improvements to Sean Zone 3 Moore Park and better development Strong sense of remoteness due to frontage on north east edge; relationship with Dublin Bay, distance • Need for commercial type develop from city centre (Poolbeg Lighhouse is ment adjacency to Ringsend power 7km from O’Connell bridge), surrounding station (CCGT) and greater building wildlife, beaches, strand and particular height in this area; geographical condition that allows views

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 58 1a

1 23

Area of existing character (plot ratio 0.3) 1b

0 100 500m

fi g 33: Character zones 59 5.3 LANDSCAPE AND VIEW STRUCTURE

5.3.1 Rationale The characteristics of the landscape • The need to provide an overall environment at present can be connected landscape structure that classifi ed as follows: integrates large scale utility functions • The man-made environment that with fi ner grain commercial/residential includes the hilly landfi ll site known as development; Irish Town Nature Park and other • Using the landscape structure to industrial type settings. Of particular accommodate a possible future quality is the granite stone walkway Eastern Bypass interchange; that continues along the southern • Need to phase development within edge of the Liffey from South Bull the three character zones described Wall to Pigeonhouse Harbour and; in 6.1; • The natural environment, which is • Recognition of the existing adjacent represented by the broad sweep of block structure with respect to con Dublin Bay, accentuated at low tide by nections into the street network; some 800ha of uncovered sand in this • Creation of a hierarchy of routes and shallow estuarine area. The ‘natural’ spaces to introduce inherent legibility southern edge is characterised by a into the area and to allow for a range continuous coastal walkway that of uses requiring different quality includes a variety of edge conditions conditions; from open Bay views to the south of • Allowance for future fl exibility and Dublin to small beaches to the Nature change in tenancy & building type Park’s elevated position giving 360 through large block structure; degree views back to the city. • Maintaining appropriate walk dis- tances through block subdivision and The development of a detailed landscape recognising a fi ner grain for residen plan needs to be the subject of a fi rst tial blocks adjoining the Ringsend stage in the early development on the pe- community; ninsula. The principles set out above and • Responding to the different edge illustrated in fi gure 34 will ensure that any conditions of waterfront: 1) the need site development takes into account the to create a highly permeable structure future development of the landscape. along the south eastern bay edge; and 2) a more urban edge to the south bank of the Liffey;

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 60 fi g 34: landscape and site structure 61 5.3.2 View parameters 3. Strategic views The South Bank's peninsula structure is Views from the peninsula back to the clearly visible from many locations as a city can be experienced along the shore strategic and background view, of which to the south and the Liffey edge to the the Poolbeg chimneys form a major land- north. Also strong 360 degree views from mark. From the south, main view points Irishtown Nature Park. Such views allow include Sandymount to Dun Laoghaire the city to be experience form the ‘outdide and Kiltiernan, from the north (Howth) in’ and are unique in this regard. and west to the city (Liffey quays, Matt Views to the peninsula can be ex- Talbot to East Link bridges) the view is pe ri ence from as far away as Dun largely industrial. Locally the view from Laoghaire’s west pier to the south and as Ringsend/Irishtown is less industrial and far north as Howth Hill. Important views one of shore edge and landscape. also exist along the Liffey river space, in Local views from Sandymount Background setting of the peninsula which the Poolbeg chimneys establish the The use of views to structure the site is eastern ‘end’ to the city. important and in this regard views exist across three levels. Recognising these characteristics informs 1. Local view corridors the site layout and oreintation of blocks Includes views along streets, to local and generally sets massing parameters landmarks, emphasising site legibility and for the peninsula. Key amongst those are: connection between spaces. Very much • Maintaining the open aspect of the the subject of detail master plan and eastern sections of the peninsula; design guidance. • Focusing the bulk of development within the area identifi ed as character 2. View space zone 1; Includes the design of suffi cient space • Holding development back from the around key elements for their ap pre ci a tion shore edge allows dual appreciation (eg around the Poolbeg/Pigeon house). of shore and water at the same time, Alos critical to establish ‘breath ing space’ and increases public access; Connecting views from the city Visible position at the eastern edge within development or in the specifi c case • Preserving identifi ed key views; as shown in fi g 35 to connect north and • Allow a combination of local street south sides of the peninsula. vistas and longer bay views

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 62 fi g 35: Key views and vistas 63 5.4 MOVEMENT AND ACCESS

This section describes an overall move- subdivide the primary block structure The proposed primary access roads, ment strategy that includes a potential into service lanes and dedicated access in particular Sean Moore Road and the road network to service the site, pe des - roads. extension into the site of East Wall Road tri an and cycle movement and public 4. Pedestrian and cycle ways – (yellow) should minimise the use by heavy through transport access connecting the pe nin su la should be direct and safe to encourage traffi c (H.G.V’s). Independent primary into the city-wide transport system. The use and given controlled crossings wher- access, specifi cally into the south port strategy ensures that: ever they meet primary and local access and current industrial activities should be • the site maximises op por tu ni ties to roads. provided. connect into the existing network; • the movement system supports a Connections into the site from existing range of potential uses; Highways are described in section 4.3, • the potential for an Eastern Bypass in which the four primary ‘feeders’ are interchange is catered for; identifi ed: • DTI Strategy is supported; • Strand Road to South; • Public transport, cycle and pedestrian • East Link to North; modes are prioritised; and, • Ringsend Bridge to City; and, • Informal recreation routes are de • Church Ave. to South City. signed into the plan. These feeders have limited scope to ac- 6.4.1 Road Hierarchy commodate further capacity and should The road network builds on the adjacent receive the focus of attention for improve- traffi c cell structure and identifi es a hierar- ment schemes. Particularly improvements chy of movement routes. This hierarchy is at key junctions are required for pedes- shown in fi g 36 opposite and includes: trians and cyclists. Through traffi c is high 1. Major access connections – (red) due to the limited access roads to the primary roads within the site, extensions south city, though with the construction of off existing major feeders connecting into Macken Street bridge congestion levels the local area; may change. 2. Local access routes - (blue) roads Bridge traffi c will be drawn off the narrow forming the principle block structure divi- East Link Bridge. The toll gates on East sion and connecting into adjacent local Wall Road bottle neck traffi c and con- roads; strain access from the north. 3. Site access routes – (white) and indicative access points. These routes

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 64 Key

Major access routes existing

Potential major access routes

Potential local access routes

Connections into existing network

Potential pedestrian priority streets

Foot & cycle paths

Potential sIte access

0 100 500m fi g 36: Movement network 65 5.4.2 Public Transport ten sion it is crucial that new bus routes Parking ratios will be dependent upon Public Transport access to the site is are introduced into the South Bank area. degree of acceptable congestion of sur- poor, relying principally on the QBC which These would share local and primary ac- rounding road network. runs along Sean Moore Road. Subur- cess roads, laid out in such a way again ban rail DART accessibility is borderline that all of the de vel op ment area is within (Lansdowne Road Station is ap prox i- a 5min walk of a bus service. mate ly 1.5km to the heart of the site) with no clear direct route. Other nearest sta- 5.4.3 Car Parking tions include the new DART Grand Canal Current parking provision for the South Dock Station at Barrow Street and the Bank area is of an order com pa ra ble to proposed LUAS stop at The Point, both an outer suburban location such as Bal- beyond a walkable distance. lymun. This generous ratio will need to be re viewed in light of potential public trans- Arguments based on the economics for port access, road capacities, trip genera- development of new public transport light tions based on use mix and proximity of rail services and increase of bus services the site to the city centre. on existing near capacity roads have been made in section 5.4 and it is clear The majority of parking will be pro vid ed that this is problematic. Not-with-stand- in undercroft or building garages. On ing issues of subsidy and quantum of street parking should be allowed on major development to fund new infrastructure, and local access routes. Entry points to discussion with the Light Rail Project Of- garage / un der ground parking should be fi ce was held on a purely ‘design’ basis. off lower order service lanes, minimis- This discussion identifi ed a potential ing visual impact and not in ter rupt ing extension alignment of the LUAS line pe des tri an/cycle routes. from The Point, across the Liffey adjacent to the East Link Bridge, along East Wall In general parking provision will be de- Road and into the site, containing at least pendent upon: two new stops. This would ensure that the • Use mix entire Zone 1 development area would be • Car trip generation within 300m / 5min walking distance of a • Modal spilt tram service. • Public transport provision • Parking defi cits and ability of off-site In addition to the potential LUAS ex- locations to absorb defi cit

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 66

bar/restau

book market book exibition

venue

leisure/sport green houses

cultural venue car park

extension artist studios

existing car car car park industrial park park site cafe/bar 300m

Key

Long term potential metro extension

Potential LUAS Corridor(s)

600m Quality Bus Corridor (existing) 300m

Potential extension to QBC

0 100 500m

fi g 37: Access network 67 5.5 LAND USE PATTERN

The pattern of distribution and location site is the only viable alternative. From the • Sean Moore Road edge – terraced 5.5.3 Commercial employment of uses for the South Bank area shown point of view of mixed de vel op ment creat- and duplex units with own front door; space in Fig 38 is described in terms of the fol- ing a lively, vibrant and naturally surveilled • South eastern site edge – low to mid At the end of 2000 offi ce vacancy levels low ing: area however traffi c driven parameters do rise apartment mix with mai son ette; were around 2% and though these have • Residential; not achieve the broader goals. • Southern site edge – mid to high rise risen signifi cantly to their current level of • Commercial retail; apartment blocks. around 20% the slow down in new offi ce • Employment; Residential development on the site construction will bring the vacancy level • Leisure and recreation; should be distributed across a range of 5.5.2 Retail Provision down. The fastest growing sectors are • Specialist amenity (sports center, building types from low density two storey Local shopping areas include the well Financial services, Business services conference center etc.); and terraced to duplex, low and mid-rise. established Irish Town neighbourhood and Information technology, tourism and • Public utility. This ensures that a range of residential and Sandymount Green. These cater for construction, with the majority of fi rms units will be provided to cater for young existing local populations and cafés and employing under 10 staff. This indicates For the purposes of area calculations a professional single people to families and restaurants in Sandymount Green of high good potential for growth and a strong broad residential / commercial clas si fi c- older retired people. The proximity of the quality. The potential new populations on number of new businesses. A focus for a tion is used (see 5.8), which suggests a site to the city centre suggests that 20% the South Bank area would be substantial the area should be on serviced start-up 30% commercial, 70% residential mix. to 30% of each development type should (say 300,000sq.m of residential space offi ce space and the like. be made affordable for key workers and would generate 3,750 units and a pop u - The land use pattern is driven by: include a social housing content. la tion of around 9,750 and 100,000sq.m Of the demand in offi ce space the great- • The specifi c locational char ac ter is tics of commercial space would support est take-up by size is for 50 – 100,000 of the South Bank area; Section 4.3 identifi ed the demand profi le around 7,150 workers) and require adi- sq.ft space type, with the 10 – 20,000 and • Proximity to similar uses and adja for residential space, based on the pre- tional amenity. De mand for restaurants, 20 – 50,000sq.ft space in second place. cency of existing residential areas; dicted growth of Dublin’s population over shops and pubs would need to be met on The demand for larger fl oor plates sug- • Accessibility, aspect and environmen the next 10 years of 15% to 1.7m. This site and would contribute to a lively and gests that these should be located within tal quality conditions of particular generates an estimated need for 184,000 vibrant setting. blocks central to the area defi ned as zone locations; more apartments or houses. Current 1 that have short walking distances to • Market profi le characteristics (identi demand for housing is higher than supply Potential locations for such amenity LUAS and bus services and are adjacent fi ed in 4.3 and 5.5.3) and city-wide and there is pressure for greater densities would include the south easterly facing to major access roads. need for specifi c amenity (stadium / and inner city living. bay frontage that forms major pedestrian As a potential offi ce location the area conference center option Appendix 3). link and potential new boulevard route off offers a high quality waterfront character The particular locational characteristics of Beach Road. Good sunlight penetration, in close proximity to the centre and other 5.5.1 Residential the site suggest appropriate typologies for views and access make this area suit- employment locations (East Point, IFSC, Traffi c and transportation constraints on the following areas: able for shops, restaurants and pubs and Grand Canal Dock). Local amenity is of development type and quantum suggest • Liffey edge – apartment accommoda would add to the vitality of the wa ter front. high quality (Sandymount Green) and that a low density residential option for the tion, one and two bed units; large middle class residential areas adjoin the site.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 68

bar/restau

book market book exibition

venue

leisure/sport green houses

cultural venue car park

extension artist studios

existing car car car park industrial park park site cafe/bar

Key

Residential

Commercial retail

Employment

Leisure / Recreation / Cultural

Specialist Amenity

Public Utility

0 100 500m

fi g 38: Land use pattern 69 5.6 AMENITY PROVISION

The development of a network of amenity clude recreational / leisure facility, rowing for the future working and living popula- / boating club, cultural centre / art gallery. tions on the South Bank will integrate with the existing adjacent neighbourhood Potential development for a new sport- shops, services and restaurants (fi g 39). ing facility adjacent to the bay on Beach Road. The Liffey river and Bay are major city- wide public amenities whose accessibility Longer term potential development of the Passenger terminal and quality should be reinforced. The Poolbeg power station into multi events Arts & crafts studios Water sports / eco centre / art gallery South Bull Wall and Strand area con- centre (rock climbing / diving / ecological Cultural centre

bar/restau book market book

beach

trib ute major character to the area and the education centre / arts and crafts studios) exibition

green houses

cultural venue car park

artist studios beaches constitute the only immediate de pend ing on ESB strategy for future artist studios extension

existing car car industrial park park cafe/bar seaside recreation for Dubliners. The his- power generation requirements (fi g 41). car park site toric granite pavers that run west from the public open space Waterfront leisure High Activity node South Bull Wall to Pigeonhouse Harbour Potential development of a new multi- public open space Open space amenity are of high quality and should be retained sports all weather stadium (unresolved) Exist links Sports facility if public access is opened up to this area. along with development of a new 2,000 Potential to reinforce Potential gateway amenity seater conference center and associated Key open space amenity Within the site the distribution of amen- facilities. ity will depend upon the type and level of 0 100 500m provision which will vary according to the Potential development of new passenger fi g 39: Network of amenity larger corporate organisations and their ferry terminal. internal structure of provision. In general business services (printing, brokering, banking etc.) should have an on site pres- ence and be com bined with other local amenity (pub, restaurant, corner shop etc.) along main distributor roads or at nodes and public spaces (fi g 40).

Specialist amenity Development of the Pigeonhouse Harbour Semi-detached Terraced fronting garage Apartment Corner duplex & core Mews Compatible employment and associated utility buildings including the Pigeonhouse Hotel. Po ten tial uses in- Building type and layout affect residential/commercial utilisation levels, key to mixed use environments

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 70

bar/restau book market book

beach exibition

venue

leisure/sport green houses

cultural venue car park

extension artist studios artist studios beach

existing car car car park industrial park park site cafe/bar

beach

0 100 500m

fi g 40: Amenity provision 71 Amenity Park Background 2. MOCA - museum of contemporary restaurants, cafes and shops; Zone 3 to the eastern end of the pe- A decommissioned steel works cover- art, Massachusetts, USA • Use of covered bridges and elevated nin su la is proposed to include a range ing a 200ha site on the edge of town in An extraordinary project to convert a 27- walkways to connect the complex of city-wide amenity based activities that the heart of the industrial Ruhr region. A building historic mill complex into a multi- elements; aim to re-use many of the exsiting historic landscape that has changed in the last disciplinary center for visual, performing • Fiber optic network to connect the buildings and infrastructural elements. 150 years from agricultural to the largest and media arts. complex to the world; The plan in fi gure 41 suggests a pos- indutrial enclave in Europe. The original • Permanent work in progress with the sible re-development of this area along fl at landscape was trans formed by aban- Background mission to maintain s position as the the lines of several cultural regeneration doned pits and slag heaps. Set in North Adams the 12 acre mill premier platform for creating and schemes that have proved successful complex was built in 1872, with the 27 presenting the best ‘art of our time’. elsewhere. The Strategy for Change buildings listed on the National Historic Emsher Park IBA set up by North-Rhine Register. The site is linked to the his- Understanding the type of change pos- The plan indicates large scale landscape Westphalia Government to promote tory of New England and went through sible, how that change has been impl- intervention to create a range of sculp- economic and environmental growth. A 10 chang es of use from cloth to electronics mented and the relative success or failure tured outdoor spaces and natural shore year programme fi nanced by public and man u fac tur ing. In 1985 the complex was indicates the potential for such schemes line habitat, connected by a network of private sources to establish a scheme closed. on the South Bank. In both of the above pedestrian and cycle paths. New built that would give coherence to the vast case studies the redevelopment has intervention is proposed to include small industrial site. Strategy for Change proven to be successful though in both studio type artist spaces, cafes and res- Investigations by the Williams College cases change took place over relatively taurant and specialist market spaces (eg Proposals Museum of Art into new locations for long times scale (10 years) and funding book venue). • Using existing structural networks of contemporary ary venues led them to was required from external public bodies. rail tracks and bridges to link inner develop a plan for the Sprague Mill in Existing historic buildings are proposed park with surrounding fabric; 1993. Also to meet a community need to for refurbishment and conversion into cul- • Nature walks at ground level; develop economic/cultural links, prestig- tural or recreational watersport facilities, • Water park; ous architects Frank Gehry and Robert while the harbour area is to be redevel- • Use of ruins as vertical structures for Venturi prepared a study which secured a oped into major waterfront attraction. climbing walls and viewing tower; 35m USD matching grant from Massachu- • Use of gas cyclinder as diving tanks; setts legislature. Learning from other places: • Existence of some 240 plant species, 1. Emscher Park: Duisberg-Nord brought in a seeds in coal trucks Proposals A seminal project for dealing with an creates totally new landscape; • Use of authentic industrial mill abandoned industrial site and attempt to • Water purifi cation - use of old ditches character to create space for art create a new formula for an urban park and pipes to create water courses gallleries, per form ing arts, artists-in- out of what was otherwise ‘lost space’. throughout. residence, video and fi lm production,

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 72 Emsher Park

bar/restau book market book

beach exibition

venue

leisure/sport green houses Existing power stn Long term view as LUAS car leisure/cultural park venue extension artist studios artist studios beach

existing car car park MoCA car park industrial park cafe/bar site

beach

Irish Town Nature Park

0 100 500m

fi g 41: Amenity Park 73 5.7 VOLUMETRIC EXPRESSION

5.7.1 General Approach southern edge to the Liffey creates a The overall massing of built form on the strong sense of arrival (fi g 42d) and defi - pe nin su la is driven by a number of factors nite edge to the city centre whilst preserv- including: ing the presence of the two chimneys. • the adjacency of existing areas of specifi c height and use; Building relationship to the waterfront • the specifi c character of openspace is explored in more detail in fi gure 44 and waterfront adjoining and begins to describe an aspirational development sites; urban quality. In principle the massing of • achieving overall density commen development along the south western bay surate with an urban scheme of plot edge attempts to create a human scale ratios ranging from 1:1.5 to 1:2.5 (see in building footprint and height with direct tables section 5.8); relationship to the shore. The built edge is a: Distribution of development allows for b: Maintaining the open aspect • the need to create the character of an broken into smaller sub-blocks (fi g 42a&b) utility presence to the east urban setting through appropriate allowing set-back and articulation of the enclosure of streets and spaces; edge for small puclic spaces and to create • the need to establish landmark both physical and visual con nec tion back features (buildings) in particular into the ZOE and Glass Bottle Factory locations to reinforce identity and sites. area legibility; • the demand for particular types of development and offi ce space according to current trends and market demand. These broad criteria inform the volumet- ric expression of built form indicated in fi gures 42 & 43. c: Urban zone 1 development & d: Approach from the Liffey The focus of building mass within zone conference centre 1allows the open character of the eastern end of the peninsula to be maintained (fi g fi g 42: Illustrative views into the site 43b), including the experience of stand- ing outside the city looking in. Increasing development to the west creating a strong

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 74

bar/restau book market book

beach exibition

venue

leisure/sport green houses

cultural venue car park

extension artist studios artist studios beach

existing car car car park industrial park park site cafe/bar

beach

Key

Specialist building

5-6 storeys + set-back storey

4 storeys + set-back storey

3 storeys

Landmark buildings

0 100 500m

fi g 43: Building height 75 5.7.2 Urban Ream Quality Described in section 4.5.4 were key urban design objectives to guide the character and quality of future de vel op ment on the South Bank. In order to understand these further a number of illustrations (fi g 44) suggest the way in which a new place could be created, with par tic u lar ref er ence to the specifi c waterfront condition.

The general principles illustrated here describe: • Waterfront building height of up to 4 storeys with possible set back 5th storey; • Building blocks broken into smaller sub blocks to achieve open space connections to the north-west; • Active ground fl oor uses (cafe, restaurant, shops with facade fenestrationa nd canopy structures to relate to the human scale; • Varied us of planting - open natural landscape and sea front dunes combined with more structured boulevard tree lines; • Generous public space (approx 40m) between building edge and shore. Resolved into layers of space type from cafe seating space to paved shared surface to natural sea front paths. fi g 44: Illustrative views into the site Looking north-east towards the Ringsend power station

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 76 fi g 45: Active building edges vital at the ground fl oor

Aerial perspective

Looking sout-west towards Beach Road

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 77 5.8 POTENTIAL CAPACITY

To test the capacity of the site a ‘building Site Areas Area ha Area net Overall development capacity by area type led’ approach has been applied to The figures below indicate the potential the different site areas identified in figure capacity of Zone 1, calculated on the Area A1 3.24 2.11 46. This approach identifies the range of Area A2 3.05 1.98 basis of assumptions made regarding potential building types, from semi- Area B1 1.38 0.90 builiding height and type as described in Area B2 2.97 1.93 detached to apartment, duplex, mid-rise Area C1 3.16 2.05 the preceeding section. and high-rise with the corresponding plot Area C2 6.69 4.35 Area C3 (ZOE) 4.79 3.11 rations relevant for each type. Both the Area A commercial/residential utilisation possible Area d1 (extension 1) 5.29 3.44 Area d2 (extension 2) 6.59 4.28 A1: Gross residential 29,484sq.m Gross commercial: 12,636 Population: 1,860 within each type and predicted Area d3 (extension 3) 2.09 1.36 A2: Gross residential 27,755 Gross commercial: 11,895 Population: 1,752 Area a3 1.24 0.81 populations are shown in full in Appendix Area b3 1.55 1.01 a3: Specialist amenity building 5. Area b4 4.2 2.73 Area b5 2.73 1.77 Area B The tables below identify the net develop- table 8: Net development areas B1: Gross residential 12,558sq.m Gross commercial: 5,382 Population: 793 ment areas of the respective sites and B2: Gross residential 27,027sq.m Gross commercial: 11,583 Population: 1,706 calculates gross floor areas on the basis B3: Specialist conference centre facility Site Area 1 example calc. 3.24 of preferred development types for those b4: Set aside land for potential infrastructure locations. An example calculation is given Servicing Infrastructure (%15) 0.486 b5: Green open space for Area A1 (table 9), indicating a mid-rise Amenitiy (%20) 0.648 block option of plot ratio 1:2, giving gross Area C Nett Site Area 2.106 residential area of 29,484 sq.m and gross C1: Gross residential 28,756sq.m Gross commercial: 12,324 Population: 1,815 commercial of 12,636 sq.m, with com- C2: Gross residential 60,879sq.m Gross commercial: 26,091 Population: 3,842 * Assumes 80 sqm per unit bined populations of 1,860. * Assumes occupancy of 2.6 C3: Gross residential 43,589sq.m Gross commercial: 18,681 Population: 2,751 * Assumes 14sqm pp commercial Area D d1: Gross residential 48,139sq.m Gross commercial: 20,631 Population: 3,038 d2: Gross residential 59,969sq.m Gross commercial: 25,701 Population: 3,785 d3: Specialist recreational amenity

Total indicative gross development area approx 500,000sq.m Total residential 370,000sq.m (approx 74%) Total commercial 130,000sq.m (approx 26%) Total population 21,342

Note: the development area of specialist sites a3, b3, d3 is not included.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 78 Area A1 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 2.106 0.35 7,371.00 1 7,371.00 92 240 43 0 0.00 0 240

Terraced 2.106 0.5 10,530.00 0.95 10,003.50 125 325 59 0.05 526.50 38 363

Duplex 2.106 1 21,060.00 0.9 18,954.00 237 616 112 0.1 2,106.00 150 766

Low-rise block 2.106 1.5 31,590.00 0.8 25,272.00 316 821 150 0.2 6,318.00 451 1,273

Mid-rise block 2.106 2.0 42,120.00 0.7 29,484.00 369 958 150 0.3 12,636.00 903 1,861 42,120.00

High-rise block 2.106 2.5 52,650.00 0.6 31,590.00 394.875 1,027 187 0.4 21,060.00 1,504 2,531 table 9: Example calculation for Area A1

fig 46: Development sites

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 79 5.9 PHASING

5.9.1 Zone 1 development phasing Phase 3 The diagram in figure 47 indicates a Peninsula gateway sites that include potential phasing of sites within the specialist amenity developments (confer- character area defined as zone 1. ence center, pasenger terminal and some office related use). relatively independent Phasing flexibility site development and servicing issues. The phasing plan includes an inherent flexibilty due to the nature of road infra- Phase 4 structure on the site and the reserve for a Large linear open green space link to the future potential East Link junction. This Liffey edge would be established as part allows relative independence between of the office related development of this development sites and thus alternative phase. Would establish relationship of site ordering to be established. development to Ringsend power station.

Reflecting the current condition Phase 5 The suggested plan takes into account a Two independent residential and office number of existing conditions: waterfront sites to the southern and • The immediate development planing norther edges of the peninsula. Phase 5a application on the ZOE lands; may need to be developed later due to • The continued growth of the Port on the uncertain ongoing Port expansion lands to the southern edge of the plans. Liffey; • The need to set aside reserve land as Phase 6 open space for future infrastructure; Development dependent upon long term Dubin Port Company strategy. An impor- Phases 1&2 tant and highly visible development Waterfront edge lands including the ZOE location on the baks of the Liffey that site (current application). Stand alone would help to create a strong sense of fig 47: Development Phasing - Zone 1 recreational amenity (1b) could be new city edge and arrival to Dublin. developed independently. Second stage would include the lands on long lease to the Glass Bottle Factory from Dublin Port.

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 80 6.0 appendices

81 6.1 APPENDIX 1 - STATUTORY PLANNING CONTEXT

Reviewed Planning Policy affecting the • Transport – DTI proposes extension of 2016’ (Sept 2000) densities: South Bank lands included the following: QBC’s, light rail, cycle routes, new Strategic vision and potential transport · City/Town Centre/Brownfiled sites plot roads (by-pass) under DTO. Reduce strategies, DART LUAS, QBC and Heavy ratio 1.0 – 2.5 Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan, car emphasis – modal change. Rail, Port Tunnel. • Inner suburban plot ratio 0.5 – 1.0 1997 • All development on sites in excess of 1.0 ha required to have a variety of • Specific Objectives Parking standards ‘Land use development must be consist- dwelling types • Development of Dublin Technopole Refer to Dublin Corporation Plan. ent with Strategic Planning Guidelines in (enterprise/research/training) relation to location, land use type and • Recommends residential standards: • Development of continuous public density...... to ensure a land use pattern amenity zone, natural park / walks South Bank Peninsula that maximises accessibility to the public • Develop new local access road • In the DC Plan the South Bank is transport infrastructure and minimises Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme, • Develop ecopark concept to south zoned only for Industrial (general continuity between the hinterland and 2000. east Industry). In the DDDA plan it is Metropolitan Areas’ • Develop linear & pocket parks – open zoned Industrial (General) - Zone 7 and Enterprise Zone 6 (English B1 up access to water Transport proposals relevant to South • Proposed local shopping node type classification) to reflect the nature of the contemporary Bank: • No conservation Area / Archaeological • Proposed QBC to Ringsend; or listed building issues workplace’). The DDDA zoning supercedes the DC Plan • South Quay on fringe of Public • Adjacent to conservation area and transport corridors ie where develop archaeological zone of interest • The eastern fringe is zoned for enterprise and is linked to an enter ment should occur; • Proposed Natural Heritage Area – • Target to limit ‘trip induced’ develop Sandymount prise corridor eastwards along the peninsular. The enterprise corridor ment; • Change perceptions of the area as • Development sites may have tempo ‘backyard’ utility area of the city could include e g ‘administration, research and dispatch’ uses in flexible rary parking areas until infrastructure • Improve public transport access to the built. This is under the control of peninsula building types. • Policy objective for local centre– retail Dublin Corporation. - east edge of site Dublin City Development Plan, 1999 Strategic Guidelines for Dublin Region • Promote Intensification around • Policy objective for only light industry close to residential transport nodes; Residential Density Guidelines for • Zone 6, 7 for enterprise and industrial • Policy objective in favour of redevel opment underutilized sites. Planning Authorities, 1999 use and 9 for recreation; • General objectives not much detail • Area identified as Section 25 for • Appropriate locations for Increased Planning Scheme; A Platform for Change - strategy 2000-

82 6.2 APPENDIX 2 - WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

1 Civic Gateway – high mix of use – extension of city center – high bulk and massing – public transport access

– hotel, office, apartments, dock, Rowe’s Wharf Boston 1987 underground parking – continuous perimeter walkway – size varies 3-180ha – public open space – former wharf – new railway station investment

Pacifico Yokohama 1991-4

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 83 2 Ecological Park – regenerate neglected land – reinforce original landscapes – world heritage site – size varies 15-260ha – international ecological value – smaller character giving Xochimilco Park Mexico 1993 – open space amenity – recreational installations (exhibitions, butterfly house

Brisbane River 1992

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 84 3a Employment - Primary – finance and business services – demand in key sectors – new character – size 2,225ha – public transport investment – American style office park Canary Wharf, London 1970 - – bankrupt ‘92, refinanced ‘95 – 115,000 pop – LDDC minimal planning constraints – market led

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 85 3b Employment - Services – 10ha site area – telecommunications – call center services – close to CBD – former docks – majority office content East Point, Dublin 1996 - – courthouse, hotel – public transport (cable guided bus) – shuttle bus to rail station

Quayside Newcastle 1990 -

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 86 4 City Wide Amenity – prominent location – the ‘wow’ factor – adjacent uses (retail, water-bus) – public space – new city identity – large site (bldg alone 2ha) Sydney Opera House 1973 – public transport – former working docks

Osaka Aquarium 1990 DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 87 5 Specialist Residential – waterfront housing – range of sizes 2-65ha – 524 units (Entrepot) 4-8 storeys – underground parking – former docks / cargo port – road put on tunnel Entrepot West Amsterdam 1993 – extended public transport – amenity provision - library, kindergarten, resource center – began with new metro line – office component - 3500 workers – high public space detailing

Ruoholahti Helsinki 1986-1992

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 88 6 Specialist Use – wholesale trade center – part of 768ha ‘Technoport Osaka’ – 8ha plus .5k long promenade – appliances / furnishings – amenity zone Cosmo Square Osaka 1994 – part of working port – huge amount of public space – ferry dock

– Antwerp port relocated out of center – marine sheds reused

Zuiderterras Antwerp 1991

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 89 7 Leisure / working transport – specific waterfront activity – quality industrial port architecture – strategic connection – deep water docking – support buildings - office / amenity – 4-14ha Harumi Terminal Tokyo 1991 – public transport connections

Berth 30 Oakland 1994

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 90 Regenerating the waterway – former cargo docks – new residential / office space – international & local character – new tunnel access to center – catalyst projects – Port Co. and Rail joint venture

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 91 6.3 APPENDIX 3 - DESIGN OPTIONS

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 92 6.4 APPENDIX 4 - TRIP GENERATION DATA

TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING DEFICIT

LOW DENSITY OPTION (100,000 sq.m. Total) PEAK HOUR Car Trips (Two-Way) Public Transport Trips Car Parking Deficit

Option Development Parking Provision Offices Housing Total Offices Housing Total Offices Housing Total

1 50,000 H + 50,000 O 0.5H; 1 per 50m2 O 840 110 950 1,040 220 1,260 -340 46 -294

2 100,000 H 0.5H 0 220 220 0 440 440 0 93 93

3 100,000 O 1 per 50m2 O 1,680 0 1,680 2,080 0 2,080 -680 0 -680

4 50,000 H + 50,000 O 0.25H; 1 per 100m2 O 840 110 950 1,040 220 1,260 -590 -32 -622

5 100,000 H 0.025H 0 220 220 0 440 440 0 -64 -64

6 100,000 O 1 per 100m2 O 1,680 0 1,680 2,080 0 2,080 -1,180 0 -1,180

HIGH DENSITY OPTION (500,000 sq.m. Total) PEAK HOUR Car Trips (Two-Way) Public Transport Trips Car Parking Deficit

Option Development Parking Provision Offices Housing Total Offices Housing Total Offices Housing Total

1 250,000 H + 250,000 O 0.5H; 1 per 50m2 O 4,200 550 4,750 5,200 1,100 6,300 -1,700 231 -1,469

2 500,000 H 0.5H 0 1,100 1,100 0 2,200 2,200 0 463 463

3 500,000 O 1 per 50m2 O 8,400 0 8,400 10,400 0 10,400 -3,400 0 -3,400

4 250,000 H + 250,000 O 0.25H; 1 per 100m2 O 4,200 550 4,750 5,200 1,100 6,300 -2,950 -159 -3,109

5 500,000 H 0.025H 0 1,100 1,100 0 2,200 2,200 0 -319 -319

6 500,000 O 1 per 100m2 O 8,400 0 8,400 10,400 0 10,400 -5,900 0 -5,900

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 93 6.5 APPENDIX 5 - DEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES

Area A1 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 2.106 0.35 7,371.00 1 7,371.00 92 240 43 0 0.00 0 240

Terraced 2.106 0.5 10,530.00 0.95 10,003.50 125 325 59 0.05 526.50 38 363

Duplex 2.106 1 21,060.00 0.9 18,954.00 237 616 112 0.1 2,106.00 150 766

Low-rise block 2.106 1.5 31,590.00 0.8 25,272.00 316 821 150 0.2 6,318.00 451 1,273

Mid-rise block 2.106 2.0 42,120.00 0.7 29,484.00 369 958 150 0.3 12,636.00 903 1,861 42,120.00

High-rise block 2.106 2.5 52,650.00 0.6 31,590.00 394.875 1,027 187 0.4 21,060.00 1,504 2,531

Area A2 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 1.9825 0.35 6,938.75 1 6,938.75 87 226 43 0 0.00 0 226

Terraced 1.9825 0.5 9,912.50 0.95 9,416.88 118 306 59 0.05 495.63 35 341

Duplex 1.9825 1 19,825.00 0.9 17,842.50 223 580 112 0.1 1,982.50 142 721

Low-rise block 1.9825 1.5 29,737.50 0.8 23,790.00 297 773 150 0.2 5,947.50 425 1,198

Mid-rise block 1.9825 2.0 39,650.00 0.7 27,755.00 347 902 150 0.3 11,895.00 850 1,752 39,650.00

High-rise block 1.9825 2.5 49,562.50 0.6 29,737.50 371.7188 966 187 0.4 19,825.00 1,416 2,383

Total @ pr 0.2 503,230.00 residential 70% 352,261.00 commercial 30% 150,969.00 DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 94 Area B1 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 0.897 0.35 3,139.50 1 3,139.50 39 102 43 0 0.00 0 102

Terraced 0.897 0.5 4,485.00 0.95 4,260.75 53 138 59 0.05 224.25 16 154

Duplex 0.897 1 8,970.00 0.9 8,073.00 101 262 112 0.1 897.00 64 326

Low-rise block 0.897 1.5 13,455.00 0.8 10,764.00 135 350 150 0.2 2,691.00 192 542

Mid-rise block 0.897 2.0 17,940.00 0.7 12,558.00 157 408 150 0.3 5,382.00 384 793 17,940.00

High-rise block 0.897 2.5 22,425.00 0.6 13,455.00 168.1875 437 187 0.4 8,970.00 641 1,078

Area B2 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 1.9305 0.35 6,756.75 1 6,756.75 84 220 43 0 0.00 0 220

Terraced 1.9305 0.5 9,652.50 0.95 9,169.88 115 298 59 0.05 482.63 34 332

Duplex 1.9305 1 19,305.00 0.9 17,374.50 217 565 112 0.1 1,930.50 138 703

Low-rise block 1.9305 1.5 28,957.50 0.8 23,166.00 290 753 150 0.2 5,791.50 414 1,167

Mid-rise block 1.9305 2.0 38,610.00 0.7 27,027.00 338 878 150 0.3 11,583.00 827 1,706 38,610.00

High-rise block 1.9305 2.5 48,262.50 0.6 28,957.50 361.9688 941 187 0.4 19,305.00 1,379 2,320

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 95 Area B3 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 1.01 0.35 3,526.25 1 3,526.25 44 115 43 0 0.00 0 115

Terraced 1.01 0.5 5,037.50 0.95 4,785.63 60 156 59 0.05 251.88 18 174

Duplex 1.01 1 10,075.00 0.9 9,067.50 113 295 112 0.1 1,007.50 72 367

Low-rise block 1.01 1.5 15,112.50 0.8 12,090.00 151 393 150 0.2 3,022.50 216 609

Mid-rise block 1.01 2.0 20,150.00 0.7 14,105.00 176 458 150 0.3 6,045.00 432 890 20,150.00

High-rise block 1.01 2.5 25,187.50 0.6 15,112.50 188.9063 491 187 0.4 10,075.00 720 1,211

Area C1 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 2.05 0.35 7,189.00 1 7,189.00 90 234 43 0 0.00 0 234

Terraced 2.05 0.5 10,270.00 0.95 9,756.50 122 317 59 0.05 513.50 37 354

Duplex 2.05 1 20,540.00 0.9 18,486.00 231 601 112 0.1 2,054.00 147 748

Low-rise block 2.05 1.5 30,810.00 0.8 24,648.00 308 801 150 0.2 6,162.00 440 1,241

Mid-rise block 2.05 2.0 41,080.00 0.7 28,756.00 359 935 150 0.3 12,324.00 880 1,815 41,080.00

High-rise block 2.05 2.5 51,350.00 0.6 30,810.00 385.125 1,001 187 0.4 20,540.00 1,467 2,468

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 96 Area C2 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 4.3485 0.35 15,219.75 1 15,219.75 190 495 43 0 0.00 0 495

Terraced 4.3485 0.5 21,742.50 0.95 20,655.38 258 671 59 0.05 1,087.13 78 749

Duplex 4.3485 1 43,485.00 0.9 39,136.50 489 1,272 112 0.1 4,348.50 311 1,583

Low-rise block 4.3485 1.5 65,227.50 0.8 52,182.00 652 1,696 150 0.2 13,045.50 932 2,628

Mid-rise block 4.3485 2.0 86,970.00 0.7 60,879.00 761 1,979 150 0.3 26,091.00 1,864 3,842 86,970.00

High-rise block 4.3485 2.5 108,712.50 0.6 65,227.50 815.3438 2,120 187 0.4 43,485.00 3,106 5,226

Area C3 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 3.1135 0.35 10,897.25 1 10,897.25 136 354 43 0 0.00 0 354

Terraced 3.1135 0.5 15,567.50 0.95 14,789.13 185 481 59 0.05 778.38 56 536

Duplex 3.1135 1 31,135.00 0.9 28,021.50 350 911 112 0.1 3,113.50 222 1,133

Low-rise block 3.1135 1.5 46,702.50 0.8 37,362.00 467 1,214 150 0.2 9,340.50 667 1,881

Mid-rise block 3.1135 2.0 62,270.00 0.7 43,589.00 545 1,417 150 0.3 18,681.00 1,334 2,751 62,270.00

High-rise block 3.1135 2.5 77,837.50 0.6 46,702.50 583.7813 1,518 187 0.4 31,135.00 2,224 3,742

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 97 Area d1 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 3.4385 0.35 12,034.75 1 12,034.75 150 391 43 0 0.00 0 391

Terraced 3.4385 0.5 17,192.50 0.95 16,332.88 204 531 59 0.05 859.63 61 592

Duplex 3.4385 1 34,385.00 0.9 30,946.50 387 1,006 112 0.1 3,438.50 246 1,251

Low-rise block 3.4385 1.5 51,577.50 0.7 36,104.25 451 1,173 150 0.3 15,473.25 1,105 2,279

Mid-rise block 3.4385 2.0 68,770.00 0.7 48,139.00 602 1,565 150 0.3 20,631.00 1,474 3,038 68,770.00

High-rise block 3.4385 2.5 85,962.50 0.6 51,577.50 644.7188 1,676 187 0.4 34,385.00 2,456 4,132

Area d1 Accommodation TypeNet Area Plot ratio GFA Residential Residential No Units Population Units / ha Commercial Commercial Population Population (ha) sqm utilisation area utilisation space Total

Semi-detached 4.28 0.35 14,992.25 1 14,992.25 187 487 43 0 0.00 0 487

Terraced 4.28 0.5 21,417.50 0.95 20,346.63 254 661 59 0.05 1,070.88 76 738

Duplex 4.28 1 42,835.00 0.9 38,551.50 482 1,253 112 0.1 4,283.50 306 1,559

Low-rise block 4.28 1.5 64,252.50 0.7 44,976.75 562 1,462 150 0.3 19,275.75 1,377 2,839

Mid-rise block 4.28 2.0 85,670.00 0.7 59,969.00 750 1,949 150 0.3 25,701.00 1,836 3,785 85,670.00

High-rise block 4.28 2.5 107,087.50 0.6 64,252.50 803.1563 2,088 187 0.4 42,835.00 3,060 5,148

DCDU007 Dublin South Bank Development Strategy 2002 98