One Berkley court -132m Tower

[ctesiphon]

I can't seem to find the Ballsbridge LAP but, from memory, this is fairly in keeping with it. I seem to remember it allocated an area of the site for a "landmark" building ie "tall but not that bloody tall Mr Dunne"

But the LAP was not adopted, if memory serves; quite possibly because of questions over such provisions.

I suspected from the word go that this would be the outcome. It's interesting to see that some of the advocates of the scheme are now talking about the poor quality of the granted elements- an aspect of the debate not much in evidence during the flag-waving about the 'landmark' tower.

coming north over the hump thriugh christchurch

Mixing up the internet and the texting functions on your new phone, what??

[henno]

without knowing exactly what the council have granted and what they have refused, but doesnt the theory of a 'part grant' to a development really undermine the architectural integrity of the whole concept and design???

should the council refuse the whole lot if they are not happy with the proposed design density etc of the development, rather than the "you can have a, b + c, but not x, y + z".....???
the development should be considered as a whole rather than a series of individual elements....

[alonso]

ctesiphon you make a key point there (which I believe in my modesty I had brought up somehwere). The tower was in fact, from a purely aesthetic point of view, the most attractive building of the lot (or least worse anyway ) - Obviously the new streets and spaces were also favourable in my opinion. But this decision is a real DCC fudge and I would go as far as to say it's an abdication of responsibility - they may have just handed the initial file to ABP last year rather than pretend to be the planning authority

henno you're absolutely right. I look forward to the planners report which justifies this nonsense - At the very least an AI request to redesign the landmark corner element should have resulted in a revision that was acceptable. To grant but leave out this block makes no sense from any perspective.

What really annoys me is that I find myself in agreement with the local politicians over a planning matter.

[gunter]

without knowing exactly what the council have granted and what they have refused, but doesnt the theory of a 'part grant' to a development really undermine the architectural integrity of the whole concept and design???

should the council refuse the whole lot if they are not happy with the proposed design density etc of the development, rather than the "you can have a, b + c, but not x, y + z".....???
the development should be considered as a whole rather than a series of individual elements....

Unfortuately very few schemes aspire to the level of artistic purity that would justify the stance you suggest. Most major schemes are an assembly of parts, which could equally successfully, or unsuccessfully as the case may be, be re-assembled any number of ways.

The ingenuity shown in the conditions, if there is any, may reveal whether this is the planning office at their best, or just the planning office going through the motions in the knowledge that the real decision will be made elsewhere.

It's tempting to get all worked up about this, but at the end of the day, this is only Ballsbridge, and without wishing to cause undue offence to the over-privileged, whatever happens here, it's not going to make or break Dublin.

[alonso]

Frank has his say on it - not much yet due to the lack of info

Ballsbridge high-rises may have overreached themselves and the city

ANALYSIS: Dublin City Council's split decision on Seán Dunne's extremely expensive Ballsbridge site has left the developer facing an uncertain future, writes Frank McDonald .

TWO AND a half years ago, when Seán Dunne broke all previous records by paying €53.7 million an acre for the Jurys site in Ballsbridge and then trumped that a few months later by paying €57.5 million an acre for the adjoining Berkeley Court site, there were many who thought it was "mad money".

Within a few months, however, the records he set were broken repeatedly by other developers in what seemed like a frenzy to stake claims on prime property in the heart of Dublin 4: Glenkerrin's Ray Grehan, for example, paid €81 million an acre for the adjoining UCD Veterinary College site.

Mr Dunne made it clear from the outset he would be pursuing plans for a mixed-use development that would include a 32-storey residential tower. Other developers, including Mr Grehan, were convinced they would get approval for high-rise, high-density schemes to make their money back.

Last August and September, within two weeks of each other, Glenkerrin and Dunne's company, Mountbrook Homes, both lodged their planning applications. By then, Mountbrook's proposed tower had grown to 37 storeys, flanked by seven other buildings ranging in height from 10 to 18 storeys.

By contrast, Glenkerrin's scheme appeared relatively modest, with a 15-storey residential tower - called "No 1 Ballsbridge" - as its centrepiece and three office blocks up to nine storeys high, with cafes, restaurants, boutiques and an arts centre laid out around a square and a new street.

Despite strong objections among the 80 submissions it received, Dublin City Council's planners decided last month to approve the proposed development, with only minor amendments, thereby setting a new benchmark for building heights in Ballsbridge. It is now under appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

When it came to the Jurys/Berkeley Court sites, which are currently zoned residential, the planners exercised a Solomon's judgment of sorts - approving an 18-storey residential block fronting onto Shelbourne Road as well as the proposed hotel, shopping centre, embassy block and cultural centre.

But they refused permission for the 32/37-storey tower as well as a proposed office block, which wouldn't have been permissible under the zoning anyway. The omission of the tower results in a loss of 182 apartments, though Mr Dunne will be seeking permission for a revised scheme to retain as many as possible.

Copies of the planning decision and the planner's report on which it was based will only be available today, so it is impossible at this stage to say why the tower was rejected; presumably, it was on the grounds of excessive height in an area that has not been identified as a suitable location for high-rise buildings.

Its omission undermines the viability of Mountbrook's overall scheme, making it difficult to see how Mr Dunne or his bankers can make their money back. And they can't have much confidence that An Bord Pleanála will agree to reinstate the tower, given the negative stance it has taken on many high-rise schemes.

Neither is there any guarantee that the appeals board will uphold Glenkerrin's proposed development, particularly its 15-storey tower.

The board can only have regard to "proper planning and sustainable development" in making its decisions, and it is unclear how these high-rise schemes fit into that category.

The property market has changed markedly since the height of the boom in late 2005, when huge sums were being paid for sites in Ballsbridge. Schemes that seemed likely to "fly" then may no longer be viable, not just in Ballsbridge but in lower-valued parts of the city that are much more in need of renewal.

this is only Ballsbridge, and without wishing to cause undue offence to the over-privileged, whatever happens here, it's not going to make or break Dublin.

Yes indeed but every time we lose a suburb or area to bad planning it compromises the ability to make or break the city as a whole.

[jdivision]

"DUBLIN CITY Council's decision to drop a 37-storey residential tower and an office block from developer Seán Dunne's plan to redevelop the Jurys and Berkeley Court sites in Ballsbridge has called into question the scheme's viability."
I thought the IT wasn't going to editorialise in the front of the paper? Who says that the rejection calls into question the validity of the scheme. Frank?

As for the inside feature I suspect he'll be getting a legal letter over the fact he says Dunne is facing an uncertain future rather than the development.

[gunter]

Whatever we might say about planning and architecture in Dublin in the 1970s, at least they understood a few simple principles like, that one side of a street should respect the other.

Back then, the seven storey Jurys and Berkley Court Hotels were kept back behind the existing boundary and screened by the superb perimeter of mature trees, which, I think are the remnants of 19th century botanical gardens on the site, formerly belonging to Trinity College.

One of the most unsettling aspects of the reported granting of planning permission for the Mountbrook scheme must be the acknowledgement that they wouldn't have got away with that back in the backward, urban illiterate, Ireland of the 1970s.

I would be a lot more comfortable about a new high density urban quarter being parachuted into a mature 19th century suburban/village setting, if it was being led by a grand local authority vision and if the 'new' urban quarter had defined and logical boundaries.

The present plan looks a lot like an arbitrary unbalanced creation occupying perhaps half of a city block, with little obvious scope to either, fill out the other half, or detach itself from it, to become legible as a stand alone ubran scale entity in it's own right with it's own dynamic.

[notjim]

Times reports that a tall building will be permitted, just not that tall and the office block won't be allowed under zoning.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0311/1205104616318.html

Dublin planners prepared to allow high-rise building in Ballsbridge

FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor

DUBLIN CITY Council's planners have made it clear to developer Sean Dunne that they are prepared to grant permission for a high-rise "landmark building" on the Jurys site in Ballsbridge in place of the 37-storey tower omitted from the current scheme.

"It is the strong view of the planning authority that a landmark building of architectural excellence is required at this location, and equally that the building be of sufficient scale to act as a landmark," according to a report by senior planner Kieran Rose.

Referring to the junction of Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road, where the 37-storey tower had been proposed, he says the planners "would consider by way of a new planning application a building that meets these criteria on this part of the site".

However, Mr Rose's report makes it clear that it was not open to the planners to permit the proposed tower "despite the many positive aspects of the taller building, and having regard to the lack of sufficient policy support for a building of 37 storeys".

In its decision to grant planning permission for the proposed development, the council also omitted a 10-storey office block on the basis that it was "neither permissible nor open for consideration" under the existing Z1 residential zoning.

However, it approved six other buildings in the scheme by Danish architects Henning Larsen, including four blocks containing a total of 294 apartments, a 232-bedroom hotel, an embassy building, cultural centre, crèche and district shopping centre.

The proposed cultural centre, on which Gate Theatre director Michael Colgan is the adviser, would include an art gallery, an "eclectic" cinema, a photographic gallery, a performance space, rehearsal and artists studios and a "centre for European culture".

The embassy block would provide 13,250 sq m of office space for embassies.

Billionaire financier Dermot Desmond - who was one of some 150 objectors - has warned that such a building would be "a sitting duck for a potential terrorist attack".

The tallest building approved for the Jurys-Berkeley Court hotel sites, which Mr Dunne agreed to purchase in 2005 for €379 million, would rise to 18 storeys on the Shelbourne Road frontage, while the lowest would be nine storeys.

The decision, which was subject to 27 conditions, specified that the three apartment blocks on the Lansdowne Road frontage be reduced in height from 11 to nine storeys to provide "a more harmonious relationship" with Victorian houses opposite.

Omitting the proposed 37-storey tower, which would have contained 182 apartments, and lowering the height of the Lansdowne Road blocks have resulted in cutting the number of apartments in the scheme from 536 to 294, a reduction of over 45 per cent.

Given that Mr Dunne has said his company, Mountbrook, intended to submit a revised application for the landmark tower - unless it gets approval for it from Bord Pleanála on appeal - it would be possible to recoup a large proportion of the omitted apartments.
© 2008 The Irish Times

[jimg]

I suspected from the word go that this would be the outcome. It's interesting to see that some of the advocates of the scheme are now talking about the poor quality of the granted elements- an aspect of the debate not much in evidence during the flag-waving about the 'landmark' tower.

It's interesting alright but more because both the advocates and the detractors are responding in the exact same way. Both now seem to of the opinion that the bits granted were the worst bits and that the tower actually had architectural merit. Odd but strangely typical.

[paul h]

Billionaire financier Dermot Desmond - who was one of some 150 objectors - has warned that such a building would be "a sitting duck for a potential terrorist attack".

I doubt all embassies would locate together in a single building

[notjim]

paul h: how do you mean, the idea was that there would be one building that would contain a number of embassies, this was part of the plan that got permission. You don't think they would do that, I don't see why not?

[gunter]

I love the bit in the planning decision that says 'you can't have the office block because, under the Development Plan zoning objective, office use is neither permissible, nor open for consideration'.

So some paragraphs of the Development plan are gospel and the rest of it is padding!

Why can't they just re-publish the Development Plan with just the bits left in that we're supposed to take seriously.

The thing would be three pages long.

[jdivision]

paul h: how do you mean, the idea was that there would be one building that would contain a number of embassies, this was part of the plan that got permission. You don't think they would do that, I don't see why not?

Security issues. Do you think the Russian/Chinese/British would be in the same building together? Doubt it

[alonso]

it's more likely though that it'll be countries like Sweden, Luxembourg and Switzerland - ie less controversial and more likely bedfellows. Why would the British move for example? As for terrorsits attacks, I would profer that several locations in Ballsbridge would be appropriate for a massive car bomb that could take lumps out of a few in one go. Anyway it's only Ireland, not exactly in Osama's or Hezbollah's sights now are we. Dermot Desmond should be aware that if a terrorist was to attack "Ireland" it would go for our WTC - which is of course in Dermotland on the North Quays

[paul h]

Yea perhaps some non controversial countries such as Luxemberg, but i cant imagine groups of countries relocating, because it would still be a pretty soft target.
I always figured the embassy element was only to try and sell it to the public, maybe a mini UN building is on the cards after all , but i doubt it

[notjim]

Don't you think security for countries with small embassies would actually be easier to handle if they were together?

[alonso]

, because it would still be a pretty soft target.

for who? Who would attack Luxembourg et al. It's not like it'll be Britain, USA, Israel, Spain, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India all together with just one smoking area.

In all seriousness the only time I can think of when an embassy was attacked on Irish soil was when we burned down the British one in 72. Isn't this just paranoia?

[gunter]

Enough about the deck chairs! What about the iceberg?

[ForzaIrlanda]

Billionaire financier Dermot Desmond - who was one of some 150 objectors - has warned that such a building would be "a sitting duck for a potential terrorist attack".

So is Dublin airport, Connolly station etc etc, just because theyre not skyscrapers doesnt mean that theyre not feasible targets as well. In Madrid it was trains, London it was trains and buses, and Glasgow it was the airport.

[paul h]

for who? Who would attack Luxembourg et al. It's not like it'll be Britain, USA, Israel, Spain, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India all together with just one smoking area.

In all seriousness the only time I can think of when an embassy was attacked on Irish soil was when we burned down the British one in 72. Isn't this just paranoia?

Wouldnt it be great if they all shared the same space, with shared cafeteria:D

Maybe it is paranoia but i cant imagine the prospective embassies security advisors agreeing to sharing a building with a number of other countries.
It would make for some juicy propaganda to hit a couple of 'western' targets in one shot.
It would probably never happen , but if any incident even minor, did occur whoever agreed to share a building with other countries would have serious egg on their face to say the least

[notjim]

This is a weird objection to anything and completely overblown, for example it seems to be ok in Dar Es Salam

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3575/is_1280_213/ai_111030392

where Germany, the Netherlands and the UK embassies the British aid service and the EU share an office. Of course, there is probably a much smaller security threat in Tanzania, but . .

[paul h]

Im not objecting to anything (if your referring to me!)
I was only thinking the whole embassies under one roof idea was just a bit of good intentioned publicity spin
If it happens - if security issues are not a problem (which i am thinking they would) then all well and good, and if it doesnt work out then you have some prime office space up for grabs.

[Rory W]

How do they manage not to beat the shit out of each other in the UN building on a daily basis is beyond me !?!?!? Seriously - there is ample scope for all the 'non-contentious' embassies to share a building.

[gunter]

This comment has nothing to do with whether Luxemburg can ever share embassy space with Azerbaijan, so it may be a bit off the point, but has anyone noticed that there might be some serious planning and development issues going down here!

Is the logic behind this planning decision this:

[INDENT](a) That the site has a prominent corner, therefore, with it's prominent corner, it follows that it should have a landmark building (some version of the one submitted, just not the one submitted).

(b) Since the site (with it's prominent corner) is going to have a landmark building, it follows that the remainder of the development should be much lower, say 9 -18 storeys, so as not to detract from the landmark building on the prominent corner.

(c) The proposed development replaces some very tall (7 storey) structures that completely failed to take advantage of the site's prominent corner, and instead shamefully hid behind Victorian railings and the boundary of specimen trees.

(d) The fact that the development site only occupies half of a city block, the other half of which is suburban/village scale at best, is not relevant, because you're forgetting that the development site has a prominent corner.
[/INDENT]
Maybe there are no serious implications here for the proper planning and development of Dublin, unless, by any chance, there are any other sites in the city with prominent corners?

[jimg]

being parachuted into a mature 19th century suburban/village setting

Over the years I've worked on Pembrook Rd for a couple of years, Shelbourne Rd for a year and Merrion Rd for four years; I don't know where the idea that Ballsbridge is some sort of idyllic suburban village comes from. Ballsbridge is practically unihabited which is reflected by the fact that practically everything (pubs, shops, cafes and restaurants) either shuts or barely operates outside of the cycles dictated by office hours. It's spookily dead in the area on non-working days. Sometimes I had to go to the office on Saturdays and Ballsbridge was like a desert; you had walk to Sandmount to get a paper and a cup of coffee. The only thing in Ballsbridge was fast moving traffic passing through.

In terms of architecture, there are some beautiful Georgian and later streetscapes outside the perimeter of Ballsbridge proper but it's impossible to ignore the dross in Ballsbridge itself; for example, the site in question (except for a section of Lansdowne Rd) is surrounded by very non-descript or even arguably ugly architecture. The fact that Merrion Rd and Shelbourne Rd are major traffic arteries doesn't help the transient feel to the whole place.

If Walace was proposing this scheme, I suspect there'd be legions supporting the vision behind the attempt to create an urban quarter.