Construction of Dublin (Frank Mcdonald)

@missarchi wrote:

I
Treasury kicked out of O’connell st
…

Huh? They owned one small site there.

@jdivision wrote:

Huh? They owned one small site there.

Did they even own anything on O’ C st, as far as I am aware, all they owned in the area was/ is a 1st floor of a non-existant house on Moore St, adjacent to Lidl….Why were CPO powers not used to acquire what is now an effectively undevelopable site – rather than forcing Kellegher to build up on the 3 sides around it. All the more curious when one considers the enthusiasm by which Sean Carey moved on the Carlton site….

Talking of Treasury Holdings, did anybody hear Barret being interviewed on The Business on Radio 1 over the weekend –
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/thebusiness/1159721.html

Gets particularly interesting around the 17th minute:

Not much in the way of democracy or human rights either Richie! I think the Bord will take it in the jest it was intended. Riiiiight before the refusal stamp meets the parchment 🙂

@hutton wrote:

Did they even own anything on O’ C st, as far as I am aware, all they owned in the area was/ is a 1st floor of a non-existant house on Moore St, adjacent to Lidl….Why were CPO powers not used to acquire what is now an effectively undevelopable site – rather than forcing Kellegher to build up on the 3 sides around it. All the more curious when one considers the enthusiasm by which Sean Carey moved on the Carlton site….

Well given they now have planning permission for their site there I think you may be wrong. As an aside, AFAIK they own buildings on the eastern side of O’Connell Street, close to O’Connell Bridge.

@jdivision wrote:

Well given they now have planning permission for their site there I think you may be wrong. As an aside, AFAIK they own buildings on the eastern side of O’Connell Street, close to O’Connell Bridge.

I stand corrected so re the 2 room site on Moore St; I am happy to hear that this final tooth is being infilled – but why was it left there derelict, causing a wholly unneccessary and onerous effect on the construction of Jurys Inns, which – as already said – went up on the 3 sides around it.. Why was it not CPO’ed? And what were Treasury up to buying such an apparently useless holding? They couldn’t have acquired it purely for nuisance value….Surely not?!

So what do they have near the bridge, are they the owners of that building with the neon signage?

I think they own a couple of the banks,not sure if it includes the corner one

@hutton wrote:

And what were Treasury up to buying such an apparently useless holding? They couldn’t have acquired it purely for nuisance value….Surely not?!

So what do they have near the bridge, are they the owners of that building with the neon signage?

A more pertinent question is perhaps why the city council wanted them to develop the entire site and then why they reached the secret agreement with O’Reilly to develop it post the CPO without putting the site on the market.