One Berkley court -132m Tower
- This topic has 448 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
How exciting: this site can really take a big building, are there pictures anywhere?
There’s a small picture here and a bit more in the video report
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
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 …
Totally. Very 80’s corporate America.
Surprising.
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 boxesPosted 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:
@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.”
Just down the road from where I work..that is one bland area and will benefit hugely from this development.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
“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.
The tower’s very underwhelming
@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….
@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?
@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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
