Re: Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower
In the general scheme of things, the project is obviously the right course of action for Ballsbridge and the city at large. The ‘township’ as it stands has no heart, its coherence is derived from a lack thereof, and the potential for high density and greater permeabilty so close to the city makes it a no-brainer.
But specifically on the tower – which will inevitably be the most contentious part – I have to agree with kefu in terms of its relative worth in density terms. It’s a multi-floored building for multi-millionares – the type of people who by and large would not be contributing to typical urban sprawl, save the country mansion or two which are usually mature, existing stock. While I generally like the idea of a landmark building for the area, even roughly the height proposed, density arguments alone – or principally – really cannot be used to justify such a development, relative to the impact created. The wider development yes, the tower no.
Even by definition, this proposal sets out to create a one-off ‘incident’, or landmark for the area: the logic being that nothing else will or should be pemitted by DCC so as to preserve its primacy – and similarly regarding the impact on the wider Victorian suburb. Its entire raison d’etre is to build this tower so none others will be built – hardly the high-density vision for the city as extolled.
Which is why it’s faintly irritating that such an enormously impacting development is gilded-by-association with the wider density argument set out for the entire development – as worthy as it is. Whereas I welcome a tower (though not exactly head-over-heels about the design) as a landmark, I do not agree with the main logic espoused – in the video at least – for its erection. Mountbrook should at least be honest about it.