New Aer Lingus HQ

i wonder will people object to the height of it? i like it. 🙂

Fantastic – now that would contribute to people’s initial expectations of what one of the ‘richest/wealthiest’ countires in Europe should look like.

I notice the nice little underground metro line on the left hand side of the elevation. Does this mean that the above proposal is a) mythological; b) a joke; c) a suggestion that the building will be constructed in 3007.

They look good ….nice renderings too……….pie in the sky however

at last a building worthy of a wealthy nation… what is the betting however the building will be half that height if its ever built!!!

i guess the height will be ok as you have tall buildings in that area anyway (ballymun) plus the fact that people’s houses are well away from it. the proposal looks really well. i hope they don’t alter it. i don’t like the current aer lingus building. it reminds me of hawkins house.

Does this fit in with the idea of Aer Lingus being a budget airline? Airlines need to focus on the idea of flying people around efficiently not building nice head offices.

@Richards wrote:

Does this fit in with the idea of Aer Lingus being a budget airline? Airlines need to focus on the idea of flying people around efficiently not building nice head offices.

their hq is only a part element of the overall project. the proposal is much more about maximising the value of their leased land at dublin airport rather than a swanky new office. there is office space for let, hotel, retail, leisure and parking elements all design to provide strategic returns for aer lingus on lands that are currently falling well below the development and investment potential.

lol at the metro link.

local window cleaner will be kept well busy.

@Richards wrote:

Does this fit in with the idea of Aer Lingus being a budget airline? Airlines need to focus on the idea of flying people around efficiently not building nice head offices.

What’s wrong with wanting nice new offices? It is the 21st century after all. Everything is being done up these days throughout Ireland. Why not have plush airport buildings too?

now if only the new terminal building looked liked that. that round building looks rather cool. i presume the pictures above are completely separate to terminal 2.

I think that building is included in the airport development plan on the DAA website.

if it is on the daa website i can’t find it. i see that it mentions the new terminal building though.

I think it’s the central building with the rectangular annex because that is the proposed metro aligment as shown in the FCC development plan

wow! if only sandyford, citiwest etc had more of this. love the metro addition – kinda like those ‘off the plan’ apartment brochures filled with exciting local “proposed” amenities that are never in any danger of materialising.

Richards

exactly. Aer Lingus should only have operationally necessary functions at Dublin Airport with any other functions transferred to Cork/Shannon or off airport lands completely.

With all the destruction Willie Walsh brought on the Aer Lingus brand, he at least sold the paintings on the HQ wall which was a sign of all that was obviously wrong with the old company.

I cannot see this being built, not because of the Metro but because of the probable sale of AL. Why invest in a building like that when you are selling the company? They need a small office that is almost empty, not a giant HQ. You plan a project like this to distract your staff and lull them into a false sense of job security (big building = lotsa jobs) before giving them their marching orders. Get them to worry about what the seagulls might do to the glass and forget the bigger picture. Pier 39 above said fill it with profitable shops, hotels, etc, Why should the taxpayer fund a retail development for what is supposed to be an airline business? Anyway, that will probably be found to be in contravention of the company’s charter as an airline and DAA would prevent it!
Dowling / Richards I do not agree with many of your points. Willie W did not bring any destruction to the Aer Lingus “brand.” The earlier management did that for him by allowing the unions run the business. I lived abroad for years and flew to Dublin several times a year. Price + arrogance = Aer Lingus management. Even today it is impossible to find their cheapest offers. Problem 1 is that “hostessing” is a menial job and not the snobbish sexy well-paid one it was made out to be in pre-Celtic Tiger Ireland. Problem 2 is that A.L. staff have neither realised nor been convinced of this.
Flew Ryanair to Birmingham last week, all bar one (pilot) has foreign names. Was just over a day in the ST carpark, cost me more than my ticket & taxes. (Yeah, I know, that’s DAA not AL.)
Dziekuje, do zobaczenia
KerryBog
PS did you know that there is no Customer Service department at AL?

Even if AL goes, some other company will take over the market gap and might be quite happy to take over such a building also. Of course, this may very well be some business ploy on AL’s behalf, but regardless of whether it is built or not (and it would be a shame if it was not), it highlights the architectural potential and creative imagination that underpins it. If it isn’t built in Dublin Airport, stick it in the Docklands as a conference centre – it is a beautiful building and deserves to be brought to life.

PDLL I agree that it is a very nice building and I would like to see it built. Nice to see the workers will have their own metro station, no need to mix with the hoi polloi. (La Defense in Paris has just 2 stations for several hundred thousand workers) However, why should the taxpayer build a stunning HQ for a company that is a white elephant? AL should be sold (or even given away before it is too late) and if it or the new owners have the funds let them build it. As for your comment “stick it in the Docklands as a conference centre” – well, I think you have put your finger on what is wrong with Irish architecture.

The staff of this proposed building would not have their own station! That basement would run on to connect the terminal buildings to any metro station. Dublin airport will not be getting two metro stations! (if it gets any). I’d like to see the building built. If it is to be served by metro then it could support retail and leisure facilities. Munich airport has a pretty big retail core and the train station is directly beneath it and it’s much further from the city and any civilisation than DUB.

Just how much land does AL lease from DAA and what length are the lease(s)? It might be hat they got some crazy cheap long lease a long time ago and know that it would be stupid not to exploit it more. I know that Aer Rianta had to buy the staff of the airport and AL out of their share in the CHURCH! cos it was paid for with staff subscriptions years ago. My uncle was an engineer for AL when they still did all their own work at DUB and e remembers paying dues from his wages for the church to be built. He told me that they (Aer Rianta) had to pay a handsome price for that church land and promise to replace it with a new one off airport land near tha coachman’s inn.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

As for your comment “stick it in the Docklands as a conference centre” – well, I think you have put your finger on what is wrong with Irish architecture.

Perhaps ‘stick it in the Docklands’ was an ill-chosen phrase. What I should have said was that it would truly be a shame to let a design like that go nowhere – it would, with perhaps certain modifications, look magnificent beside the Liffey – its reflection in the river would be fantastic at night. Part of the beauty of the building is its shape and, in my opinion, that shape would be best served in an open environment where its curves can be fully seen – this is the only problem I could see with ‘sticking it’ amidst a more crowded built environment in the Docklands. If positioned in a generously proportioned site in the Docklands, I don’t think it would be out of place, nor indeed, would it be difficult to envision or modify such a structure to serve as a Conference Centre.

Point taken PDLL. I agree that it would need a generous site and water would be nice but the former is hardly feasible in Docklands. The usable space aspect also appears very low – from the photos my guess is 50%, the remainder being open or void. I’m a big fan of tall buildings – in the right place.
When I first went to the US my office was in the Continental Centre at 180 Maiden Lane, the black glass building that gets wiped out in every NYC disaster movie – see http://www.wirednewyork.com/continental.htm Ground floor was open, atrium rising through 3 storeys in part. A condition of the planning permit was to designate the ground floor as a “Public Space.” Apparently this is quite common in NYC – Chase Plaza also comes to mind – and on the first Tuesday of every month a student or group of students from Juilliard gave a lunchtime recital. My office was on 36, superb views. Only downside was a need for a high security presence (pre 9/11) as the open nature of the atrium allowed easy access for thieves and “bums.” Guess the same would happen in Dublin!

@KerryBog2 wrote:

A condition of the planning permit was to designate the ground floor as a “Public Space.” Apparently this is quite common in NYC . . . Only downside was a need for a high security presence (pre 9/11)

Do you know if this planning permission condition has been abandoned in the post 9/11 world??? It sounds like an open invitation to a terrorist.

Sorry, I don’t know; I left NYC in 2001. However, I cannot see 9/11 as a reason to change that condition as there was an explosion before 9/11 at the WTC, early 1990’s. Arab guy planted a car bomb in the basement. Even though security was upgraded as a result to a very high level (photo IDs a la Luton Airport) to access the upper floors, the basement and concourse levels were open shopping areas. It also was relatively easy to access the rooftop restaurant “Windows on the World.” Carpark was closed however. Parking fee across the block was $45 + tip per day. 😮

@pier39 wrote:

their hq is only a part element of the overall project. the proposal is much more about maximising the value of their leased land at dublin airport rather than a swanky new office. there is office space for let, hotel, retail, leisure and parking elements all design to provide strategic returns for aer lingus on lands that are currently falling well below the development and investment potential.

I agree there is a hint of the Trojan Horse about this one; I wonder what the redevelopment clauses are in the lease which would be held by the Dublin Airport authority. Given a potential flotation of the carrier this situation should be monitored very closely for the the taxpayers benefit.

In relation to architecture the images look good and once there is no impact on Corbalis House the proposal could be appropriate to an airport. The real danger in this is that as DD Dallas says that the proposed rail link will not materialse and that the 3500 car spaces will then be required which would not be an acceptable situation.

@lexington wrote:

Regarding the metro link – the Government are likely to propose a &#8364]

DRTS was a similar announcement made in 1974 for three metro lines we are still waiting for the lines 31 years later for further information on Dublin Rail Issues visit http://www.platform11.org

@lexington wrote:

The office site is owned by the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) but is held by Aer Lingus on a 99-year lease which dates from the late 1960s…

As i said above the construction of the lease is vital in this regard; if freeholder consent is required the freeholder can pursue a good quantity of of the latent development potential value.

I wouldn’t mind seeing Corbalis House going. Its setting is so contorted as to be meaningless. It is akin to a mock-Victorian gaslamp in the airport car park or a Malton print hanging in the baggage hall: a token bit of ‘heritage’ to prettify the place. It should be taken out of its misery…

(For those who don’t know it, it’s the period house on a traffic island in the airport grounds as you approach the main terminal building)

Oddly, Devin, for once we’re in total agreement. It had a good innings, but its in the way now

Indeed, nice old house but it is not important enough to prevent development. If it can be incorporated in a way that doesn’t look ridiculous, it should be, but if not-bye bye house! (I’m always reminded of that little cottage type building in Landsdowne Road Stadium when I see Corballis house-strange juxtaposition.

Maybe it could be moved?

In its current context I think it ‘works’ just fine, i.e. it’s pleasantly sited and does not come across as building preserved as a token piece of heritage. It has ample breathing space as it were and is frankly the first and last pleasant, if not necessarily worthy, piece of architecture you’re likely to see at Dublin Airport, assuming you don’t see the original terminal from the plane window.

It all depends on the proposed terminal and how it impacts on the house. I wouldn’t be up for its moving elsewhere because then it certainly would be a silly piece of heritagism – might as well be another cardboard-cut out thrown up along with all the other 80s Christmas decorations.

The fact that it is standing intact on its original site is what makes it interesting, not so much the architecture (aside from those magnificent 15-light sashes of course – ah yes, the real reason’s coming out now :)).

WILL NEVER HAPPEN,

Just back from Athens. Filthy city, poor design and planning but its metro is sparkling. Until a coherent metro plan (as in comprehensive) is finalised for Dublin then all this nonsense by Aer Lingus and others is just that – NONSENSE.

Consider the images of the Luas that were placed along ads for Swords houses etc etc – no one should promote such stuff until its actually finalised.

It still baffles me why the Broadstone re-opening is excluded from the Airport/Metro/General transport plan for Dublin.
I would say its a fair guess that there have been at least five official launches of ‘final’ plans for a Metro for Dublin – when will something concrete be produced rather than more launches of plans… its boring and somewhat irritating.

Seerski

Broadstone is contingent on quite a few things happening, not least evicting Dublin Bus in part or full.

As for Corballis House, I understood that was for the chop or moving to another location because of T2.

why dont they get in those american outfits that can lift up the house completely and move it to another location.

@Maskhadov wrote:

why dont they get in those american outfits that can lift up the house completely and move it to another location.

That would probably cost more than the building is worth!

So what is the exact heritage value in your opinion?

There was a small mention of archiseek in Saturday’s business section of the Irish Times, crediting this site with the news about the Aer Lingus building.

i guess aer lingus are feeling confident and have had another reprieve handed down sparing the company from being carved up for now and the lads are doing their best to fatten the bird!!!
i am still hopeful a metro will happen and by all accounts we are apparrently within weeks of getting a major announcement from the dept of transport on ‘the grand plan’, incl. a metro, so like many i will believe it when i see it but it is reasuring to see drawings and such in national papers relating to a 500 – 800 mil development plan which may suggest they know something a little sooner than we do. and if not you have to admire their optimism!!!

I reckon the metro will get the green light… what kind of metro we get remainds to be seen. It could be a cheapo hacked down version with little value to anyone.

As for the house, if its a listed building then they should get those americans dudes in and simply move the house to somewhere else. It looks like a theme park driving into the airport when you see that.

Agreed. Buildngs that are in the situation that Corbalis House is in can actually do more harm than good to the ‘cause’ of heritage: Thousands of people are passing by here every day and seeing this attractive old building which looks like it’s been dropped into the middle of a busy modern airport; it makes it ‘ok’ in the public mind for historic buildings to exist like this, completely devoid of their original setting and context.

If Corbalis House was a particularly rare example of its type – say, with an intact panelled wood interior or something – there might be a case for keeping it (where it is), but as far as I know it is not.

Re moving historic buildings:
I think this was considered once for the former Moravian Meeting Hall on Lr. Kevin Street, when they wanted to widen Kevin Street – the Hall would be moved back. But I think it was ditched when they found out how enormously expensive it would be.

I should also say that I think Corbalis House should be demolished because its setting has been wrecked, not because I agree with an increase of activity at the airport. A forecast increase in air passengers is unsustainable, because airplanes are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions = global warming. Having said that, the proposed new roundy building looks good (if a little like an airplane showroom 😉 ) and anything that helps improve or rationalise the dogs dinner of buildings that is Dublin Airport is obviously a good thing.

Aer Lingus would only be taking a fraction of the space being developed here. All this talk of they don’t need it is erronious – they’re not taking all of it.

It’s being developed on the SITE of the present building – by some people’s reading it’s the equivalent of wondering why the Port and Docks Board need so much space at Spencer Dock! :confused:

Here’s an interesting article from the The Sunday Business Post, published exactly this time two years ago if that says anything about the current proposals…

Aer Lingus may develop head office site
Sunday, November 23, 2003

By Neil Callanan

Aer Lingus is understood to have invited submissions from a number of parties for a possible development of its head office site at Dublin Airport. The site, which measures just under 15 acres, would be suitable for a combination of offices, hotels and retail because of its proximity to the airport.

“In line with our policy of examining every aspect of our business on an ongoing basis, Aer Lingus is currently reviewing strategic options for its property interests at Dublin Airport,” a spokesperson for the company said. “It is a significant asset and it is appropriate that we review it at this time.

“The review is at an early stage and will look at all aspects of the property interests with particular emphasis on medium term strategic options.”

No decision has yet been made on whether the project will go ahead.

A number of sources said that the main building is beginning to show its age and that the airline would have faced a significant bill for refurbishing it and bringing it up to modern standards. Aer Rianta owns the site, but it is held by Aer Lingus on a 99- year lease which dates from the late 1960s. Aer Rianta would almost certainly have to approve any plans before any proposed development could go ahead.

A high-density development on the site would cost at least €250 million to build. However, putting an end va- lue on it would be more diffi- cult, because of the current weakness in the office market.

The end value and the site’s attractiveness to office tenants, retailers and hotel operators would also b e dependent on whether the government proceeds with the planned metro scheme linking the airport with the city centre.

Given the cost of the development, the company could opt to bring in a developer as a joint venture partner for any scheme that gets the go-ahead.

Aer Lingus has been reviewing its property portfolio on an ongoing basis because its work force has fallen from 6,500 prior to September 11, 2001, to around 4,000 now.

The planning department of Fingal County Council told The Sunday Business Post it has not had any talks at this stage with architects about the development.

The local author ity is drawing up a new county development plan and is examining rezoning proposals in the county. It is due to be adopted in 2005.

The airport is currently zoned Objective B under the county development plan “to protect and provide for the development of agriculture and rural amenity”. Aer Lingus does not appear to have made a submission asking for its site to be rezoned in the new country development plan.

Since 2001, Aer Lingus has moved towards becoming a low cost airline. It has sold off its Dawson Street and O’Connell Street sales outlets, and moved towards selling more fares on its website. Much of the turnaround in the company’s fortunes is credited to chief executive and for mer pilot Willie Walsh.

The news of Aer Lingus’s plans for its site comes less than a week after the Vega City consortium unveiled further details of its plans for a 2,500 acre holiday theme park destination close to Dublin Airport.

Universal Entertainment Partners, which includes businessman Louis Maguire, developer Owen O’Callaghan and US company Oz- Central amongst its investors, plans to build and operate three international theme parks at the site.

It also plans to build a new 22-kilometre monorail linking the park with the metro line.

However, Fingal County Council’s planners strongly oppose the park on a number of grounds.

© The Sunday Business Post

I would give that no credence as it is mentioned in the same breath as the Vega City project, a definite non-starter. Eurodisney remains a financial dog, visitor numbers and spend are far below projections despite having 10 times Ireland’s total population in its immediate catchment area, Several smaller theme parks in Ireland have failed.

Guys as per the article attached from Wednesday 19th October Fingal Independent (current edition) these are old plans 2+ years and are all just pie in the sky.

The politics of all this are hilarious. Leak and counter-leak, just like advance news on the financial results of the Great Southern Hotels and sabre-rattling by DAA as to their future. I guess that DAA will be made sell its stakes in the likes of Birmingham Airport. If the ESB was not allowed have an investment in Poland, why should DAA have foreign investments? Incidentally, Kerry CoCo have approved all three proposed developments at Parknasilla Great Southern, albeit with an average of 20-odd conditions for each. (Details not on KerryCoCo web-site yet)
Fifty-two apartments in six blocks and a new club house for the golf course,
Thirty eight holiday homes in a cluster near the hotel.
New bedrooms and new leisure centre at the hotel.
News should be available soon as An Taisce was involved, all being protected structures.
KB2

@KerryBog2 wrote:

I would give that no credence as it is mentioned in the same breath as the Vega City project, a definite non-starter. Eurodisney remains a financial dog, visitor numbers and spend are far below projections despite having 10 times Ireland’s total population in its immediate catchment area, Several smaller theme parks in Ireland have failed.

Just to clarify, I mentioned the Vega City project because it was still being proposed at the time; it bears no relation to the Aer Lingus HQ project. I have written extensively on the HQ since then and never mentioned Vega City again because obviously the plan was dropped. Our online archive is down at the moment so I can’t post the URLs of some of the other pieces I’ve done, such as the DAA’s problems with density and its road plans (Nov 2004) which are reinforced in the Fingal Independent piece. The reality by the way is Aer Lingus was highly unlikely to develop the site itself. It will be either sold back to the DAA, the site will be sold on with planning permission or a developer will be brought in as a joint venture partner. From what I understand Aer Lingus is unsure whether it will even continue to base itself on the site – it may look to lease cheap offices elsewhere. I agree however there’s a strong chance it will never happen, albeit I wrote in January that the plans were due to be lodged within days and had been due to go to Fingal in December. I’m told the resignation of Willie Walsh et al has led to the delay and I suppose it remains to be seen what Dermot Mannion makes of it.

the plans for the airport on the daa website seem impressive and promise alot but i guess we will have to wait and see. still if the plans for T2, etc. are put into action dublin airport could attract a lot more business and hopefully more direct flights to north america and asia. always a bit of a pain in the ass having to go through heathrow to get to western canada and vice versa coming home!!! not enough trade to warrant direct flights to any where on the west coast of canada/states apart from la i would think.
be great to see the new terminal designs when they arrive and i hope they learn/respond to the design for the aer lingus hq. could be a great opportunity for a cool building in dublin!!?!!

so are these plans all bogus ?

Any news on this proposed project or has it vanished completely?

Yes whats going on with this – it would look great gleaming in the Airport, as visitors to the country would remark “Wow, this leads me to the conclusion that Ireland is a wealthy modern European country, and I will return”

@Thomond Park wrote:

Any news on this proposed project or has it vanished completely?

Given that aer lingus is currently and for the forseeable future going to be trimming the fat ( with or without privatisation. i am NOT getting into an arguement over that as there are valid points on both sides.)

I could not see aer lingus needing a new H.Q. It is nice though.

The Schipol Airport Authority have a number of speculative developments on the site where income is generated by tenants which can then be ploughed back into capital development of the facilities.

I think this issue should be resolved prior to the flotation given the expenditure required at Dublin Airport.

Well this was proposed not just to provied a new HQ for Aer Lingus per se, but as a commercial means of income for the airline. When the airline is privitised I can only see this as a extra attraction for speculative investors.

I’m sure it could be; but it would be in the public interest to expedite these plans so as that the airline can quantify the value of these assets prior to floatation should floatation be the chosen option. Indicative trends from accross Europe would indicate a rental value of c€270-320 per square metre at this location.

Very true. Eircom has made a fortune from its land holdings and I doubt they were viewed as being that important at the flotation stage. The project should be either sold off or a joint venture agreement should be signed before the company is privatised. The income would be strong, particularly from the retailers, and the investment value would be significant if it was later sold off.

The site should be sold off NOW and the money transferred out of Aer Lingus to State coffers i.e. back to the taxpayer. A.L. is a dog and the taxpayer will be royally screwed (again) by its privatisation. What buyer would pay any sort of premium for a company alllowed to be run by unions and where a government has a blocking vote / strategic shareholding? Bertie dithered and bungled because he was unwilling to act – all because the majority of the “workers” live in his constituency!

They don’t own the site though at this stage, it’s owned by the DAA and leased to Aer Lingus on a long term lease

this is maybe not the best place to start a political discussion, but as it has started i can’t help but get involved.

There is a huge amount of opinion being spouted about this issue. I would suggest that overall the country/taxpayer wins through privatisation , even if it is only part privitisation.It might be a good idea to sell of bits of land here and there , but i would say that this is just more interfeering in the company.

The company has plenty of potential to become valuable but , this potential will only realistically realised in private hands. While we might not make a lot of money on selling it , at least we don’t lose money. Also the in the medium term it has to radically improve or go bust.And that is a lot easier to do if it is in private hands.

A huge amount of rose tinting has gone on about this. Bluntly aer lingus is a crap airline.
ryanair has more services in and out of ireland. They are more punctual than any airline in europe. They are cheaper on average than any airline in europe.They lose the fewest amount of bags out of all the airlines in europe.Ryanair has the youngest fleet in europe. Ryanair lost 16000 bags last year for 24 million passengers. Aerlingus lost 72000 for 8 million passengers. Ryanair employs 2200 and aerlingus 3000. go figure

Ireland has been poorly served by a state led national carrier. Aer lingus is undoubtedly doing much better by leaps and bounds but that is only because otherwise ryanair would have forced it into bankruptcy. ryanair has clearly shown the trade off between the state controlling strategic services and providing the very best services is heavily weighted in favour of private enterprise.

While i understand the rose tinting nostalgia for the old days , when air travel was a middle class only affair, irelands strategic interest is in having the most planes in and out of ireland. It doesn’t matter if there is a shamrock on the plane. EVER gone to paris because of air france ? no i didn’t think so. The perception is that yanks like coming to ireland on a shamrock plane . but that is nonsense : yanks like coming to ireland , and yanks like low fares.

I went to france in 1992 for 233 pounds return. this year i made the same trip for 120 euros (including the trip into and out of paris ) . SELL SELL SELL !

Sell it as fast as possible! sell dublin bus sell bus earinn. sell irish rail ( keep the rail network), sell all the power plant s (keep the transmission network ) sell all the hospitals ( and create a fund to pay for people who can’t pay for themselves) sell all the schools (likewise a fund for those who can’t afford to pay for themselves), and give the universities proper independance (political and financial ,through a graduate tax system) Governments waste more than the profit made by companies every time. SO sell it off , look after the poor and everyone is better off !

@jdivision wrote:

They don’t own the site though at this stage, it’s owned by the DAA and leased to Aer Lingus on a long term lease

Thanks, I stand corrected. Hopefully someone will take a close look at the terms of that lease and prevent the taxpayer from being ripped-off yet again . The past governments of this country have been a disaster at negotiating with business (e.g. ICI, IFI. Irish Steel, Eircom1 and now Eircom2, Waterworld, etc.) KB2

By the way, fingal is unveiling its draft airport development masterplan on Wednesday. I’ll be at the briefing so will post main points here afterwards though I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re in the Times on Wednesday morning

“This masterplan has been prepared by Fingal County Council, in the context of the Fingal Development Plan 2005-2008. The lands which are subject to the proposed Masterplan comprise a total of 1084 hectares and are zoned DA (Designated Airport Area) in the current Development Plan with the objective “To ensure the efficient and effective operation of the airport in accordance with an Approved Airport Action Plan”

The final approved Masterplan for Dublin Airport will be the statutory Local Area Plan (LAP) for Dublin Airport under the Planning and Development Act 2000.”

The net value is likely to be in the order of €331,105,829.30

allowing a yield of 6%

Renatal value of €320 per square metre

A build cost of €2,150 per square metre

A finance period of 5 years

A finance rate of 6%

As it is to be transferred as part of a company stamp duty will not apply on acquisition

It appears that this project has gone into the ether which is a pity; at least Henry J Lyons didn’t waste their time on site; as it appears that they have got yet another Aer Rianta commision

Any news on this? Or is the project dead?

DDDA are taking part of the site back for car parking and roads for T2 so it definitely won’t be built in current guise

a boyle: Your mania for privatisation is OK as far as it goes if you’re talking about the market, but when you get to healthcare and education (‘create funds who can’t pay for themselves’) you are simply downright dangerous; this is an architecture blog – leave the political cant at the door.