One Berkley court -132m Tower

Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:12 pm

37 storeys for ballsbridge. Locals already forming a mob with burning torches and a ducking stool

Looked a bit bland on the telly but will call in tomorrow and have a closer look - on public display in Berkeley Court until Sunday.
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby notjim » Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:09 pm

How exciting: this site can really take a big building, are there pictures anywhere?
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby Sarsfield » Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:52 pm

There's a small picture here and a bit more in the video report

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0830/jurys.html
Sarsfield
Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:44 am

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby lostexpectation » Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:44 am

who was that speaking in the vid, I hate her already the idea that skyscrapers are somehow green and sustainable???

diamond is generous, perfum bottle, bar of soap more like?

37 is bit much ain't it
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby Devin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:40 am

Ah, good old middle-class Joan …. no doubt Dunne asked for “the best” project manager!

My first reaction to the tall building is, shouldn’t it be nicer? Looks terribly USA / Asian / Australian corporate high-risey bland …
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby GrahamH » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:26 am

Totally. Very 80's corporate America.

Surprising.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4580
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby paul h » Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:34 am

Yes!
Brilliant! Love to see this.

Although It'll never happen.......
HEADLINE : CRAZY MAN WANTS TO DESTROY IRELAND WITH 37 FLOOR SKYSCRAPER
(did we mention 37 FLOORS)

When something like this building, bearing in mind its only proposed, makes NATIONAL 9 o'clock news its makes me thankfull that i dont live in ireland:D (seriously)

80's corporate America definitely does not spring to mind, hard to tell from the quick graphic
But hey i'm only a layman that gazes endlessly every single day at probably largest collection of 80's boxes

Posted by Devin ; Looks terribly USA / Asian / Australian corporate high-risey bland …

What does that mean? It looks like a building that may be built somewhere on planet earth:confused:
paul h
Member
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby ctesiphon » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:46 am

lostexpectation wrote:who was that speaking in the vid, I hate her already the idea that skyscrapers are somehow green and sustainable???

Joan O'Connor- presumably the same woman who used to be President of the RIAI, though I'm open to correction on that.

For those that didn't watch / can't see the video, this is what she said:
Joan O'Connor wrote:Well it's a commercial reality that you have to have a certain amount of development on the land to validate the price paid for it and to make it work. But, it's the way of the future. Sustainability is all about higher density and extremely good quality architecture.

So there you have it- the price paid for the land determines the intensity of the development. And there was naive little me thinking that local, regional and national policies were somehow relevant. Still, she used the phrase "the way of the future" so it must be true. Now all we need is the "extremely good quality architecture."
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby The Denouncer » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:02 am

Just down the road from where I work..that is one bland area and will benefit hugely from this development.
The Denouncer
Member
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:20 pm

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby notjim » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:03 am

Skyscrapers are green: the apartments and office inside are insulated by their neighbours and average energy use is lower as a consequence; by allowing denser development, they also reduce the environmental cost transport. Dense cities have the lowest per-capita carbon footprints.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby phil » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:24 am

Whatever about the merits/demerits of this proposal I really think the term 'NIMBY' needs to be questioned, it over-simplifies the issues at stake. The planning process allows us to demonstrate or democratic right to make a submission regarding a planning proposal. I think people who live in the surrounds of this or any proposed development have every right to question it, if they feel that it will impact on them in an adverse way. In my view the submission method, which seems to have naturally become known as an objection is not ideal, but it is the system that is in place and we have to use it. I am sure there would be bigger complaints if people who were not directly affected by this proposal were to voice their concerns.

If it is to be the case should all developers be referred to as OMPOLP's (On My Parcel Of Land Please), or something to that effect? No, because it just sounds too ridiculous.
phil
Old Master
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:32 pm

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby wearnicehats » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:32 am

phil wrote:Whatever about the merits/demerits of this proposal I really think the term 'NIMBY' needs to be questioned, it over-simplifies the issues at stake. The planning process allows us to demonstrate or democratic right to make a submission regarding a planning proposal. I think people who live in the surrounds of this or any proposed development have every right to question it, if they feel that it will impact on them in an adverse way. In my view the submission method, which seems to have naturally become known as an objection is not ideal, but it is the system that is in place and we have to use it. I am sure there would be bigger complaints if people who were not directly affected by this proposal were to voice their concerns.

If it is to be the case should all developers be referred to as OMPOLP's (On My Parcel Of Land Please), or something to that effect? No, because it just sounds too ridiculous.


If you had seen the piece on the news last night (after which I wrote the thread) you would have heard the report saying :

The sixteen residents group in the area said that allowing this development to go ahead would make a mockery of the planning process.

They said they were confident that City Councillors would not be browbeaten into accepting developments they know are wrong for the city



I was struck by the immediacy of the reaction and the fact that there are 16!!! resident groups. Personally, I believe NIMBY to be exactly the correct term
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby phil » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:44 am

wearnicehats wrote:

I was struck by the immediacy of the reaction and the fact that there are 16!!! resident groups. Personally, I believe NIMBY to be exactly the correct term


Fair enough Wearnicehats, but I still feel it is too simplistic a term. Particularly given the various goings on with the Local Area Plan in recent months.
phil
Old Master
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:32 pm

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby GregF » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:55 am

What's there at the mo is bad. Is this an improvement?

Will probably end up getting something like whats down the docks........squat block land.

Anyway that proposed tower may hold the aurora like the way the cylindrical American Embassy building once did.

I remember everyone being up in arms over the Kevin Roche Spencer Dock proposal over 7 or more years ago. The European city model was the example to follow not a 'Canary Wharf ' or a 'Mini Manhatten'......and look what we got.....No snazzy glass towers of the Celtic Tiger era, ah no.....just a piecemeal collection of architectural mediocrity. Conservative Ireland alive and well.

Ah fuck it and build the Dunne Tower, sure the new Lansdowne Road is gonna look ultra modern in the area.

The super middle class Joe Soap residents of Ballbridge etc...are no more special than anyone else.
User avatar
GregF
Old Master
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby Peter Fitz » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:08 am

Ah sure lets have a 20 storey here, a 40 storey there, doesn't really matter if Dublin ends up with a wide scale visual hotch potch, does it ?

This is too high for the site; buildings of this size should be confined solely to docklands.

I take it DCC's high rise report is resting on a bottom shelf somewhere, not that I ever agreed with its conclusion that numerous high rise gateways to a low rise city core (including docklands) was appropriate.

Anything over twenty stories should be confined to the upper docklands area, forming a modern backdrop to the city core without impacting negatively on it.

DCC need to make a strategic decision & stop this random high rise nonsense.
Peter Fitz
 

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby d_d_dallas » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:20 am

"DCC need to make a strategic decision & stop this random high rise nonsense."

I completely agree that DCC have dropped the ball big time w.r.t. developing a coherent plan for high rise development, but in the absence of such a plan, it's not like Dublin has become over run with inappropriate high rise. There've been unsuitable proposals (Thomas St, Donnybrook etc) but these were rejected.

And can we all stop using the argument for the "docklands" as a panacea for high rise. Where exactly in the South Docks can high rise be accommodated at this stage? Simmilarly the North Docks as the approved plans stand aren't exactly awash with high rise.

Maybe we should just accept that high rise (for arguments sake 50m +) is just not suitable for Dublin. At. All.
d_d_dallas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby jdivision » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:24 am

The tower's very underwhelming
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby henno » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:29 am

d_d_dallas wrote:....
Maybe we should just accept that high rise (for arguments sake 50m +) is just not suitable for Dublin. At. All.



Maybe necessity should take precedent over suitability......

In an era of ridiculous urban sprawl, reserved land banks and the whole 'sustainable' movement..... to argue against high rise (?) buildings on grounds of suitability is a bit dubious....
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby notjim » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:54 am

jdivision wrote:The tower's very underwhelming


How so, it looks great to me, the angles are interesting without being fiddly, the scale is impressive and the location seems ideal for a large tower, standing by those big wide streets at the corner of a huge site, near the city, by the business district, rising up out a streetscape of handsome terraces. If not here, where?
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby Peter Fitz » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:54 am

d_d_dallas wrote:I completely agree that DCC have dropped the ball big time w.r.t. developing a coherent plan for high rise development, but in the absence of such a plan, it's not like Dublin has become over run with inappropriate high rise. There've been unsuitable proposals (Thomas St, Donnybrook etc) but these were rejected.

And can we all stop using the argument for the "docklands" as a panacea for high rise. Where exactly in the South Docks can high rise be accommodated at this stage? Simmilarly the North Docks as the approved plans stand aren't exactly awash with high rise.

Maybe we should just accept that high rise (for arguments sake 50m +) is just not suitable for Dublin. At. All.


Granted, not yet.

I see it as inevitable that we will end up with a number of tall buildings, which imo should be located more or less within the one area rather than a random scattering of one-off mini montparnasse like efforts.

The re-location of Dublin Port (which will happen) & the decommissioning of Poolbeg will make available vast tracts for development. DCC should take a strategic long term view & designate this new quarter for a level of high rise development & state that this is their postiion, or that they even have a position.
Peter Fitz
 

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby archipig » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:09 am

lostexpectation wrote:who was that speaking in the vid, I hate her already the idea that skyscrapers are somehow green and sustainable???

diamond is generous, perfum bottle, bar of soap more like?

37 is bit much ain't it


Yes it is in my opinion. But I suspect that Dunne is expecting an Board P to give any development the regulation crew cut, so best to apply for a greater height than you except to actually get. Expect about 10 storeys to be lopped off the top. Personally, I liked the original B Mc E proposal which was about 32 storeys.
archipig
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:08 am

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby hutton » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:25 am

This "letter" by Dunne appeared in the Times last week. Quite odd really for a CEO to be issuing such broadsides - and unneccessary I would have thought for the IT to publish it all in it's total (and painful) entireity. I am posting one reply to it for balance at the end.

Irish Times, letters page, Friday, August 24, 2007 wrote:DEVELOPMENT OF SITES AT BALLSBRIDGE

Madam, - It is a widely held belief that a newspaper should be properly judged by the fairness and accuracy of its Editorials. Over the years when reading your newspaper, it has been customary for me to first turn to the leader article and, indeed, customary to believe that it had been written without bias and with a level of fairness, understanding and expertise.

The number of grossly inaccurate and misleading articles which have been written over the past two years about my company and the Jurys/Berkeley Court site by now outnumber the number of rugby fans who claim to have been in Thomond Park when Munster beat the All-Blacks in 1978.

However, the leader article "Changes in Dublin 4" in The Irish Timesof Saturday, August 18th, that blamed me and my company for the decisions made and actions taken by a then public, and now private company (Jurys Doyle Group), two years ago was so vindictive, misleading and inaccurate that it trumps them all.

Your Editorial began by blaming my company, Mountbrook Homes, for the recent closure of Jurys and the Berkeley Court Hotel. You may recall that in June 2005 the owners of Jurys Hotel Ballsbridge, being Jurys plc, offered for sale by tender Jurys Hotel Ballsbridge. It was an express condition of the sale of the property, by the inclusion of a restrictive covenant on the title, that no other hotel could be developed and operated by the purchaser of this site.

Jurys plc at that time operated seven other hotels in Dublin city and was obviously endeavouring to minimise future competition.

On acquiring the Berkeley Court some three months later, Mountbrook Homes successfully negotiated the removal of the restrictive covenant and the right to build a hotel on the combined site, if we so choose. It is our intention to include a hotel in the proposed redevelopment of Jurys/Berkeley Court. Given that your newspaper has not seen our plans I am amazed you chose to make the false assumption that no hotel would be built on this site again. In fact, I am amazed that you have chosen to make any comment at all on our plans, given that such commentary is akin to judging a beauty competition in the dark.

The current owners of the Jurys Doyle Group are the Doyle and Beatty families who took Jurys plc private in 2005. Jurys Doyle still control and own the operating companies for both Jurys and the Berkeley Court Hotel.

The decision to close both hotels was taken by Jurys plc and in respect of which neither any of my companies nor I had any hand, act or part.

My company only takes ownership and control of Jurys Ballsbridge on September 6th with no residents, no employees, and the contents from the doors of the bedrooms to the elevators removed - in essence a carcass.

Prior to Jurys Hotel closing this month, we sought to acquire, intact, the full contents having been approached by other hotel operators who had an interest in keeping the hotel in operation until development commences. The owners refused to sell us the contents for reasons only known to themselves.

I have, however, successfully managed to purchase those contents which were for sale in the Berkeley Court and over the next couple of months will investigate the viability of keeping that hotel open for the foreseeable future. Ownership and control of the Berkeley Court does not pass to our company until October 8th.

Your article also stated that Jurys and the Berkeley Court are two thriving, profitable hotels, a statement obviously made without any knowledge of the profitability of these properties. In 2005, Jurys plc, in the best interests of their shareholders, decided to dispose of these two hotels. I fully understand why the company decided on this course of action.

Good economics is based on the return of capital and the reason these hotels were sold is that Jurys plc were no longer realising an adequate return on capital deployed in relation to both properties. The "ruthlessness" you refer to in your article is also hypocritical given that The Irish Timesitself embarked on a controversial rationalisation programme over the past four years for similar reasons, namely: disposing of its head office - a Dublin landmark]


Irish Times, letters page, Tuesday, August 28, 2007 wrote:DEVELOPMENT IN BALLSBRIDGE

Madam, - Sean Dunne's letter of August 24th set a worrying precedent: it took up half the page and ran to a couple of thousand words. This is over-development of the worst kind. What about the higher density you regularly encourage from your letter-writers? This is epistolary sprawl.

Who in your department fast-tracked it through? Have we no right of appeal?

On a less serious note, I hope he builds better than he writes. Ouch. - Yours, etc,

DAVID P JAMESON, York Road, Dún Laoghaire, Co. Dublin.
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby AndrewP » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:32 pm

I'm not sure whether the scale of this is appropriate for the location. But in general terms, what's worse for Dublin: 536 apartments built on (underused) city land, or 536 oversized semi-ds built on a huge field by a motorway in Co Meath?
Why do we get furious debate (and ultimate refusal) for high density schemes like this, and not about the many, many outer suburban developments that are wrecking quality of life for everyone in the city, not to mention the environment.
AndrewP
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 2:56 pm
Location: Whitehall, Dublin

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby notjim » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:34 pm

At 20 semi-d's to the acre, that is 27 acres, leaving out the shopping space, cinema, offices, embassy and so on. Picture 27 acres of semi-d housing in your mind.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

Postby henno » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:58 pm

notjim wrote:At 20 semi-d's to the acre, that is 27 acres, leaving out the shopping space, cinema, offices, embassy and so on. Picture 27 acres of semi-d housing in your mind.


:eek: :D ......
have you ever been to Lucan??? :D
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Next

Return to Ireland