Part of the Independent News & Media Group
Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
MadForAds
Propertynews
New planning laws promise more tall buildings in Belfast
Saturday, 2 January 2010
Singapore is synonymous with skyscrapers and Belfast city centre could follow that example with more tall buildings of its own in the near future
enlargeBelfast could have more skyscrapers dotted on its horizon, as Environment Minister Edwin Poots has revealed that a new policy on tall buildings will be published by his department.
Mr Poots said the policy would give guidance to developers and planners alike and prevent “ad hoc” decisions on tall buildings by the Planning Service.
He said Belfast was “behind the times” when it came to skyscrapers — and said he admired the tall buildings of Singapore.
And there is nothing wrong with using that country’s skyline as inspiration when planning Belfast’s future, Mr Poots added.
“If we are to continue to grow our economy we need to grow our population, and tall buildings can accommodate people residentially and maximise our land use,” the minister said.
“We are somewhat behind the times in terms of tall buildings. Much of the tall building development in other cities took place in the 1960s and 1970s, but obviously with the Troubles that didn't happen here.
“Now we are in a different period and people are looking to maximise land use. Tall buildings are acceptable but not in all locations.
“As a consequence we are drawing up a policy paper on tall buildings to give guidance to the planning office so it makes decisions that are less ad hoc.
“I’m not saying whether Great Victoria Street is an appropriate location, but in other European cities you see a great deal of skyscrapers in quays and former docklands — and we have the Boat and the Obel.
“Frankly, it gives you more of a city feel, but they need to be well-designed. If you look at New York skyscrapers which went up in the 1950s and 1960s, they are like rectangular boxes which aren’t very aesthetically pleasing.
“But you find much more appealing skyscrapers in Singapore, for example.”
Mr Poots doesn’t see any incongruity with comparing an architectural template from Belfast to Singapore and said buildings which could accommodate people and maximise land use would help grow the economy. “We are comfortable with the principle of tall buildings where they are appropriate,” he said.
Mr Poots spoke almost one year after would-be landmark The Aurora, a 37-storey skyscraper on Belfast’s Great Victoria Street, was refused planning permission by the Planning Service.
The decision was greeted with outcry by the developers and then Environment Minister Sammy Wilson, who said his own civil servants in the Planning Service had acted “abysmally” in ignoring the economic benefit a landmark building could bring.
Mr Poots, however, said he had held meetings with the Aurora developer, McAlister Homes, and an amended application for a building of 20 to 25 storeys could be sent in to the planners.
The Obel, Belfast’s tallest building and the tallest in Ireland, is 28 storeys high.
The original application for the Aurora has been with the Planning Service’s management board, which could overrule the planners’ decision.
The board was to consider the potential of the Aurora to regenerate the area. But it took the Department for Social Development five months to inform the DoE that DSD Minister Margaret Ritchie would welcome investment in Great Victoria Street and was “satisfied with the regeneration aspects of the Aurora proposal”.
A spokesman for the DSD defended the amount of time taken.
“It takes time to assess a development as significant as the Aurora proposal against prevailing planning and regeneration policy,” he said.
“In this instance, the assessment also raised issues about the department's position in relation to major developments in the city more generally and this added in turn to the time taken for consideration.
“The department's response to the Planning Service reflects the minister's view that it was important to be as positive as possible towards major investments, particularly in the present economic climate.”
The spokesman added: “There are no standard targets for response times for correspondence between departments.”
Tall storeys from our capital
The Obel: At 28 storeys, Belfast and Ireland’s tallest storeyed building is set to open for business summer 2010
Windsor House: At 23 storeys, the office building on Bedford Street was Ireland’s tallest building until the Obel.
Churchill Tower: The 19-storey tower was demolished in 2004 to make way for Victoria Square shopping centre
Divis Tower: 19 storeys
Belfast City Hospital Tower: 15 storeys
The Boat: The 15-floor building includes apartments and a restaurant and overlooks Custom House Square
Hilton Hotel, Belfast: 12 storeys
BT Riverside Tower: 11 storeys
Vetro: Planning application submitted for 26-storey glass-fronted development at Castle Street/King Street in city centre, to include serviced apartments and hotel. If allowed, developers hope it could be complete within two years.
Taller buildings in the city centre make sense, to contain the urban sprawl, but definitely NO Sky Scrapers - Belfast's beautiful hills should remain the defining feature of the city's landscape and its individuality. Any new building projects should also be pushed for more innovation in structure and aesthetics. The Obel looks horrible (how was such a departure from the original reneders allowed anyway?!?), the Lanyon Towers are far too bulky and, i agree, the Waterfront Hall and the view of the Lagan is now obscured by insipid buildings - such a shame for such prominent positions. Well done to the Planning Service for rejecting the Aurora - just a tall and ugly looking monster!
Posted by Jo | 13.03.10, 18:20 GMT
Belfast's Planning Control of urban design has been very poor over the last 15 years.
Just look at how the most important building developed here since the City Hall - the Waterfront Hall - is now completely obscured by medium rise blocks.
Worse still is the fact that these newer blocks are all ugly monstrosities.
Posted by Somerled | 19.01.10, 19:49 GMT
Yes inner city buildings must be aesthetically pleasing or people won't want to visit.
Posted by honest joe | 03.01.10, 18:57 GMT
belfast was 'behind the times'......
what a true comment - its still a long way behind the 'competition' - weak gov't, low salaries, political instability, depressing PR 24/7, etc etc will hardly inspire investment from outside........
its time for OUR political leadership to WAKE UP to the real world....
1690 has passed - lets move on..
Posted by Seymour Bunting | 03.01.10, 18:47 GMT
No skyscrapers please! these buildings block out natural sunlight and would reduce the city into a place of gloom. One of the really charming aspects of Belfast city is that it has not gone high-rise like other cities, I remember my home city of Sydney before the CBD was densely overbuilt, walking down most of Sydney's streets after 3pm is like walking down darkened corridors.
Posted by Merry | 03.01.10, 17:08 GMT
So Belfast's central business district will just look like any other city - how original.
I suppose,as usual, we'll just knock down the older historical buildings to make way for these monstrosities.
Posted by Robbo | 03.01.10, 15:17 GMT
Do you think for one moment that if the Victorians possessed the technology to build skyscrapers, that they wouldn't have seized the opportunity?
Belfast, more than most, should be reaching for the stars and and raising the hopes and aspirations of all our citizens!
Posted by StephenM | 03.01.10, 14:09 GMT
We need less sky scrappers.
Most inner city builds are owned by business, and therefore rarley used except for visiting execs.
Mr Poots should look to the 1960 and 1970's of English High rise residential accomodation and relation to community degregation, now being long suffered by the decay of such areas as Mr Poots hopes to create for Belfast in 2032. No thanks Mr poots.
As population growth and how to prevent it, is the priority agenda for British Government, I feel to see how Mr Poots will use this as a reason moving forward?
You may thank Jim Burgess and his brother Tom, for this going through, weather the people of Belfast want it or not.
Posted by Gary Hall | 03.01.10, 02:50 GMT
Yeah, build more skyscrapers, Then the terrorists WHEN they start up again can do a "Twin Towers" job
Posted by Stuart | 03.01.10, 02:31 GMT
I would be grateful if Mr Poots was as proactive, as to place the 30 successful candidates in jobs, who have been on a waiting for 11 months and counting for positions, as planners within the planning service of Northern Ireland.
Posted by Annoyed | 03.01.10, 02:18 GMT
About time - bring Belfast into the 21 century please!!
Maybe update our licensing / drinking times/laws too !!!
Posted by SPM | 03.01.10, 00:31 GMT
Quite silly and naïve. First, Belfast is a town, not a city. Second, I don't think Belfast has the demographics, the economy, and lack of land that would give rise to a city with skyscrapers. What should be done with Belfast is to demolish large portions of the town to make way for large boulevards to sort out the absurd traffic problem! Then perhaps taller buildings could be created though never skyscrapers. For that you'd have to round up the six million people that live on the island and force them to live in Belfast-proper!
Posted by John | 02.01.10, 22:35 GMT
This would be good news for more jobs!!!
Posted by Michael | 02.01.10, 21:27 GMT
I think Mr Poots is right, the buildings must be aesthetically pleasing there are already a number of horrible buildings in belfast in prime locations.
We need to build up instead of out.
Posted by honest joe | 02.01.10, 20:37 GMT
Our wonderful Belfast City can survive without ugly concrete towering buildings - why not retain our quaintness and keep us unique
Posted by Anne Murray | 02.01.10, 20:16 GMT
Belfast is a beautiful city because it does not have skyscrapers.
The Europa is very ugly
Skyscrapers are like the men who build them big dicks
Belfast please stay close to the ground
Posted by greg | 02.01.10, 16:48 GMT
Agree with Poots that if buildings are going to be so tall, they each need to offer a dramatic skyline - like the Petronas Towers. Aurora is one of the rectangular boxes referred to, with another box for a skyline - not good enough. Skyscrapers need a detailed base, a simple middle section and a dramatic crown. And the mre they're tightly clustered, the more interesting the skyline.
Posted by U H | 02.01.10, 16:01 GMT
If planning permission is granted for tall buildings, it is important to have nice appealing design instead of box-style buildings.
Posted by Realist | 02.01.10, 15:20 GMT
Since much of Belfast is built in a boggy estuary, it will be interesting to see how these new skyscrapers are built.
Posted by Centaur | 02.01.10, 14:10 GMT
We need more skyscrapers. Why they refused Aurora is baffling, as stated, the benefits a landmark building can bring to a country are substantial and Belfast was made in, by and for the Victorians. Time has moved on, and we are the last city of the UK and Ireland alike to renew our policies on structure. A key component to economic evolution.
Posted by P Wilson | 02.01.10, 13:14 GMT