One Berkley court -132m Tower

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby alonso » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:14 pm

care to elaborate on why my contribution was a "cracker"?
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby Rory W » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:39 pm

alonso wrote:care to elaborate on why my contribution was a "cracker"?


Ditto to my two

Or perhaps its a look at all the people who disagreed with Mickletterfracks rants at Sean Dunne who says that he's being stretched (like every other property developer) due to the credit crunch and that he could be insolvent (like every other property developer) if the credit crunch continues.

(Amazing how BostonOrBerlin appeared with his little rants shortly after Mickletterfrack with his little rants got booted off the forum)
Rory W
Old Master
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Drogheda & Blackrock

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby jdivision » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:23 pm

Well all of my points were factually correct so don't have a problem with them BostonOrBerlin. Economy has changed in the meantime but there you go.
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby hutton » Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:25 pm

No crackers for hutton.

Boo-hoo :(
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby hutton » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:46 pm

Story reprinted from Sunday Business Post, which was central to a point being made, removed after learning that the story has subsequently become subject of a legal action. Hutton likes to stick to the cautious side on such matters and so has deleted own post - please ignore this post & also posts 381 and 383.

Many thanks to jdivision for pointing the matter out :)
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby hutton » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:08 pm

See post 380.
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby StephenC » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:24 pm

Ask that nice man in Anglo Irish Bank...he might know
User avatar
StephenC
Old Master
 
Posts: 2483
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby hutton » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:36 pm

See post 380.Nothing to see here now... Kindly keep driving on.
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby jdivision » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:15 pm

Hutton, don't know where archiseek's servers are based but that story and a subsequent follow up in another paper are the subject of legal action at the moment.
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby tfarmer » Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:42 am

Once again dublin suffers from what is now commonly now known as 'AHDS' or anti height disease syndrome.

It must be noted that this is a uniquely irish disease which doesn't exist in the rest of the world. Its exact origins are unknown but its roots are thought to be a form of paranoid dillusion. Some speculate that it emerged in the late 90's as a reaction to certain planning activities.

Should you happen to suffer from this particular disease you will notice the following symptoms:


(1) A sudden dislike of any building or object over 5 storey's high
(2) A need to prevent at all costs any planning applications for buildings taller then the aforementioned height
(3) A need to convince your fellow man of how the 'splendour of the fair city could be forever lost' if such planning applications were to get the go ahead
(4) A need to convince your fellow man that true beauty lies in the uniformity of horizontal lines and all things flat
(5) A nagging urge to convince your fellow man that if buildings over this height are built crime, drugs, prostitution and other social problems will suddenly skyrocket and end times will surely follow
(6) A need for convince your fellow man to 'please think of the children, for the love of god won't someone think of the children'

Please note that this disease is contagious and too much listening to a person suffering from AHDS can cause the disease to spread.
tfarmer
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 2:44 am

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:13 am

tfarmer wrote:Once again dublin suffers from what is now commonly now known as 'AHDS' or anti height disease syndrome.


Very pithy, tfarmer. but one clarification- do you mean 'anti-height disease syndrome' or 'anti height-disease syndrome'?

Because I'm certainly against unplanned eruptions on the face of this city, which one might class as 'anti height-disease'. In fact, even the most ardent supporter of height for height's sake would concede that a measure of locational decision is an imperative. Ho hum.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:56 pm

Speaking of unplanned eruptions and (what was the phrase?) bent erections? did I hear that 'One Berkley Court' is due for ABP decision this week?

Somehow, this whole thing now seems like something from another era!
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby ihateawake » Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:52 pm

Yeah, Ha! wtf was that about? He clearly could not form a rational argument against the development, hence that stroke of genius.

And you're right, jan 30.
ihateawake
Member
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:58 am

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby rob mc » Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:18 pm

tfarmer wrote:Once again dublin suffers from what is now commonly now known as 'AHDS' or anti height disease syndrome.

It must be noted that this is a uniquely irish disease which doesn't exist in the rest of the world. Its exact origins are unknown but its roots are thought to be a form of paranoid dillusion. Some speculate that it emerged in the late 90's as a reaction to certain planning activities.

Should you happen to suffer from this particular disease you will notice the following symptoms:


(1) A sudden dislike of any building or object over 5 storey's high
(2) A need to prevent at all costs any planning applications for buildings taller then the aforementioned height
(3) A need to convince your fellow man of how the 'splendour of the fair city could be forever lost' if such planning applications were to get the go ahead
(4) A need to convince your fellow man that true beauty lies in the uniformity of horizontal lines and all things flat
(5) A nagging urge to convince your fellow man that if buildings over this height are built crime, drugs, prostitution and other social problems will suddenly skyrocket and end times will surely follow
(6) A need for convince your fellow man to 'please think of the children, for the love of god won't someone think of the children'

Please note that this disease is contagious and too much listening to a person suffering from AHDS can cause the disease to spread.


That was utter genius and i think it deserves a lmao,well done sir:D

Oh Jan 30,why that's tomorrow.

Although we already know that the discussion will last 2 seconds with DDA telling him to get his tower and shove it up his arse. lol
rob mc
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Galway

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby ctesiphon » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:56 am

Anyone fancy a pint?
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby alonso » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:01 am

Crowe's? Slattery's? Horse Show House?

from Dunner's website

"Re: Jurys Berkeley Court Development 30.01.09

**Mountbrook Group will issue a statement in respect of An Bord Pleanála’s decision on our website at approximately 5pm today."
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby alonso » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:08 am

alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby goneill » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:47 am

alonso wrote:Crowe's? Slattery's? Horse Show House?

from Dunner's website

"Re: Jurys Berkeley Court Development 30.01.09

**Mountbrook Group will issue a statement in respect of An Bord Pleanála’s decision on our website at approximately 5pm today."


The Dubliner bar would be nice. Is it still there?
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby hutton » Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:39 pm

What about Bartley Dunne's? Ah shucks that's gone a couple of years...

Oh well that's this scheme, eh, dunne and dusted :o

/ gets coat
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:58 pm

[HTML]'Mountbrook Group will issue a statement . . . at 5pm'[/HTML]

What are the chances that the phrase - 'High Court' - will feature in that statement?
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby goneill » Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:28 pm

gunter wrote:[HTML]'Mountbrook Group will issue a statement . . . at 5pm'[/HTML]

What are the chances that the phrase - 'High Court' - will feature in that statement?


I read somewhere recently an (alleged) quotation to the effect that he hoped whoever lost this appeal would accept the decison gracefully. Can anyone remember where that was published?
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby lostexpectation » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:22 am

Residents seek an investigation into council's handling of case
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/residents-seek-an-investigation-into-councils-handling-of-case-1622492.html

they have a point don't they
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby hutton » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am

Article from today's Sunday Times. It is such ill-informed offensive guff that I can't resist inserting one or two points in, in CAPS :)

From The Sunday Times
February 8, 2009

Brenda Power: Ballsbridge snobs ensure it’s not a Dunne deal


The rejection of new-money developer Sean Dunne’s 37-storey tower is proof that we don’t live in a classless society
Brenda Power

Good old-fashioned snobbery, Sean Dunne reckons, was behind the failure of his ambitious vision for a new-look Ballsbridge. It’s a reasonable conclusion, since the reasons for the rejection of his plans included the fact that the scheme, with a signature tower soaring 37 storeys into the air, would be “at odds with the established character” of Ballsbridge.

“Mature vegetation,” according to An Bord Pleanala, also stood in the way of the plan, which hardly came as a surprise to anybody who saw those eloquent images of elderly D4 residents recoiling in horror from the scale model of the planned development, as though even the tiny replica stank of new money. NICE COMMENT THERE BRENDA, ABOUT AN OLD LADY WHO IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE, AND ALSO A DIG AT OLD PEOPLE IN GENERAL - ATTENDED THE MARY ELLEN SYNON SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM, THEN?

But what, exactly, is the “established character” of Ballsbridge and how is it so different from the “established character” of, say, Dublin 8, where plans for a 32-storey tower close to the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham met no such objection? HAVEN'T HEARD OF THE DEGW STUDY THEN, BRENDA, HAVE WE?

For sure, the Dunne tower would have been out of proportion with the elegant residences in the area. But traditional and innovative, modern architecture reside quite congruently side by side in the main street of our capital city without the sky falling down on the Spire.

The Ballsbridge locals didn’t fret much about proportionality when the value of their homes spiralled to outlandish multiples of those of identical properties with different postcodes. Ballsbridge was a self-contained little property bubble long before we’d ever heard the term. The houses in a handful of exclusive roads were quietly changing hands for seven- and eight-figure sums when a few years’ salary could still buy you a detached bungalow in the commuter belts.

Perhaps that is the “established character” that An Bord Pleanala is so keen to retain, although you’d think we’d have learned by now that over-inflated bubbles all burst eventually and it’s rarely a pretty sight.

Dunne’s extensive residential plans, particularly if they’d proceeded in the current economic climate, would have seen the D4 brand go the way of the Zimbabwean dollar. With 37 floors of blow-ins suddenly styling themselves Ballsbridge residents, not to mention the potential for embarrassment if the likes of Ann Summers were to set up shop in some of that 27,000 square feet of retail floor space, the value of the “mature vegetation’s” holdings would have dropped dangerously close to affordable. GREAT TO GET SUCH USE OUT OF THE OFFENSIVE LITTLE DIG BY REPEATING IT...

An Bord Pleanala ought to act in the interests of all of the citizens of the state. What exactly is our common interest in maintaining the exclusivity of an area of moderate scenic and amenity value, a quarter that is only remarkable because of the pretensions of its privileged residents? PERHAPS IF YOU BOTHERED YOUR OVERPAID ARSE TO CHECK OUT THE BORD'S DECISION, YOU MIGHT FIND THAT THE BORD ACTED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY BY PREVENTING COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY RELOCATING AWAY FROM THE CENTRE (A KEY INGREDIENT TO DUBLIN CENTRE PREVIOUSLY GOING DERELICT IN THE 70S)

In a city with such generous stretches of beautiful coastline, Ballsbridge doesn’t even have a sea view and it is no prettier or leafier than the surviving Victorian avenues in Dublins 6, 7 or 8. It is expensive and exclusive for no other reason than that its well-heeled residents have a substantial financial interest in keeping it that way. GUFF.

Dunne is himself, of course, a Ballsbridge resident and when he attacks the snobbery of his neighbours OR STYMIES SMALL DEVELOPMENTS BY OTHERS AT THE BACK OF HIS GARDEN you’ve got to wonder if he secretly believes it is directed as much at him as at the extravagant development he had planned. Because, unlike the more “established characters” of the area, it is a long way from Shrewsbury Road that he was reared. The self-made millionaire is the son of a town clerk from Tullow in Co Carlow and got his education at a vocational school and a tech rather than at the Rock or in Gonzaga. It’s not so much his humble origins, though, as his unseemly enthusiasm for his nouveaux riches that most likely got up the noses of the D4 types. HIS DAFT AND MASSIVELY OVER-SCALED SCHEME REALLY DIDNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT THEN?

He was a gleeful parvenu posterboy, happy to flash the cash and seemingly revelling in the envy and distaste he provoked. You don’t celebrate your second marriage, to a glamorous and much younger blonde socialite, on the Christina O yacht unless you really want to rub folks’ noses in your good fortune. NO COMMENT NEEDED

When he bought the Jurys Doyle site in the summer of 2005, he made it known that he gave the go-ahead for the purchase by phone from a plush holiday resort in Thailand, where he and his wife, Gayle, were recovering from the exertion of following the Lions tour of New Zealand.

As he toyed with various bids, he called out to Gayle and, without explanation, asked her to pick a number between 253 and 275. She chose the highest figure possible, naturally enough, and Dunne promptly instructed his solicitor to offer €275m. I'M HAPPY THAT YOUR PIECE IS SUFFICIENTLY KIND TO DUNNE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUBSTANTIATING THIS, HE IS PROBABLY UNLIKELY TO CONSIDER A LIBEL ACTION ARISING OUT OF YOUR SUGGESTING THAT HE DIDN'T MAKE CAREFUL CALCULATIONS.

Almost on a whim, then, he paid more than €50m an acre for the site and, in the process, bestowed on his Ballsbridge neighbours the distinction of living beside one of the most expensive tracts of real estate on the planet. And look at the thanks he gets.

The residents of the area have reacted angrily to Dunne’s accusation of snobbery. “Talk about snobbery is pretty cheap coming from a man who tried to turn Ballsbridge into Las Vegas,” said one, rather validating the charge.

People who fancy themselves as “old money” don’t like to be thought of as snobs, because snobbery smacks of petty, jumped-up, aspirant preening. Objecting to the common and vulgar, on the other hand, is simply good taste. Snobbery is Hyacinth Bucket and rolling your eyes in horror when somebody uses words such as “toilet” or “lounge”.

Snobbery, though, is also what you use to separate yourself from people you consider your inferiors when in reality there’s very little between you. Snobbery flourished during the boom years because the sight of common labourers driving around in luxury cars, building enormous homes, sending their children to private schools and jetting off to Val d’Isere on skiing holidays was terribly unsettling. MORE GUFF.

We consider this a classless society (DO WE?) but there’s no such thing. While money, status and a Dublin 4 address were once fairly dependable indicators of “People Like Us”, the new prosperity meant you couldn’t rely on these criteria any more.

So we began distinguishing and judging people by their taste. We happily owned up to being “wine snobs”, “food snobs” or “decor snobs” — remember Alan Clarke’s description of self-made Michael Heseltine as “a man who buys his own furniture” rather than inheriting it? — when, in fact, we were just plain snobs. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF BRENDA.

Dunne is a victim of that snobbery, and his is precisely the sort of success that so grated with the neighbours he bitterly derided for describing themselves as “people of means”.

It will be such a relief, when the dust finally settles and the recession brutally separates old money from new, to have some certainties restored.


WHY ON EARTH IS THIS JOURNALIST PAID AND LET WRITE ABOUT SOMETHING SHE CLEARLY KNOWS S.F.A. ABOUT?

Now you can't say I didn't warn you when I said it was total guff :)
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby hutton » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:54 am

jdivision wrote:Hutton, don't know where archiseek's servers are based but that story and a subsequent follow up in another paper are the subject of legal action at the moment.


Hey jdivision I suspect you might have seen today's Tribune; the section entitled "Fall of the Seans" is quite interesting including the piece by Justine McCarthy, and particularly the para that starts with "You don't have to be a mathematical genius..." and also under the part "How the MIghty Have Fallen" where it gives estimates as to the possible loss of value of key assets - including a certain house on Shrewsbury Road.... Ouch?

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/feb/08/whats-in-a-name-fall-of-the-seans/
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby alonso » Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:14 am

this debate leaves me too angry to work so i can't read that article til later
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron