Talk:List of tallest buildings in Ireland

Tara Street Tower, 88m (2-16 Tara Street, Dublin 2)
This has commenced ground works and the building it has replaced has been demolished.

I realise that there are buildings for which the ground works start and then are demolished e.g. - the U2 Tower in Dublin which was demolished at 3 below street level stories and one above including all foundations. It was then replaced with the current Capital Dock scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.43.40.68 (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

'Under construction' does not apply to this building. The site has been cleared yes but no work has commenced thus far on the foundations. Until that time this building should not be listed as under construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:709D:A00:210C:FA1E:487B:656E (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Dublin Airport Tower
I have removed this because is this really a building? Like how Seattle's list of tallest buildings, the Space Needle is not included in the actual listing. Would it be more appropriate on the List of tallest structures in Ireland page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.234.208 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this again from the listings. This should not be included on this page, just as ATC in airports around the world are not included in national listings. The BT Tower in London is a different as it contained office space, a restaurant and tourist related amenities 90.211.124.69 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I would think the Dublin airport is more valid in so far as it has an actual functional purpose for being tall and is used for that administrative and business purpose every single day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.43.40.68 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wilton Town Centre
Hi, I can confirm from the plans available on Cork City Council’s EPlan website that the Wilton development added earlier is in fact 54 metres (I also don’t understand how it could be so tall at only 7 storeys but that is what it said clearly in the documents). How would one go about using that site as a reference? DylanGLC2017 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. To be honest with you, until a clarification or explanation is available (in a more accessible/reliable/independent source), I don't think we should be including it. Not least as it doesn't seem to make any sense. And if, perhaps/presumably, this is the height of a non-storyed element (like a spire or adornment or something), then it wouldn't seem to be meet the inclusion criteria in this list. Given the history of this list article (in that it previously included more than few "paper only" projects [with similarly dubious height claims] that never saw the light of day), I would suggest that we hold tight until the project is at least underway. Or at the very least has been through the (inevitable) appeals/plan-revision process. By which time there should likely be a more verifiable and reliable set of plans/refs. In general we shouldn't rush to cover everything that is vaguely trotted-out in news sources (or even planning documents). Previous crystal-ball predictions have led to embarrassingly out-of-date articles and content - that was be-lied by subsequent/actual events. Lets learn from these past mistakes. And the guideline that arose from them. Guliolopez (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

BOLD/Crystal/List criteria
I have removed the "approved" projects from the "possible/future buildings which could be among the tallest" sub-section. For several reasons. All informed by the WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS and WP:LISTCRITERIA guidelines. Namely: In short: The "approved/proposed buildings [??? storeys] that might perhaps maybe be built sometime in the future" is of limited value to the project. And this list article. Personally I have a bit of problem with "tall[ish] buildings for which construction has started" (UU building anyone?), but at least a "construction has actually started" criteria is more concrete than "the planning department rubberstamped this drawing 3 years ago" criteria we seemed to have. Guliolopez (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria was not clear. Listing every single building (over an undefined number of floors or with an unspecified proposed completion date) is unsustainable. It is entirely unclear why we would list some projects and exclude others. The only criteria for adding new entries seem to have been "I saw a press release on project X".
 * The claims made were dubious and often mutually exclusive. For example, several (different) listings each claimed that they "would be the tallest building in Ireland if/ever/when completed". (Which is speculation in the extreme. In that it speculates whether/if/when that project would be completed. And also speculates whether/if/when any other similarly sized projects might also be completed.)
 * The references varied significantly in reliability, date and veracity. (Just because a county or city council rubber stamped a set of plans (years ago) does not mean there is funding, budget, a timeline, a developer or an actual plan for development. A project that does not have a timeline is not a project. It is a proposal. A project that does not have funding is not a project. It is a wish. Wikipedia is not a republisher of wishes, dreams or developer press releases.)


 * Hi . Per my most resent edit, the above, the WP:CRYSTAL and WP:LISTCRITERIA guidelines, and longstanding pattern of edits on this article, I have significant concerns with restoring "tall[ish] buildings that may never be built" to this list article. Not least because, when we had such content before, it became out-of-date and inaccurate very quickly, and served only as an example of why we have WP:CRYSTAL guidelines. Personally I oppose the inclusion of content on the project for "white elephant" projects that act primarily as a republished press-release for some property developers wet-dream. (Given that, for example, we've for years have had [and still have] articles covering projects that were proposed decades ago, have never seen the light of day, and just read as a "timeline of delays". DART Underground anyone?). Anyway. The subject and title of this list is described as a "list of the tallest habitable buildings". It is not possible to live in a planning application. If we are to change the inclusion criteria and subject of this article, then please let's talk about what that is intended to be. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Tall Buildings at the Planning Stage
I feel there should be at least somewhere a note of buildings in planning. Surely people come to this page looking for that exact sort of information! That was why I initially visited the page.

The reason there were a lot of unbuilt buildings on the page previously was because Ireland had the largest bursting of a property bubble in world history.

A building has full planning approval from Dublin City Council after also being appealed and passing through An Bord Pleanala. It will be the tallest on the Island of Ireland at 88m if built and groundworks have started. Not mentioning this point at least somewhere in the article seems to be leaving out quite key information.


 * Prism Building, Cork City - permission granted (70m - 15 Storeys)
 * Custom House Tower, Cork City - planning application submitted (134m - 34 Storeys)
 * Tara Street Tower, Dublin - permission granted (88m - 22 Storeys)

It can surely be included in a separate section that has — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financefactz (talk • contribs)
 * Planning Application Submitted
 * Planning Application Approved/Permission Granted


 * Hiya. Thanks for your note. On each point:
 * "people come to this page looking for planning information". Why would they do that? Wikipedia is not a replacement for the planning application or planning notice channels of the various councils or an Bord Pleanála.
 * "there were a lot of unbuilt buildings on the page previously was because Ireland had the largest bursting of a property bubble in world history". Yup. It did. And, despite all the indicators at the time, nobody's crystal-ball was able to identify that then. Do you have a "better" crystal-ball now? If so, can you lend it to the government? Or to me?
 * "It will be the tallest on the Island of Ireland at 88m if built". Key point here is "*if* built". That's a big "if". Bigger than the building perhaps.
 * "surely can have a separate section that has Planning Application Submitted / Planning Application Approved/Permission Granted". How would such a section or sections address the inclusion criteria issue? (currently "habitable buildings"). And the WP:CRYSTAL issue? (that recognises that planned events do not always occur as planned. Or at all.) Or the WP:VER issue? Or the WP:WWPIN issues? (that recognises that Wikipedia shouldn't simply republish otherwise raw or arbitrary "directories of proposed projects" from other sources).
 * If you can suggest some compromises to those issues, then I'm happy to discuss how we might try and include something on "planning approved / construction eminent" style entries. So long as they also meet WP:VER. Guliolopez (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You have misquoted me above in inverted commas. If €300k plus has been spent on a development stage then it is something more than a "Wet dream" in all seriousness. I will look at starting a separate WP article containing much of the same information that is contained here including buildings that have no prospect of every being built but have been proposed or planned. As long as you don't object...

The event I am proposing to have occurred is the planning submission itself rather the completion of the building.

In all honesty I highly doubt the Custom House Tower will ever be built but it is worthy of a mention at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financefactz (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC) User:Financefactz —Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * RE: Inverted commas - Apologies. I may have prioritised summary over literal representation. It wasn't my intent to misquote. And certainly not to misrepresent.
 * RE: Article on buildings that have no prospect of being built - An article covering things that do not exist, and will never exist, is contrary to any number of guidelines. I (and the project norms) would have a big problem with this.
 * RE: Recording planning submissions rather building completions - This is not what the project is about. As above, Wikipedia has no business being a republisher of random/raw/indiscriminate entries from planning databases.
 * RE: Projects that will never be completed are worth a mention - No they are not. Not in this list article anyway. And not unless the "lack of completion" meets WP:GNG, WP:EVENT or other guidelines. Flatly, the scope of Wikipedia does not extend to publishing speculation as fact.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The planning applications do exist. To say they don't exist is absurd. If there is number of reliable references saying a planning application have been submitted. Obviously the buildings don't exist and may never exist and neither of us can predict the future. If it it has clear guidelines such as buildings that have been planned and permission granted then I cannot see what possible problem you would have except for it will take away some popularity from this page.

I will leave your page as is and look at setting up a separate article. FYI have a look at List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom. You will be unpleasantly surprised if you scroll down to the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financefactz (talk • contribs)


 * Hiya.
 * RE: "Absurd". I didn't say that the planning applications do not exist. Rather, it is my position that republishing every planning application (as if each was encyclopedically relevant, each met this article's inclusion criteria, or each would ever progress beyond "application" stage) is in conflict with project norms. And this article's apparent inclusion criteria.
 * RE: "Your page". I didn't say that it was "my page". It isn't "my page". Any more than it (or any other article) is yours or anyone-else's "page". You might want to read WP:OWN. My major concern here (as already articulated) is that this (and other) articles have been cluttered with useless, out-of-date, and immediately inaccurate speculation. Other than that, I have no more "say" than you or any other editor. Save that we are all bound by the guidelines on scope and verifiability and speculation.
 * RE: UK equivalent. I didn't see the "UK tall buildings" article before. Thanks for the heads up. Though it looks like another editor has already raised concerns about the accuracy, relevance, and "up-to-date-ness" of those sections at the end, I will likely weigh-in myself too.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Financefactz on this issue. Three different boxes of texts should exist: proposed, approved, and under construction. Once a project is proposed, it should be placed in the proposal box until approval is guaranteed. If approved, it should be moved to the approved section (until construction commences). If a project is scraped, then simply remove it from the wikitable. Of course, a reputable source should be linked with each submission. This system would give a much wider overview of the current situation regarding tall buildings in Ireland. Many buildings which if built would be the tallest on the island can currently not be seen on this wiki page (Project Waterfront, Cork Port Tower...). There's no harm in adding them in their own section, eventually removing them when the time comes. WikiBanana1412 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Building Control Management System
A commencement notice must be lodged with the authorities when commencing construction on a building in the Republic of Ireland. A lot of tall buildings are starting at the moment so it may be a good resource to use to clarify whether or not a building has started if there is any disagreement (along with other resources).

https://www.localgov.ie/en/bcmsFinancefactz (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Skyscrapercity is a good resource to see if a building has actually been completed or commenced in photos and it is usually updated on a bi-weekly basis. Of course, this cannot be used as a citation as it is a message board but it is still a good source of overall information!

For example this week there have been 2 photos posted of the ongoing archaeological dig work on the demolished site of Apollo House.Financefactz (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Santry Cross/Metro Hotel
The recently submitted planning applications for this building include a screen and plant and antenna on top of the building. The architectural top of the building in these drawings that they have submitted and been approved by Dublin City Council show that it is 52.1m to the top of the building and 54.1m to the top of the plant shed on top of the building. ' http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00654019.pdf '

Planning application ref: 3911/17Financefactz (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that. I couldn't find any reliable source (other than that "listicle" thing) and so had to reluctantly remove the entry. With that/those reliable sources, am happy to see it remain. (To confirm however, while planning applications are useful to support the claims made about entries, we should avoid using planning applications as inclusion criteria for entries. If that makes sense.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Other possible omissions to investigate
Some other Dublin buildings


 * Vantage Apartments, Leopardstown (16 storeys) possibly
 * The Sentinel, Sandyford - (all floors completed but not fitted out!)
 * 15 storey apartment building in Sandyford at Beacon South Quarter - Carmanhall

I have looked up Vantage apartments tower and its 46.2m (151.6 feet) according to the planning documents and 16 storeys so doesn't quite meet the criteriaFinancefactz (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentinel is 42.70 metres according to recent planning documents and so also doesn't meet the criteria for height and obviously not being completed!

I cannot get at the application for the Plaza apartments tower in Sandyford but as it is residential and only 16 storeys it is unlikely it is 50+ storeys tall.

There are still one or two other buildings in Dublin I need to check to make sure they don't breach the 50 limit.

At least one of those buildings in Belfast is not 50 metres so I will go through and check the smaller ones for accuracy as well.

There are at least 9 buildings I can find in Dublin alone where a planning application has been submitted in 2019 which are at least 50 metres tall so we might have a few u/c coming on stream in the near future.

Tallest approved for construction buildings in the Republic of Ireland
This list ranks all habitable buildings approved for construction in the Republic of Ireland that will stand at least 50 metre tall. This includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts.


 * The above list is exhaustive. Note the details of Northern Irish buildings are more difficult to find.

The following countries have a list of approved for construction buildings on their pages

List of tallest buildings in France List of tallest buildings in Germany List of tallest buildings in the United States List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Financefactz (talk • contribs)


 * Hi.
 * RE: "the above list". If you want to keep a "parking lot" of "things that may or may not happen" somewhere, then your own sandbox is probably the best place. You can then (once the construction actually starts or, ideally, when the building is actually built and exists), then you can "move it" to the article. Along with the reliable and verifiable references which support any inclusions or text. In a way which satisfies WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VER
 * RE: "other countries have lists of approved buildings". An "other stuff exists" argument is not typically considered a valid argument relative to guidelines. "Two wrongs don't make a right" and all that. If anything, noting that "out-of-date and uncited speculation exists elsewhere" is really just an argument to clean-up the other list articles. Which I have now started to do. Not least when the stuff added to the equivalent UK list (added only very recently by a recently created SPA account without consideration to recent attempts to address this very issue) has now been removed. And the stuff on the equivalent Germany list is beyond useless (as it is both uncited and ENTIRELY out-of-date).
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources are largely from government agencies (planning authorities) but can always have a newspaper as a second citation if needs be - will leave it there so (although I do disagree). What are we saying qualifies for u/c? If a commencement notice has been lodged is it then u/c? Financefactz (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Section(s) for approved and proposed buildings - Revisited
I see no problem with an "Approved Section" alongside the "Under Construction" section as long as all the entries are cited and constantly managed. If something that has been approved is cancelled, then it should be immediately removed from the list, as to stop inaccurate clutter. There's no reason why an article called "List of Tallest Buildings in Ireland" shouldn't include Approved and even proposed buildings, as long as they are properly managed and updated if ever they get cancelled. WikiBanana1412 (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . And welcome to Wikipedia. It will come as no surprise to hear that I don't agree with the suggestion. Or the rationale. And do see a problem (several in fact) with an "approved tall buildings" and/or "proposed tall buildings" section. As stated before, in terms of:
 * policy, as in WP:WWPIN (including WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE and WP:NOTFUTURE), proposed future events should be included "only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". And we should avoid content that is likely to "quickly become obsolete". The project (even previous versions of this same list article) is littered with examples of building projects that were proposed, or even planning approved, and then never occurred. Like the approved 14-storey Limerick development which was recently referenced in this same article. And which, very quickly, was revised downwards to 7-storeys. And is still not advanced beyond a piece of paper somewhere. Where the editor who added it never came back to address that change in reality. Or the Richmond Arena article, which (while not in the same "tall building" scope as we have here) was similarly created in a rush, on the back of a single press-release. And without consideration to the fact that the entity proposing the development didn't own the land, had no money to fund the development anyway, had no realistic chance of getting planning permission, and was therefore largely just "pie in the sky". In short, approved or proposed buildings are not "almost certain to take place". And any content covering such proposals is almost certain to "quickly become obsolete".
 * history, as in this article and the UK and German equivalents, lists of proposed future events have NOT historically been "properly managed and updated". To the extent that this article long-contained information on long-cancelled projects. And, even today, sections of the UK and German and other list equivalents are littered with more out-of-date/inaccurate information than accurate information (in some cases a decade or more out-of-date). In short, while I admire your optimism that such content can be "properly managed and updated", I am not sure what that confidence is based upon. As there is no evidence that these things have been maintained elsewhere. Which is why policy advises against.
 * personally, I just don't see the urgency. Real estate developers might be good at PR. Lamping on to journos about their next big project which may or may not ever be a big project. But there is no reason for us to become re-publishers of developers' press releases. I see no reason not to just wait five minutes until it is clear whether the event/development is more likely to take place. And then to cover it. I do not see the point in taking on burden. For no value.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"Cancelled" section
The inclusion criteria for this list as a whole (defined in the lead) is "tallest habitable buildings on the island of Ireland". Where "tallest" is clarified (later in the body) as being "buildings taller than 50m".

"Cancelled" buildings (buildings which do not exist, did not exist, and will never exist) are, by definition, not "habitable". So what's the inclusion criteria for the "cancelled" section?

If it's "every single building [that was planned to be >50m] that never got planning permission", then that will be an excessive list. All but unmanageable and unverifiable. Bordering on silly.

If it's "every single building [that was planned to be >50m] that got planning but didn't progress", then that will still be a long list. And, would need to be limited to "unbuilt stuff" that is covered as a group or set in independent reliable sources. (ie: Grouped by sources other than Wikipedia. Per WP:LISTN.)

If it's "every single building [that was planned to be >50m] that got planning, and work started, but then stopped", then where/how is that defined?

I have looked at other "list of tallest buildings in COUNTRYX" type articles. To see if there is a common/typical inclusion criteria for these types of lists elsewhere. But I note (with some interest) that NO other similar country articles seem to include "lists of buildings that don't/didn't/won't exist" type subsections. And, frankly, I'm not sure why this article should. Guliolopez (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Bump. It's been nearly a year since I opened this thread. Absent any other input (on the inclusion criteria for this section or why we need one here when no other "list of tallest buildings in country X" have similar sections), I will shortly remove the "list of buildings that don't/won't exist" sub-section of this article. Guliolopez (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Resolved. Several further months have passed and, absent any other thoughts or input, I have removed the section. Guliolopez (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Or not... Seemingly this is not resolved as I'd thought. suggests that the "cancelled" section has been "discussed at length and consensus agreed [that its content meets the list criteria]". Personally I can't find the discussion (and certainly this thread is, indeed, just me talking to myself). But happy to have the conversation. How do unbuilt structures  (that are not in existence and never will be) meet the "habitable buildings" criteria? And, are there similar sub-sections in equivalent lists for other countries (I don't see equivalents in the US, UK, German, or other lists). What am I missing (in terms of criteria or consensus or convention or precedent)? Guliolopez (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)