One Berkley court -132m Tower

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

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0830/jurys.html

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 boxes

Posted 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.

@lostexpectation wrote:

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

Yes it is in my opinion. But I suspect that Dunne is expecting an Board P to give any development the regulation crew cut, so best to apply for a greater height than you except to actually get. Expect about 10 storeys to be lopped off the top. Personally, I liked the original B Mc E proposal which was about 32 storeys.

This “letter” by Dunne appeared in the Times last week. Quite odd really for a CEO to be issuing such broadsides – and unneccessary I would have thought for the IT to publish it all in it’s total (and painful) entireity. I am posting one reply to it for balance at the end.

@Irish Times, letters page, Friday, August 24, 2007 wrote:

DEVELOPMENT OF SITES AT BALLSBRIDGE

Madam, – It is a widely held belief that a newspaper should be properly judged by the fairness and accuracy of its Editorials. Over the years when reading your newspaper, it has been customary for me to first turn to the leader article and, indeed, customary to believe that it had been written without bias and with a level of fairness, understanding and expertise.

The number of grossly inaccurate and misleading articles which have been written over the past two years about my company and the Jurys/Berkeley Court site by now outnumber the number of rugby fans who claim to have been in Thomond Park when Munster beat the All-Blacks in 1978.

However, the leader article “Changes in Dublin 4” in The Irish Timesof Saturday, August 18th, that blamed me and my company for the decisions made and actions taken by a then public, and now private company (Jurys Doyle Group), two years ago was so vindictive, misleading and inaccurate that it trumps them all.

Your Editorial began by blaming my company, Mountbrook Homes, for the recent closure of Jurys and the Berkeley Court Hotel. You may recall that in June 2005 the owners of Jurys Hotel Ballsbridge, being Jurys plc, offered for sale by tender Jurys Hotel Ballsbridge. It was an express condition of the sale of the property, by the inclusion of a restrictive covenant on the title, that no other hotel could be developed and operated by the purchaser of this site.

Jurys plc at that time operated seven other hotels in Dublin city and was obviously endeavouring to minimise future competition.

On acquiring the Berkeley Court some three months later, Mountbrook Homes successfully negotiated the removal of the restrictive covenant and the right to build a hotel on the combined site, if we so choose. It is our intention to include a hotel in the proposed redevelopment of Jurys/Berkeley Court. Given that your newspaper has not seen our plans I am amazed you chose to make the false assumption that no hotel would be built on this site again. In fact, I am amazed that you have chosen to make any comment at all on our plans, given that such commentary is akin to judging a beauty competition in the dark.

The current owners of the Jurys Doyle Group are the Doyle and Beatty families who took Jurys plc private in 2005. Jurys Doyle still control and own the operating companies for both Jurys and the Berkeley Court Hotel.

The decision to close both hotels was taken by Jurys plc and in respect of which neither any of my companies nor I had any hand, act or part.

My company only takes ownership and control of Jurys Ballsbridge on September 6th with no residents, no employees, and the contents from the doors of the bedrooms to the elevators removed – in essence a carcass.

Prior to Jurys Hotel closing this month, we sought to acquire, intact, the full contents having been approached by other hotel operators who had an interest in keeping the hotel in operation until development commences. The owners refused to sell us the contents for reasons only known to themselves.

I have, however, successfully managed to purchase those contents which were for sale in the Berkeley Court and over the next couple of months will investigate the viability of keeping that hotel open for the foreseeable future. Ownership and control of the Berkeley Court does not pass to our company until October 8th.

Your article also stated that Jurys and the Berkeley Court are two thriving, profitable hotels, a statement obviously made without any knowledge of the profitability of these properties. In 2005, Jurys plc, in the best interests of their shareholders, decided to dispose of these two hotels. I fully understand why the company decided on this course of action.

Good economics is based on the return of capital and the reason these hotels were sold is that Jurys plc were no longer realising an adequate return on capital deployed in relation to both properties. The “ruthlessness” you refer to in your article is also hypocritical given that The Irish Timesitself embarked on a controversial rationalisation programme over the past four years for similar reasons, namely: disposing of its head office – a Dublin landmark]

@Irish Times, letters page, Tuesday, August 28, 2007 wrote:

DEVELOPMENT IN BALLSBRIDGE

Madam, – Sean Dunne’s letter of August 24th set a worrying precedent: it took up half the page and ran to a couple of thousand words. This is over-development of the worst kind. What about the higher density you regularly encourage from your letter-writers? This is epistolary sprawl.

Who in your department fast-tracked it through? Have we no right of appeal?

On a less serious note, I hope he builds better than he writes. Ouch. – Yours, etc,

DAVID P JAMESON, York Road, Dún Laoghaire, Co. Dublin.

I’m not sure whether the scale of this is appropriate for the location. But in general terms, what’s worse for Dublin: 536 apartments built on (underused) city land, or 536 oversized semi-ds built on a huge field by a motorway in Co Meath?
Why do we get furious debate (and ultimate refusal) for high density schemes like this, and not about the many, many outer suburban developments that are wrecking quality of life for everyone in the city, not to mention the environment.

At 20 semi-d’s to the acre, that is 27 acres, leaving out the shopping space, cinema, offices, embassy and so on. Picture 27 acres of semi-d housing in your mind.

@notjim wrote:

At 20 semi-d’s to the acre, that is 27 acres, leaving out the shopping space, cinema, offices, embassy and so on. Picture 27 acres of semi-d housing in your mind.

😮 😀 ……
have you ever been to Lucan??? 😀

I went up there at lunchtime and had a mooch around. the exhibition is sparse and the 3ds a little amateurish but the little tv documentaries that accompany it are worth looking at.

On the whole I was impressed and convinced by the scheme (Duncan Stewart is in favour of it in that increasing urban density will decrease suburban sprawl and reduce car use etc)

Whether their claim to be carbon neutral in 10 years is acheivable or not is debatable but the intention is good.

There are 180 apartments in the tower so the majority are in the lower buildings. The tower itself is a twin wall so no balconies which is something that DCC might look at under their new guidelines. I’m sure there’s a wind report in the EIS that gives good reason. The inner wall of the twin wall can be opened up and there are some louvres on the outer facade but no wintergardens as such.

The office component contravenes the zoning but at 15% of the overall development I think they’re looking at it as a sacrificial lamb.

They have thoroughly embraced the need for larger apartments and family living, with the average apartment size at 125sqm and 3bedroom apts at 44% of the mix. 1 beds take up only 10%.

There was a bunch of aul ones talking to the press but I had to leave when it became like an episode of Kilroy

Fair play to Mr. Dunne. Ballsy move. It’s a very well thought out venture that puts the ball firmly in DCC’s court.

@hutton wrote:

This “letter” by Dunne appeared in the Times last week. Quite odd really for a CEO to be issuing such broadsides – and unneccessary I would have thought for the IT to publish it all in it’s total (and painful) entireity. I am posting one reply to it for balance at the end.

Really? General feeling in our newsroom was that it was excellent, highlighting the factually incorrect nonsense written by the Times in relation to the site and also broadcast by RTE. Judging by some of Frank McDonald’s comments today it obviously had an impact.

I actually enjoyed this letter too, agreed with lots, found some of it self-seving, but overall I enjoyed reading it and felt afterwards I understood Sean Dunne’s view point better, surely the point of letters like this.

Lots of people objected to the length, but it left me feeling that it is middle length letters that are boring, I thought they should introduce a policy that letters over say three lines should be forced to go on for a side of A4.

@notjim wrote:

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?

I just don’t think it has the wow factor I was expecting after Dunne had an architectural competition etc. I know he was concerned with density but it just doesn’t move me in the way I had hoped. I don’t have any problem with the height element at all and believe Ballsbridge is probably best location in the city along with docklands for such a building. The rest of the scheme reminds me of a cross between Longboat Quay and that tall apartment building in Dolphins Barn which most architects seem to love but which I find aesthetically ghastly.

*cough* im sure it will be built;)

i can’t see this being built either.

Dublin developer Sean Dunne has unveiled his long-awaited plans for his Ballsbridge estate in Dublin which controversially includes a 37-storey tower.

The founding partner of Mountbrook Homes submitted a planning application to Dublin City Council today for the 7 acre Jurys Berkeley Court site in the exclusive area of Dublin.

His mixed-use scheme comprises residential and retail space, including an underground mall, an embassy complex that could accommodate the relocation of some of the 29 embassies in Ballsbridge, an office block, a 232 room luxury hotel, and an ice rink. There will also be a crèche for 150 children and a ‘cultural quarter’ including a European Centre for Culture.

The centrepiece of the scheme is a 132m tower, which will be known as One Berkeley Court, and is ‘sculpted like a diamond’. The scheme has been designed by Denmark’s Henning Larsen Architects, which won the brief in an architectural competition last year.

Dunne bought the site in 2005, at €54m an acre (£36.5m an acre), in what was, at the time, a record price for land in Ireland.

Sean Dunne, managing director of Mountbrook, who has dubbed his estate the future ‘Knightsbridge of Dublin’, said: ‘Ballsbridge has for a long time been wrongly portrayed by some as a village, whereas in actual fact it is a national centre, in that it houses the home of Irish rugby, the headquarters of AIB (the largest bank in Ireland), 1.5m sq ft of offices, the Royal Dublin Society and is home to 29 embassies.’

It is the second major planning application to be submitted in Ballsbridge. Earlier this week Irish developer Ray Grehan submitted a planning application for a €600m (£406m) development – Number One Ballsbridge – next to Dunne’s site.

Both applications, which seek to significantly increase the density of the site and introduce a tower in a low rise area will be closely watched. Dublin’s planning authorities have historically been averse to tall developments except in certain areas of the city – such as the docklands.

tune into tv3 right now to see something about this. should be on after the ads.

yeah just seen it very informative- might be a small bit ambitious-theres a 15 stroey tower proposed right beside it and it looks well/has he not had a tower rejected already?

@notjim wrote:

At 20 semi-d’s to the acre, that is 27 acres, leaving out the shopping space, cinema, offices, embassy and so on. Picture 27 acres of semi-d housing in your mind.

Actually, if the Ballsbridge site is 11 acres, that doesn’t seem a huge space saving. I presume services for what would be a village of up to 2,000 people would take up another huge chunk of land though. So you’re talking about no new land being used as opposed to what? 40 acres?
I live in a low-density, underpopulated, relatively central area and wouldn’t have a huge problem with a scheme like this nearby. But I’m a northsider and take a more pragmatic view of these things…:)

@AndrewP wrote:

Actually, if the Ballsbridge site is 11 acres, that doesn’t seem a huge space saving. I presume services for what would be a village of up to 2,000 people would take up another huge chunk of land though. So you’re talking about no new land being used as opposed to what? 40 acres?
I live in a low-density, underpopulated, relatively central area and wouldn’t have a huge problem with a scheme like this nearby. But I’m a northsider and take a more pragmatic view of these things…:)

it’s 7 acres

@wearnicehats wrote:

it’s 7 acres

Oh, I must have misread the Dunne letter. Well jaysus that’s a big difference!

Of course the well-heeled residents of this development would never live in a 3-bed semi anyway.
And they’ll still maintain their country homes to boot

No he hasn’t. The Council’s LAP was turned down by the councillors. Dunne had nothing to do with it.

Can this be merged with the other thread?

Unorthodox shaped glass buildings are all the rage these days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom_Tower.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shard_London_Bridge.jpg

I went to the Berkeley Court today to have a look at the proposal.

I left feeling that the tower is quite attractive but the surrounding buildings are a little unexciting.

Even the artists impressions, including images of beautiful people enjoying capuccinos & carrying shopping bags, looked rather bland.

Some nice views of the development looking down Pembroke Road, and across Shelbourne Road, give an idea of what the scheme might look like.

The video presentation is quite interesting, And Duncan Stewart pops up in it, favouring high rise, high density.

John Bowman was there at the same time as me so I look forward to hearing the views of such an influential commentator!

Worth a visit. Open until Sunday.

Please Please let this project go ahead. this is a stunning building. a real landmark. 37 floors is massive for Dublin, but not really that big by world standards.

Nobody in this country wants change. And no doubt the grumpy old upper middle clas of ballsbridge will be out whinging about thier ‘village; being raped by developers. Half probaby with only a 5 year life span left. look you’ll be dead by the time it’s finished love.

Hope it goes head. Please god it won’t come back as a stumpy 12 storey job. We have enough ugly 60’s, 70′ 80’s 90’s and noughties 12 storey stumps…look at the business park their building on either side of the liffey for gawds sake, it’s sandyford Industrial estate upon sea. a disgrace in terms of height and imagination(some tiny exceptions). C’mon lads let’s have vital, exciting living architecture. Have some vision and make the unpopular decision. For a change!!!!!

Ballsbridge is no place for 37 storeys. Locals will rightfully object and it will be finally reduced to 16 storeys at the most. Seán Dunne will still make a profit – that’s why he proposed 37 storeys in the first place.

There’s still a few spots left in Sandyford or Tallaght for projects like this. We can all assume that the Docklands is a no-go area for highrise at the moment.

It’s a damn shame. Dublin is following in London’s & Bimingham’s footsteps; Willy-nilly highrise all around the city.

i tink if we get 1 biggy constructed a lot of attitudes will change, look at the gerkin in london,people took a likin2 it, now dere goin up everywhere, even if we hav high rises scattered al over the city its better than none at al imo.

spling and propr wel gud grammer r usly apreci8ed on dis site!

Anyway I went along to the Berkeley Court today to have a proper gander. The scheme in it’s entirety is fairly sound from all perspectives – social, environmental etc. The only issue is the sheer height of the main tower, which at 37 is pretty much too damn high. I agree that there should be an intense redevelopment but I don’t like the idea of one high rise for every suburb of Dublin. I like the idea of clusters in Sford, Tallaght and Blanch but stickin single ones all over the shop with no strategy for the skyline will do damage.

I quite like this, but I still think it could be about 10 storeys shorter. Whats the point of having an ice rink?

@archipig wrote:

I quite like this, but I still think it could be about 10 storeys shorter. Whats the point of having an ice rink?

there is a sore lack of an icerink in the city centre. the closure of the phibsboro one was a pity.

is there any real, appreciable difference between a 37 storey and a 27 storey building in how they impose on the street around them? if anything i would say the taller the better. once a building becomes too tall for it’s true height to be appreciated, it disappears from a pedestrian’s consciousness

OK! exciting tower! but I still don´t know where architects get the trendy forms. I mean 3 yrs ago it was the rotating milk carton (U2 tower) and its twin in Dubai.

Now we have this “diamond shape” tower and it is just like the one Koolhaas proposed for Mexico city.
It is a a coincidence that the most controversial project for Mexico city looks like Dublin´s most controversial project. Dublin´s is 32 storey high and the other 300mts high, but at models are very similar.
Anyway, mexican nimbys are busy too! They are up in arms against the project.

So, where can one find that catalogue of forms that make the norm for the fashion in architecture?

Check out Koolkaas´ building in Mexico city at:

http://www.torrebicentenario.com/

@archipig wrote:

………………. Whats the point of having an ice rink?

The same could be said for any activity, whats the point in a park or football field?
Really what will knocking off a few floors really achieve?? Keep anti high rise brigade happy?
Honestly i think having highrise buildings, 30+floors, properly situated properly served with transport,blah blah blah….. do add an air of excitement to a city(especially at night),they give it an edge if you will!

I really think this is a fantastic project on a large parcel of land perfectly able to soak up the density
Mass transit on your doorstep, it really could not be better.
Most of Dunnes letter made complete sense

With the new landsdowne under way in ten years this could become another exciting part of the city, Ballsbridge residents, as powerfull and connected as they are, can take one for the team

What a way to expand the city centre, a stones throw from o, connell st (a mile and a half or so) and less than a mile from the Point i think.

P.S can this be merged with the original thread ‘Dunne versus the nimbys’

why merge them? one thread to discuss the architecture and urban design and the other to follow the ongoing political wrangling, planning mess and local uproar seems reasonable.

Yea maybe……. but its same topic – their will be no new architecture and urban design because of the local uproar etc. The two are inexplicably linked

@wearnicehats wrote:

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.

No, the ‘local mob’ should listen to you. How dare they object!!!! The cheek of them.

hardly inexplicable.

no point creating one confused thread from two separate topics. let it go.

theres a video documentary on mountbrook homes website,

i like the project…

Jeez i really like this project! 🙂

Video here: http://video.mountbrook.ie/video/

The video is very well put together. There is an emphasis on Dublin’s sprawl and low density.. But the fact remains, the residents of Ballsbridge and the City Council will blow this development out of the water. Ballsbridge will receive more Gated 5 storey apartments.

The amount of proposals for high density in suitable areas over the past 5 years is astonishing. Many developers have been (and are still) eager to build high density in Dublin City. The Tiger is still going, but high density has been continually suppressed by certain heads in the government departments.

DDDA’s ludicrous policy of an average 6 storeys max in the Docklands has ruined any possibility of Dublin having a high density CBD to rival other EU cities. It seems that vast low density business parks and motorway expansions return a bigger profit in the short term.

Sandyford and Tallaght seem to be less restricted in relation to density. They both hold on average higher densities than the Docklands. This is why I fully support high densities in these satellite towns. They will make an example and prove to Dublin City that high density is the only way forward.

Meanwhile, Dublin holds the title as Europe’s lowest density capital city.. and one of the richest.

@archipig wrote:

I quite like this, but I still think it could be about 10 storeys shorter. Whats the point of having an ice rink?

the effect of 37 storeys is relatively little compared to 27 storeys. from far away the effect is minor and the close up effect is lessened by perspective

there’s a sort of reflecting pool in the scheme that “could” be turned into an ice rink at christmas for example

I was wondering how the Irish Times would respond to Dunne’s letter and yesterday I got my answer – did you see the picture on the front page. Classic! And the Nimby of the Year award goes to….

A good week for archiseek.com publicity-wise! Quotes in the Post:

Sunday Business Post 2 Sept
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=26312-qqqx=1.asp

Bland or ballsy?
02 September 2007 By Ian Kehoe
Sean Dunne’s planned 37storey tower in Ballsbridge has received mixed reviews.

Some users of Archiseek.com, a popular architecture website, described it as bland, and suggested it resembled a building that would have served as a typical corporate headquarters in the United States in the 1980s.

‘‘This is too high for the site; buildings of this size should be confined solely to the docklands,” wrote one user.

Others were more positive. ‘‘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,” said one contributor.

‘‘Fair play to Dunne,” said another. ‘‘It’s a ballsy move.

‘‘It’s a very well-thought-out venture that puts the ball firmly in DCC’s [Dublin City Council] court.”

@Morlan wrote:

Video here: http://video.mountbrook.ie/video/

DDDA’s ludicrous policy of 6 storeys max in the Docklands has ruined any possibility of Dublin having a high density CBD to rival other EU cities. It seems that vast low density business parks and motorway expansions return a bigger profit in the short term.

What is the precise explanation for this? I mean, why is lower density more profitable to business? (For anyone who thinks that local people or others can ‘shoot down’ projects in the face of big business interests just take a look around at Rossport or Tara.) Does high density devalue the market or something like that?

Thanks for posting the video Morlan. The part about permeability interested me the most. In reality though is this actually going to be public space or is it going to be another docklands style quasi-private space masquerading as public space?

Also, does anyone know what percentage is to be given over as social and affordable housing? This is a genuine question, not trying to make any assumptions, but would actually like to know.

I think is looks fantastic, best out of the big four imo,out of interest does anyone have a render of Ray Grehans proposal,its a 15 storey luxury tower close to this site.

Anything that is being presented as better because it is high density, should also include benefits for the community. There should be a better use of public spaces, there should be an improvement in public services, eg shopping, parking, creches, etc.
Otherwise what is the point of high density?
I understand that loads of services of this kind will be provided with the development (although nothing has been mentioned about parking, Could it do something to help parking around matches at Landsdowne rd?). Anyway, if these are quality services, I don´t care if it looks like diamond, or a rugby ball o a milk carton. If it threads into the existing city and improves it, I like it!

where is a designated area for tall buildings in Dublin???

Hope Sean Dunne gets this one made.

@Frodo wrote:

where is a designated area for tall buildings in Dublin???

There isn’t really any designated area.

There are random developments in Dublin that have been permitted to build a one-off “landmark” tower, namely: U2 Tower (32), Point Tower (32), Hueston Gate (32). Sandyford Tower (24).

@phil wrote:

Also, does anyone know what percentage is to be given over as social and affordable housing? This is a genuine question, not trying to make any assumptions, but would actually like to know.

I heard Sean Dunne on the radio the other day – Morning Ireland, maybe? – saying that he had other sites in the area (I think he referred to the Electoral Areas or Wards?) where the S&A Housing would be provided. So it appears it won’t be on the Berkeley Court site.

I wonder what would happen if DCC said ‘You can have your tower, but the 20% must be on site’? 🙂

anne collins and her ilk would have simultaneous heart failure.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I heard Sean Dunne on the radio the other day – Morning Ireland, maybe? – saying that he had other sites in the area (I think he referred to the Electoral Areas or Wards?) where the S&A Housing would be provided. So it appears it won’t be on the Berkeley Court site.

I wonder what would happen if DCC said ‘You can have your tower, but the 20% must be on site’? 🙂

thanks Ctesiphon. It struck me as I watched that ‘Gates are evil’ propaganda video. Particularly the part about the creche facility. He seems to be talking about opening up the site for the public and creating a diverse new urban area, getting away from a gated development. The question is who is he opening the site up for? If he is truly interested in diversity it should promote social mixing as well? After all, it is possible to have a completely exclusive and segregated urban area without any gates.

I sometimes think that discussion regarding density and high-rise overshadows (excuse the pun) other hugely important issues in these debates.

He’s promised to provide the s&a housing within the electoral ward and bought a site in the docklands in recent weeks, I presume for it.
He says he’ll spend a further e31 million on other community initiatives in the area, as well as the s&a housing he’ll have to provide. Included in that is subsidised creche spaces (e1 an hour) for low income families within the Jurys Berkeley Court site
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=26313-qqqx=1.asp

As a general reply to some of the posters asking about public access to the site, there’ll have to be full access to most of it because there’ll be a shopping centre. They’ll need full public access in order to get the footfall to justify the rents. Some of the site however, as stated in Mountbrook’s video, will not be publicly accessible meaning the apartment blocks and the offices I assume.

@jdivision wrote:

He’s promised to provide the s&a housing within the electoral ward and bought a site in the docklands for it.
He says he’ll spend a further e31 million on other community initiatives in the area, as well as the s&a housing he’ll have to provide.

So none on site. Thanks for reply JDivision.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I wonder what would happen if DCC said ‘You can have your tower, but the 20% must be on site’? 🙂

That won’t happen because eligible purchasers wouldn’t be able to afford them. Hopefully they’ll get more than the frankly disgraceful e500,000 they accepted in lieu of s&a housing at the eventual Chester Beatty library redevelopment on Shrewsbury Rd.

Dublin City Council Planning Conference – Combating Urban Sprawl & Successful Apartment Living

Interesting (if not a little pricey) sounding conference on urban sprawl and higher densities being organised by Dublin City Council for the 17th of September in Croke Park. Definitely seems of relevance to this thread, so thought I would post it here.

link here

I just thought i’d reproduce the Kevin Myers article that Dunne mentions in his letter,
because he is spot on with this …………….plus i think he was reading my mind:D
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-dublin-of-ulysses-is-dead-up-with-brave-dunnes-high-rise-772874.html

The Dublin of Ulysses is dead: up with brave Dunne’s high rise

IRISH INDEPENDENT
By Kevin Myers
Tuesday June 26 2007

WHAT is the great, unspoken hope that fills so many Dublin hearts? What ambition unites lefties, vegans, city councillors, bankers, accountants, surgeons, barristers, street sweepers, GAA officials and left-handed lesbians?

It is that Sean Dunne, the property developer who paid three hundred zillion Kruger Rand for Jury’s Hotel in Ballsbridge and who wants to build a complex of high towers there, fails totally. Well, I hope he succeeds.

I don’t know the fine detail of his plans and so won’t comment on them, but I do know that Dublin has run out of room. The city cannot continue to expand west until it reaches the Shannon. Commuters notionally living on the outskirts of the city are already having to travel up to two hours to work each way. This is neither sustainable nor civilised.

But most of all, there is absolutely no reason why the ludicrously inflated property prices of Dublin 4 and 6 should continue to be sustained by the artificial shortages created by state limitations on vertical development.

On the other hand, no one likes property developers. They simply buy some land and then sell it on for five times the price they paid for it. We could all do that, couldn’t we? Well, we could if we could: and the “if” there is about the same size as the same word in the sentence: “If Chad put a hippopotamus on the moon.”

The truth is that most of us can’t think like property developers. Most men, it is said, cannot multitask, but I’d guess property developers do. Because there are so many dimensions to developing land: financial, legal, political, engineering, artistic, architectural, and perhaps most of all, temporal.

For property developers have to possess an acute sense of time: they must imagine what is possible over what period, and what other, simultaneous events might affect the value of their investment. Most of all, property developers either have to have bottomless reserves of courage, or simply be unacquainted with the meaning of fear. I do not know Sean Dunne, so I do not know whether he is either brave or fearless, but the outcome is the same. Almost alone, he is taking on the most powerful and influential lobby in Ireland: L’Arrondisement Pont de Balle.

In doing this, he is confronting a central truth: the Dublin of Ulysses is dead. That cosy city of the Bloomsday peregrination exists only in the memory of the Joycean pilgrims: the customers in the pubs they so reverentially visit speak Ukrainian and have never heard of Joyce.

Dublin is no longer a city with a single ethos, sustained by a homogenous group memory, populated by universally known names: Maureen Potter, Brendan Grace, Noel Purcell, Brendan Behan et alia. Those days are gone for ever. The authentic Cockney is just about extinct and the true Dub is similarly destined.

It is a difficult concept to swallow, but swallow it we must. We cannot bottle the new Dublin in the geography of the old Dublin. It is not possible, and it is certainly not moral. For by attempting to do that, we are creating intolerable commuting problems for the people who, though staffing the city centre’s economy, have to live in some hideous, characterless Bantustan, two counties away.

The only solution is to build up, which is where Sean Dunne wants to hoist Dublin 4. There is nowhere else to go.

Now, he is a brave man to joust with the vested interests of Dublin 4, which, when known as Pembroke Ward, was a privileged, self-governing entity, whose servants – rather obligingly – lived elsewhere, in tenement townships.

Those instincts of lordly Pembrokian autonomy still linger on in the region’s atoms, and have been bestirred into a molecular frenzy by Sean Dunne’s development proposals for the Jury’s site. And though this campaign is entirely self-serving, it has of course, donned the mantle of environmentalist concern.

Yet bizarrely, Ballsbridge’s campaign to protect its insane property values has won allies across the city.

Why? There are, I suspect, two main reasons.

The first is a nostalgia for a fictional Dublin, one that subsists, largely on life-support, in city councillor imaginations. The second is perhaps the last surviving relic of that old Dublin, namely small-minded begrudgery.

A lot of people bitterly resent a property developer who has daring, courage, vision and enterprise. So, put those latter qualities together in the begrudgeryblender, and out comes the word “greed”, the morally satisfying denunciation which trips with equal ease from the lips of both the sleek Ballsbridgian barrister protecting the value of his house, and the gaunt, socialist pamphleteer with his gluepot, spouting Marxist gibberish.

Sean Dunne has shown the way to the future. Dublin, including Ballsbridge, will go up. That is certain. The only question is when. Sorry, that is not the only question.

The other one is this: when will the IRFU abandon its utterly sentimental and financially insane attachment to Lansdowne Road? Because when those acres are liberated for useful, year-round economic activity, Dublin 4 will finally expand upwards.

I just hope that happens before Sean Dunne goes bust.

@jdivision wrote:

That won’t happen because eligible purchasers wouldn’t be able to afford them. Hopefully they’ll get more than the frankly disgraceful e500,000 they accepted in lieu of s&a housing at the eventual Chester Beatty library redevelopment on Shrewsbury Rd.

it would never happen for one very simple reason. Service Charge. Services charges are huge in developments like this and LA’s won’t pay them which is why they always accept a pay-off or a brush-off to ringsend. Developers know this and it’s the same countrywide

If we are to debate this then what we require is at least some honesty about the real matter at stake. Don’t be fooled by those who take the high moral design ground supporting this development, speaking of its being a signature 21st century project putting Dublin on the international architecture map and freeing us from the shackles of Buck Mulligan even if they are some journeyed washed up hack like Kevin Myers. This is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY .
Sean Dunne paid 54million per acre, 275 million for Jurys and 100+ for the Berkley topping out around 370million, so even if he had 20million cash, they rest came in the form of a loan, last time I checked loans had interest attached, so say 350 million in a loan, at 5% since 2005 , he is now in hock for closer to 385 million, then factor in the 1billion building costs, so we are looking at close on 1.4 billion project costs, Celtic Tiger or not that’s a lot of apples. His own project manager has more or less come out and stated this , the building needs to be 37 storey with inordinately high density for the developer to see a return on the ridiculous price paid for the land. Its Paddy and Patricia publics fault he owes so much cos we made him pay so much. I heard her talking on the news last week and she almost made me feel so bad about it I was going to have a whip around and start a special Sean Dunne STD fund, Save The Developer.
Course at this point its not really his problem, it becomes his financier’s problem, they have now become as keen to get this pushed through as the developer himself , I wonder which Irish bank is sweating over this. Then you have to consider some other planning applications either in the process or already refused by uber-developers and Irish business magnates in the Ballsbridge area who looked to demolish or significantly extend properties they purchased for exhorbitant prices. Even a multi-millionaire feels the pinch some times. So Im sure the machinations of Irish cronyism will come into play, probably not in the public eye, I predict the Backik tribunal in 2014 will reveal all.
So while Archiseek Ireland is obfused by the smoke screen that is the visual of this development and we all have a warm cosy feeling becasue we talk about the glass, angles, facades and some plonker even spoke of it in terms of vital,exciting living architecture, its got sweet f.a to do with that, its about 1.4 billion in wants to get 1.4 billion plus out ! …

@mickletterfrack wrote:

If we are to debate this then what we require is at least some honesty about the real matter at stake. Don’t be fooled by those who take the high moral design ground supporting this development, speaking of its being a signature 21st century project putting Dublin on the international architecture map and freeing us from the shackles of Buck Mulligan even if they are some journeyed washed up hack like Kevin Myers. This is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY .
Sean Dunne paid 54million per acre, 275 million for Jurys and 100+ for the Berkley topping out around 370million, so even if he had 20million cash, they rest came in the form of a loan, last time I checked loans had interest attached, so say 350 million in a loan, at 5% since 2005 , he is now in hock for closer to 385 million, then factor in the 1billion building costs, so we are looking at close on 1.4 billion project costs, Celtic Tiger or not that’s a lot of apples. His own project manager has more or less come out and stated this , the building needs to be 37 storey with inordinately high density for the developer to see a return on the ridiculous price paid for the land. Its Paddy and Patricia publics fault he owes so much cos we made him pay so much. I heard her talking on the news last week and she almost made me feel so bad about it I was going to have a whip around and start a special Sean Dunne STD fund, Save The Developer.
Course at this point its not really his problem, it becomes his financier’s problem, they have now become as keen to get this pushed through as the developer himself , I wonder which Irish bank is sweating over this. Then you have to consider some other planning applications either in the process or already refused by uber-developers and Irish business magnates in the Ballsbridge area who looked to demolish or significantly extend properties they purchased for exhorbitant prices. Even a multi-millionaire feels the pinch some times. So Im sure the machinations of Irish cronyism will come into play, probably not in the public eye, I predict the Backik tribunal in 2014 will reveal all.
So while Archiseek Ireland is obfused by the smoke screen that is the visual of this development and we all have a warm cosy feeling becasue we talk about the glass, angles, facades and some plonker even spoke of it in terms of vital,exciting living architecture, its got sweet f.a to do with that, its about 1.4 billion in wants to get 1.4 billion plus out ! …

I don’t see how Sean Dunne’s finances are at all relevant. The scheme should be judged on its merits alone, and how it fits in with whether or not we want a high density future for Dublin.

Your gullibility/stupidity is insulting to the JoePublic moniker you have adopted, @JoePublic wrote:

I don’t see how Sean Dunne’s finances are at all relevant. The scheme should be judged on its merits alone, and how it fits in with whether or not we want a high density future for Dublin.

thats the whole friggin point, the whole base premise for the developemnt is not about merit of design or future of Dublin its about the money and Sean Dunnes finances are the biggest single driving force that are dictating the restructuring of the area and the whole Irish architectural landscape as has been the case with the bulk of Irelands CT architectural developments, its never been about bettering JoePublics lifestyle its been about the money.

@mickletterfrack wrote:

Your gullibility/stupidity is insulting to the JoePublic moniker you have adopted, thats the whole friggin point, the whole base premise for the developemnt is not about merit of design or future of Dublin its about the money and Sean Dunnes finances are the biggest single driving force that are dictating the restructuring of the area and the whole Irish architectural landscape as has been the case with the bulk of Irelands CT architectural developments, its never been about bettering JoePublics lifestyle its been about the money.

*yawn

Before people start talkin’ about those commuting from two hours away, this proposal will have absolutely zero impact on this. It’s not unrealistic that starting prices here will be beginning (and this is conservative) at around E800,000. More likely in fact is that every single apartment in this complex will cost more than E1 million. It seems likely that many of these will be bought up by investors or for the very wealthy as a second home. None of the people commuting from Portlaoise, Virginia, Gorey or whereever are going to be moving into this scheme.
One Berkeley Court is a development for the very rich, as befits its locations in Dublin 4.
So for anybody making this argument, give me a break.
Let the project stand on its architectural merits and that alone.

@mickletterfrack wrote:

the whole base premise for the developemnt is not about merit of design or future of Dublin its about the money and Sean Dunnes finances are the biggest single driving force that are dictating the restructuring of the area and the whole Irish architectural landscape as has been the case with the bulk of Irelands CT architectural developments, its never been about bettering JoePublics lifestyle its been about the money.

And there was I thinking developers developed for nothing. Of course it’s about money. Along the way it helps if it improves on what’s there, ie, a bunch of drab horrible buildings that are past their sell by date. That’s what this debate is about. The issue of Dunne making a profit is so obvious it doesn’t need to be mentioned, it’s what all developers do. The issue of high rise for Ballsbridge is not a hard one. There is no village centre, it’s walking distance from the city centre and close to major public transport links. In short it’s probably the best location in Dublin for high rise along with the docklands. This thing of oh it’s unsuitable for Ballsbridge when there’s relatively tall buildings in the area – dating from the 1970s in the main, when there was much lower densities than are presently allowed – is nonsensical.

don’t be silly kefu, no one should suggest the people buying here would otherwise be commuting from Clondalkin but people buying here would otherwise be buying somewhere else, putting there homes in a tower means that they will be buying in a denser development, making the city denser and resulting in less extreme commuting.

************ is longer than

*
*
*
********* even if it isn’t the three right most star that I put in the vertical stack.

Not what I was saying. I said judge this on its architectural merits, and nothing else.
The fact that the social housing is being kept off site shows how much interest there is within Mountbrook Homes in creating some sort of an urban paradise. This project is for extremely wealthy people, plain and simple. One high-rise building – filled with one hundred millionaires – is not going to doing anything to reverse urban sprawl or any other social problem in Dublin.
And Notjim, do you really believe that the people moving into this building are going to be first-time buyers or owners of a single property. Why would 1 Berkeley Court be like this, when no high-end development in the country is.

I have a confession to make.

Its something that has been eating up inside of me for years and now – due to MickLetterfracks nuanced debating – I have to admit it: I too go to work mainly for the money. Yeah, sure, I get a sense of achievement of out some of the things that I do, and I enjoy the company of my work colleagues, but I’m guessing Sean Dunne does too. In fact, given that Sean Dunne is far richer than I am, and as he could probably retire tomorrow if he wanted too, it’s probably less about the money for him than it is for me. Damn.

Up to now, I hadn’t realised that working to earn money was wrong. And it leaves me in a bit of a quandry: If I shouldn’t work for money, and my hobbies are now to become my job, then how do I afford to put food on the table? Or should I just suffer for my art?

Then again, why does it matter if Sean Dunne makes a profit as long as the design succeeds? Is this not the main question? Personally, I’d prefer if a design conscious developer made money, so that they can afford to take their design conscious ass and develop another site.

Or am I missing something here? :confused:

mick thanks for the lesson. We had thought Mountbrook was an arm of Respond until you came along. Whatever about the social make up of this place, having wealthy people living in towers is better than having them in outer suburban sprawl. And if this scheme is successful we can finally throw off the shackles of high rise in Ireland whereby every ignorant buffoon, when confronted with anything over 6 storeys retorts “not another Ballymun”.

@alonso wrote:

mick thanks for the lesson. We had thought Mountbrook was an arm of Respond until you came along. Whatever about the social make up of this place, having wealthy people living in towers is better than having them in outer suburban sprawl. And if this scheme is successful we can finally throw off the shackles of high rise in Ireland whereby every ignorant buffoon, when confronted with anything over 6 storeys retorts “not another Ballymun”.

Spot on Alonso – as someone who was 2 hours late for work this morning due to train failure on the (grim up) northern line I’d sooner see this sort of development act as a catylist for decent high rise in the CC so that it (a) civilises high rise living and the city centre as a place for families (b) develops sufficent density for a proper metro and (c) stops the constant sprawl of dross which is destroying this country

@massamann wrote:

Then again, why does it matter if Sean Dunne makes a profit as long as the design succeeds? Is this not the main question? Personally, I’d prefer if a design conscious developer made money, so that they can afford to take their design conscious ass and develop another site. Or am I missing something here? :confused:

Yeah you are missing alot here in fact, this has nothing todo with a design conscious developer, it has everything todo with a greedy developer whos ego and vanity got the better of him and so he paid an over the market price and now has to make his money back. The design is the money.

@massamann wrote:

In fact, given that Sean Dunne is far richer than I am, and as he could probably retire tomorrow if he wanted too, it’s probably less about the money for him than it is for me. Damn.

In fact your missing the point here again, ECB interest rates have risen from 2% to nearer 5% in the couple of years since SD bought this property so he in fact needs this money far more than you think

@alonso wrote:

In And if this scheme is successful we can finally throw off the shackles of high rise in Ireland whereby every ignorant buffoon, when confronted with anything over 6 storeys retorts “not another Ballymun”.

probably the same ignorant buffoons who said Ballymum would never work in the first place, how wrong history has proven them. … plonker

@Rory W wrote:

Spot on Alonso – as someone who was 2 hours late for work this morning due to train failure on the (grim up) northern line I’d sooner see this sort of development act as a catylist for decent high rise in the CC so that it (a) civilises high rise living and the city centre as a place for families (b) develops sufficent density for a proper metro and (c) stops the constant sprawl of dross which is destroying this country

my heart bleeds for you, took me ten mins door to desk and that was stopping for a cup of tea on the way. If I were you Id write a strongly worded letter to my local design conscious developer.

Mick, you may be 10 minutes door-to-desk but I’ve got to say my friend, you don’t sound happy. Maybe you should move closer to work – if you can get down to under a 2 minute commute it might vastly improve your quality of life. I get the feeling that the time spent in the car is bringing you down…

Surely “what” Sean Dunne wants to build is the architectural and aesthetic question that we should be dealing with here. “Why” he wants to build it is the question that you seem to be asking – maybe you should try AskAboutMoney.com?

@kefu wrote:

And Notjim, do you really believe that the people moving into this building are going to be first-time buyers or owners of a single property. Why would 1 Berkeley Court be like this, when no high-end development in the country is.

No, of course I don’t, but I do believe they would be buying property elsewhere if they weren’t buying it in One Berkley court. I don’t get your point: any single instance of high density is not going to solve the density problem, of course, but building high density developments will.

@mickletterfrack wrote:

my heart bleeds for you, took me ten mins door to desk and that was stopping for a cup of tea on the way. If I were you Id write a strongly worded letter to my local design conscious developer.

woop de fucking doo – isn’t it great to be able to live close to where you work rather than having to rely on Irish Fail because planning in this country is seriously fucked up. High end high rise will prove that this form of development can work (unlike Ballymun – Hardly Central Park West was it) and then people will see that you can have good high rise and the effect will trickle down to other (affordable)developments – then we all may be able to live a bit closer to the city and where we work, have a decent quality of life and enable the densities necessary for a decent public transport system

But perhaps you could change your name to “I’mAlrightJackLetterfrack” since that seems to be your attitude

@mickletterfrack wrote:

Yeah you are missing alot here in fact, this has nothing todo with a design conscious developer, it has everything todo with a greedy developer whos ego and vanity got the better of him and so he paid an over the market price and now has to make his money back.

Eh land prices in Ballsbridge have pretty much doubled since he bought it. So actually he got a fairly good deal.

lets stop feeding the troll!

Don’t forget that prior to the sale of Jurys Ballsbridge Sean Dunne was Jurys’ largest single shareholder at nearly 19% of the company. Seeing as how the papers this weekend put the sale of the chain at between €750 and €950million, Mr. Dunne will have made a few quid back.

Also, he says in his letter that he only took control of the hotel in September this year. Many deals where a company needs “money” are structured in such a way that very little “money” changes hands. You might find that big interest payments only kicked in recently

And, as Matt cooper said in May 2006, “One wonders what Ahern, Cowen and other ministers make of their friend’s ambitious plans to reshape the landscape of Dublin 4. Will they support, object or affect neutrality, as if this is merely a commercial matter of no real interest to politicians? Will friendship with Dunne influence their thinking? Eventually, of course, it will come down to the planners, and what they think is in the best interests of the development of the city. And we can have every confidence that they’ll make the right decisions, oblivious to all factors of wealth, influence and begrudgery. Can’t we?”

So his position might not be as shaky as people think.

But, as our mad friend who has just made the 10 minute trip from his desk to his padded cell alluded to, Dunne’s just committed himself to a minimum of 1 year in the planning process and another 4 on site. That’s still, financially, a bit tasty.

Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons – what if the “it’ll never get built” crowd are right, but for none of the above.

What if Sean Dunne has no intention of building anything. What if he’s got the high of the deal, the competition, the spotlight. What if he’s using the site as collateral to finance other deals. What if, in 18 months time, he simply sells the site. Even if he gets €70million per acre (not unreasonable) he’ll turn a tidy profit. And if his planning is refused he can leave head held high. If it is granted, he’ll get even more cash for the site.

What if……

@wearnicehats wrote:

And, as Matt cooper said in May 2006, &#8220] And we can have every confidence that they’ll make the right decisions, oblivious to all factors of wealth, influence and begrudgery. Can’t we?”

So his position might not be as shaky as people think.[/B]

I think youve said enough there for me that sums up contemporary Ireland very nicely 🙂

Even the perpetually cranky Kevin Myers is in favour of it. Just read his article in the Indo.

@wearnicehats wrote:

Even if he gets €70million per acre (not unreasonable) he’ll turn a tidy profit. And if his planning is refused he can leave head held high. If it is granted, he’ll get even more cash for the site.

you really are in lala land if you think he would get 70million an acre now, not to mind the 54 he paid for it.

@wearnicehats wrote:

And, as Matt cooper said in May 2006, “One wonders what Ahern, Cowen and other ministers make of their friend’s ambitious plans to reshape the landscape of Dublin 4. Will they support, object or affect neutrality, as if this is merely a commercial matter of no real interest to politicians? Will friendship with Dunne influence their thinking?

I think we already know what Bertie will do for his buddy SD after all wasnt he one of Berties invited guests in Westminister to celebrate Berties own day as guest of honour of the British houses of parliament in recognition of Berties role in the Good Friday agreement… oops forgot to invite Albert Reynolds but heh at least Sean Dunne got a front row seat…Maybe he is eyeing Westminister up for a 37 storey tower.
http://www.shane-ross.ie/archives/221

Matt Cooper is scraping the bottom of the barrell these days, he is so worried about not getting invited to the best parites he will say anything.

@notjim wrote:

lets stop feeding the troll!

Speaking of feeding , I think your best surmised by something Marco Pierre White said on Hells Kitchen the other night… You can put a tux on a pig but you can’t stop him from grunting… you and a few others knocking around this site need to get their heads out of the trough. Whatever about the financies of SD which are the main dictates of this design its an un-inspiring blob really with no artistic or original merit.

Perhaps you would like to critique the proposal for us mick????

@GregF wrote:

Even the perpetually cranky Kevin Myers is in favour of it. Just read his article in the Indo.

Yeah but in the same article he recommends that the IRFU and FAI abandon the whole Lansdowne Road project and go begging to the GAA for the privilege of paying them a million euro (at least) every time they want to play a home match. The man is a gobsh*te.

@mickletterfrack wrote:

you and a few others knocking around this site need to get their heads out of the trough.

So now we know what Mick does for a living. Apparently, he’s a physician.

For what it’s worth, Mick, I thought you had some interesting things to say re Letterfrack, even if couched in some inflammatory, juvenile language. However, re the above quote, someone honestly trying to engage others in a debate on the merits or otherwise of a development proposal would do well not to fling around indiscriminate insults if they want those others to respond to the points raised.

So I can only assume you’re here to cause trouble. In which case, I’ll echo the previous sentiment: Do Not Feed The Troll.

Anyway, back to the merit or otherwise of the proposal itself. What, besides the height of the tower, are the specific criticisms of this scheme? If the tower aspect was scaled back a bit, would that satisfy the detractors?

It the scheme lives up to the video, then surely this would be far far superior to anything built on that scale in Dublin in recent years. It ticks all the boxes:

• It returns access and useful right of way to the public. As far as I know, besides Wallace’s Italian Quarter, this is unprecendented.
• It provides high density residential accomodation in one of the most sparsely populated inner suburbs of Dublin. Ballsbridge, outside of office hours and match days, is depressingly bleak and empty.
• It’s a mixed development – combining residential, commercial, retail and cultural features. The retail and cultural facilities are significant; significantly more than the usual ground level Spar provided by developers.
• The quality of the residential accomodation seems high with an emphasis on larger “family sized” units. The finish and design seem high spec.
• It’s effectively next door to a DART station providing easy access to public transport.
• The buildings are “green” in the sense of being highly insulated.

It reminds me a bit of the Barbican without the brutalist appearance in the emphasis on attempting to create a “complete” community. This is a daring departure for development in Dublin; a big step up as far as I’m concerned. Even if you find the height aspect offensive (I don’t), surely all of the other aspects are to be admired? The alternative, which presumably would be “suitable for Ballsbridge” is just too depressing to contemplate – a “mixed development” comprising another Sweepstakes apartment development, a couple of copies of the Iona building and another Herbert Park Hotel in a large gated complex.

jimg, I couldn’t agree more. It hasn’t a feckin chance then has it!

Your first point is extremely important and cannot possibly be overestimated. We have spent the entire boom years gating dwellings, cutting down on the public realm, neglecting community and one of the grand purposes of planning which is to foster a sense of place. New streets can have an incredible effect on districts – not new roads, new streets. Places. That’s what attracts me most to this proposal. btw it’s also my favourite element of the DLR Golf CLub development, in that it opens a gated elite sporting facility to the people, and will provide open space rather than deny it. However people hate permeability – society has been engineered to crave a fortress. From Le C’s machines for living, we now have mono-class pods and cells for living in. The cul-de-sac and the keypad gate have destroyed so many potential linkages and opportunities for random interactions. If the remaining large sites, such as golf courses, Docklands, Guinness, Disused barracks etc, are developed in the same manner as Mountbrook have proposed here, public space wise, we’ll have somewhere close to a great city.

what was on the triangle site before the hotels? somebody mentioned georgian stuff and a botanic gardens? how where they knocked? and how did all those ugly 25year buildings get put up in the first place?
just out of historical interest ?

Im surprised that he building is so slim in the picture on the front page of this thread

so if a person says I don’t want a 37 storey building 27 stories is enough are they still anti-highrise?

wher’d they get the data for the urban sprawl animation in the video?

there is alot of unessceary green spin in their prmo it really looks like they are trying to hard,

we’re going to throw some plants on the roofs here and there we weren’t doing anything with them anyway…

the space will still be private. etc

ramming in as many buzzwords as possible, slow food restaurants! ffs

It was the Botanic Gardens for Trinity College. There are still some trees there. I thought the slow food thing was funny too. It’s not like it’ll be put in the lease that that’s the only thing they can serve

[quote=”

ramming in as many buzzwords as possible, slow food restaurants! ffs[/QUOTE”]

For info:

Alonso,
I have to raise a point regarding redevloping golf coures. Its a worrying trend in my opinion to see so many old, established courses being sold up and concreted over. Yes, these places may be private areas that restrict permeability, but they are also places where greenery flourishes in urban settings. As a golfer myself, and with a planning interest, I loathe the idea of these beautiful settings being destroyed for housing. The opinion seems to be that a greenfield site will be supplied to build a new course. But what about the 200-year old trees? Can they be replicated? There is scope to retain these areas within urban boundaries. We can still build a compact, permeable city without having to fill in great courses.

OMT,
Nice research on the slow food movement, but i argee, its meaning will be distorted, probably to mean having a four-hour lunch. I am personally against planners trying to forcefully create something like this, its too, how shall I put it, “creative” for me, get my drift?

As for One Berkeley Court? Its the best thing that could happen to the place. Like everything else we protest about in this country – smoking ban, par exemple – we’ll take no notice of it once its in place. The benefits, as pointed out by jimg, are obvious and for me can only have a positive effect on Ballsbridge.

herrkev, just in case, older trees are generally protected as part of any redevelopment. A tree plan has to be submitted and measures taken to protect them.

that I understand, my point was they cant be replicated on new, greenfield golf course developments unless transplanted at great expense.

i take your point herrkev, but if the older trees are preserved (not always i admit), a new parkland is opened to the general public, and a new golf course and all the landscaping that that entails, is that not more desirable than a golf course in suburbia acting as a pseudo traffic island? btw I’m not advocating concreting over every golf course within 10 miles of the spire, but they are certainly in the top few uses that could be targetted after all the brownfield sites have been developed

I wouldn’t expect you to advocate such a thing alonso, and I accept that there may be a case for redevelopment if an obvious and worsening bottleneck to development was occuring. I dont want to contuinue this point much longer, its a bit off-topic. all i’ll say is its very difficult to replicate the setting of a long-established course, and people shouldn’t be so hasty to go about redeveloping them. And let’s be honest, most of the space would be covered with houses, with some open space, but certainly much less than there was. Ireland has a booming golfing industry but tearing up older courses will not help it in any way. I wont say any more on the matter, unless a new thread appears!

So, to summarize the reasons for disliking this plan: a) the developer is going to make money b) there’s too much trendy jargon in the pitch and c) the slow food movement is misrepresented in presentation. Anything else?

another one: Ballsbridge is a quiet leafy typically Irish local friendly village and this would destroy that (as opposed to 45 years of prefab concrete offices).

Well it hasn’t been mentioned yet, but the smarmy, smug mug of the project architect Ulrik Raysse pictured in the Irish Times is surely another logical reason to dismiss this proposal.

But on a more serious note, are any architects out there offended by this comment? Or is there real truth to it?

@Ulrik Raysse wrote:

“Cities shouldn’t be museums. Ireland, and especially Dublin, is very strong on literature, poetry, music and theatre. But where is the excellence in architecture? What we’re trying to do is to raise the bar here, by daring to create a place that’s unique.”

On which subject:

I think there’s some truth in it. As previous threads have discussed there aren’t too many buildings from the boom years that make you go wow.

@ctesiphon wrote:

But on a more serious note, are any architects out there offended by this comment? Or is there real truth to it?

“Cities shouldn’t be museums. Ireland, and especially Dublin, is very strong on literature, poetry, music and theatre. But where is the excellence in architecture? What we’re trying to do is to raise the bar here, by daring to create a place that’s unique.”

Is it the “especially Dublin” part you think is offensive?

Don’t get me wrong, im all for this development, I dont see the prob with a well designed, high density, mixed use, walkable, city centre development. I was just having a rant about the excessive use of jargon. Also I don’t have a problem with SD making a few pound, sure you would hardly expect him to do it for nothing. I just get the feeling that in the current economic climate and with the price paid for the land it does become an issue and there is an arguement that perhaps they are trying to squeeze too much out of the project. Nonetheles it is an ambitious well thought out project and taking both sides of the arguement into account it would get my vote. Problem is I dont think the planners will have the balls to go for it in the face of angry D4 NIMBY’s, these are influential NIMBY’S. They even seem to have swayed Mr. McDonald who sang the praises of the development in yesterdays Irish Times but instead of throwing his weight behind it backtracked.

If it is to have any chance of winning approval from Dublin City Council’s planners – and ultimately, An Bord Pleanála – it will have to be substantially scaled down, with the tower and other buildings reduced in height proportionately. F McDonald

Maybe this is an innocent question, but do you think the architects have a scaled down version of the project ready to go as they were fully aware prior to making the proposal that it would be scaled down?:confused:

@old man troy wrote:

Maybe this is an innocent question, but do you think the architects have a scaled down version of the project ready to go as they were fully aware prior to making the proposal that it would be scaled down?:confused:

very possibly in sketch form – the number crunching will definitely have been done at the very least.

They will know exactly the financially viable cut off point

@d_d_dallas wrote:

another one: Ballsbridge is a quiet leafy typically Irish local friendly village and this would destroy that (as opposed to 45 years of prefab concrete offices).

Yeah, a cosy, comfortable little village that enriches the life of a very few while the many are forced into debt-slavery in order to afford a home two hours away from work.

I’d love to know what percentage of those working in the AIB centre in Ballsbridge can actually afford to live close to work.

@notjim wrote:

Is it the “especially Dublin” part you think is offensive?

Well I’m not an architect, but if I was, I think I’d be bothered by the comment, or at the very least by the ‘we know better than you do’ smug tone of the quote. Really, I think the quality of the architecture is quite ordinary, and falls quite short of the best work of that practice.

*** *** ***

As a little aside – a non-pictorial ‘How well do you know Dublin?’, if you like – does anyone know when Henning Larsen was previously involved in Dublin? To the best of my knowledge, there was only one previous occasion, but I’m open to correction on that. (No prizes, just a a bit of fun.)

For some reason architects in Ireland can only take direction from Belfield or Tara St so maybe its worth emphasising some points one of their messiahs has raised ….
@FrankMcD – IT wrote:

“I didn’t know much about Ireland then, except that it had blossomed a lot while Denmark was growing more gradually,” he says. “But I think Dublin is quite like Copenhagen. Both are historical cities with centres that haven’t been destroyed.” This gave him a “strong understanding of scale”, pointing to the need to be “bold and at the same time humble” in designing for Ballsbridge. The curved street running parallel with Lansdowne Road would also be lined with “high-end” shops, presumably to confirm Ballsbridge as the “new Knightsbridge”.
But there aren’t any 37-storey towers in Knightsbridge. It is also highly improbable that Henning Larsen Architects would be allowed to build anything like this in Copenhagen. Their Nordea office complex is almost domestic in scale, while the canopied opera house in its harbour is a more bulbous version of Jean Nouvel’s in Lucerne. .

Ok so basically this is “a humble structure which will not destroy the historical aspects of the area , designed by an architect who wouldn’t be allowed to build this structure in his own capital city ( Copenhagen! – cos its some backward un-progressive design desert, one can only assume) for a developer who wants to make the area look like a fashionable district of London even though that area doesn’t in fact have any similar 37 story residential towers …Well that clears up my confusion and cynicism.

As for
@ctesiphon wrote:

For what it’s worth, Mick, I thought you had some interesting things to say re Letterfrack, even if couched in some inflammatory, juvenile language. However, re the above quote, someone honestly trying to engage others in a debate on the merits or otherwise of a development proposal would do well not to fling around indiscriminate insults if they want those others to respond to the points raised.
So I can only assume you’re here to cause trouble. In which case, I’ll echo the previous sentiment: Do Not Feed The Troll.

Obviously the irony of accusing me of juvenile language and then signing off in the ridiculous manner (troll.. ) in which you did is lost on you . Sometimes I really think they should test or license people before letting them online…I will stick by my earlier analogy (others knocking around this site need to get their heads out of the trough) irrespective of how offensive you may find it, lucky for that poor sod George Orwell that he is already dead, otherwise I can only assume you would have had a fatwah out on him for Animal Farm !

@Carrigaline wrote:

Yeah, a cosy, comfortable little village that enriches the life of a very few while the many are forced into debt-slavery in order to afford a home two hours away from work.

I’d love to know what percentage of those working in the AIB centre in Ballsbridge can actually afford to live close to work.

Couldn’t agree more.
Fact is, the lovely semi-d-filled inner suburbs are past their sell-by date in a city on its way to having a “metro area” population of 2 million. They’re a bad use of land, they’re part of the reason Dublin’s a sprawling mess. How big would the public debate be if this proposal was for, say Inchicore or Cabra? And I doubt very much the debate would be raging if the tower wasn’t so big.
Of course one high-rise residential scheme isn’t going to solve our low-density problem, but it’s the general direction we should be going in. Seems to me the natural place to start is in a wealthy central location where the cost of land is at a premium!
Yet the debate is all about a developer’s gall in wanting to make a profit on the pricey land he just bought. Well… duh.
I say let’s get over this high rise-phobia, stop pandering to the NIMBYS blessed to be living in their precious patch of D4 and start complaining about the latest tract of farmland to fall to suburbia instead.

@micklittleprick wrote:

!

I was going to write something but then I realised that nothing would sum it up better.

I was going to respond to him but words literally failed me

@mickletterfrack wrote:

Sometimes I really think they should test or license people before letting them online…

Couldn’t agree more.

F-

@wearnicehats wrote:

micklittleprick !
I was going to write something but then I realised that nothing would sum it up better.

tut tut tut wearnicehats I think you should go lie down now as you obviously maxed out the right side of your brain coming up with that one, and better be careful or you will have our resident vulgar language cop ctesiphon onto you ….heh Rory W hows that long commute going , think how much your saving, you must be well on your way to the 1 million squids being bandied about here as the entry price for 1 Berkley Court. Course if that doesnt work out then maybe you can befriend someone in AIB who another poster reckons we should build this monstrosity for so they can live closer to their jobs and thereby spend less time commuting and more time ripping off the Irish public. Jaysus the proponents of this are all frothing at the mouth to get this ridiculous tower built which will not directly solve a single issue facing sprawling expanding Dublin. And will only set a dangerous precedent and bring to a new level the bullying tactics of our “design conscious , socially responsible” developer/politicians. You are voting to build it in the hope that if we are nice to the rich man and let him build his big tower and make obscene amounts of money then maybe he wont forget us in a few years and will throw a few smaller tower blocks your way so you can all rise above the dross you have to daily drudge through. SD has offered to spend 31 million in local community projects if the tower goes ahead, he should be spending that money irrespective of if the tower goes ahead. Irelands econmy in GDP terms is 1/60th that of the US , if developers here were making the same relative profits in the US they would be on a par with if not by-passing Bill Gates..

As for the design okay so architects split the atom or at least thought they had when they came up with the tower block, and that has worked really well, hasnt it, next they sat around a table or the “trough” as i like to call it and said that didnt work too well munch munch munch any other brilliant ideas.. until someone said I know lets steal an idea from Pisa hopefully no one will notice and we can make the tower lean , brake up the facade with some angles , cover it all in glass throw an Eileen Gray table and a Barcelona chair in the show room and people will think we have now unified general relativity and particle physics….. As for Dublins burgeoning population people do know that the official government estimate (Official) regarding the expected number of workers to come here from the EU accession states was 6,000 people. Ireland isnt changing, a forest or the sea is something that changes , Ireland is BEING changed …theres a world of difference. Have a good weekend y’all Im off to France for some r’nr , where at least they take their passions to the heart and more importantly to the streets .

@cobalt wrote:

A picture speaks a thousand words! Tiny model though

@Keen wrote:

A picture speaks a thousand words! Tiny model though

absolutely brilliant pic

😀

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.

So lets try this again: here are lots of houses, A represents trophy second homes, B and C some other classes of homes and D cheaper homes far from the city.

AAAABBBBCCCCDDDD

versus

A
A
AABBBBCCCCDDDD

you see the D’s are closer even though the tower only contains rich peoples second homes!

notjim, that is true and if that trend continues across the market it will have a major impact. However, i believe Graham was saying that the tower element itself may not be truly justifiable in density terms. Only an exact dwelling per hectare calculation for that element will tell us.

Notjim, at this stage, I think you are deliberately missing the point. Yes, this tower will have an extremely slight bearing on density within Dublin but is that really what Mountbrook Homes is interested in? Judge the scheme on its architectural merits not on fanciful notions of density or inclusiveness.
Their video repeatedly mentions Copenhagen and Barcelona yet neither of these cities have much by way of high-rise. Instead, they keep densities high by building apartment blocks in the range of five to ten stories.
Popping up a few towers in a handful of wealthy suburbs (see Donnybrook also) is a completely haphazard way to address the over-development of Dublin.
If we wanted high-rise, we should have set aside a few specific completely under-developed areas, the Docklands, Heuston Station etc.
I see people frequently mentioning London as well in arguments, yet the vast majority of tower development in that city is going on within two specific financial services areas, City and Canary Wharf. The same applies to Paris where high-rise is largely restricted to La Defense.
Nobody in either city would be calling for high-rise development in the likes of Notting Hill or Montmartre yet that’s what we want for Ballsbridge.
Mountbrook Homes has tried to pretend that Ballsbridge has had its heart bombed out of it and that they are going to help restore it. That simply isn’t the case as anyone who walks arounds there would tell you, many streets are exactly as they were 100 years ago.
Dunne also specifically targets the O’Mahony Pike Herbert Park Hotel/Office/Apartments scheme in one of his outpourings, yet that is one of the best modern developments in Dublin.
http://ireland.archiseek.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/ballsbridge/anglesea_road/serpentine_apartments_lge.html
The only problem with it (from Dunne’s point of view) is that its high density of six to seven storeys would not be enough to redeem the stupid money he paid for the Ballsbridge site.
Also, someone already made this excellent point? But why should we allow Sean Dunne to set the parameters regarding sustainable living in Dublin when he is simultaneously adding to suburban sprawl with his developments in Co’s Wicklow and Kildare. He is either committed to improving Dublin or he isn’t.

uh have you been to Barcelona? I found the outer suburbs very dense (more like 10-15 stories than 5-10 that you compared with Dulbin) with ‘landmark’ towers here and there in the city up to 152 m, but huge high rise developments now existing along the northern coast in the city. Blows Dublin out of the water for a comparible sized city (although the metro area is over 4 million)

Mountrook also want to put on the site approx 28,000sqm office, approx 27,500sqm retail/food, embassy complex 13,250 sqm etc. etc. so much for the high density living when all of this ancillary use is taken into account. The embassy complex is an interesting one, embassy use is allowed in residential zone however still don’t know how Mountbrook can predict that all the embassies are going to decamp from Ailesbury Road to his block, maybe this is a cunning move on his part to buy up Ailesbury Road! The trees will definitely have to go as bldgs. are direct to footpath so couldn’t have an old oak tree that’s been there for hundreds of years in your way, pity ’cause the Arbutus in Berkeley carpark is one of the oldest and biggest specimens in UK/Ireland. The spin that the landscape guy on the promo puts would almost make you believe that the trees on the site were a blot on the landscape, but they are being very clever in covering their tracks for the moment when the trees are going to be felled. What’s not been mentioned so far is that apart from LAP being rejected also Variation 17 was rejected, if it had passed it would have allowed for rezoning of nine sites incl. vet and this one, can’t see how DCC can go back on the rejection of rezoning, this site is residential and that’s what the locals are giving out about, as far as I can make out they want high density housing but not the office use. The permeability is another spin, since 2005 DCC have not given permission to gated communities and won’t be giving permission to gated in the future, what with 7 blocks plus the landmark 37 storey bldg. their has to be access from one side of site to the other, all in all a load of spin on the promo and in the press releases/presentation. To my mind the 37 storey bldg. is a smoke screen to draw attention away from the other blocks which range from 10 (only one bldg is 10) to 18 storeys, probably figures if the 37 storey gets all the attention then the others will slip through unnoticed. Afraid I’m with Mickletterfrack on this one….

Have been to Barcelona four or five times and am very familiar with it. This will give you a flavour of how much high-rise is actually in the city centre proper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCN01.JPG
Vast majority of the buildings are in the six-seven storey bracket.
The two towers at the centre of the view were built around the time of the Barcelona Olympics in an area, which we could compare to our Docklands, not our version of Ballsbridge.
Both are as you say 154m tall and the one to the right is Jean Nouvel’s new tower.
One Berkley Court is a good project, but in a totally unsuitable location.

@Keen wrote:

but huge high rise developments now existing along the northern coast in the city. Blows Dublin out of the water for a comparible sized city (although the metro area is over 4 million)

Barcelona’s Port Olympic is hardly a ‘huge highrise development’. The two towers are fairly ugly aswell!

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/939/50535033.JPG

@Morlan wrote:

Barcelona’s Port Olympic is hardly a ‘huge highrise development’. The two towers are fairly ugly aswell!

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/939/50535033.JPG

I dunno, i based it on this http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=358214

Still convinced Barcelona is much denser, and let’s not even talk about denser EU cities, but as far as Dublin goes, we need something like this, i don’t see the problem it’s in Ballsbridge, it’s like a nod to turning the Docklands into a balls up :p

@Frank McDonald wrote:

But there aren’t any 37-storey towers in Knightsbridge.

This type of nonsense is always trotted out whenever a tall building is proposed. Examples are made of Paris, which is full of tall buildings, and of London, which is also full of tall buildings. Although Frank’s assertion that there are no 37 storey towers in Knightbridge might be correct, there is the 29 storey Knightsbridge barracks, and Sloane Street boasts the Jumeirah Carlton Tower and the Millennium Hotel, both appreciably tall.

From today’s Irish Times:

@Irish Times Business Opinion 10th September 2007 wrote:

Banks will ensure Dunne will get his two towers

John McManus

Business Opinion: Builder Sean Dunne finally took ownership last week of the Jurys Hotel site in Ballsbridge, and early next month he takes over the adjoining Berkeley Court site.

Dunne paid €379 million for the two sites in 2005, but the fact that he had not actually taken ownership escaped most people, until he pointed it out in a letter to this paper last month.

Dunne was silent about the precise point at which he took on the responsibility for the very large loans that finance his deal, but presumably the meter is now well and truly running.

Indeed, a planning application for the scheme Dunne wants to develop in Ballsbridge has now been lodged, and while it would be foolish to underestimate him, it is at the same time very hard at this stage to see how he will make any money out of the project without driving a coach and four though the planning laws.

Property development is something of a black art of which Dunne is a very successful exponent. Not surprisingly, he is not intending to divulge details of his project’s finances any time soon.

But we can at least make some educated guesses in this regard thanks to a memorandum prepared by Davy Stockbrokers for investors in the Bernard McNamara-led development down the road on the old Irish Glass & Bottle site.

McNamara estimates that his construction, site clearance and finance costs will work out at around €1 billion, or just over €3,300 per square metre for his 300,000sq m mixed use development.

Applying the same multiples to Dunnes 188,102sq m development gives a figure of €620 million. Given that what Dunne has in mind, replete with 37-storey tower, is somewhat more ambitious than McNamara’s development, it is, if anything, rather conservative to use this figure.

It is also conservative to assume that Dunne’s finance costs are on a par with McNamara’s, given the personal involvement of Derek Quinlan in McNamara’s project.

So when the €375 million he spent on the site is added in, it looks like Dunne will need to get in at least €1 billion before he starts to make any money.

The Davy memorandum is also quite helpful for working out what Dunne’s development might be worth if it went ahead as planned.

McNamara is predicting that he will be able to sell apartments in five years time at €8,135 per square metre, and office space at €7,726 per square metre.

More specifically, McNamara expects to get €625,000 for a two-bed apartment when his development comes on stream over the next five years. It is a reasonable assumption given current prices, even allowing for the current weakness in the property market. If anything , these prices look a little cheap for Ballsbridge in five years’ time, but using them compensates for the conservative approach to Dunne’s costs.

According to Dunne’s planning application he plans to build 27,375sq m of retail space and 41,000sq m of office and embassy space. There is also a 12,303sq m hotel planned, along with another 10,144sq m for a cultural centre, creche and other elements. The balance of the 188,103sq m development is apartments.

Using McNamara’s projections, Dunne looks well covered, with the non-residential elements of the project worth around €700 million at those prices and the residential elements are worth another €800 million.

The problem however, is that some 270 of the 536 apartments that Dunne plans to build are housed in two tower blocks that are not even on the same planet as most people’s concept of what is appropriate for Ballsbridge. As well as the landmark 37-storey tower, there is also an 18 storey tower. And that is ignoring the planning obstacles posed by the other buildings proposed for the site which will tower over the neighbourhood.

Very roughly, some €400 million of the €800 million that Dunne hopes to make from the residential aspect of his development is housed in two buildings that, frankly, will amaze, and appal, most people if he gets planning permission for them.

And if he doesn’t get his towers, then the finances of his project look far less robust. It also calls into question the viability of whatever projects the developers who paid even more than Dunne for the adjoining sites in Ballsbridge have in mind. The €54 million an acre paid by Dunne is dwarfed by the €83 million an acre paid by Ray Grehan for an adjoining site and the €133 million an acre paid by Gerry O’Reilly for his site.

Whatever problems Dunne must face, their difficulties will be significantly greater. It is hard to see any of them, Dunne included, making money unless the planning laws are rewritten massively in their favour, and the only logical reason for them to spend the sort of sums they have expended is because they are certain that they will be. It is not even a case of projects being able to wash their faces within the current planning paradigm. Without a decision to allow massive high-density development in Ballsbridge, they will be in trouble.

And that might explain their optimism. Put crudely, Ireland’s big property developers are too big to be allowed fail. As UCD economist Morgan Kelly pointed out in this paper last Friday, the Irish banking sector has a €100 billion exposure to developers and builders. The sort of blood bath that would ensue if a big developer got into trouble would cost the taxpayer billions to fix.

Confronted with that sort of reality, it is possible to see Dunne getting his tower blocks and his peers getting whatever it is that they need. Manhattan in Ballsbridge may be just another Celtic Tiger chicken coming home to roost. Apologies for the mixed metaphor, but it was hard to resist.
© 2007 The Irish Times

It’s littered with inaccuracies.

@jdivision wrote:

It’s littered with inaccuracies.

Care to elaborate? Would be interesting to know. I would say as time goes by the hearsay surrounding this proposal will grow exponentially.

Dunne paid €379 million for the two sites in 2005, but the fact that he had not actually taken ownership escaped most people, until he pointed it out in a letter to this paper last month.

“Dunne was silent about the precise point at which he took on the responsibility for the very large loans that finance his deal, but presumably the meter is now well and truly running.”
It was included in sale documents and publicly stated that Jurys Doyle would not hand over the properties for two years after the sale.

“it is at the same time very hard at this stage to see how he will make any money out of the project without driving a coach and four though the planning laws.”

He needs an average of 8 storeys on the site to make a sizable profit from what other developers have told me.

“McNamara estimates that his construction, site clearance and finance costs will work out at around €1 billion, or just over €3,300 per square metre for his 300,000sq m mixed use development.”
Not comparing like with like, Irish Glass Bottlers site is a former dump so much more expensive site clearance. He has no idea what interest rate Dunne is paying or how loan is structured, McNamara offered a 17 per cent per annum guaranteed return to investors for some of the finance. Dunne’s finance costs will be much lower. Somebody here suggested a 5.25 per cent bond.

“More specifically, McNamara expects to get €625,000 for a two-bed apartment when his development comes on stream over the next five years. It is a reasonable assumption given current prices, even allowing for the current weakness in the property market. If anything , these prices look a little cheap for Ballsbridge in five years’ time, but using them compensates for the conservative approach to Dunne’s costs.”
The approach to costs wasn’t conservative as previously explained. In addition Dunne is on record is saying that the cheapest apartment will be more than e1 million. Why start using a e625,000 figure. Comparing Ringsend to Ballsbridge in terms of selling price per square metre is ludicrous.

“And if he doesn’t get his towers, then the finances of his project look far less robust. It also calls into question the viability of whatever projects the developers who paid even more than Dunne for the adjoining sites in Ballsbridge have in mind. The €54 million an acre paid by Dunne is dwarfed by the €83 million an acre paid by Ray Grehan for an adjoining site and the €133 million an acre paid by Gerry O’Reilly for his site.”

Ray Grehan paid e171.5 million for his site and expects it to have a completion value of e600 million. Based on standard developer profits of 30 per cent he stands to earn nearly e200 million if ressie values are steady in a few years time.

“Whatever problems Dunne must face, their difficulties will be significantly greater. It is hard to see any of them, Dunne included, making money unless the planning laws are rewritten massively in their favour.”
There is already high rise in the immediate area, most of it dating back more than 30 years when densities and plot ratios were lower. Hardly planning laws being rewritten for him when Lansdowne got planning less than a kilometre away.

It’s armchair economics from McManus TBH.

Thanks JDivision

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.

Surely the idea is that the high-density vision will be created through more 10-15 story buildings being built in the city (as in Barcelona) and that this colossal 37 story one will still be a one off “incident?”

Anyway, I think the design is gorgeous, it makes me happy to look at!:)

The Jury/Berkeley site is zoned residential so don’t see the co-relation to Lansdowne getting planning, by proposing office and retail Dunne is in contravention to the current zoning and this is where he could fall down seeing as he is looking for an almost 50/50 split of office/apartment. The planning laws would most certainly have to be re-written for Mountbrook and also for that matter for Grehan.

laws don’t have to be rewritten, that’s total hyperbole. A variation of the Dev. Plan, or an LAP, at worst, are all that may be required. A material contravention would also suffice.

No Grehan’s site is partly zoned commercial. Even on ressie sites the city council now promotes mixed use development and the apartment guidelines passed last week encourage the development of offices on sites zoned for residential use with apartments overhead. That was missed by a lot of people.

@Trudee wrote:

The Jury/Berkeley site is zoned residential so don’t see the co-relation to Lansdowne getting planning, by proposing office and retail Dunne is in contravention to the current zoning and this is where he could fall down seeing as he is looking for an almost 50/50 split of office/apartment. The planning laws would most certainly have to be re-written for Mountbrook and also for that matter for Grehan.

the “office” component is only 15%. they’re arguing that the remainder – cultural, embassy use etc is acceptable under the zoning. The impression I got from talking to them was that they are expecting the office to be conditioned out.

@Trudee wrote:

The Jury/Berkeley site is zoned residential so don’t see the co-relation to Lansdowne getting planning,

He was talking about height – Lansdowne Rd will be high when completed.

@alonso wrote:

laws don’t have to be rewritten, that’s total hyperbole. A variation of the Dev. Plan, or an LAP, at worst, are all that may be required. A material contravention would also suffice.

Variation 17 was rejected the same time as the LAP so can’t see DCC coming back around within 3 months with another variation.

Again if you read my post, the council is now encouraging office development on residential sites as part of the larger apartments debate.

@jdivision wrote:

No Grehan’s site is partly zoned commercial. Even on ressie sites the city council now promotes mixed use development and the apartment guidelines passed last week encourage the development of offices on sites zoned for residential use with apartments overhead. That was missed by a lot of people.

I could be wrong but my understanding of the new apartment guidelines is – development of offices on sites zoned residential in areas deemed to be ‘disadvantaged’.

@jdivision wrote:

No Grehan’s site is partly zoned commercial. Even on ressie sites the city council now promotes mixed use development and the apartment guidelines passed last week encourage the development of offices on sites zoned for residential use with apartments overhead. That was missed by a lot of people.

apartment guidelines “passed last week”

really? didn’t hear that.

They were voted in, another period of consultation and then they’ll be binding come November:
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=26495-qqqx=1.asp

From An Taisce submission:
9. An Taisce
An Taisce question what are the links between the Performance Criteria set out (para. 1.3.6) and the issue of building height. Apartments are not so exceptional a use that special flexibility is required. They also question what degree of flexibility and what height is being referred to. Height should be assessed in terms of its appropriateness for its location and the wider city. Plot Ratio and height are independent concerns that guide good planning. An Taisce question the policy in para. 2.5.4 referring to appropriate sized office facilities being considered on suitable sites in Z1/ residential zones where e.g. they can be located on the lower floors providing local facilities, employment, and vitality over the 18 hour day and allowing apartments to be on the upper floors, with better amenity, regard being had to the protection of existing residential amenities’. Efforts should be made to develop new parks and render existing public spaces accessible and child friendly. A detailed carbon assessment should be carried out.

Part of DCC response:
Mixed-use residential areas are more desirable, sustainable and energy efficient allowing, for example, people to walk easily to work and other facilities.

@notjim wrote:

So lets try this again: here are lots of houses, A represents trophy second homes, B and C some other classes of homes and D cheaper homes far from the city.
A
A
AABBBBCCCCDDDD
you see the D’s are closer even though the tower only contains rich peoples second homes!

notjim are you are in fact the urban planner for Balbriggan, incognito.
Heres another picture,,, the H represents hotels for the big C which is the convention centre being built and the S represents schools (our kids are our future) and Gs green areas, to improve quality of life, and as you see Ive replaced some of the As also cos stopping this tower will help to put a stop to the un-even and criminal distribution of wealth and resources in Irl., resulting in more Bs and Cs and less As. Its pathetic to see grown architects grovel at the feet of sanctimonious developers to push thru a rich mans playground in the hope they will be thrown a few smaller tower blocks of their own so they can feel like their rich cousins, whilst looking admiringly at the top of the building declaring in all sincereity it inspires me , it makes me look UP!

AAHCBBSBBCCSGDD

Oh and I cut down on the number of houses too … if Irl got a grip on the immigration issue maybe Dublin wouldnt need so many houses to house the people who are building the houses to house the people who are building the houses….one big winner in that scenario the developer oh and the architects get a nice kickback too… maybe thats why they are all so stum on this.

@Andre Duffy wrote:

This type of nonsense is always trotted out whenever a tall building is proposed. Examples are made of Paris, which is full of tall buildings, and of London, which is also full of tall buildings. Although Frank’s assertion that there are no 37 storey towers in Knightbridge might be correct, there is the 29 storey Knightsbridge barracks, and Sloane Street boasts the Jumeirah Carlton Tower and the Millennium Hotel, both appreciably tall.

It was Sean Dunne not Frank McD that made the initial comparison to Knightsbridge and 2 of the counter-examples you give are both Hotels not residential units..

Originally Posted by Irish Times Business Opinion 10th September 2007
Banks will ensure Dunne will get his two towers
Didnt I say the same thing a few days , course I was lambasted for lowering the tone of the design discussion to something as crude and vulgar as money, the design has nothing todo with architectural merit or solving housing shortages the design is the money. Course if its in the Architectural bible that is the Irish Times, (was it just me or did everyone else hear a clarion of angels sing when I said the IT word) then its wordy debate, which proves my other assertion that alot of people on this forum can only take direction from the IT or Belfield, they cant think independantly. Maybe the pigs munching in the trough analogy was wrong, maybe it should have been a bunch of sheep all huddled close together running around the countryside 9whats left of it) going baa

Another interesting fact about the big push from the banks on these towers is that 70% of one of these Irish banks is in fact owned by American pension investment funds, do you think they have some altrusitic interest in Ireland or Dublins wellbeing, I think not. So having spent the last few years pushing 30 year 100+% mortgages on gullible customers driving house prices thru the roof for every one they now get to take some more cream off the top by forcing this monstrous pointless tower upon us also.

@mickletterfrack wrote:

Oh and I cut down on the number of houses too … if Irl got a grip on the immigration issue maybe Dublin wouldnt need so many houses to house the people who are building the houses to house the people who are building the houses….one big winner in that scenario the developer oh and the architects get a nice kickback too… maybe thats why they are all so stum on this.

It was Sean Dunne not Frank McD that made the initial comparison to Knightsbridge and 2 of the counter-examples you give are both Hotels not residential units..

Originally Posted by Irish Times Business Opinion 10th September 2007
Banks will ensure Dunne will get his two towers

Ah yes it’s all the fault of the immigrants.:rolleyes:

If you’ve read my post you’d see the Irish times piece is full of inaccuracies and speculation with little basis in fact.

Nice one Mick!

My sentiments exactly. It’s not a popular view to suggest that by kicking the emigrants out of the country we would help the housing problem, but fair dues to you for making it. Many of the posters on here are too cowardly – dare I say moral – to even contemplate “alternative” answers to the housing dilemma.

The fact that you don’t even live in Dublin and don’t have to deal with anything more than a 5 minute commute has probably allowed you to sidestep the accepted “wisdom” of society (both in planning and humanitarian terms) and the “thinking inside the box” that has dominated our popular debate.

We’re not the first society where the rich developers / financiers have been subverting democracy, and we need a strong man like you to stand up to them. I would go so far as to suggest that yours could be described as a final solution to the housing issue.

Bravo! 🙁

@mickletterfrack wrote:

Oh and I cut down on the number of houses too … if Irl got a grip on the immigration issue maybe Dublin wouldnt need so many houses to house the people who are building the houses to house the people who are building the houses….
.

There is no place for racism on this website – you, sir, are now history on this forum and not welcome.

@jdivision wrote:

They were voted in, another period of consultation and then they’ll be binding come November:
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=26495-qqqx=1.asp

From An Taisce submission:
9. An Taisce
An Taisce question what are the links between the Performance Criteria set out (para. 1.3.6) and the issue of building height. Apartments are not so exceptional a use that special flexibility is required. They also question what degree of flexibility and what height is being referred to. Height should be assessed in terms of its appropriateness for its location and the wider city. Plot Ratio and height are independent concerns that guide good planning. An Taisce question the policy in para. 2.5.4 referring to appropriate sized office facilities being considered on suitable sites in Z1/ residential zones where e.g. they can be located on the lower floors providing local facilities, employment, and vitality over the 18 hour day and allowing apartments to be on the upper floors, with better amenity, regard being had to the protection of existing residential amenities’. Efforts should be made to develop new parks and render existing public spaces accessible and child friendly. A detailed carbon assessment should be carried out.

Part of DCC response:
Mixed-use residential areas are more desirable, sustainable and energy efficient allowing, for example, people to walk easily to work and other facilities.

Your point is not clear, jdivision.

The An Taisce submission you refer to resulted in a significant change to the guidelines, which were initially couched so as to potentially override Development Plan policy on height (as informed by DEGW) – a dangerous situation in every way.

@mickletterfrack wrote:

It was Sean Dunne not Frank McD that made the initial comparison to Knightsbridge and 2 of the counter-examples you give are both Hotels not residential units.

And how does this make Frank McDonald’s assertion that Knightbridge has no tall buildings any less inaccurate?

Paul Clerkin, massamann has to go too. His comments are as bad if not worse than mickletterfrack’s.

Massamann, take your racist nonsense elsewhere, I dont want to hear it.

@herrkev wrote:

Paul Clerkin, massamann has to go too. His comments are as bad if not worse than mickletterfrack’s.

Massamann, take your racist nonsense elsewhere, I dont want to hear it.

he was being sarcastic

Ha Ha so he was!!! My bad. Read it too quickly! Apologies massamann. Not you Mickletterfrack.

Is this the last real chance for the Celtic Tiger to leave a mark? I think so. Im sure most of you will agree with me that the NIMBYism in this country has cost us dearly………at our most prosperous we have not built ANYTHING we can either be proud of nor significant enough to make Dublin stand out. Its not only the D4 set btw………maybe we are just incapable of change? If we are not we must be the stupidest race of people on the planet. To already hear the complaints about this project pile up just makes me angry tbh:mad:

totally agree in 15 years of a construction boom we haven’t built anything that I would call architecturally impressive, thats unique or different,that says this is dublin,or a landmark in its own right. Its simply a disgrace. Theres maybe a few projects of significance on the cards now but other than that its a lost cause…

You’re right on Darkman, we’ve spent so long tearing down every progressive idea that its become instinctive to do it. We will have sweet eff all to show for fifteen years of prosperity. The Docklands? Don’t get me started on that mess. Every great city has traces of influencial periods running through it, but will we see the traits of the Celtic Tiger era in Dublin in years to come. Yes, but in a mostly negative light, and probably accompanied by comments like, “it cost HOW MUCH?!?! We should be ashamed of ourselves.

I would have thought that at some stage in the last ten years, that ego alone would have given us one or two great buildings. I was in Copenhagen a couple of years ago where Maersk had donated the new concert hall to the state. And everybody knew that Maersk had done it – talk about great publicity!

Ireland has been so obsessed with money and flamboyance recently that I was convinced that one of our new billionaires would announce a hefty donation to build the Dermot Desmond Wing of the National Gallery or a flashy corporate headquarters, if only to get one up on their peers. Instead, nothing…

And on a similar but slightly different topic (no doubt dealt with elsewhere) on a purely aesthetic basis would we not have been so much better off if there was even greater distance between elected officials and those who decide on planning. One group knows that the next election is only 5 years down the road, and that short-term-ism which is very much open to being influenced by NIMBYism doesn’t make for joined-up planning.

Closest is probably Tony Ryan’s eggs in Citywest?

what about the group of developers(i think?) who offered to build a brand new hospital on the outskirts of dublin for free!?nimbys didnt mess that up it was the council,i think our administritive establishments are to blame for uninspiring selfishness over the past 15 years.They have been too conservative or caught up in red tape to allow for great achievments or even push developers in that direction a bit!

@jdivision wrote:

Sorry, I’m talking specifically about the residential zoning and office development part of the submission which as far as i know was included in the guidelines passed last week. An Taisce included details of it and jsut thought it would be easier to copy and paste it.

The office development in residential-zoned areas being pushed by DCC in these guidelines is quite dubious anyway. Mixed use is being put over as some kind of planning be-all and end-all that can be thrown at every situation. Do families live over offices in the high density areas of Helsinki and Amsterdam? Predominantly no.

The office & residential mix being pushed here by DCC is ultimately a single-person-living-in-the-city agenda rather than a genuine attempt to make family-friendly high-density areas in Dublin.

Yes I attended a mixed use conference last year and it was interesting to see the speaker talk about the problems thta will be created after 25-years when an office building is out of date but there is apartments overhead limiting redevelopment options

article in today’s IT saying that a DCC meeting has been “specially convened” on monday to discuss the scheme. The scheme is “likely to be rejected by councillors”. It will be considered in tandem with Grehan’s scheme for the vet college.

Ballsbridge high-rise development rejected
Monday, 1 October 2007 19:42
Dublin city councillors in the south east of the capital have rejected plans by developer Sean Dunne for the high rise redevelopment of the Jurys and Berkley Court sites in Ballsbridge.

Last June city councillors turned down a general proposal by city planners for a new local plan that would allow higher-rise and higher-density buildings in the area.

This afternoon the council’s south east area committee refused planning permission for Mr Dunne’s development that would have included residential tower blocks of 18 and 37 storeys.

AdvertisementCllr Daithi Doolin said one of the main concerns about the plan was that it included two office blocks, which was a breach of the site’s zoning.

The full monthly meeting of the city council is due to consider a request by south east councillors for a new local area plan for Ballsbridge.

😡 Well I expected it from the clowns in Dublin city council. Fortunately Bord Pleanala dont have sinn fein marxist types running the show so for the time being their decision is irrelevant.

eh don’t the planners decide? When and how do Councillors “refuse permission” unless a S.141 (or whatever S.4 is these days) has been carried out.

Yeah don’t get it either alonso, it was always destined for ABP anyway.

But dont those councillors look important mouthing off about controversial projects

I think it’s just bad reporting. The members sometimes meet to formulate an official Council position on developments, rather than submit individual observations. They have decided to adopt a “HIGH RISE HORROR STOP THE MADNESS!!!” position on this one, as they were bound to do. We all know ABP will decide in the end – but I’d love the planners to give this the go ahead with just standard conditions, just for the shits and giggles it will cause, and the brilliant letters that we’ll read in the IT from Disgusted of Donnybrook et al with such hackneyed cliches like “faceless bureaucrats of the The Dublin Corporation (sic),” “Planners don’t have to live in these places” “ignored the democratic will of the majority”… It’s enough to bring Richard Boyd Barrett out onto the streets…

Dublin city council embody everything perfectly that I hate about this country with this meaningless decision.

So what exactly is the point for this rejection if it doesn’t mean anything?
Headline on RTE nine o’ clock news ‘Ballsbridge high rise rejected’
Does the actual decision remain an ABP’s hands?

I know its the job of local councillors to pander to local concerns, this week its ‘stop the evil developer’
next week its speed ramps on some local street
One would hope that the big decisions that effect the entire city are made by people that step
back and weigh up the actual benefits to society as a whole, not what mrs murphy in no72 wants

@alonso wrote:

eh don’t the planners decide? When and how do Councillors “refuse permission” unless a S.141 (or whatever S.4 is these days) has been carried out.

The Policy Role of the Elected Councillor

The elected local authority members occupy the pre-eminent position of authority and status in the local government system. Most of the major decisions of the local authority are reserved as the exclusive prerogative of the elected Councillors. Among these functions are Making or amending the County Development Plan

In other words, the elected Councillors make the major policy decisions and it then falls to the County Manager to ensure that decisions made by his staff are proofed against these policies. For example, the granting or refusing of planning permission is an Executive function. However, each application must be proofed against the Development Plan adopted by the elected Councillors to ensure that it complies.

the tower should have went ahead

But it hasn’t been refused.

However, each application must be proofed against the Development Plan adopted by the elected Councillors to ensure that it complies.

…in theory.

Like this was ever not going to end up with AnBP – but shame on RTE for such misleading headlines.

The vote last night has no meaning whatsoever. Can’t believe the IT went and got it wrong again after Dunne’s letter pointed out how badly they got it wrong first time around. Indo story completely inaccurate – planners had nothing to do with it. RTE as bad.

IRISH INDEPENDENT
Dunne bid rejected as ‘greedy’ by planners
Tuesday October 02 2007………….Labour councillor Kevin Humphries…….. “There are some very positive elements to his application but he has been too greedy………………..

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dunne-bid-rejected-as-greedy-by-planners-1114421.html

from todays indo,i shortened it because it upset me:)
i wasn’t aware ‘greed’ was grounds to object to a planning application?!!
Is that even legal??

Whatever happened to the usual bulk, mass , overshadowing, i’m frightened by tall structures, disrupting the flight of seagulls and on and on…..

@paul h wrote:

i wasn’t aware ‘greed’ was grounds to object to a planning application?!!

It’s not, and time and again I have had to counsel people not to use the g word in letters of objection as it just comes across as common-or-garden Irish begrudgery. If anything, I suspect it would make some planners more inclined to grant, not less. I suppose that doesn’t apply to Councillors.

Some people i know may even say ‘greed is good’ in some circumstances….

Hang on a second here. It is nobody’s fault for being rejected except Dunne himself. Who the f**k does he think he is anyway. Just because he spectacularly spent way over the top price for this land, doesn’t give him the right to build what ever he wants to cover the costs of his mistake.

I hope this will breaks him financially so this can send out a blunt message to developers to get real and not get greedy.

Again, nothing was rejected. The vote has no meaning whatsoever.

@weehamster wrote:

I hope this will breaks him financially so this can send out a blunt message to developers to get real and not get greedy.

Definately something out of Hugo Chavez’ Venezuala nowadays tbh. Maybe you should live in that socialist eutopia instead?

@darkman wrote:

Definately something out of Hugo Chavez’ Venezuala nowadays tbh. Maybe you should live in that socialist eutopia instead?

😮 Yeh…its does have that feel about it now that you pointed it out. 😀

@weehamster wrote:

……………………
I hope this will breaks him financially so this can send out a blunt message to developers to get real and not get greedy.

I see where you are coming from, sort of
but i would look at it from a different angle, i heard somewhere that land values have doubled every 7 yrs or so
in ballsbridge for the past century, i wonder could he let the site rot, so to speak, and do nothing with it.

Or even
He could collect some minimum rent from passing travellers as a halting site
Or even open it up as a year round horse fair or something
The well connected ballsbridge area residents associations could not complain about such
a humanatarian venture? could they?
As long as its not high rise eh?

They accuse him of being too ‘greedy’ why not add spite also

Dunne knows the score all too well:

1. Propose obscene tower
2. Tower rejected and reduced to max 16 stories.
3. Dunne makes maximum profit from the site

Honestly, guys. :rolleyes:

@Morlan wrote:

Dunne knows the score all too well:

1. Propose obscene tower
2. Tower rejected and reduced to max 16 stories.
3. Dunne makes maximum profit from the site

Honestly, guys. :rolleyes:

Indeed.

I was talking to someone recently and realised that almost all of the debate on this development concerns the tower, whether in the various media or on this site, when in fact the tower is not the worst part by a long shot. Has anyone actually looked at the design quality of the rest of the development? It’s architecture of the most bland, boring variety imaginable, but because everyone’s getting their knickers in a twist over the tall bit there’s every chance the rest of the muck will sail through with minimal objection.

For the record, today’s the last day to observe/object. Might see some of you at the planning counter later, eh?

Have any of Dunne’s companies produced a single development of architectural note?
The only reason he has even bothered to engage serious architects for this project is that he knows he won’t be able to railroad through his usual dross.
I simply can not understand this obsession with high-rise for the sake of high-rise. Are you really so impressed with a building, simply because it rises above fifteen stories.
If you look right around the world, ninety eight per cent of the best/best-loved/most famous buildings are probably in the region of one to seven/eight storeys.
The skyscrapers of New York/Chicago etc together create a wonderful type of urban environment but have you ever been to midsize or smaller American cities where there are a cluster of run-of-the-mill tall buildings.
Those cities would swap their high-rises for our low-rise Georgian stock in a heartbeat.

@paul h wrote:

He could collect some minimum rent from passing travellers as a halting site

Hmmm. Had that not already been proposed for Dartmouth Square by Mr O’Gara? He might not take kindly to competition in fairly close proximity.:p

Dunne’s Riverside 2 in G.C. Basin is not too bad

@kefu wrote:

Have any of Dunne’s companies produced a single development of architectural note?
The only reason he has even bothered to engage serious architects for this project is that he knows he won’t be able to railroad through his usual dross.
I simply can not understand this obsession with high-rise for the sake of high-rise. Are you really so impressed with a building, simply because it rises above fifteen stories.
If you look right around the world, ninety eight per cent of the best/best-loved/most famous buildings are probably in the region of one to seven/eight storeys.
The skyscrapers of New York/Chicago etc together create a wonderful type of urban environment but have you ever been to midsize or smaller American cities where there are a cluster of run-of-the-mill tall buildings.
Those cities would swap their high-rises for our low-rise Georgian stock in a heartbeat.

Fair points kefu, although regarding best loved / most famous building is probably empire state building??! no?

Very true with small or midsize u.s cities, they are not the most energetic or exciting city centres, in fact are
quite dead. Most of these cities from afar look exciting because of the skyscrapers
but when you are actually there, walking around they are dull places.
Big skyscrapers surrounding by big parking lots, fairly low density stuff

They do not have a compact ‘buzzing’ city centre like most of their european counterparts
In dublin we have our wonderful low rise compact centre – we have that in spades! (its been done to death:) )

But for me that is one side of the coin, for the city to be complete, there needs to be tall buildings
To become a more satisfying urban experience Dublin needs to have both.
It cannot be simply one or the other, with a never ending battle.

I do not buy this argument that having a high rise building negatively impacts nearby low rise structures
I can appreciate a building regardless of whether or not there is some high rise building nearby

Neither do I buy that argument Paul, but even in New York – the Empire State Building could never now be built because of issues of overshadowing.
The great skyscraper projects of New York/Chicago in the early part of last centruy or today in Dubai/Shanghai are not going to happen in Dublin because we simply don’t have the critical mass to sustain them.
We should be focusing on getting what we have right and not overly concerned with high rise for the sake of high rise.
I would think a far bigger issue in Dublin these days is the sheer volume of dire medium-density projects sneaking through the planning system. (They have been discussed at length in other threads)
This obsession about height has overshadowed (excuse the pun) legitimate and serious flaws in the planning system and has become something of a red herring.
Height has now become the stick by which a developer can beat the local council into submission.
I would argue that rather than obsessing about the number of storeys, we should be absolutely insistent on incredibly high standards of design for all prominent sites. Considering the profits being made, it is not too much to ask.

@kefu wrote:

I would argue that rather than obsessing about the number of storeys, we should be absolutely insistent on incredibly high standards of design for all prominent sites. Considering the profits being made, it is not too much to ask.

You’re so right Kefu. I’m sure developers in Georgian times would have been happy to build any old crap to maximise profits too if they could have gotten away with it: it’s up to the planners to insist on high quality design.

@jdivision wrote:

Closest is probably Tony Ryan’s eggs in Citywest?

To be fair..he gave a large donation to the O’Reilly Theatre in Belvedere College and the O’Reilly Buildings in UCD and Trinners.

Such philanthropy – even going as far as to allow Tony O’Reilly’s name to be used instead of his own. Now that’s modesty. 😉

@JoePublic wrote:

You’re so right Kefu. I’m sure developers in Georgian times would have been happy to build any old crap to maximise profits too if they could have gotten away with it: it’s up to the planners to insist on high quality design.

Just on a point of order, this is not completely correct – for example the original plans for Mountjoy Square were far more elaborate in terms of facade/ elevation details; it was market forces that dragged poor Luke Gardiner (the developer) back down to earth! 🙁

@kefu wrote:

Neither do I buy that argument Paul, but even in New York – the Empire State Building could never now be built because of issues of overshadowing.
The great skyscraper projects of New York/Chicago in the early part of last centruy or today in Dubai/Shanghai are not going to happen in Dublin because we simply don’t have the critical mass to sustain them.
We should be focusing on getting what we have right and not overly concerned with high rise for the sake of high rise.
I would think a far bigger issue in Dublin these days is the sheer volume of dire medium-density projects sneaking through the planning system. (They have been discussed at length in other threads)
This obsession about height has overshadowed (excuse the pun) legitimate and serious flaws in the planning system and has become something of a red herring.
Height has now become the stick by which a developer can beat the local council into submission.
I would argue that rather than obsessing about the number of storeys, we should be absolutely insistent on incredibly high standards of design for all prominent sites. Considering the profits being made, it is not too much to ask.

The point of building quality im sure is true, but it is unrelated to what i was getting at
I would not advoacate building sizes in the same league as new york or chicago
Of course Dublin could not sustain the giant scale

But there is a physical dimension to Dublin that is sorely lacking
And it is the lack of high rise buildings
Dublin could be so much more.
I think a city should have many different visual elements to it
The wonderful low rise streets, suburban apartment buildings even suburban semis, all have their place
We have that covered, can anyone disagree?

additional info requested

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=5051/07&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=734573%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=Search%20Criteria‘>Search%20Results

From todays Sindo –

Dunne gets €500m backing for D4 skyscraper

By Nick Webb
Sunday February 03 2008

SWASHBUCKLING property developer Sean Dunne has borrowed a further €500m from a group of Irish and international banks to fund the development of his landmark €3bn Ballsbridge skyscraper complex
Ulster Bank, Kaupthing Singer Friedlander and another Irish financial institution have agreed to lend Dunne the money as development finance as the speculator gears up for phase one of the massive project, which has been likened by some commentators as bringing Knightsbridge to Ballsbridge.

Despite the slowdown in commercial and residential property markets and the clamping shut of credit markets, this new funding deal marks a pretty emphatic display of confidence by bankers in the high-profile and often controversial city building project.

The long-awaited planning decision is now expected on March 11.

Dunne initially borrowed close to €275m from Ulster Bank for the purchase of the site from the Jurys Doyle hotel family in 2005. He paid the equivalent of €55m per acre for the site — which was briefly the most expensive chunk of land in the country.

As soon as that deal was agreed, it is understood that a number of other financial institutions approached Dunne looking for a slice of the action.

While Ulster Bank is ramping up its presence in the corporate market, the arrival of British-based bank Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander into the deal is seen as a significant move.

Despite the downturn in the property market, sources have ascribed an “end value” of €3bn to the seven-tower scheme when it is finally completed.

Dunne’s plan will involve the construction of a 37-storey skyscraper as well as a number of shorter buildings that will contain apartments, offices, shops, a cultural centre and a hotel.

The cost of phase one of the six-year planned construction project is thought to be close to €1.1bn. The banks have stumped up nearly half, with the balance to be funded by Dunne.

– Nick Webb

I particularily like the phrase “which has been likened by some commentators as bringing Knightsbridge to Ballsbridge” – maybe because the commentator who coined this was SD himself.

I also like this bit – “As soon as that deal was agreed, it is understood that a number of other financial institutions approached Dunne looking for a slice of the action.”

Lol. Such guff. Remind me again the last time that the Sindo had even a vaguely critical piece about SD….Count the arses hanging out the window 🙂

i think nick got mixed up and meant to say that the other banks approached Ulster Bank. it would be normal to syndicate such a large loan.

it’s the phrase “slice of the action” – makes it sound like neighbourhood mafiosi types getting in on a racket

The Sindo is Fianna Fail’s mouthpiece. Sean Dunne is the high king of the Ballybrit tent. No explanantion necessary there. I love the way there’s no mention of the fact that he will in no way be building this 37 storey block or the fact that it will be with ABP and probably the courts for another 2 years at least. The Sunday Independent Newspaper should really be up for a breach of the trades descriptions act. On 2 counts

SD hasn’t been to Galway races in three yearas alonso

Has he not? maybe he was too busy posing with the missus for Sindo features. Anyway I was just colouring my description of him as a major FF donor. Not to be taken too literally….

Knew that but just said I’d better say it for fact. it’s actually about five years since he was there. BTW, the Baileys are the effective kings of ballybrit. Always room for them in FF

Plenty of room for him too on the pre-election trip to Westminster with Bertie. Hope that reassured some bankers boss 🙂

I hope this gets the go ahead.
It’s a much better looking design than most of the other tall buildings proposed for Dublin.

I think a lot of the complaints of it dominating the area are unfounded.
It’s set a fair bit back from the main part of Ballsbridge. You’d hardly notice it, unless you were in the complex.
The setback, and smaller surrounding buildings is the key.
About 200m down the road from where I live in London, is a horrible concrete tower block, about 20 stories high, in an area otherwise mainly 3/4 storey terraced houses.
It’s set back about 20m from the road, with a 3 storey terrace of shops in front of it, facing the street.
And I must say, i passed it nearly every day for a month before I even noticed it. Unless you’re really near it, you can’t even see it.
If anyone proposes a building over 5 storeys in Dublin. Everyone automatically assumes it’s going to dominate an area.
Perhaps bad memories of Liberty hall, which is not set back, and is located beside the liffey, with a large open space beside it, making it clearly visible from all around. Had it been built a few hundred metres inland, surrounded by buildings, it would not be nearly as prominent.

I wish they’d knock liberty hall down so that I don’t have to listen to the height of every feckin proposed “tall” building being compared to it.

More pro SD guff in todays Sindo; there’s a suprise 😮
Poor SD – it would seem that all he wants to do is provide affordable housing.
Would these dreadful objectors ever get out of the way so the man can get the houses built, and then get on with saving the world?

Objectors throw doubt on Dunne’s affordable housing plan
Cross-party complaints focus on apartment blocks in exclusive D4ON THE DRAWING BOARD: A selection of the drawings and plans for 16 apartments in a proposed residential development to be built by developer Sean Dunne at Church Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin 4

By RONALD QUINLAN
Sunday February 17 2008

PLANS to build social and affordable apartments in an exclusive area of Dublin 4 have hit a major stumbling block following cross-party objections from two TDs and two local councillors.

Fine Gael TD Lucinda Creighton and Fianna Fail TD Chris Andrews have both sent letters to Dublin City planners opposing the development, as have Fine Gael Councillor Paddy McCartan and Progressive Democrat Councillor John Kenny.

Developer Sean Dunne had hoped to build the 16 apartments on Church Avenue in Sandymount in order to fulfil his obligations to provide affordable housing as part of the redevelopment of the Jurys Berkeley Court site in nearby Ballsbridge.

The politicians’ objections, coupled with those of the Sandymount and Merrion Residents’ Association and 12

individual local residents, could yet imperil the plan to provide much-needed homes for young families from the Ringsend area looking to get their first foothold on the property ladder.

Ms Creighton’s objection to the modern four-storey apartment block, on the grounds that it “would not be in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”, is especially surprising, given her recent comments on the property market in this newspaper.

In an interview for the Sunday Independent’s Paper Prophet column on January 6, Ms Creighton — who earns a basic TD’s salary of €108,500 — complained of not being able to “secure a mortgage”, claiming that the “property market [in Dublin] is simply out of my league” because of the “spiralling house prices”.

Ms Creighton’s opposite number in Dublin South East, Fianna Fail TD Chris Andrews, objected to the social and affordable homes on five separate grounds.

In his email sent to Dublin City planners on January 30, Mr Andrews complains that the development would be out of scale with the existing area, had been objected to by local residents, and would set a bad precedent for the conservation of urban villages.

Fine Gael Councillor Paddy McCartan complains the apartments are not designed for families, with only one three-bedroom apartment proposed for the development.

According to the planning files obtained by the Sunday Independent, PD councillor John Kenny took time out during his lunch hour at Brown Brothers Harriman Investment Bank to lodge his objection to the development at Church Avenue. In a letter sent from his work email address at 1:56pm on January 31, Mr Kenny objects to the development on four grounds, claiming it goes against the provisions of the current Dublin City Development Plan.

One of Mr Kenny’s principal arguments is that the proposed apartment development “does not protect the historic nature of the [Sandymount and Irishtown] area”.

Besides his proposals for social and affordable housing on Church Avenue, Sean Dunne has so far pledged another two sites in the Dublin docklands area to Dublin City Council for the same purpose.

The inclusion of social and affordable accommodation on the site of the former Jurys Berkeley Court lands in Ballsbridge is understood to be unfeasible, given the likelihood of significant management and concierge fees that will be levied on the apartments built there.

– RONALD QUINLAN

Good grief. That’s an incredible piece of journalism even by the Sindo’s sub-gutter standards. What in God’s name has a TD’s salary or a Councillor’s day job have to do with the planning process. The hack does nothing to explore the nature of their objections whatsoever, the level of residential amenity being offered, or a comment on how many apartments will be suited to families . And nary a question of SD perhaps providing social and affordable housing within the Berkely Sq development. Is he? I honestly can’t recall.

is there any word on the vet site next door to Dunnes site -i thought that decision was due Friday just gone

@alonso wrote:

Good grief. That’s an incredible piece of journalism even by the Sindo’s sub-gutter standards. What in God’s name has a TD’s salary or a Councillor’s day job have to do with the planning process. The hack does nothing to explore the nature of their objections whatsoever, the level of residential amenity being offered, or a comment on how many apartments will be suited to families . And nary a question of SD perhaps providing social and affordable housing within the Berkely Sq development. Is he? I honestly can’t recall.

Yeah its hilarious alright – having once dealt with the hack in question, I found him somewhat of an odd fellow. Poor old jdivision seems to have taken offence with me on another thread pointing out the guff that INM is responsible for printing, but really as long as they print this kind of biased, unbalanced, misinforming shite, how can they have any sense of self-respect in considering themselves to be “jounalists”? Hacks, yes; propagandists, also; but “journalists”? No, not imo anyway. INM as a publishing entity on the whole stinks when it comes to development-related reportage; they seem unable to differentiate between pushing their mates agendas and providing an even slightly impartial and balanced news agenda… it’s almost to a point of self-irony at this stage, not that I would credit them for conceiving it as such.

Im not defending anyones journalistic standards
but there needs to be a seismic shift in how people view housing in this city/country –
regarding houses with gardens etc versus apartments

Call it propaganda if you will, im not disagreeing , but i would like to see the media play an active part in promoting apartment dwelling as a viable long term option for housing
And i fully believe if sd’s high rise/ high density ballsbridge scheme goes ahead , with its larger family sized apartments, it could act as a catalyst for making apartments palatble for the masses

@hutton wrote:

INM as a publishing entity on the whole stinks when it comes to development-related reportage; they seem unable to differentiate between pushing their mates agendas and providing an even slightly impartial and balanced news agenda… it’s almost to a point of self-irony at this stage, not that I would credit them for conceiving it as such.

The Irish Times has consistently got planning related stories wrong as well, why no mention of them. Witness The Gasworks and Ballsbridge amongst others. Or the fact it said that Ray Grehan’s scheme was due for decision last week when it was due this week.
Newspapers have no obligation to be impartial. INM nails its colours to the mast, I don’t agree with it but they don’t try to do it covertly
And no I don’t work for them

@jdivision wrote:

The Irish Times has consistently got planning related stories wrong as well, why no mention of them. Witness The Gasworks and Ballsbridge amongst others. Or the fact it said that Ray Grehan’s scheme was due for decision last week when it was due this week.
Newspapers have no obligation to be impartial. INM nails its colours to the mast, I don’t agree with it but they don’t try to do it covertly
And no I don’t work for them

Surely when “reporting” the “news” there should be impartiality. Tell us what happened – the facts. What the Sindo and others do is they present opinion features as news when they are not. Agendas are for editorials and features not the front pages where newspapers certainly do have an obligation to be impartial in my opinion. I have never read an article like the one above in the IT. On any issue.

Alonso, I agree with you and I do think it’s a negative that it’s happening. However, newspapers don’t have to be impartial if they don’t want to and the Sindo clearly doesn’t.The Daily Mail is the same.

*edit* i should add that Tony O’Reilly has previously said that he thinks of newspapers now as viewspapers. Hence the tone their papers go with

Ray Grehan’s vet college scheme got planning earlier today. No idea about conditions

@jdivision wrote:

Alonso, I agree with you and I do think it’s a negative that it’s happening. However, newspapers don’t have to be impartial if they don’t want to and the Sindo clearly doesn’t.The Daily Mail is the same.

*edit* i should add that Tony O’Reilly has previously said that he thinks of newspapers now as viewspapers. Hence the tone their papers go with

Whilst trundling past Elm Park in Booterstown today I thought back to the piece in the IT last week. Although it was mainly about the environmental elements of the scheme, it was nothing more than a gushing PR fluff piece. Any appraisal of that scheme has to ask serious questions about visual impact and aestheitc quality. It seems even the paper of record can be guilty of the same thing sometimes

@jdivision wrote:

Ray Grehan’s vet college scheme got planning earlier today. No idea about conditions

Just had a glance there, seems to be just standard conditions pertaining to drainage, access, building hours etc, overall scheme seems passed free of any amendments.

Gotta say I like the apartment aspect of the development, all decent sized and family friendly, though the cost will probably be shocking!

Was looking at renders earlier and realise there’s louvred wood over apartments. Didn’t realise that originally. Not sure how it’ll look in reality but overall it’s positive that it’s been granted planning I think

@alonso wrote:

Whilst trundling past Elm Park in Booterstown today I thought back to the piece in the IT last week. Although it was mainly about the environmental elements of the scheme, it was nothing more than a gushing PR fluff piece. Any appraisal of that scheme has to ask serious questions about visual impact and aestheitc quality. It seems even the paper of record can be guilty of the same thing sometimes

Alonso, another point to be borne in mind in terms of coverage of residential property is that newspapers can be sued if a review devalues a house. I posted this on another forum and attracted a deal of ridicule when I pointed it out. However, I am aware of one case at least where another – and far more positive – review of the same house was run a few weeks later due to a legal action taken by the vendor. The paper’s advice was that they would lose if it went to court afaik. That should probably be borne in mind in all such reviews etc but obviously some stuff is too gushing. I think all newspapers are guilty of it on occasion

@jdivision wrote:

Ray Grehan’s vet college scheme got planning earlier today. No idea about conditions

Any images floating about of this project?

edit – Just noticed usual, ‘shocking stuff’ 15-storey tower headline on the front page of the times:o:o
Is that really the most important thing in Ireland today?

From todays Irish Times:

15-storey tower approved for Ballsbridge site
Edel Morgan

Dublin City Council has approved a 15-storey residential tower at the former UCD veterinary college site in Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, as part of a €600 million mixed-use development.

Developer Ray Grehan, managing director of Glenkerrin, who paid €171.5 million for the 2.2 acre site in 2005, has got planning permission for a 40,000sq m (430,000sq ft) development called Number One Ballsbridge. This will include 109 luxury apartments, up to nine storeys of offices, an arts and cultural centre, high-end boutiques and new urban streets.

The decision will be of interest to a number of developers who own property in the area, particularly Seán Dunne, who is proposing a mixed-use development with a 37-storey element for the adjacent Jurys/Berkeley Court site. Mr Dunne, who owns Hume House to the west of the veterinary college, wrote a letter to the council supporting Mr Grehan’s development, saying the uses would complement those proposed on his site and his vision for the Jurys site “as a new world-class urban quarter”.

Mr Grehan’s planning application was watched with interest given that it was submitted two months after councillors rejected a controversial local area plan for Ballsbridge that would have allowed high-rise development of up to 22 storeys. Councillors rejected “the intensification of development and rezoning of land in Ballsbridge” when they voted against the local area plan in June, and when they subsequently passed motions recommending the council reject both Mr Dunne’s and Mr Grehan’s plans as being too high.

The council has agreed, in principle, to look into devising a new area plan for Ballsbridge.

As well as a 15-storey luxury residential tower with an internal orangery overlooking a square, Number One Ballsbridge will have three office buildings, including a glazed eight-storey headquarters with an atrium fronting on to Shelbourne Road. Designed by HKR architects, the highest street-facing building is a nine-storey office block on Pembroke Road. A new pedestrian street called New Pembroke Street will link Shelbourne Road and Pembroke Road. There will be 2,787sq m (30,000sq ft) of speciality shops and 18,580sq m (200,000sq ft) of offices.

It is thought likely the decision will be appealed to An Bord Pleanála given that Dublin City Council received about 80 submissions and objections.

© 2008 The Irish Times

@jdivision wrote:

Alonso, another point to be borne in mind in terms of coverage of residential property is that newspapers can be sued if a review devalues a house.

That is frightening, and very wrong.

@ctesiphon wrote:

That is frightening, and very wrong.

. . . and surprising: that doesn’t seem to apply to book, theatre or film reviews, or articles in the business pages, or reviews of hotels and eateries.

@jdivision wrote:

The Irish Times has consistently got planning related stories wrong as well, why no mention of them. Witness The Gasworks and Ballsbridge amongst others. Or the fact it said that Ray Grehan’s scheme was due for decision last week when it was due this week.

Completely agree with you jdivision, particularly on Dublin-related planning stories – the quality of such coverage by the IT has plummeted in recent years – as I have noted on other threads, such as the bikes-for-billboards thread. There was a time when the IT was at the forefront of analytical reportage on such matters, but not anymore – which is a shame as it is supposed to be the country’s leading daily broadsheet. Unfortunately these days, their coverage regarding Dublin all too often resembles a pr release by DCC. And they get it wrong – note how Olivia Kelly last year reported how DCC had adopted new apartment specs, when actually they were only putting them out to consultation.

@jdivision wrote:

another point to be borne in mind in terms of coverage of residential property is that newspapers can be sued if a review devalues a house.

Again I agree with you, and am only too aware as to how restrictive the Irish libel laws are.

@jdivision wrote:

Newspapers have no obligation to be impartial. INM nails its colours to the mast, I don’t agree with it but they don’t try to do it covertly

I disagree with you on the first part of this, but I note that you subsequently added that you think that this direction is negative.

@jdivision wrote:

And no I don’t work for them

Dont worry jdivision, I would give you more credit than that 🙂

@notjim wrote:

. . . and surprising: that doesn’t seem to apply to book, theatre or film reviews, or articles in the business pages, or reviews of hotels and eateries.

There was a massive award made to a restaurant in the north last year after a review. Not saying it’s the same because it’s obviously a different legal jurisdiction but it’s a point to be borne in mind. You’re right though, most opinion pieces aren’t subject to such legal cases unless they’re considered vindictive. That unfortunately can be a matter of opinion. Such as if you write a house needs a new kitchen and the owner says the one there at present is adequate and that the article as a result is vindictive. Anyway, perhaps I’ve hijacked the thread enough at this stage. If anybody wants to ask me anything further on it feel free to pm me

I read that piece on Elm Park and thought “what a load of pretentious crap” –
e.g. quote:
<<Part of the animation at ground level in this scheme are the woven, fat timber legs that support the buildings' outer skins by plunging into the ground on sturdy high-heeled "shoes". Halfway up the building they sneak in beneath the glass, offering impressive examples of nature to insiders. The neater timber profile up here allows more light into the tops of the buildings.

These concrete-framed structures dance in so many ways, from the timber shuttering systems, the sky conservatories, cantilevered rooms, red windows, atria with high, nerve-tickling walkways and views from offices right down the glass façade, all eliciting an emotional response, from the high that comes from mild vertigo to the pleasure that is derived from appraising various forms that can be gradually pieced together and understood.>>

Give that timber cladding a few years………
Kb

Fine Gael press release in response to Sindo article:

Fine Gael Dublin South East Deputy Lucinda Creighton has lashed out at
the claim reportethis week that Sean Dunne has attempted to provide
social housing in Dublin 4 but has been blocked by Deputy Creighton.

“I am disappointed to see the Irish media capitulate to the sustained and
targeted PR onslaught that has been initiated by Mr. Dunne in recent
months as he attempts to push through his over ambitious development of
the Jurys site in Ballsbridge. The coverage has been more than one sided
and has omitted key facts which show that Mr. Dunne is not quite the
Robin Hood of Dublin 4 that he would have us believe.

“Here are the facts:

1. It is suggested that the 16 unit development proposed by Mr. Dunne at
Church Avenue, Sandymount is for social and affordable housing. In fact
the planning application makes absolutely no reference to social and
affordable housing whatsoever.

2. Mr. Sean Dunne has in fact applied for a certificate of exemption for
the Church Avenue development, which would absolve him of any obligation
to provide 20% social and affordable housing on the site as set out in
the Planning and Development Act 2000.

3. It is suggested that Mr. Dunne has committed to providing up to 80
social and affordable housing units in the Dublin South East area in
light of his planning application for the Jurys/Berkeley Court site in
Ballsbridge. However nobody has questioned to whom Mr. Dunne has made
this commitment? And on what basis? Under the Part V provisions of the
Planning Act, it is for the Local Authority to determine how and where
the social and affordable aspect of any development takes place. As far
as I am aware, Mr. Dunne is not an official of the planning department of
Dublin City Council. It is not for him to determine how these obligations
should be fulfilled.

4. Nobody has queried why Sean Dunne does not support the idea of social
and affordable housing being contained on site as part of the Jury’s
development, rather than in another area. It is logical to conclude that
this is due to the hugely lucrative development of exclusive private
apartments at Jurys, which may be devalued to the detriment of Mr. Dunne,
if mixed with social and affordable housing.

5. It should also be noted that many of the residents who have opposed
the Church Avenue planning application have suggested that a social and
affordable housing element to the proposed Jurys development would be
preferable in the interest of real social integration, rather than
segregation.

“I have no interest in precluding social and affordable housing in Dublin
4. In fact I welcome it, so that we can keep families and communities
together, supporting each other and living in the same area. Perhaps the
media should examine what inspires Mr. Dunne to shunt off social and
affordable housing from his exclusive D4 development in Ballsbridge, to
other less expensive parts of Dublin South East. Somehow I doubt it is
in the interests of either sustainable development or indeed the concept
of sustaining communities.”

@jdivision wrote:

Fine Gael press release in response to Sindo article:

Fine Gael Dublin South East Deputy Lucinda Creighton has lashed out at
the claim reportethis week that Sean Dunne has attempted to provide
social housing in Dublin 4 but has been blocked by Deputy Creighton.

“I am disappointed to see the Irish media capitulate to the sustained and
targeted PR onslaught that has been initiated by Mr. Dunne in recent
months as he attempts to push through his over ambitious development of
the Jurys site in Ballsbridge. The coverage has been more than one sided
and has omitted key facts which show that Mr. Dunne is not quite the
Robin Hood of Dublin 4 that he would have us believe.

“Here are the facts:

1. It is suggested that the 16 unit development proposed by Mr. Dunne at
Church Avenue, Sandymount is for social and affordable housing. In fact
the planning application makes absolutely no reference to social and
affordable housing whatsoever.

2. Mr. Sean Dunne has in fact applied for a certificate of exemption for
the Church Avenue development, which would absolve him of any obligation
to provide 20% social and affordable housing on the site as set out in
the Planning and Development Act 2000.

3. It is suggested that Mr. Dunne has committed to providing up to 80
social and affordable housing units in the Dublin South East area in
light of his planning application for the Jurys/Berkeley Court site in
Ballsbridge. However nobody has questioned to whom Mr. Dunne has made
this commitment? And on what basis? Under the Part V provisions of the
Planning Act, it is for the Local Authority to determine how and where
the social and affordable aspect of any development takes place. As far
as I am aware, Mr. Dunne is not an official of the planning department of
Dublin City Council. It is not for him to determine how these obligations
should be fulfilled.

4. Nobody has queried why Sean Dunne does not support the idea of social
and affordable housing being contained on site as part of the Jury’s
development, rather than in another area. It is logical to conclude that
this is due to the hugely lucrative development of exclusive private
apartments at Jurys, which may be devalued to the detriment of Mr. Dunne,
if mixed with social and affordable housing.

5. It should also be noted that many of the residents who have opposed
the Church Avenue planning application have suggested that a social and
affordable housing element to the proposed Jurys development would be
preferable in the interest of real social integration, rather than
segregation.

“I have no interest in precluding social and affordable housing in Dublin
4. In fact I welcome it, so that we can keep families and communities
together, supporting each other and living in the same area. Perhaps the
media should examine what inspires Mr. Dunne to shunt off social and
affordable housing from his exclusive D4 development in Ballsbridge, to
other less expensive parts of Dublin South East. Somehow I doubt it is
in the interests of either sustainable development or indeed the concept
of sustaining communities.”

Is that what you call “Dunne and Dusted”? 🙂

Ah she’s just creighton a big hullaballoo over nothing!!!

Some very good points though. If what she says is true of course.

From todays Irish Times:

Planners accused of ignoring guidelines for Ballsbridge
Ronan McGreevy

Dublin City Council’s planners have been accused of ignoring the council’s own guidelines in deciding this month to grant planning permission to a 15-storey development in Ballsbridge.

Developer Ray Grehan was given permission by the council to convert the former UCD veterinary college site into a 15-storey mixed-use development with 109 apartments, nine office spaces and retail and cultural space.

Dublin South East TD Lucinda Creighton said local councillors had made clear their objection to such a development when they voted down the draft local area plan for Ballsbridge, proposed by the council, which allowed for high-rise buildings in the area.

She said the decision by the council would make it easier for developer Seán Dunne to get planning permission for the old Jurys/Berkeley Court site for his development, the centrepiece of which is a 37-storey tower.

“I was on the city council throughout that process [ of the area plan] and we rejected the intensification of the developments in that area and on that site. It is clear the planners ignored the wishes of the councillors,” Ms Creighton said.

“I think the plot ratio as set down in the City Development Plan is somewhere between 1 and 1.5 and this is more like 1 to 3. It’s too intense.

“Either we respect the rules or the guidelines that are set down under the development plan which is provided for in statute or we don’t. It is this type of ignoring development plans that have led to all sorts of problems across Dublin.”

Local area councillor Dermot Lacey said that granting planning permission for the development “flies in the face” of the decision take by city councillors to reject the draft area plan.

“The quality of the design is good and there are some good things about it, but it seems to me that planning permission was given without sufficient consideration of traffic or parking or the provision of social and affordable housing.

“The stupid planning system sets up everything for confrontation and not for dialogue, and I don’t think the planners listened to what we wanted.”

Damien Cassidy, chairman of the Ringsend, Irishtown and Sandymount Environment Group, said that his group would be objecting to An Bord Pleanála.

The original plans, submitted to the council, received more than 80 objections.

“It is the thin edge of the wedge. It is axiomatic that if this development gets the go-ahead, Seán Dunne will have a good chance of getting his way.

“It will replace a little haven of tranquillity with an urban jungle and extend the city out to Ballsbridge. If the council and developers are going to do this, they should sit down and talk to the residents as they have done in Ballymun,” he said.

© 2008 The Irish Times

@hutton wrote:

“I was on the city council throughout that process [ of the area plan] and we rejected the intensification of the developments in that area and on that site. It is clear the planners ignored the wishes of the councillors,” Ms Creighton said.

Planners should ignore councillors – what do councillors know abot planning other than just representing the local NIMBY vote

Planners should ignore councillors – what do councillors know abot planning other than just representing the local NIMBY vote

Agreed. Councillors just want to satisfy the people that vote for them.

Hmmm. There has to be a balance though. After all, in theory at least, councillors are representatives of the wider community, while the role of the planner is to offer technical advice to the Council. As a planner myself I understand that the system has serious drawbacks but ultimately major development in any area should take some recogintion of the wider community. That, after all is the prupose of planning.

I don’t think this has been posted here yet: a 3D visualisation of the scheme.

http://www.vimeo.com/663195/

All i can say is -WOW!!!
Now that is how its done.
Absolutely brilliant. This is exactly what this city has been crying out for
The density! I love it
How spectaculary complimentary the new Landsdowne stadium and this develepment are:D
Imagine the amazing backdrop for the games, it would make me feel proud for one
Really how could anyone with a pulse not be eager for something like this , in this perfect location in our fair city?
Dear God how depressing to envision what will be built when this gets the usual Irish treatment

Ridiculous. Totally disproportionate to the local fabric. This site is crying out for a nice tourist village of thatched cottages with a park for dog walking.

Ballsbridge is synonymous with wealth and the perception as the number one address in Dublin. Here you have a diamond-shaped 37- storey skyscraper of high quality accomodation, which is unique and exclusive in this country and a far better proposal than anything i have seen previous. I mean, that to me is exclusive. This is what you call a ‘landmark’ building. The thing is iconic! 21st century Ireland = Wealth = Ballsbridge = diamond.
The idea of wanting a park to walk dogs over this proposal would leave most city dwellers in the US, Canada and Western Europe walking away with their mouths open. Unless the dog owners are prepared to pay €1m each for this luxury i would keep quiet. We all know that Ballsbridge has a reputation as wealthy but western cities are used to this type of living but it sounds like this needs to be transplanted into some people’s scope of how a city can look and how people can live.
I think only a small percentage of people in this country have lived above a 4th floor, and a tiny handful above the 14th floor. In cities in Canada, the US, Asia, and most other European countries, this is no big deal. I have stayed in ‘luxurious’ hotels and high-rise apartments the world over, and it’s fantastic. I have always yearned to live in an apartment deveopment like this is Dublin and for the last 10 years i have been waiting for a development of this sort to transpire. For now i will save my money, until the NIMBYs die off and the young people of this country take back their right to live and work in a modernised city and not commute for 2 hours because somebody wants to walk a dog.

Keen: jl’s lazy sarcasm is bad enough, but falling for it?

When I die I want my brain state uploaded into the happy vr world of this 3d rendering, all those happy young people, though, I think if you look carefully you can see paulh’s atavar ogling though a binoculars.

Isn’t it funny how they have this lingering shot of the new landsdown road, presumably to communicate the idea that the local fine scale has already been lost.

For all of their cheap vr tricks; wow, it looks fantastic!

Yea no doubt the lingering shots of Landsdowne is to show large scale is here already
They are in the (difficult) business of trying to sell this idea and of course they would try not cast any aspect of it in a negative light

@notjim wrote:

Keen: jl’s lazy sarcasm is bad enough, but falling for it?

sarcasm alright, but that doesnt make keens post any less pertinent… there are such people unfortunately:rolleyes:
so, YEAH!, +1 that.

Hey all,
A bit off topic here but did anyone else notice the strange choice of flags inside Landsdowne Road on the new 3d render?
Also the quality of the buildings seems to have deteriorated in the new video.

So does anyone have an idea of when DCC planning decision will be made on the scheme?

Renders of one ballsbridge are on HKR website incase anyone hasnt seen them. At least the colour pallets for the 2schemes wont clash…

@shed wrote:

Hey all,
A bit off topic here but did anyone else notice the strange choice of flags inside Landsdowne Road on the new 3d render?
Also the quality of the buildings seems to have deteriorated in the new video.

So does anyone have an idea of when DCC planning decision will be made on the scheme?

Renders of one ballsbridge are on HKR website incase anyone hasnt seen them. At least the colour pallets for the 2schemes wont clash…

Not really -our nearest neighbour, just have a look around dublin this week for the 6 nations and the volume of british people over here.

Noticed quality was not great on full screen mode- much better on small screen view, looks very good indeed. What are those local councillors up to voting this down

I know better than to touch this thread, (although it has calmed down a lot since the early days of last September), but a couple of things have been nagging at me.

It was reported early on that Henning Larsen had beaten off 8 other practices in a competition to design this scheme. Is anything known about that ‘competition’ or, what the other outfits came up with?

Was it a competition in the Elm Park mode, as reported in the IT Feb. 14 i-e ‘who could get the most on?’

It always struck me as a happy coincidence for Sean Dunne that a Copenhagen based design firm won out for such a high profile controversial scheme shortly after DCC’s chief planning officer was reported as advocating that Dublin learn a thing or two from comparable cities, notably, Copenhagen. I suppose you don’t get to be a multi-millionaire without being able to spot when the barn door is open!

I know that on a purely human level, you’d love the whole thing to fail spectacularly, but, on the other hand, we’ve all been moaning for years that our developers aren’t architecturally ambitious enough and then one comes along that is . . .

The only things that I’ve decided for sure are that:

1. The scheme subverts the Development Plan.

2. The Lansdowne Road frontage is dull repetitive architecture that is less worth having than the present set of railings and line of decent trees.

3. The slightly windy inner street parallel to Lansdowne Road is potentially stunning.

4. The other inner streets have the potential to completely transform Ballsbridge.

5. The tower is landmark quality, where a landmark would seem to be justified.

These are just my opinions. I could be completely wrong.

@gunter wrote:

I know that on a purely human level, you’d love the whole thing to fail spectacularly

I really don’t understand this attitude; so typical of this country. The rest of your post makes some sense.

@gunter wrote:

I know that on a purely human level, you’d love the whole thing to fail spectacularly, .

Im with joepublic on this
Whats that all about:confused:
Please explain, i’ve always wondered why some people think like this.

From my experience sometimes its people who feel that they are maybe unsuccessful in their own lives, who perhaps feel inadequate somehow, hater/begrudgery . Of course im not implying thats your case 🙂
But i would appreciate if you would explain it, cheers

The rest of your post made sense

I think I can explain it: there is a natural resentment and suspicion of developers because they were implicated in such wide spread corruption and such self-interested destructive behaviour. Corruption degraded public and business life here and, as for self-interest, Mike Wallace, himself a developer put it, developers would often be looking at a million pound profit and would make something shite just for an extra 10,000.

Though I understand gunter’s view, I don’t share it: it isn’t an obligation on developers to be nice inside: it is an obligation on the system, the planning system and the rule of law, to make sure that acting nice is in their own self interest.

[HTML]

thanks Gunther, i wasn’t getting at you personally i was genuinely interested to why people, esp. irish think like this. Personally i wish to see people who take risks succeed, risk takers and entrepreneurs are the back bone of a healthy society

@paul h wrote:

thanks Gunther, i wasn’t getting at you personally i was genuinely interested to why people, esp. irish think like this. Personally i wish to see people who take risks succeed, risk takers and entrepreneurs are the back bone of a healthy society

wow and society is in a really healthy state at the moment… isnt it… a few days ago some dude got a screwdriver rammed in the back of his head ….your an antropologist now are yea…

the development still looks like pure cack… I didnt realise Mountbrook were building the stadium as well…whats with all the Union Jacks and St Georges crosses, is that to make it all look more like Kensington…

jaysus you people who cant afford a D4 address will do anything so this tripe is built just so you can have one…

Ha Ha your a bit of a lunatic:D
Maybe your looking for a utopian socierty? Free from anger and jealousy and such human emotions
But this is the real world populated by humans with actual strong emotions
ireland has one of the worlds lowest crime and murder rates ,
so in a way it is kind of utopian:p but you would never think that reading or watching the news

@paul h wrote:

Ha Ha your a bit of a lunatic:D
ireland has one of the worlds lowest crime and murder rates ,
so in a way it is kind of utopian:p but you would never think that reading or watching the news

European Union International Crime Survey 2005
In 2004 levels of crime were most elevated in Ireland, United Kingdom, Estonia, The
Netherlands and Denmark and lowest in Spain, Hungary, Portugal and Finland.
Risks to be assaulted were found to be highest in the United Kingdom, Ireland the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark.
Experiences with sexual violence were reported most often by women in Ireland,
Sweden, Germany and Austria and least often in Hungary, Spain, France and
Portugal.
Key findings indicate that the levels of common crimes such as burglaries, thefts,
robberies and assaults have over the past ten years decreased significantly everywhere
in the Union with the exception of Ireland and possibly Belgium.
The UK was the only EU country to top Ireland in this study.. is that why we had Union Jacks and tricolours in the stadium on the 3d visulaisation……

Ok hold your horses there, im familar with this . Its a survey – perception of crime, fear of crime
Ridiculous.

A lot of people really think the place is like the wild west, crime is hyped up beyond belief to sell news
But of course i dont have to tell you that:o

In reality Ireland enjoys one of the lowest murder rates in the world
( http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm first thing i found doing a quick google search)

What we do have in my opinion, is a big problem with vandalism, lack of civic pride and thugs starting trouble and fights on the streets – nothing a tougher more organised approach from the garda couldnt sort out

Put it in perspective for a second, here in NY accross the five boroughs in 1990 there was 2200+ murders
It is now averaging out at 5/600 a year , the lowest in decades
People are not afraid to walk the streets

Fear of crime is not the same as actual crime
bit like how some people think we have been inundated with high rise, when they are mostly mere proposals:D

Indeed. Ireland has a very low crime rate per head of population. Second lowest in the EU (after Greece). Any claim to the contrary is based on paranoia, delusion or over exposure to hysterical daytime radio. 😀

Here’s a random selection of stats: you’re 3 times more likely to assaulted in the UK than you are in Ireland. You’re over 3 times more likely to be murdered in Finland than you are in Ireland. You are over 3 times more likely to be burgled in Denmark. You are just under 3 times more likely to be raped in Spain.

Partial permission granted for Ballsbridge plan

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojcwcwsnql

Dublin City Council has granted permission to Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook company to proceed with a redevelopment of the famous Jury’s-Berkeley Court site in Ballsbridge.

Construction on the site will not commence until the outcome of the appeal is known, meaning the two D4 hotels now operating at the site will remain open for the foreseeable future.

Strange and amusingly inaccurate story. I like how it mentions that Dunner is appealling due to the apparent omission of the tower (at this stage I don’t know what the decision ACTUALLY is – It’s probably subject to some dubious convoluted condition) but fails to mention that there’ll probably another 80 appeals against the decision to grant at all! Too little info at this stage to comment really

How very Dublin – reject the better part of the development and let through the worst bits, all those comments about reducing the building height to a stump seem to be coming through:(

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0308/seandunne.html

Developer granted partial planning permission

Saturday, 8 March 2008 19:28
Sean Dunne has been granted planning permission for a portion of the development plan he had proposed for the Ballsbridge area of Dublin.

But Mr Dunne says he’ll be appealing the decision, which sees a big reduction in the size of the development he had sought.

Objectors have complained that they have not yet been informed about the permission being granted.

The original plan for the Ballsbridge site, that had housed the Jury’s and Berklely Court hotels, included a diamond-shaped 37 storey tower which was over a hundred and thirty metres tall.

The Tower would have included apartments, offices, shops and a hotel, as well as an embassy building and theatres.

Residents in the area had argued that to let the 37 storey hi-rise go ahead would be to make a mockery of the planning process.

But today Mr. Dunne issued a statement saying he’s been granted planning permission for six of the eight buildings applied for.

In a split decision Dublin City Council did not grant permission to build either the 37-storey Tower or a proposed office block, but allowed instead for the building of an 18-storey building fronting onto the Shelbourne Road.

Sean Dunne has released a statement saying no work will go ahead until the entire development is approved.So we are now potentially looking at another long drawn out affair possibly lasting years.How very Irish.

@cubix wrote:

Sean Dunne has released a statement saying no work will go ahead until the entire development is approved.So we are now potentially looking at another long drawn out affair possibly lasting years.How very Irish.

i doubt whether it will last for years as Dunne has a massive interest charge on the funds borrowed against the site. the hotels are not running profitably and even if they where they would only dent the interest he has to pay on the loans. He needs to build what he can ans sell the properties pronto!

coming north over the hump thriugh christchurch

@aj wrote:

i doubt whether it will last for years as Dunne has a massive interest charge on the funds borrowed against the site. the hotels are not running profitably and even if they where they would only dent the interest he has to pay on the loans. He needs to build what he can ans sell the properties pronto!

If he had any smarts he would have leased them with rolling break clauses in the event of redevelopment; hotels are very complex especially those above travel lodge level not to mind 5 Star hotels such as the Berkeley Court which take a team of support staff with real skills and knowledge of the customer base.

He did, he just decided he’d be better off taking the “profit”. In fairness the idea of franchising bar, restaurant etc was a good one, it just didn’t work out based on my experience

It’s hard to see the logic in a planning decision like this. If height was the issue then surely the 18 story elements would have been shot down too. Feels like they wanted to accept it but were afraid there would be political ructions and so rejected bits and pieces. Compromise is generally a good idea but a prescriptive planning system should be driven by principle only. Presumably Dunne sees what was accepted as a baseline and is hoping to at least “split the difference” going to APB. I am largely in favour this development but this process stikes me as flawed.

@jimg wrote:

It’s hard to see the logic in a planning decision like this. If height was the issue then surely the 18 story elements would have been shot down too. Feels like they wanted to accept it but were afraid there would be political ructions and so rejected bits and pieces. Compromise is generally a good idea but a prescriptive planning system should be driven by principle only. Presumably Dunne sees what was accepted as a baseline and is hoping to at least “split the difference” going to APB. I am largely in favour this development but this process stikes me as flawed.

I can’t seem to find the Ballsbridge LAP but, from memory, this is fairly in keeping with it. I seem to remember it allocated an area of the site for a “landmark” building ie “tall but not that bloody tall Mr Dunne”

From todays Irish Times –

@wearnicehats wrote:

I can’t seem to find the Ballsbridge LAP but, from memory, this is fairly in keeping with it. I seem to remember it allocated an area of the site for a “landmark” building ie “tall but not that bloody tall Mr Dunne”

But the LAP was not adopted, if memory serves; quite possibly because of questions over such provisions.

I suspected from the word go that this would be the outcome. It’s interesting to see that some of the advocates of the scheme are now talking about the poor quality of the granted elements- an aspect of the debate not much in evidence during the flag-waving about the ‘landmark’ tower.

@what? wrote:

coming north over the hump thriugh christchurch

Mixing up the internet and the texting functions on your new phone, what?? 😉

without knowing exactly what the council have granted and what they have refused, but doesnt the theory of a ‘part grant’ to a development really undermine the architectural integrity of the whole concept and design???

should the council refuse the whole lot if they are not happy with the proposed design density etc of the development, rather than the “you can have a, b + c, but not x, y + z”…..???
the development should be considered as a whole rather than a series of individual elements….

ctesiphon you make a key point there (which I believe in my modesty I had brought up somehwere). The tower was in fact, from a purely aesthetic point of view, the most attractive building of the lot (or least worse anyway 🙂 ) – Obviously the new streets and spaces were also favourable in my opinion. But this decision is a real DCC fudge and I would go as far as to say it’s an abdication of responsibility – they may have just handed the initial file to ABP last year rather than pretend to be the planning authority

henno you’re absolutely right. I look forward to the planners report which justifies this nonsense – At the very least an AI request to redesign the landmark corner element should have resulted in a revision that was acceptable. To grant but leave out this block makes no sense from any perspective.

What really annoys me is that I find myself in agreement with the local politicians over a planning matter.

@henno wrote:

without knowing exactly what the council have granted and what they have refused, but doesnt the theory of a ‘part grant’ to a development really undermine the architectural integrity of the whole concept and design???

should the council refuse the whole lot if they are not happy with the proposed design density etc of the development, rather than the “you can have a, b + c, but not x, y + z”…..???
the development should be considered as a whole rather than a series of individual elements….

Unfortuately very few schemes aspire to the level of artistic purity that would justify the stance you suggest. Most major schemes are an assembly of parts, which could equally successfully, or unsuccessfully as the case may be, be re-assembled any number of ways.

The ingenuity shown in the conditions, if there is any, may reveal whether this is the planning office at their best, or just the planning office going through the motions in the knowledge that the real decision will be made elsewhere.

It’s tempting to get all worked up about this, but at the end of the day, this is only Ballsbridge, and without wishing to cause undue offence to the over-privileged, whatever happens here, it’s not going to make or break Dublin.

Frank has his say on it – not much yet due to the lack of info

Ballsbridge high-rises may have overreached themselves and the city

ANALYSIS: Dublin City Council’s split decision on Seán Dunne’s extremely expensive Ballsbridge site has left the developer facing an uncertain future, writes Frank McDonald .

TWO AND a half years ago, when Seán Dunne broke all previous records by paying €53.7 million an acre for the Jurys site in Ballsbridge and then trumped that a few months later by paying €57.5 million an acre for the adjoining Berkeley Court site, there were many who thought it was “mad money”.

Within a few months, however, the records he set were broken repeatedly by other developers in what seemed like a frenzy to stake claims on prime property in the heart of Dublin 4: Glenkerrin’s Ray Grehan, for example, paid €81 million an acre for the adjoining UCD Veterinary College site.

Mr Dunne made it clear from the outset he would be pursuing plans for a mixed-use development that would include a 32-storey residential tower. Other developers, including Mr Grehan, were convinced they would get approval for high-rise, high-density schemes to make their money back.

Last August and September, within two weeks of each other, Glenkerrin and Dunne’s company, Mountbrook Homes, both lodged their planning applications. By then, Mountbrook’s proposed tower had grown to 37 storeys, flanked by seven other buildings ranging in height from 10 to 18 storeys.

By contrast, Glenkerrin’s scheme appeared relatively modest, with a 15-storey residential tower – called “No 1 Ballsbridge” – as its centrepiece and three office blocks up to nine storeys high, with cafes, restaurants, boutiques and an arts centre laid out around a square and a new street.

Despite strong objections among the 80 submissions it received, Dublin City Council’s planners decided last month to approve the proposed development, with only minor amendments, thereby setting a new benchmark for building heights in Ballsbridge. It is now under appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

When it came to the Jurys/Berkeley Court sites, which are currently zoned residential, the planners exercised a Solomon’s judgment of sorts – approving an 18-storey residential block fronting onto Shelbourne Road as well as the proposed hotel, shopping centre, embassy block and cultural centre.

But they refused permission for the 32/37-storey tower as well as a proposed office block, which wouldn’t have been permissible under the zoning anyway. The omission of the tower results in a loss of 182 apartments, though Mr Dunne will be seeking permission for a revised scheme to retain as many as possible.

Copies of the planning decision and the planner’s report on which it was based will only be available today, so it is impossible at this stage to say why the tower was rejected; presumably, it was on the grounds of excessive height in an area that has not been identified as a suitable location for high-rise buildings.

Its omission undermines the viability of Mountbrook’s overall scheme, making it difficult to see how Mr Dunne or his bankers can make their money back. And they can’t have much confidence that An Bord Pleanála will agree to reinstate the tower, given the negative stance it has taken on many high-rise schemes.

Neither is there any guarantee that the appeals board will uphold Glenkerrin’s proposed development, particularly its 15-storey tower.

The board can only have regard to “proper planning and sustainable development” in making its decisions, and it is unclear how these high-rise schemes fit into that category.

The property market has changed markedly since the height of the boom in late 2005, when huge sums were being paid for sites in Ballsbridge. Schemes that seemed likely to “fly” then may no longer be viable, not just in Ballsbridge but in lower-valued parts of the city that are much more in need of renewal.

this is only Ballsbridge, and without wishing to cause undue offence to the over-privileged, whatever happens here, it’s not going to make or break Dublin.

Yes indeed but every time we lose a suburb or area to bad planning it compromises the ability to make or break the city as a whole.

“DUBLIN CITY Council’s decision to drop a 37-storey residential tower and an office block from developer Seán Dunne’s plan to redevelop the Jurys and Berkeley Court sites in Ballsbridge has called into question the scheme’s viability.”
I thought the IT wasn’t going to editorialise in the front of the paper? Who says that the rejection calls into question the validity of the scheme. Frank?

As for the inside feature I suspect he’ll be getting a legal letter over the fact he says Dunne is facing an uncertain future rather than the development.

Whatever we might say about planning and architecture in Dublin in the 1970s, at least they understood a few simple principles like, that one side of a street should respect the other.

Back then, the seven storey Jurys and Berkley Court Hotels were kept back behind the existing boundary and screened by the superb perimeter of mature trees, which, I think are the remnants of 19th century botanical gardens on the site, formerly belonging to Trinity College.

One of the most unsettling aspects of the reported granting of planning permission for the Mountbrook scheme must be the acknowledgement that they wouldn’t have got away with that back in the backward, urban illiterate, Ireland of the 1970s.

I would be a lot more comfortable about a new high density urban quarter being parachuted into a mature 19th century suburban/village setting, if it was being led by a grand local authority vision and if the ‘new’ urban quarter had defined and logical boundaries.

The present plan looks a lot like an arbitrary unbalanced creation occupying perhaps half of a city block, with little obvious scope to either, fill out the other half, or detach itself from it, to become legible as a stand alone ubran scale entity in it’s own right with it’s own dynamic.

Times reports that a tall building will be permitted, just not that tall and the office block won’t be allowed under zoning.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0311/1205104616318.html

Dublin planners prepared to allow high-rise building in Ballsbridge

FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor

DUBLIN CITY Council’s planners have made it clear to developer Sean Dunne that they are prepared to grant permission for a high-rise “landmark building” on the Jurys site in Ballsbridge in place of the 37-storey tower omitted from the current scheme.

“It is the strong view of the planning authority that a landmark building of architectural excellence is required at this location, and equally that the building be of sufficient scale to act as a landmark,” according to a report by senior planner Kieran Rose.

Referring to the junction of Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road, where the 37-storey tower had been proposed, he says the planners “would consider by way of a new planning application a building that meets these criteria on this part of the site”.

However, Mr Rose’s report makes it clear that it was not open to the planners to permit the proposed tower “despite the many positive aspects of the taller building, and having regard to the lack of sufficient policy support for a building of 37 storeys”.

In its decision to grant planning permission for the proposed development, the council also omitted a 10-storey office block on the basis that it was “neither permissible nor open for consideration” under the existing Z1 residential zoning.

However, it approved six other buildings in the scheme by Danish architects Henning Larsen, including four blocks containing a total of 294 apartments, a 232-bedroom hotel, an embassy building, cultural centre, crèche and district shopping centre.

The proposed cultural centre, on which Gate Theatre director Michael Colgan is the adviser, would include an art gallery, an “eclectic” cinema, a photographic gallery, a performance space, rehearsal and artists studios and a “centre for European culture”.

The embassy block would provide 13,250 sq m of office space for embassies.

Billionaire financier Dermot Desmond – who was one of some 150 objectors – has warned that such a building would be “a sitting duck for a potential terrorist attack”.

The tallest building approved for the Jurys-Berkeley Court hotel sites, which Mr Dunne agreed to purchase in 2005 for €379 million, would rise to 18 storeys on the Shelbourne Road frontage, while the lowest would be nine storeys.

The decision, which was subject to 27 conditions, specified that the three apartment blocks on the Lansdowne Road frontage be reduced in height from 11 to nine storeys to provide “a more harmonious relationship” with Victorian houses opposite.

Omitting the proposed 37-storey tower, which would have contained 182 apartments, and lowering the height of the Lansdowne Road blocks have resulted in cutting the number of apartments in the scheme from 536 to 294, a reduction of over 45 per cent.

Given that Mr Dunne has said his company, Mountbrook, intended to submit a revised application for the landmark tower – unless it gets approval for it from Bord Pleanála on appeal – it would be possible to recoup a large proportion of the omitted apartments.
© 2008 The Irish Times

I suspected from the word go that this would be the outcome. It’s interesting to see that some of the advocates of the scheme are now talking about the poor quality of the granted elements- an aspect of the debate not much in evidence during the flag-waving about the ‘landmark’ tower.

It’s interesting alright but more because both the advocates and the detractors are responding in the exact same way. Both now seem to of the opinion that the bits granted were the worst bits and that the tower actually had architectural merit. Odd but strangely typical.

Billionaire financier Dermot Desmond – who was one of some 150 objectors – has warned that such a building would be “a sitting duck for a potential terrorist attack”.

I doubt all embassies would locate together in a single building

paul h: how do you mean, the idea was that there would be one building that would contain a number of embassies, this was part of the plan that got permission. You don’t think they would do that, I don’t see why not?

I love the bit in the planning decision that says ‘you can’t have the office block because, under the Development Plan zoning objective, office use is neither permissible, nor open for consideration’.

So some paragraphs of the Development plan are gospel and the rest of it is padding!

Why can’t they just re-publish the Development Plan with just the bits left in that we’re supposed to take seriously.

The thing would be three pages long.

@notjim wrote:

paul h: how do you mean, the idea was that there would be one building that would contain a number of embassies, this was part of the plan that got permission. You don’t think they would do that, I don’t see why not?

Security issues. Do you think the Russian/Chinese/British would be in the same building together? Doubt it

it’s more likely though that it’ll be countries like Sweden, Luxembourg and Switzerland – ie less controversial and more likely bedfellows. Why would the British move for example? As for terrorsits attacks, I would profer that several locations in Ballsbridge would be appropriate for a massive car bomb that could take lumps out of a few in one go. Anyway it’s only Ireland, not exactly in Osama’s or Hezbollah’s sights now are we. Dermot Desmond should be aware that if a terrorist was to attack “Ireland” it would go for our WTC – which is of course in Dermotland on the North Quays

Yea perhaps some non controversial countries such as Luxemberg, but i cant imagine groups of countries relocating, because it would still be a pretty soft target.
I always figured the embassy element was only to try and sell it to the public, maybe a mini UN building is on the cards after all , but i doubt it

Don’t you think security for countries with small embassies would actually be easier to handle if they were together?

@paul h wrote:

, because it would still be a pretty soft target.

for who? Who would attack Luxembourg et al. It’s not like it’ll be Britain, USA, Israel, Spain, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India all together with just one smoking area.

In all seriousness the only time I can think of when an embassy was attacked on Irish soil was when we burned down the British one in 72. Isn’t this just paranoia?

Enough about the deck chairs! What about the iceberg?

Billionaire financier Dermot Desmond – who was one of some 150 objectors – has warned that such a building would be “a sitting duck for a potential terrorist attack”.

So is Dublin airport, Connolly station etc etc, just because theyre not skyscrapers doesnt mean that theyre not feasible targets as well. In Madrid it was trains, London it was trains and buses, and Glasgow it was the airport.

@alonso wrote:

for who? Who would attack Luxembourg et al. It’s not like it’ll be Britain, USA, Israel, Spain, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India all together with just one smoking area.

In all seriousness the only time I can think of when an embassy was attacked on Irish soil was when we burned down the British one in 72. Isn’t this just paranoia?

Wouldnt it be great if they all shared the same space, with shared cafeteria:D

Maybe it is paranoia but i cant imagine the prospective embassies security advisors agreeing to sharing a building with a number of other countries.
It would make for some juicy propaganda to hit a couple of ‘western’ targets in one shot.
It would probably never happen , but if any incident even minor, did occur whoever agreed to share a building with other countries would have serious egg on their face to say the least

This is a weird objection to anything and completely overblown, for example it seems to be ok in Dar Es Salam

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3575/is_1280_213/ai_111030392

where Germany, the Netherlands and the UK embassies the British aid service and the EU share an office. Of course, there is probably a much smaller security threat in Tanzania, but . .

Im not objecting to anything (if your referring to me!)
I was only thinking the whole embassies under one roof idea was just a bit of good intentioned publicity spin
If it happens – if security issues are not a problem (which i am thinking they would) then all well and good, and if it doesnt work out then you have some prime office space up for grabs.

How do they manage not to beat the shit out of each other in the UN building on a daily basis is beyond me !?!?!? Seriously – there is ample scope for all the ‘non-contentious’ embassies to share a building.

This comment has nothing to do with whether Luxemburg can ever share embassy space with Azerbaijan, so it may be a bit off the point, but has anyone noticed that there might be some serious planning and development issues going down here!

Is the logic behind this planning decision this:

Maybe there are no serious implications here for the proper planning and development of Dublin, unless, by any chance, there are any other sites in the city with prominent corners?

being parachuted into a mature 19th century suburban/village setting

Over the years I’ve worked on Pembrook Rd for a couple of years, Shelbourne Rd for a year and Merrion Rd for four years; I don’t know where the idea that Ballsbridge is some sort of idyllic suburban village comes from. Ballsbridge is practically unihabited which is reflected by the fact that practically everything (pubs, shops, cafes and restaurants) either shuts or barely operates outside of the cycles dictated by office hours. It’s spookily dead in the area on non-working days. Sometimes I had to go to the office on Saturdays and Ballsbridge was like a desert; you had walk to Sandmount to get a paper and a cup of coffee. The only thing in Ballsbridge was fast moving traffic passing through.

In terms of architecture, there are some beautiful Georgian and later streetscapes outside the perimeter of Ballsbridge proper but it’s impossible to ignore the dross in Ballsbridge itself; for example, the site in question (except for a section of Lansdowne Rd) is surrounded by very non-descript or even arguably ugly architecture. The fact that Merrion Rd and Shelbourne Rd are major traffic arteries doesn’t help the transient feel to the whole place.

If Walace was proposing this scheme, I suspect there’d be legions supporting the vision behind the attempt to create an urban quarter.

jimg, you’ve good points there. I too hate the way some shops & cafes in the Ballsbridge / Leeson Street area don’t bother to open at the weekend, or even after 5.30pm on weekdays, as they obviously make so much money at weekday lunch time.

I also hate the term ‘village’, but the centre of Ballsbridge, the area around the junctions of Shelbourne Road, Angelsea Road, Herbert Park, Elgin Road, the RDS, the bridge, the river, the U.S. embassy etc. this area has a scale and a character which might be a bit short of urban, but is still satisfying. One of my problems with this whole development is that I don’t see the satisfactory boundary, or alternatively, the satisfactory transition, between this Ballsbridge and this new ‘urban quarter’ Ballsbridge.

If the logic of this decision is that the new ‘urban quarter’ is just going to be dropped in afterwards like the way that Los Angeles, (which famously used to be all suburbs and no city), eventually got a dense urban core, then that could work, if there is a fully worked out vision for how the new urban core is going to be contained, and if the relationships between the new urban core and the pre-existing terraces are satisfactory.

In my opinion, a lot of the relationships are not satisfactory. The proposal for Lansdown Road, even reduced from 11 to 9 storeys, is particularly poor, and I would not be at all confident that the new urban core is going to be contained.

Permitting this development in the absence of a comprehensive overall vision, how can DCC refuse landmark structures, and everything that goes with that, on apparently equally deserving corners sites throughout Ballsbridge and elsewhere, when they’ve handed this one to Dunne on a plate?

I imagined that there might be some real ingenuity shown in the planning conditions that would take the high architectural ambitions of the scheme and bond them with a bit of civic responsibility to get us to a well planned and exciting place by the back door, but maybe that will happen yet with ABP.

Or am I being delusional?

@gunter wrote:

I also hate the term ‘village’, but the centre of Ballsbridge, the area around the junctions of Shelbourne Road, Angelsea Road, Herbert Park, Elgin Road, the RDS, the bridge, the river, the U.S. embassy etc. this area has a scale and a character which might be a bit short of urban, but is still satisfying.

For whom? ballsbridge is suffering as an office location because there’s nothing there. I know a number of companies that relocated because their staff was sick of the lack of facilities in Ballsbridge. The idea of Ballsbridge as a village is a joke.

Which companies were those jdivision? And what facilities were lacking compared with, for example, the IFSC, Citywest, Sandyford Industrial Estate?

If the tower would look so good, why didn’t the applicant make views of it from Baggot Street Bridge, or the Waterloo Road/Pembroke Road junction available in any of his numerous press releases or the public exhibition? I assume such views were included with the actual application or requested as AI, but they seem very shy about them. I don’t count the night-time view.

Most of the buildings in the vicinity of this site are Protected Structures. I think it is extra-ordinary that the council, which routinely rejects the most minor works to these buildings thinks nothing of plonking a 137m “icon” on their doorsteps. Whatever happened to the protection of the setting of PSs? The point about the setback, height and trees on Lansdowne Road, above, was well made.

The claim that the provision of very large apartments will encourage family living in apartments is, I suggest, unproven. (By families, I mean traditional 2 parent, 2.4 kid groups, not elderly bachelors.) A survey of other local large apartments like those at St Anne’s, Ardoyne House, and Hazeldene, would show that there are few children living there. The fact is that in Ireland, which is still a very sparsly populated country, anyone with children, rich enough to afford a 200 sq m apartment in Ballsbridge, would prefer to live in Rathmines or Clonskeagh or anywhere that had a garden. The same is true even in Manhatten. In Dublin, the council has belatedly realised that you don’t even house poor people in high-rise.

Some of us who live around here think its actually quite pleasant, particularly at weekends. Few of the shops and restaurants on Upper Baggot Street close (though some do) . I don’t expect it would improve our quality of life to have a Dundrum style traffic jam outside the door 365 days a year. The retail element of this scheme is actually the third most objectionable element. Why would this area “need” that? Surely the council would be better trying to consolidate retail and wholesale activity in the inner city. Retail streets like Dorset Steet, Capel Street, George’s Street/Camden Street would be good places to start. Instead, the council’s policies enourages indigenous business migration to the M50, and its replacement with “town centres” full of British High Street chainstores.

There is also something a little bit surprising about the huge degree of support alleged for the project. I doubt if major infrastructural projects like Croke Park and Lansdowne Road which were resisted by locals, but which presumably had thousands of supporters among those sports’ members, attracted more than a handful of letters of support. Maybe I’m wrong, but I cannot imagine what prompted so many hundreds of people to write in supporting this scheme.

It’s a pity this website is beginning to be seen by lazy jounalists as the voice of architects in ireland, and one which saves them the bother of actually researching something. There is little to indicate that there is more than a handful of professional planners and architects contributing, with many of the rest consisting of disaffected students.

@goneill wrote:

Which companies were those jdivision? And what facilities were lacking compared with, for example, the IFSC, Citywest, Sandyford Industrial Estate?.

CBRE is one of them, I won’t name the rest. If you talk to office agents around town they will also confirm that Ballsbridge is no longer being seen as CBD territory

@goneill wrote:

If the tower would look so good, why didn’t the applicant make views of it from Baggot Street Bridge, or the Waterloo Road/Pembroke Road junction available in any of his numerous press releases or the public exhibition? I assume such views were included with the actual application or requested as AI, but they seem very shy about them. I don’t count the night-time view.

At what point did I discuss the tower? I was mainly talking about the retail and leisure element, all of which was approved.

@goneill wrote:

Surely the council would be better trying to consolidate retail and wholesale activity in the inner city. Retail streets like Dorset Steet, Capel Street, George’s Street/Camden Street would be good places to start. Instead, the council’s policies enourages indigenous business migration to the M50, and its replacement with “town centres” full of British High Street chainstores.

That’s your opinion. If you read the objections there are very few complaints made about the retail. Far more are in favour of it.

@goneill wrote:

There is also something a little bit surprising about the huge degree of support alleged for the project. I doubt if major infrastructural projects like Croke Park and Lansdowne Road which were resisted by locals, but which presumably had thousands of supporters among those sports’ members, attracted more than a handful of letters of support. Maybe I’m wrong, but I cannot imagine what prompted so many hundreds of people to write in supporting this scheme.
.

Most of them are mates of Dunners or his wife or people who have something to gain from it being given the go-ahead. Builders, mech eng contractors etc.

@jdivision wrote:

For whom? ballsbridge is suffering as an office location because there’s nothing there. I know a number of companies that relocated because their staff was sick of the lack of facilities in Ballsbridge. The idea of Ballsbridge as a village is a joke.

So if Ballsbridge is a failed office location, and it’s not a ‘village’, how would you define the character of Ballsbridge?

goneill,

None of my other comments were in response to your e-mail, jdivision, just the first paragraph.
You didn’t say which facilities were missing here compared to the other areas I mentioned. Is CBRE the estate agents which moved from the corner of Shelboune Road to Burlington Road, a distance of about 900m? Hardly moving out? I think there may be more objections to the retail contained in the appeals.

Incidentally, this is what CBRE have to say about the first building I looked at in their current portfolio:

“The IONA Building enjoys a suberb location on Shelbourne Road in Ballsbridge. This location,in the heart of Dublin’s Embassy District offers staff easy access to all city centre ameneties via the DART at Landsdowne Road and numerous bus routes that pass along Northumberland Road. Numerous quality restaurants,pubs and International Hotels are located in the area. The property is located close to beautiful Herbert Park, which provides an oasis of calmin the heart of the city centre district.”

I live in the centre of this so called village, have done for last 8 years. In my opinion Ballsbridge is a no more than an office district with a residential element. Neither of the two shops even reach the standard of convenience store, both mainly exist to serve the office workers, its just lucky that locals can buy a paper in the morning. The existence of the RDS and Lansdowne is the only reason that 4 (3 if you consider Mary Macs and Cullens to be the one…) pubs can survive in the area. I think its nice that the area quietens down after 6pm, though doubtless others would disagree. My grandmother talks about how there used to be a butchers (maybe 2, i never listen!) in the block where the Spar is. These days local facilities like that dont exist, nor do they in Donnybrook. Its either Ranelagh, Sandymount or Ringsend. This is obviously due to the low density residential nature of the area. Whether or not the development of the block, all parts not just Jurys, would change this is in question. Ranelagh has survived as a suburban village because of its lack of offices, as has Sandymount. Maybe a load of new residences will change the balance of power away from the offices and back to residents, on the other hand maybe the whole block should just be made into offices and the existing residents will survive travelling to the shops.

In answer to Jimg, the area is not an idyllic suburban village, it is more like a rural enclave (with offices!) where the residents have to travel for supplies.

I think it is very possible that the new urban quarter would become an entity of its own, with little interaction between it and the existing area. There would be little reason for existing residents to wander down its streets, unless they want a specific cappucino from a specific cafe. Other than to visit Herbert Park, there would be little reason for the new residents to interact with the existing locale, without a supermarket they will also be travelling to shop. The RDS and Lansdowne will keep the existing pubs going, there will still be an influx of office workers each day, who will cause a mini rush hour through the new development as they walk to and from the DART.
I’m not against the development per se, I think the 37 storey tower is magnificent and would love to see it built, but i’m not sure it will bring all the social benefits to Ballsbridge that the developers want us to think it will.

“Goneill -I doubt if standing on baggot street bridge you could see any tall building on the Jurys site – defo not one of this height, one of the main pictures released was looking down baggot street towards Jurys!”

Which one was the one “looking down Baggot Street” ? Could I see it again, because I have genuinely missed it if it is on this thread or at the exhibtion. Why did they use a view looking doen Baggot Street, if, as you suggest ,the tower would not be visible from the bridge.

“The current site is covered in useless buildings and I am struggling to think of any large buildings in Ballsbridge worth protecting -Maybe the RDS”

Some people think the US embassey is quite good, though it may be technically in Washington DC, not Ballsbridge. The original Jury’s building, the Intercontinental as it was called, was actually quite a good 1960s building, but I agree it’s not woth saving now. Howver I didn’t mention “large” in the context of Protected Structures. Pretty well all the houses on Pembroke Road, Raglan Road, Wellington Road, Northumberland Road, Lansdowne Road Clyde Road, Elgin Road, are PSs. So too, I presume, is Ballsbridge town hall, and quite possibly the terraces containing the Post Office, Sherry FitzGerald, Rolys, Mary Mac’s and the houses on Pembroke Road oposite the US embasy and Ballsbridge Terrace

“They may prefer to live in Clonskeagh but the whole point is that the city cannot accomodate this wanting to live in 3 -4 bed semi’s.”

So how is the developer going to force families to live in this high rise?

Some of us who live around here think its actually quite pleasant, particularly at weekends.

“I am sure you do, but no city can declare a village when it is less than 2 miles from the city centre.”
There are plenty of urban quarters with village-like qualities.

“Get a grip -anybody can have an opinion and that is what this site reflects.”

You are abolutely right.

@CC105 wrote:

The current site is covered in useless buildings and I am struggling to think of any large buildings in Ballsbridge worth protecting -Maybe the RDS

I am sure you do, but no city can declare a village when it is less than 2 miles from the city centre.

I don’t think anyone is advocating that the two hotels, or even less so the jumble of blocks on Shelbourne Road, are worth keeping as architecture.

The concept of the ‘urban village’, meaning an inner, or outer district of a city, distinct from the main core, but having both an umbilical link to the parent core, and many of the attributes of a urban centre in it’s own right, is very common in many of the most ‘livable’ cities worldwide. Where the ‘Urban Village’ ideal works best is where the particular character of the district is clearly identified and imaginatively worked into the proposals for intensification of the district. That’s the bit that doesn’t seem to happen here.

The Local Area Plans never seem to be imaginative enough to, either get the locals engaged with them, or visionary enough to get the developers interested, so they just end up being more background noise to the ensuing faction fight that is the planning process in this country.

Urban villages do indeed exist – Ranelagh, Sandymount, Phibsborough and drumcondra to name but a few – Ballsbridge? No, a nice cluster of restaurants etc around the bridge but that’s about it. The Corner where this development is situated is well in need of redevelopment and the sort of site permeabilty and footfall that having a decent retail presence on site offers means that the development won’t be just another souless office canyon ala IFSC1.

And if I could afford it I’d gladly bring up my kids in a decent sized apartment with all the services on site in Ballsbridge rather than the burbs of Clonskeagh

@Rory W wrote:

The Corner where this development is situated is well in need of redevelopment and the sort of site permeabilty and footfall that having a decent retail presence on site offers means that the development won’t be just another souless office canyon ala IFSC1.

I don’t disagree with that, but why can’t we have all of that and a responsible relationship to Lansdowne Road, and a defined boundary (even if only aspirational at present) within the city block dividing the part that is new ‘urban quarter’ from the bit towards the the bridge that looks like it will never be urban quarter scale, and a clear statement from DCC that they are persuaded, despite the absense of any specific zoning objective or adopted visionary master plan, that this site is suitably blessed with attributes to host the new Ballsbridge urban quarter, and if you happen to own a half acre site on an adjascent corner, you’re out of luck, no precedent can be taken beyond these boundaries.

If we had that, I be a bit more comfortable with this.

Fair enough on the urban villages, I just dont want people claiming that prime (almost)city centre areas are the same as country villages that rightly need protection from large developments.

I think this thread contains a shot of the building looking down from baggot street. See page 3 on this thread.

I don’t disagree with that either, but I think the buildings should respect the vistas approaching the site, particularly heading east on Pembroke Road and south on Northumberland Road. I think that the retail element, if any, should be of the local nature, i.e to serve those people living and working on site, but not bring additional shoppers to the area. That would dilute the viability of the city centre and lower the quality of life in the area. (see Dundrum). And I still don’t think families will buy into this – it will just become a retirement home for the very rich, or temporary accomodation for embassy workers. Those of my relations with children, who live in city apartments (SF and NY) are either in the process of buying a single storey house with yard in central SF, (c. $650,000) or own a weekend house in Connecticut. They are lucky but I don’t think anyone actually aspires to bringing up children only in a city apartment.

To clarify something I said earlier: I don’t have a problem with students, disaffected or otherwise, expressing their opinions. I just wish so-called journalists wouldn’t quote anonymous sources of unknown skill levels, as if they were the voice of the entire planning/architectural profession.

CC105
The view on page three is not taken on Baggot Street. It is from Pembroke Road (which runs in an “L” shape from the US embassy to Searsons). The viewpoint is a little difficult to make out, because it is taken at night., That should immediately make you suspicious. The view is probably from the corner of Raglan Road, but what about from the corners of Wellington Road, and Waterloo Road?

Having just spent a perfectly good Friday evening reading through the 33 page planners report on this thing, I have a new found admiration for those poor bastards in the planning office. The sheer volume of bullshit that they must have to wade through day after day has got to be outlawed under some EU charter. Is it any wonder they sometimes come out with stuff that tells you black is white. After three or four days reading this stuff non stop, anyone could be forgiven for taking a polar flip.

Inevitably the bulk of this type of report consists of a regurgitation of previously stated facts, and it’s often difficult to tell when the applicants are talking and when it’s the planner’s opinion we’re reading.

As far as new stuff goes, there is a total gem on page 23:

The report states that:

Why were we not told about this document. This is like finding out on your death bed, after a blameless life, that there was an 11th commandment which declared that the other 10 were just suggestions really.

Under the ‘Impacts on Urban Landscape Character’ heading, the report informs us that ‘a detailed and persuasive Urban Character Impact Study is submitted and that this study includes the advise that ‘different people will perceive issues relating to impact on urban character differently, depending on whether they have a conservative or innovative outlook’. So if you aren’t taken in by this thing, it’s because you don’t have an innovative outlook!

@gunter wrote:

So if you aren’t taken in by this thing, it’s because you don’t have an innovative outlook!

Sounds about right 😀

Heard Mr Dunne on RTE 1 this morning giving over a fair amount of time to this development.

Some items covered by him:

The existing hotels do not cover the interest payments but his companies other projects are generating enough cashflow to cover this project.

A full development of 1400 apartments would be the most finacially viable method to develop the site but he states that his vision is for a mixed development.

First residents 2012 – – – projected cost for residential is 1500 euro per square foot hence he recons that average apartment would cost 2 million euro!!! a lot higher than the 850K mentioned earlier:eek:

Best get saving;)

I only heard a bit of the Dunne interview with Marian and it seemed like it was largely human interest, rags to riches stuff. I did hear him say, as a starting point to the discussion on his proposal, that the Jurys site is the centre of Ballsbridge, and it seemed to be his contention that the justification for what he was proposing was grounded in that contention. I don’t agree with him there. It’s pretty clear to me that the stretch between the embassy and the RDS, the location of the convergence of several streets, the intersection with the river, that’s the centre of Ballsbridge, so he’s a couple of hundred metres off the mark there.

All the glowing stuff in the presentation, which is gobbled up and repeated in the planners report, all of that stuff would still apply if the development was 30% smaller. You can achieve excellent urban scale with 5 – 6 storey development, and a quality landmark structure with something 15 to 20 storeys high.

As I said before, this development isn’t a million miles away from being brilliant, the mix is good, the design is ambitious, the new streets are a massive public gain, it just that the overall scale is excessive.

It’s because the overall scale is excessive, that the relationships to the rest of the area are so jarring. At the end of the day these buildings aren’t opera houses, they’re not civic buildings, they’re just more of what the area has already, apartments, embassies, offices. The justification for mega-scale isn’t there and if it’s allowed, it’s going to create an imbalance and a precedent that is the opposite of good planning, in my opinion.

So the scheme should be lower in height than what’s there already?

@jdivision wrote:

So the scheme should be lower in height than what’s there already?

I don’t think it’s relevant what the height of the existing hotels structures are. The applicants don’t make a big deal out of the hotel precedent, probably because they would have to acknowledge the other precedents set by the existing structures; the retention of the original botanic gardens boundaries, trees etc.

I believe that this site should be developed to a good urban scale, I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t have to be 8 to 10 storeys, with a 30+ landmark feature to achieve good urban scale.

You could take this scheme, stick in down on Spencer Dock, and there wouldn’t be a problem. The problem is that this scheme doesn’t take context into account to the extent that it should.

They are not stupid people in DCC, they know that this scheme contravenes a couple of dozen policy objectives of the Development Plan, so the rational for waving this through must have to do with something else. If there’s a bigger picture, let’s see what the bigger picture is.

The omission of Block A and the office block, is done in such a strange way that it looks to me like a piece or choreography.

The planner’s report goes out of it’s way to explain how the planning authority could grant planning permission to the office content, even though the zoning objective appeared to preclude it. The report goes out of it’s way to explain that the the planning authority considers the office content, at 25%, to be generally acceptible.

The same applies to the tower (block A). The report is glowing in it’s praise of the landmark tower. I think the only criticisms were that the winter garden feature seemed a bit shallow, there were a few too many single aspect apartments, and that the overall scale ‘tended towards the excessive’. If this was the assessment, there is actually no reason to refuse permission for it! A couple of well worded conditions could have tweaked it a bit and trimmed it down a fraction.

To me, the report reads like they’ve tried to write the script for a two act play. They want it all, but they feel they should leave something for Bord Pleanala to deliver, in the second act.

@gunter wrote:

If this was the assessment, there is actually no reason to refuse permission for it! A couple of well worded conditions could have tweaked it a bit and trimmed it down a fraction.

To me, the report reads like they’ve tried to write the script for a two act play. They want it all, but they feel they should leave something for Bord Pleanala to deliver, in the second act.

That is always the way the larger cases work; as was put to us by our planning lecturer who was no stranger to planning battles it works something along the lines of a developer wants an 8 story building so he applies for 14 storeys the planning authority gives 12 and the bord give 8. That way the local authority look pro development by giving close to the full consent and make the local representatives look great as they have to spend their own money taking it to the Bord.

The oral hearing on this will be great entertainment!

It almost reassuring pvc to know that everything is so well ordered. These guys should be put in charge of the weather and sport.

Recently, though, I have found Bord Pleanala to be a bit unpredictable. If they get the ABP inspector who did the report on the recent Pearse Street / Sandwith St. TCD block, they could end up getting everthing they applied for, including the two floors of B,C & D that DCC took off them!

In a case, a couple of years ago, I took my own €200 and had a go at one of these major urban centre applications. I was in favour of the overall scheme, but there were 5 or 6 aspects that I believed should have been addressed differently. It turned out there were no other appeals, or possibly just one other third party, saying something about there being not much community gain, or somerthing.

The ABP inspector acknowledged the appeals in one sentence and then went off on a total rant, condemning the entire scheme from top to bottom. Not surprisingly the Bord threw out his report, proably called the Eastern Health Board to take the guy away, and rubber stamped the scheme after taking off one of the blocks that nobody had objected to.

I’d have got better value out of my €200 if I’d have rolled it up a set fire to it.

@gunter wrote:

I don’t think it’s relevant what the height of the existing hotels structures are. The applicants don’t make a big deal out of the hotel precedent, probably because they would have to acknowledge the other precedents set by the existing structures; the retention of the original botanic gardens boundaries, trees etc.
.

Of course it is, except for Shelbourne Road the buildings all around it are high too: Carrisbrook House, Lansdowne House, Hume House

@jdivision wrote:

except for Shelbourne Road the buildings all around it are high too: Carrisbrook House, Lansdowne House, Hume House

I’m talking about opposing street frontages, particularly on Lansdowne Road. The heights of the existing hotels on site are not particularly relevant to the debate on whether you should get planning permission for the same or greater height right out at the street boundary, because the existing structures are set so far back and are so well screened.

The office blocks you refer to are still the exception, the intrusion in the streetscape, and they shouldn’t be elevated, in my opinion, to the status of the accepted ideal. These 1970s blocks were put in at a time when we weren’t as smart as we’re supposed to be now.

I’m not arguing against urban scale here, I just pointing out that urban scale can be achieved by a development that has all the good things in it that this one has, but is just a couple of notches down in scale.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/billionaire-pays-836450-fee-to-ground-83641bn-skyscraper-1354878.html

“It has emerged that two-thirds of the submissions received by the board approve of the proposal. The board has received 125 submissions, of which 88 are in favour.”

it seems they’re PR firm has been busy organising this.

also

Mr Desmond added that he intends to take part in a public hearing to outline his objections, and paid €50 to ensure an oral hearing was heard.

“In this regard, I enclose the additional fee of €50 required in order to ground the application of an oral hearing and would ask the board to convene such a hearing at an appropriate date,” he says.

Oi Wearnicehats Im guessing you read the papers – still reckon SD will get 70 million an acre ?

@wearnicehats wrote:

What if Sean Dunne has no intention of building anything. What if he’s got the high of the deal, the competition, the spotlight. What if he’s using the site as collateral to finance other deals. What if, in 18 months time, he simply sells the site. Even if he gets €70million per acre (not unreasonable) he’ll turn a tidy profit. And if his planning is refused he can leave head held high. If it is granted, he’ll get even more cash for the site.
What if……

Yep Kefu .. Id say their beating down Sean Dunnes door to spend a million on an apartment .
@kefu wrote:

Before people start talkin’ about those commuting from two hours away, this proposal will have absolutely zero impact on this. It’s not unrealistic that starting prices here will be beginning (and this is conservative) at around E800,000. More likely in fact is that every single apartment in this complex will cost more than E1 million. It seems likely that many of these will be bought up by investors or for the very wealthy as a second home. None of the people commuting from Portlaoise, Virginia, Gorey or whereever are going to be moving into this scheme.
One Berkeley Court is a development for the very rich, as befits its locations in Dublin 4.
So for anybody making this argument, give me a break.
Let the project stand on its architectural merits and that alone.

Its “architectural merits” are sure to bring home the bacon, seems to be working for all the other box extensions/contemporary/clean line/minimalist pads whose prices are dropping thru their marble floors.. too funny …:)

Would any young fella, or young wan, be able to lash out a quick 3d view of the tower as seen, for example from the junction of Upper Mount Street and Merrion Square? Could it be seen from there?

who’s berkely courts pr firm?
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbsncwidkf/

i wonder if they’re getting paid maybe a present….?

There has always been a high rise hard on according to a few contributors on this site; maybe a few of the individuals concerned and a few others that don’t do blogging simply submitted out of a frustration that their vision for a taller City wasn’t being realised.

In any event its on to the oral hearing where the real decision was always going to be made.

3d-Visualisation-Jurys-Berkeley-Court-Redevelopment
http://www.bestvidsite.info/1351_visualisation_3d-Visualisation-Jurys-Berkeley-Court-Redevelopment.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0711/1215677272363.html
so they had to hold a prelimary hearing to sort throught the 137 submissions

anybody been to these
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dunne-faces-battle-for-ballsbridge-1434401.html
The project has split the community — with 90 appeals supporting the €1bn grand plan, and 37 opposed. Another 84 parties have made submissions, and have the right to speak at the planning hearing.

Fourteen letters from other appellants with addresses in Dublin 2 or Dublin 4 are in the same format, using the same layout and typeface, as if they were generated on a single computer. All were received on the same day and fees of €220 each were paid in cash.

Though the content of these letters is different, all express the writers’ dismay at the city planners’ decision to reject the proposed 37-storey tower, which is variously described as “magnificent”, “iconic” and “the finest piece of architecture I have seen”.

nothing wrong with that….

Department raises concern over plans for Ballsbridge development
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0721/1216565492673.html
Although the department did not object to the original application, it now says the proposed development would be “contrary to Dublin City Council’s policy to protect the architectural character of the area”.

September has been pencilled in for the start of hearings into

Meanwhile, a Bord Pleanála oral hearing on more than 20 appeals relating to a proposed high-rise scheme by Glenkerrin Homes for the former veterinary college site in Ballsbridge is due to open on July 23rd.

del

I just had a look at the video/visualisation and is it just me or is it sort of similar to Rockefeller Centre or the Sony Centre (Berlin)!

Knock out the tower, knock out the excessive height and it’s a brilliant scheme but the “you are only allowed build houses for the poor brigade” might not like that!

the architecture is truly awful./ The treatment of Lansdowne Road is abhorrent. This is bland uninteresting crapola from a visual point of view. Height in itself is not enough. This is worse than that vomit being built at Elm park. just bland muck. Dunne was very clever,. He paid for a cheap design with utterly excessive height and massing and tacked on a lunatic tower to distract everyone’s attention while the rest of the monstrous rubbish got through. Those sunny tree lined new streets will be bare windswept canyons in reality. A 9 year old with enough Lego would do this site more justice

That’s what’s puzzled me about alot of critiques of this scheme before – all focus on the tower which is by far the least damaging aspect. The repetition, blandness and massing along Shelbourne and Lansdowne Rd’s is so much more damaging.

@d_d_dallas wrote:

That’s what’s puzzled me about alot of critiques of this scheme before – all focus on the tower which is by far the least damaging aspect. The repetition, blandness and massing along Shelbourne and Lansdowne Rd’s is so much more damaging.

I totaly agree – from the outset I would have said make the tower taller but scale the height of everything else back to tie in somewhat with the context!

Maybe you’re right about the elevations being poor, I only glanced at the video, but they look fine to me, maybe they could break them up to provide more vertical emphasis, I don’t know.

In urban design terms they’ve got the right principles, densify, perimeter blocks around the site (don’t know if there’s active street frontage), internal public squares and pedetrian priority and links through the site to increase the permeability of the area. Height is a problem, I don’t think you can justify such height in the absence of a city strategy.

Just to get an idea about the impact to Lansdowne and Shelbourne Rds…

@d_d_dallas wrote:

That’s what’s puzzled me about alot of critiques of this scheme before – all focus on the tower which is by far the least damaging aspect. The repetition, blandness and massing along Shelbourne and Lansdowne Rd’s is so much more damaging.

so what process have the other parts of the site gone through? the same as as usual, dcc gave permission but any other objections?

isn’t this project splitting that been complained about elsewhere shouldn’t the whole project be heard as one, are they really only doing a public oral hearing on the tower alone?

has anybody officially questioned this?

? The appeal hears the case as new. There have been 1st party appeals against the refusal of the tower and 3rd party appeals aginast the granting of the rest

For those keeping track of developments in the area, the Hume House redevelopment is currently with DCC. Last date for submissions is next Wednesday. <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3571/08&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%203571/08.

This document has some instructive images (though badly scanned in B&W as usual).

Funny how the consultants argued in the case of Jury’s (also in the case of the Vet college) that adjacent proposed developments should not be included in e.g. traffic counts, as they are not yet committed developments, but in this case they’re only too happy to illustrate the Jury’s site as built out, because it provides ‘context’ for this proposal, i.e. 37 storey neighbours make 14 storey office buildings look more humble. :rolleyes:

Soon Ballsbridge is going to be the climbing capital of Europe with all these new cliffs.

Seán Dunne, Hypocrite Supreme – he opposes a relatively modest scheme located for guess where, indeed – Not In My Back Yard!

Only about 1000 metres as the crow flies from his Jury’s site… C’mon Seán get off it – are you for real, or just a total cunt?

Down with these anti-development sorts :p

For the record I hope they get theirs – and that he doesn’t get his 🙂

From Saturdays Irish Times –

Dunne letter opposes site scheme for Ballsbridge

FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor

A MEMBER OF developer Seán Dunne’s family has objected to plans for a housing scheme at the rear of his home on Shrewsbury Road in Ballsbridge – using some arguments similar to those made by appellants against plans for the Jurys-Berkeley Court hotel sites.

In a letter to Dublin City Council, planning consultant Feargall Kenny identifies his client as John Dunne of “Ouragh”, Shrewsbury Road. Mr Dunne has a son called John, but it was unclear yesterday whether the objection was his own or his father’s initiative.

The Dunne family was not available for comment.

Seán Dunne, who lives in “Ouragh” which he built on a site he bought in 1999 for €3.8 million, strongly opposed previous plans by O’Malley Homes and Developments Ltd to redevelop the former Chester Beatty Library site, which it purchased in 1998 for €9 million.

Along with fellow Shrewsbury Road resident Stephen MacKenzie, he appealed three times to An Bord Pleanála and also took High Court actions against the board over its decisions to grant permission.

Last December, the court dismissed their objections.

Due to the uncertainty caused by these lengthy judicial review proceedings, the developers halted demolition of buildings on the one-acre site in 2005, having already demolished the former library. At present, only the caretaker’s lodge is still standing.

O’Malley’s latest scheme for the partly wooded site, designed by architects McCrossan O’Rourke Manning, is for seven neo-Edwardian three-storey houses in two blocks, with railed front and rear gardens, a landscaped open space and basement car parking.

In his letter on Mr Dunne’s behalf, Feargall Kenny says: “Our client and his family live adjacent to the proposed development and, accordingly, they have a particular interest in any proposals which may represent a threat to their established residential amenities.”

Although the letter makes clear that Mr Dunne “does not object to the principle of the redevelopment of this site”, he regards the latest scheme as “over-developed”, saying it would “detract from the character and quality” of a designated residential conservation area.

“Our client considers that by reason of mass, scale and density the three-storey over basement terraced housing blocks would stand out in this conservation area characterised by detached and semi-detached single-family period residential homes.”

He claims O’Malley is “pursuing a strategy to stealthily double the density of the site by submitting new planning applications (this is the seventh such application in eight years) in an effort to increase the permitted floor area from 1,564 sq metres . . . to 2,782 sq metres”.

Manahan Planners, acting for the developers, say the latest scheme proposes seven houses in lieu of seven apartments in a three-storey flat-roofed block previously permitted, while the site coverage of 20 per cent is slightly less than under the earlier (2005) plan.

Mr Kenny’s letter says Shrewsbury Road “is recognised as a unique Dublin example of Edwardian urban design and architecture. The area is an important element of Dublin’s weave and is recognised as such by its designation as a residential conservation area”.

Mr Dunne also takes exception to the applicants proposing to build closer to the rear of “Ouragh” than in a previously approved scheme.

The latest separation distance would be 28 metres (over 92 feet), which he sees as “further proof of creeping over-development”.

Noting that there are a number of other “backland sites” in the area, Mr Kenny’s letter warns: “If the current proposal is granted permission, it will set a precedent for further such developments with the eventual total destruction of the [Shrewsbury Road] conservation area.”

Another complaint is that the number of parking spaces – two for each of the seven houses and 13 for visitors, all at basement level – is inadequate. Given the “high level of car ownership in the area”, the letter says four spaces per house “may not be unreasonable”.

Michael Maughan, chairman of Shrewsbury Road Residents Association, has also objected to the scheme on behalf of the association, saying it would be “seriously injurious” to the character of an area that “reflects an era of gracious living from a bygone age”.

Mr Maughan, founder of PR group Wilson Hartnell, is – in a private capacity – among 86 appellants supporting Mr Dunne’s scheme for the Jurys-Berkeley Court sites; he believes that the entire project, including its high-rise elements, would be a “positive step” for the Ballsbridge area.

Myles O’Malley, partner in O’Malley Homes, is one of the 40 appellants against Mr Dunne’s scheme. His planning consultant, Tony Manahan, says the two proposed 10-storey office blocks would “seriously injure the amenities” of their adjoining building, Shelbourne House.

A separate appeal has been lodged by the O’Malley family – Frank, Myles and Jason O’Malley – arguing that the scheme amounts to “over-development” of the hotel sites and the proposed 18-storey block on Shelbourne Road would dominate their homes at Carlton Mews.

Most of the other appellants, including An Taisce and 14 residents’ associations, complain that the height, scale and mass of Mr Dunne’s development would have a detrimental impact on the character of Ballsbridge and adjoining residential conservation areas.

© 2008 The Irish Times

Chester Beatty site

Seán Dunne: trying to stop Ballsbridge development

Planning history

2000 – An Bord Pleanála refuses planning permission for a 13-unit apartment development on the former Chester Beatty Library site.

2001 – The appeals board grants permission for an apartment building on the site, but reduces the number of units from 10 to seven.

2003 – The board grants permission for a revised scheme, involving a specially designed seven-unit apartment block.

2005 – The board rejects fresh appeals by Seán Dunne and Stephen MacKenzie and approves a further revised scheme.

2005 – Demolition work on the site is halted by O’Malley Homes after Mr Dunne and Mr MacKenzie initiate judicial review proceedings.

2006 – O’Malley Homes gets a new permission, but this is also subject to a High Court action by Mr Dunne and Mr MacKenzie.

2006 – Both Dublin City Council and the appeals board refuse permission for a revised scheme increasing the height to four storeys.

2007 – The High Court rejects the judicial review case, confirming An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant approval for the 2005 scheme.

© 2008 The Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0809/1218206290285.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0809/1218206290297.html

Today’s Irish Times has a feature on this.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2008/0906/1220629525648.html

Just build the usual 5/6 floor gated production line drivel and lets move on to the next storm in a teacup.

I saw this in the planning office on friday, which i only found on friday, and was shocked at its scale.

I looked at the tiny people in it and around it, and then looked at the height, i just couldnt believe such a thing was being planed. I couldnt even count accuratly past 27 i just became confused!;)

Its a nice building, its a good height, but with nothing else like it and being in the wrong area it will stick out like a big glass pedistal. Who really wants a big tower with nothing else around it?

I know Balsbridge is a very patchy area with a lot of old terrace’s of large expensive buildings, but the hotels for the most part are all porly designed and poorly implemented. Now that several are on their way out is this really the way to go?

If it is a former botanical gardens, why not make it an eco-development. An enclave of nature covering a development with as much density as possible without exceeding 12 storeys.

I could immagine a lot of different buildings possibly with ivy etc and terraced gardens hidden in there. Something to be proud of.

Not some big tower block that apparently is fulfilling any local needs. Just a means of profit for the devolper mad enough to day proposing it.

Im all for progress, but its the wrong bloody place for it! Balsbridge has money as it is, DEVELOPE, somewhere else! It needs housing and maybe an articificial extra village for shopping. Not a shopping centre but a developement with street level shops and affordable housing, you know logical good for the people stuff:rolleyes:

One of many mountbrook sweeteners to the residents of ballsbridge!! Architectural competition for the ballbridge/dodder predestrian bridge won by irish architect based in london. Funny looking blue bridge but i think i like it!!!!!!:cool:

It all kicks off tomorrow…I’m looking foward to the hypebole from the objectors!

@SunnyDub wrote:

It all kicks off tomorrow…I’m looking foward to the hypebole from the objectors!

It promises to be the biggest circus of a hearing ever conducted. There’ll be gnashing of teeth and ratting of jewellery all over Croke Park for the next week or so.

How about an archiseek sweep? from tomorrow to friday how many inaccuracies will be reported in articles on the matter in the Irish Times? (can’t bring myself to read the Indo) I’m gonna say 15, nearly 4 a day. The winner gets to post “I’m the fucking greatest poster here” on Saturday. Any takers?

I read in the Mail on Sunday that there were “127 objections against the proposed development, of which 87 were in favour”!!!! That sentence sense makes none to me….

ah another sweep! What’ll the result be? for me – 14 storey tower with the highest of the rest knocked down to 10 and 12. then judicial review from Dermo Desmo and groundbreaking ceremony to occur in 2011.

So was anyone at the opening show? … Most appropriate its on in the city’s main arena 😀

So was anyone at the opening show? … Most appropriate its on in the city’s main arena 😀

@johnny21 wrote:

One of many mountbrook sweeteners to the residents of ballsbridge!!

*cough, silly sop alert, cough*

From Today’s Irish Times

High noon for urban high-rise: it’s 37-storeys or none at all

ANALYSIS: Developer Seán Dunne is seeking to persuade An Bord Pleanála to approve his scheme for the ‘rejuvenation’ of Ballsbridge, writes Frank McDonald

AN BORD Pleanála is being given a clear choice – either to approve the controversial high-rise, high-density plan put forward for the Jurys-Berkeley Court hotel sites or to reject it in its entirety.

Reducing the overall scale or changing any of the building blocks is not seen by developer Seán Dunne as an option.

Architect Ulrik Raysse, leading designer of Danish firm Henning Larsen, told a rapt audience on the opening day of an oral hearing on 127 appeals both for and against the scheme that what he had produced was not a master plan, but rather “one design” in which each element related to the other.

The 37-storey triple-skin apartment tower, which he described as “the spice in the dish”, was intended to relate to the city scale, providing a landmark for “the new Ballsbridge”.

Its tapering, sculptural form would be difficult to change; if, say, 10 floors were to be omitted, the residual building would look like a stump.

According to Mr Raysse, its complex geometry and “diamond-cut” glazed façades related to the relatively “calm” brick-clad buildings that would occupy the rest of the seven-acre site. “It’s like a book, with each building as a chapter. So you can’t take out one chapter without losing the story”, he told the hearing.

The Danish architect likened his creation to Rockefeller Center in New York, with an assembly of buildings arranged around public spaces. In Ballsbridge, these spaces would provide new pedestrian streets through the site, linking Pembroke, Lansdowne and Shelbourne roads, in the context of a “unique urban quarter”.

He showed examples of Henning Larsen’s work elsewhere, such as the new Opera House and Nordea office complex in Copenhagen.

But these buildings are much lower than anything being proposed for Ballsbridge and, as former Progressive Democrat leader Des O’Malley noted, they are located on open harbour sites.

Even the Spiegel headquarters in Hamburg, with façades like giant plasma TV screens, is only 15 storeys high and it also occupies a waterfront site, rather than one surrounded by other buildings, as in the case of Ballsbridge. Larsen’s Concert and Congress Hall in Uppsala, Sweden, is also relatively modest in scale.

Ian Ritchie, architect of the Dublin Spire in O’Connell Street and member of the jury which selected the Larsen scheme for Ballsbridge, turned up to endorse it. According to him, it would “do much for the growing international reputation of Dublin”, by marking Ballsbridge on the city skyline as “a place of change”.

But this can only happen, as Paul Walsh of Pembroke Road put it, “by driving a coach and horses through the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011”, which made no provision for high-rise schemes in the Ballsbridge area – least of all one with a landmark that he rather rudely likened to a “massive bent erection”.

Although An Bord Pleanála has the power to override the city plan, Des O’Malley reminded presiding planning inspector Tom Rabbette that councillors had rejected a proposal to designate Ballsbridge as a “prime urban centre” and had also declined to approve a local area plan that would have permitted high-rise.

As he noted, neither Mr Raysse nor Mr Ritchie had mentioned the city plan in their architectural presentations. Yet the “huge overweening office and residential blocks proposed will completely dwarf Lansdowne and Shelbourne roads”, he said, adding: “It will be a sad day for Dublin if this was to be allowed go ahead.”

The 12 residents’ associations objecting to the scheme will be calling former Dublin chief planning officer Pat McDonnell as a key witness, while billionaire financier Dermot Desmond will be calling George Ferguson, former president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, to support his strong objection to what’s proposed.

Forty-four of those who lodged appeals in favour of Seán Dunne’s scheme, including Gate Theatre director Michael Colgan (cultural adviser for the project) and PR consultant Bill O’Herlihy, will not be appearing.

Instead, they are being represented by planning consultant Tom Phillips, which means they cannot be cross-examined.

© 2008 The Irish Times

Dunne’s tower will ruin Ballsbridge, hearing told

OLIVIA KELLY
FORMER PD leader Des O’Malley has said Ballsbridge will be “destroyed” if developer Seán Dunne’s plans for a 37-storey tower on the site of the former Jurys and Berkeley Court hotels are allowed to go ahead.

Mr O’Malley was speaking on the first day of the Bord Pleanála hearing into the plans for the seven-acre site bought by Mr Dunne for €380 million three years ago.

The planning board received a record 127 appeals in relation to the planning application with an unprecedented 90 of those appeals in favour of the development.

Dublin City Council last March granted permission for the bulk of the development, including an 18-storey tower, but rejected the 37-storey building on grounds of excessive height. Mr Dunne is appealing to the board to reinstate the 37-storey tower.

Mr O’Malley, who lives on nearby Merrion Road, has not made a formal application but is among the objectors to the scheme.

The 36 appellants against the development include billionaire businessman Dermot Desmond, who is due to give evidence to the hearing in the coming days.

Mr O’Malley said the fact that the planners had given permission for the bulk of the scheme while the councillors had recommended against it showed a dichotomy between unelected officials and elected councillors.

“I know it is fashionable to look down on councillors but I’m a bit old-fashioned and I believe in democracy.”

The development was inappropriate in its height, scale and density, Mr O’Malley said.

“It will be a sad day for Dublin if one of its most attractive inner suburbs is destroyed in the fashion proposed here, if this is allowed to go ahead.”

The chairman of the Pembroke Road Residents’ Association, Paul Walsh, said the tower was “like a massive bent erection” which was “so awful, so incongruous that even Dublin City Council with their absolute enthusiasm for earning building levies rejected it”.

Mr Walsh said he realised his comments might be considered “rude” and said he was making them in a personal capacity.

The Danish architect who designed the development said he took inspiration for the 37-storey tower from the Pepper Canister Church on Dublin’s Mount Street.

“We found a lot of inspiration in Georgian Dublin but there is a tendency for a city to become a bit of a museum and in that sense new development needs to happen so there can be a city for the future,” Ulrick Raysse told the hearing.

Ian Ritchie, the Dublin Spire architect who was on the judging panel which chose Mr Raysse’s design, said the development respected the environment of Ballsbridge and the tower was an elegant building which was the appropriate height for its location.

“While it is accepted the site is not in the heart of the city centre, I would be very surprised if the mayors of London or Paris would not grasp the opportunity to see developed such an outstanding urban and architectural proposal in their own cities.”

He added that it was never envisaged that his Spire should be the tallest building in Dublin.

Planning consultant Tom Phillips, who represents 44 of the appellants in favour of the development, including Gate Theatre director Michael Colgan and public relations consultant Bill O’Herlihy, said the development would create 5,000 jobs.

Mr Phillips said that a draft local area plan (Lap), which would have allowed a landmark building in the area, was dropped by city councillors 10 days before the 2007 general election.

“The DCC planners were pro-active on this issue, but were frustrated by the refusal of the elected members to adopt or amend the draft Lap. An Bord Pleanála has the power to redress this issue.”

The hearing continues today and is expected to last two weeks.

© 2008 The Irish Times

@johnny21 wrote:

One of many mountbrook sweeteners to the residents of ballsbridge!! Architectural competition for the ballbridge/dodder predestrian bridge won by irish architect based in london. Funny looking blue bridge but i think i like it!!!!!!:cool:

Given the Jury’s site is at least 200m from the Dodder and has a lot of buildings in between I don’t get how this bridge is of benefit to the mountbrook – where will this bridge be sited – is it part of ‘The Oval’?

Paul Walsh, said the tower was “like a massive bent erection”

Is it the fact that the erection is bent which is troubling Paul ? Would he be fine if it was straight or does he equate all tall buildings with massive erections. Would he be more comfortable with a smaller building / erection ? The people deserve to know 😉

@Rory W wrote:

Given the Jury’s site is at least 200m from the Dodder and has a lot of buildings in between I don’t get how this bridge is of benefit to the mountbrook – where will this bridge be sited – is it part of ‘The Oval’?

Yes it’s not near the site but it’s part of the community planning gain Dunne offered:
Dunne offers €31m for social initiatives in D4
Sunday, September 02, 2007 – By Neil Callanan
Property developer Sean Dunne has said that he proposes to spend €31 million on social initiatives in Dublin 4 as part of his planning application for the Jurys Ballsbridge and Berkeley Court hotel sites.

Dunne’s company, Mountbrook Homes, will spend the money on new community centres, sheltered housing and other initiatives if planning permission is granted for the proposed development. The company lodged its plan for the site, including a 37-storey tower, last Friday.

Its proposed scheme is just under 190,000 square metres, and would include more than 500 apartments, offices, shops, bars, restaurants, a cultural quarter, a hotel and embassy space on the site.

The plan is on display to the public at the Berkeley Court today.

As well as providing social and affordable housing on another site in the area, Dunne is also willing to build a new community centre on the site of the existing Ringsend and Irishtown centre on Thorncastle Street.

It would have a sports hall, a creche, daycare centre, youth clubs, offices, changing rooms and computer training rooms. The facility would continue to be owned by the current trustees.

The creche in the hotel site will have 30 subsidised places, with a maximum charge of €1 per hour for low-income households if the scheme is approved.

Artists in the studios proposed for the site will be subsidised for up to two years. Lansdowne Road will be landscaped, and Dunne is willing to build a new pedestrian bridge over the river Dodder at the back of the Oval development on Shelbourne Road.
The developer said that he was also willing to help finance the cost of a Luas feasibility study for a line linking the city centre, Ballsbridge, AIB Bankcentre, St Vincent’s Hospital and University College Dublin.

He is also offering to redevelop the sheltered housing at Margaretholme on the Claremount Road in Sandymount. There are currently 38 units there.

Dunne said he could bring that number up to 90 and build a community hall. This will not count towards Mountbrook’s social and affordable housing obligations from the hotel redevelopment.

A further €5 million will be available towards local amenities, the beneficiaries of which will be chosen in consultation with councillors and planners.

dunne’s rent a crowd
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/supporters-of-dunnersquos-d4-tower-lsquointimidatedrsquo-opposing-residents-claims-city-councillor-1473084.html

inspired by the pepper canister it is.

Thanks jdivision that clarifies it somwhat

A rather erudite submission given by Pat McDonnell yesterday. I agree with every word – and particularly his assertion that the development plan is being subverted – here, and also I believe with the preposterous high rise/ so-called “maximisation” document, and of course the tawdry JC Decaux scheme – complete with it’s secret rezonings…

What exactly is going on among officialdom of DCC planning dept?

Ex-planner says project in Ballsbridge ‘a shambles’

OLIVIA KELLY
A FORMER chief Dublin city planner has accused the council’s planning department of disregarding the city development plan in granting permission for Seán Dunne’s high-rise development in Ballsbridge.

Former city planning officer Pat McDonnell, who took early retirement from the council four years ago, told An Bord Pleanála he was concerned about the “state of planning” in the council since he left the department. “I am particularly concerned about the status of the development plan in the eyes of the planners.”

He said the proposed development on the site of the former Jurys and Berkeley Court hotels in Ballsbridge contravened the development plan – which set Z1 residential zoning for the land – by allowing offices, having an excess of retail space, a deficit of open public space, sunless streets and no play area for children.

“The development plan is a democratically-arrived at contract with the public. It is a substantial, meaningful document, and is the whole basis for property rights…It can’t be casually interpreted or played around with.”

While there was room for some flexibility in interpretation of the plan, this particular development was in complete contravention of the plan. “Personally I would have put the developers – the applicants for this development – on early alert of the possibly rocky road they were going to face.”

Mr McDonnell said he was “surprised” and “rather disappointed” by the way the planners had treated this application. They had been right to reject the 37-storey tower which would have been an “impossibility” on the site. However, by granting other elements of the scheme on a piecemeal basis they had left the project in “a shambles”.

“There might have been a case for the planners to say ‘this isn’t going to work’ and to refuse this development in its entirety. Overall refusal might have been the best response.”

He said the site was suitable for redevelopment, but as a high-quality residential scheme with building heights of four to five storeys.

Patrick Dowling, a local resident and a banker, told the hearing on the proposed development it was his professional opinion that in the current economic climate no bank or syndicate of banks would be capable of financing the whole project.

The scheme could only be financed and built on a piecemeal basis. “This gives rise to my gravest concern that for years the site will only be partially developed and half-built, and so will become the largest construction eyesore in the country.”

He said permission should not be granted as the scheme contravened the city development plan. However if it was the board should impose a timetable and the developer should be required to lodge a significant bond with the council which would be forfeit if the timetable was not adhered to.

© 2008 The Irish Times

@hutton wrote:

Former city planning officer Pat McDonnell . . . . said the site was suitable for redevelopment, but as a high-quality residential scheme with building heights of four to five storeys.

I was with him up to that point.

Does he not remember that there were hotels and function rooms on these sites? There’s no way a site like this, near the centre of Ballsbridge, needs to be restricted to high-end (quality?) residential redevelopment, and 4 – 5 storeys is a bit harsh!

Unfortunately, it’s stuff like this that gives the Rose approach credibility.

I hope someone in Bord Pleanala has enough sense to realize that, between these two extremes, there is an urban scale, permiable, mixed use, alternative that can enhance, rather than stamp all over, the character of the area, but I don’t know if I’ll be placing any bets.

I think 8 storeys with the street network they’ve proposed for the site and they should get a similar plot ratio to 3.0 (similar to docklands) and we’ll all be happy…the present scheme (plot ratio 5.5) is definitely going to be refused outright.

I think this was just the height of the land and property frenzy that has hopefully dissipated. I hate the way that it is all been dictated by the need for a return on money. If you pay that much for land you can’t roughshod over planning guidelines and the general local population so you can make your money back.

I will admit I don’t know much about the whole thing but when I saw the price awarded for the sight at first and then the design I thought it was a joke. The purchaser might have to learn that he may have spent too much buying the land in the first place and lick his wounds if he fails and land on his own financial sword.

I personally believe it should not go ahead. Its another example of the highest degree of builders trying to bulldoze their way in their pursuit of cash.

I cant see how this can possibly get the go ahead in its current form. I really don’t understand the DCC decision to allow it in the first place.

In my own mind the tower is the least objectionable element of the entire proposal – Its a top quality design, in a location which, although jarring with its context, provides a major landmark and point of legibility and orientation. On the other hand it does seem a shame to permanently alter the nature of the villages in Dublin by allowing something like this.

As for the rest of the development I feel it should be thrown out on so many grounds:

• Excessive height to all surrounding streets, especially Landsdowne Rd.
• Monotony in the facades, not distinguishing between housing, embassy, office etc,
• Poor quality of apartments – although large – poor usability, light penetration, single aspect etc, balcony size…
• The ridiculous cross sections through the proposed streets, which would leave them cold, dark, damp and unusable.
• The huge amount of retail provision, which would clearly make this a destination, incurring all the traffic implications this brings and also detracting from the city centre, from which it is not very far. The ground floor is nearly entirely retail which reduces greatly the value of the public realm to those living there and to the community surrounding,
• The major density involved – 191 units per hectare – 150 dph is considered ‘superdensity’ by CABE – this is well above that – bringing major implications for service provision, apartment quality and open space.
• The monotony of dwelling typology – Accommodation will not achieve a broad social mix and vibrant community.

There have been many more arguments made against this in the oral hearing and they are very convincing. I want to like this scheme as I think it could be really well made and a great design but as of now, they’re just cramming too much onto the site.

Sean Dunne needs to concede some of the height and settle for a quality, well built development with a more palatable deference to its context.

well since so much money was spent designing it, why don’t they build this where the u2 tower was supposed to be. better looking than that was anyway

Agree with Reddy above. Also I think the end is nigh for these high rises given that it’s only matter of time before the banks start coming for these boys, I’d say we’ll end up with 3 max in Dublin over the next 10 years.

Interesting article on Dublin high rises from yesterday’s SINDO, yes I know it’s a rag!

End of era of ‘massive erections’

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/era-of-massive-bent-erection-1475197.html

@jdivision wrote:

Yes it’s not near the site but it’s part of the community planning gain Dunne offered:
Dunne offers €31m for social initiatives in D4
Sunday, September 02, 2007 – By Neil Callanan
Property developer Sean Dunne has said that he proposes to spend €31 million on social initiatives in Dublin 4 as part of his planning application for the Jurys Ballsbridge and Berkeley Court hotel sites.

Dunne’s company, Mountbrook Homes, will spend the money on new community centres, sheltered housing and other initiatives if planning permission is granted for the proposed development. The company lodged its plan for the site, including a 37-storey tower, last Friday.

Its proposed scheme is just under 190,000 square metres, and would include more than 500 apartments, offices, shops, bars, restaurants, a cultural quarter, a hotel and embassy space on the site.

The plan is on display to the public at the Berkeley Court today.

As well as providing social and affordable housing on another site in the area, Dunne is also willing to build a new community centre on the site of the existing Ringsend and Irishtown centre on Thorncastle Street.

It would have a sports hall, a creche, daycare centre, youth clubs, offices, changing rooms and computer training rooms. The facility would continue to be owned by the current trustees.

The creche in the hotel site will have 30 subsidised places, with a maximum charge of €1 per hour for low-income households if the scheme is approved.

Artists in the studios proposed for the site will be subsidised for up to two years. Lansdowne Road will be landscaped, and Dunne is willing to build a new pedestrian bridge over the river Dodder at the back of the Oval development on Shelbourne Road.
The developer said that he was also willing to help finance the cost of a Luas feasibility study for a line linking the city centre, Ballsbridge, AIB Bankcentre, St Vincent’s Hospital and University College Dublin.

He is also offering to redevelop the sheltered housing at Margaretholme on the Claremount Road in Sandymount. There are currently 38 units there.

Dunne said he could bring that number up to 90 and build a community hall. This will not count towards Mountbrook’s social and affordable housing obligations from the hotel redevelopment.

A further €5 million will be available towards local amenities, the beneficiaries of which will be chosen in consultation with councillors and planners.

:eek:What no halting sites

There is a rumour going around town that the bank involved in financing this is now UP one set of keys.

But DOWN around about 500 million euro.

And that they are attempting to re-flog the whole thing back to the Doyle family for a fraction of that figure.

Was the whole BP inquiry in vain?

Who was the funder?

For lending on that scale you’d expect more than one bank to be involved.

Wow! I think it is ulster bank and they meant, but failed, to sell the debt on. Of course, with the state scheme, we are ultimately responsible!

I wonder if the state ‘guarantee’ is worth the paper it’s (not) printed on; if the UB tried to get this EUR500m bad debt off the Dept of Finance I suspect they’d be told where to go. With all these landbanks kicking around, the State should buy those it wants at CURRENT market values (i.e. not a lot) – making developers and banks an offer they cannot refuse – and held as a strategic state land bank to be used/released/sold at the State’s pleasure and for purposes of strategic public benefit. And,of course, with appropriate mandatory planning guidelines attached.

@johnglas wrote:

; if the UB tried to get this EUR500m bad debt off the Dept of Finance I suspect they’d be told where to go.

No of course not, as I understand it, it just means that if the like of this brings a bank down, the state is liable for anything the bank owes to anyone else. In fact, as I should have remembered earlier, Ulster Bank opted out of the scheme.

Oh how blissful if the state bought this site at some sizable discount as a way of bolstering liquidity in the banking sector: what a wonderful mixture of things could be done with this site, not least for the education sector, a significant joint residence for TCD/UCD would head my list. Won’t happen though.

It would be interesting for the state to buy this site back to replace the vetinary college for a similar price to what they sold the former college for.

You are correct that RBS and HBoS opted out of the government scheme as the cost of the finance is not cheap and unlike the Irish banks they had the choice to weigh it up with the UK package which has more generous terms for political reasons.

It will be interesting to see what happens next and my guess is that nothing will happen until ABP make a decision; the ownership with a full grant possibly retained by SD; and if SD can’t find development finance in the event of a grant the intention of all potential buyers will be based purely on what guidance is given as to preferred land use for this site.

Worst case scenario from a property point of view is that the site contains two very successful hotels albeit managed with the short term in mind of late which if they were the subject of a modest investment programme would have a substantial value per bedroom plus a large valuation for the conferencing facilities.

If the permission were granted that would really take the banks off the hook and possibly give SD some of his equity back; this whole saga reads like a certain shopping centre in 1981 minus the speech in the BoI boardroom after a certain inheritance.

How different the outlook has become generally 🙁

A couple of years ago all battles were simply between consultants and the conservation movement / wealthy residents now the credit squeeze is hurting all sides. 🙁

The title of this thread is One Berkley court -132m Tower

In view of recent events, I propose we change it so as to read One Berkley court -€500m

@Seamus O’G wrote:

There is a rumour going around town that the bank involved in financing this is now UP one set of keys.

But DOWN around about 500 million euro.

And that they are attempting to re-flog the whole thing back to the Doyle family for a fraction of that figure.

Was the whole BP inquiry in vain?

It’s not true according to both sides

@hutton wrote:

The title of this thread is One Berkley court -132m Tower

In view of recent events, I propose we change it so as to read One Berkley court -€500m

Or

One Shit Creek – No paddle

How are things going on the tower. 😀
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/business/worldbusiness/04ireland.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

Thers some crackers in here…well worth a read
@JoePublic wrote:

I don’t see how Sean Dunne’s finances are at all relevant. The scheme should be judged on its merits alone, and how it fits in with whether or not we want a high density future for Dublin.

@wearnicehats wrote:

of course there’s money involved. no-one is stupid enough to ignore that. Neither is Sean Dunne stupid enough to know that he still makes money if the tower gets chopped in half. He had a competition, got a good and renowned architect and he’s put it up to the planners. Let’s see what happens
BTW anyone who wants to experience the positive and constructive nature of mickletterfeck’s contributions to this site should visit this thread
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4439
thank the lord ODT didn’t get get the job

@jdivision wrote:

And there was I thinking developers developed for nothing. Of course it’s about money. Along the way it helps if it improves on what’s there, ie, a bunch of drab horrible buildings that are past their sell by date. That’s what this debate is about. The issue of Dunne making a profit is so obvious it doesn’t need to be mentioned, it’s what all developers do. The issue of high rise for Ballsbridge is not a hard one. There is no village centre, it’s walking distance from the city centre and close to major public transport links. In short it’s probably the best location in Dublin for high rise along with the docklands. This thing of oh it’s unsuitable for Ballsbridge when there’s relatively tall buildings in the area – dating from the 1970s in the main, when there was much lower densities than are presently allowed – is nonsensical.

@alonso wrote:

mick thanks for the lesson. We had thought Mountbrook was an arm of Respond until you came along. Whatever about the social make up of this place, having wealthy people living in towers is better than having them in outer suburban sprawl. And if this scheme is successful we can finally throw off the shackles of high rise in Ireland whereby every ignorant buffoon, when confronted with anything over 6 storeys retorts “not another Ballymun”.

@massamann wrote:

I have a confession to make.

Its something that has been eating up inside of me for years and now – due to MickLetterfracks nuanced debating – I have to admit it: I too go to work mainly for the money. Yeah, sure, I get a sense of achievement of out some of the things that I do, and I enjoy the company of my work colleagues, but I’m guessing Sean Dunne does too. In fact, given that Sean Dunne is far richer than I am, and as he could probably retire tomorrow if he wanted too, it’s probably less about the money for him than it is for me. Damn.

Up to now, I hadn’t realised that working to earn money was wrong. And it leaves me in a bit of a quandry: If I shouldn’t work for money, and my hobbies are now to become my job, then how do I afford to put food on the table? Or should I just suffer for my art?

Then again, why does it matter if Sean Dunne makes a profit as long as the design succeeds? Is this not the main question? Personally, I’d prefer if a design conscious developer made money, so that they can afford to take their design conscious ass and develop another site.

Or am I missing something here? :confused:

@Rory W wrote:

Spot on Alonso – as someone who was 2 hours late for work this morning due to train failure on the (grim up) northern line I’d sooner see this sort of development act as a catylist for decent high rise in the CC so that it (a) civilises high rise living and the city centre as a place for families (b) develops sufficent density for a proper metro and (c) stops the constant sprawl of dross which is destroying this country

@jdivision wrote:

Eh land prices in Ballsbridge have pretty much doubled since he bought it. So actually he got a fairly good deal.

@wearnicehats wrote:

Don’t forget that prior to the sale of Jurys Ballsbridge Sean Dunne was Jurys’ largest single shareholder at nearly 19% of the company. Seeing as how the papers this weekend put the sale of the chain at between €750 and €950million, Mr. Dunne will have made a few quid back.

Also, he says in his letter that he only took control of the hotel in September this year. Many deals where a company needs “money” are structured in such a way that very little “money” changes hands. You might find that big interest payments only kicked in recently

And, as Matt cooper said in May 2006, “One wonders what Ahern, Cowen and other ministers make of their friend’s ambitious plans to reshape the landscape of Dublin 4. Will they support, object or affect neutrality, as if this is merely a commercial matter of no real interest to politicians? Will friendship with Dunne influence their thinking? Eventually, of course, it will come down to the planners, and what they think is in the best interests of the development of the city. And we can have every confidence that they’ll make the right decisions, oblivious to all factors of wealth, influence and begrudgery. Can’t we?”

So his position might not be as shaky as people think.

But, as our mad friend who has just made the 10 minute trip from his desk to his padded cell alluded to, Dunne’s just committed himself to a minimum of 1 year in the planning process and another 4 on site. That’s still, financially, a bit tasty.

Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons – what if the “it’ll never get built” crowd are right, but for none of the above.

What if Sean Dunne has no intention of building anything. What if he’s got the high of the deal, the competition, the spotlight. What if he’s using the site as collateral to finance other deals. What if, in 18 months time, he simply sells the site. Even if he gets €70million per acre (not unreasonable) he’ll turn a tidy profit. And if his planning is refused he can leave head held high. If it is granted, he’ll get even more cash for the site.

What if……

@wearnicehats wrote:

I was going to write something but then I realised that nothing would sum it up better.

@Rory W wrote:

I was going to respond to him but words literally failed me

@jdivision wrote:

Dunne paid €379 million for the two sites in 2005, but the fact that he had not actually taken ownership escaped most people, until he pointed it out in a letter to this paper last month.

“Dunne was silent about the precise point at which he took on the responsibility for the very large loans that finance his deal, but presumably the meter is now well and truly running.”
It was included in sale documents and publicly stated that Jurys Doyle would not hand over the properties for two years after the sale.

“it is at the same time very hard at this stage to see how he will make any money out of the project without driving a coach and four though the planning laws.”

He needs an average of 8 storeys on the site to make a sizable profit from what other developers have told me.

“McNamara estimates that his construction, site clearance and finance costs will work out at around €1 billion, or just over €3,300 per square metre for his 300,000sq m mixed use development.”
Not comparing like with like, Irish Glass Bottlers site is a former dump so much more expensive site clearance. He has no idea what interest rate Dunne is paying or how loan is structured, McNamara offered a 17 per cent per annum guaranteed return to investors for some of the finance. Dunne’s finance costs will be much lower. Somebody here suggested a 5.25 per cent bond.

“More specifically, McNamara expects to get €625,000 for a two-bed apartment when his development comes on stream over the next five years. It is a reasonable assumption given current prices, even allowing for the current weakness in the property market. If anything , these prices look a little cheap for Ballsbridge in five years’ time, but using them compensates for the conservative approach to Dunne’s costs.”
The approach to costs wasn’t conservative as previously explained. In addition Dunne is on record is saying that the cheapest apartment will be more than e1 million. Why start using a e625,000 figure. Comparing Ringsend to Ballsbridge in terms of selling price per square metre is ludicrous.

“And if he doesn’t get his towers, then the finances of his project look far less robust. It also calls into question the viability of whatever projects the developers who paid even more than Dunne for the adjoining sites in Ballsbridge have in mind. The €54 million an acre paid by Dunne is dwarfed by the €83 million an acre paid by Ray Grehan for an adjoining site and the €133 million an acre paid by Gerry O’Reilly for his site.”

Ray Grehan paid e171.5 million for his site and expects it to have a completion value of e600 million. Based on standard developer profits of 30 per cent he stands to earn nearly e200 million if ressie values are steady in a few years time.

“Whatever problems Dunne must face, their difficulties will be significantly greater. It is hard to see any of them, Dunne included, making money unless the planning laws are rewritten massively in their favour.”
There is already high rise in the immediate area, most of it dating back more than 30 years when densities and plot ratios were lower. Hardly planning laws being rewritten for him when Lansdowne got planning less than a kilometre away.

It’s armchair economics from McManus TBH.

@jdivision wrote:

SD hasn’t been to Galway races in three yearas alonso

@BostonorBerlin wrote:

Oi Wearnicehats Im guessing you read the papers – still reckon SD will get 70 million an acre ?

Yep Kefu .. Id say their beating down Sean Dunnes door to spend a million on an apartment .

Its “architectural merits” are sure to bring home the bacon, seems to be working for all the other box extensions/contemporary/clean line/minimalist pads whose prices are dropping thru their marble floors.. too funny …:)

@kefu wrote:

Before people start talkin’ about those commuting from two hours away, this proposal will have absolutely zero impact on this. It’s not unrealistic that starting prices here will be beginning (and this is conservative) at around E800,000. More likely in fact is that every single apartment in this complex will cost more than E1 million. It seems likely that many of these will be bought up by investors or for the very wealthy as a second home. None of the people commuting from Portlaoise, Virginia, Gorey or whereever are going to be moving into this scheme.
One Berkeley Court is a development for the very rich, as befits its locations in Dublin 4.
So for anybody making this argument, give me a break.
Let the project stand on its architectural merits and that alone.

@wearnicehats wrote:

What if Sean Dunne has no intention of building anything. What if he’s got the high of the deal, the competition, the spotlight. What if he’s using the site as collateral to finance other deals. What if, in 18 months time, he simply sells the site. Even if he gets €70million per acre (not unreasonable) he’ll turn a tidy profit. And if his planning is refused he can leave head held high. If it is granted, he’ll get even more cash for the site.
What if……

care to elaborate on why my contribution was a “cracker”?

@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)

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.

No crackers for hutton.

Boo-hoo 🙁

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 🙂

See post 380.

Ask that nice man in Anglo Irish Bank…he might know

See post 380.Nothing to see here now… Kindly keep driving on.

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.

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 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.

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!

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.

@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

Anyone fancy a pint?

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.”

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/228512.htm

@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?

What about Bartley Dunne’s? Ah shucks that’s gone a couple of years…

Oh well that’s this scheme, eh, dunne and dusted 😮

/ gets coat

[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 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?

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

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

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 🙂

@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/

this debate leaves me too angry to work so i can’t read that article til later

Brenda has an interesting ‘take’ on travellers here. Pot/Kettle Brenda? Snobbery?

Irish edition of The Times on Sunday December 14, 2008
Brenda Power: Travellers are their own worst enemy
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5337445.ece

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.

“I took my three older children skiing earlier this year”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article740201.ece

Brenda Power, the mother of five children, doesn’t approve of SUVs in town – “just vulgar, ” she says – but points out that her seven-seater people carrier is a 1.9-litre vehicle and so won’t be hit by the new charges.

https://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2007/jan/28/suv-or-not-suv-that-is-the-question/

The days of cheap airline travel are coming to an end …

…everything suggests that the golden age of €5 flights, continental mini-breaks and trans-Atlantic shopping trips will soon be the stuff of misty-eyed reminiscence….

….And thank God for that. Because for a while there, airline travel had ceased to be the reliable barometer of class it once was. In the days when the term “jet set” was coined, and a sun-tan was a mark of means and taste rather than a streaky job from a bottle of Fake Bake, air travel firmly separated the wheat from the chaff.

Wealthy folk flew to the sun for their holidays and to Paris for a romantic weekend. The lower-middle and working classes spent their annual fortnights in a caravan in Wexford.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4640790.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

:confused:

More seriously, I’m shocked that a qualified barrister has such a dim view of planning law. Is she seriously suggesting that ABP should have just ignored the development plan?

I am surprised at the lack of grace from some quarters in the vindication of your stance in this decision. A developer buys two hotels at the height of a property boom applies for development consent which is subsequently turned over on foot of planning objections. Where is the need to get personal or to attack a journalist who questions the wisdom of the decision on a number of unrelated grounds. If it were me I’d simply bask in the knowledge of calling the result correctly; I am happy to say I didn’t make any predictions on this one either way for the very good reason that it was going to be ugly either in planning terms or financial terms as a first time application.

I’ve known Brenda Power very slightly for about 15 years and have always found her to be able to build a credible link between an opinion and a number of factors that at a first glance do not seem obviously linked. Her real strength is being able to maintain a good level of intellectual rigour with a very down to earth philosophy.

As for Sean Dunne I have a sneaking admiration for him; he played a key role in the construction of phase of 1 Canada Square Canary Wharf in the Reichman days. He took a few chances didn’t rest on his Luarels and built some more projects and kept trying to grow his portfolio. I hope this doesn’t ruin him as anyone who takes their holidays building homes in a township is obviously not quite as aloof from the rest of the population as their Sindo persona might suggest.

When it gets personal you don’t have an argument and there will be plenty more discussion of this site over the coming years so stick to the facts.

Eh PVC have you seen Brenda Powers article from yesterday? Charming allusions of elder people with “mature vegetation” – classy stuff altogether – up there with Mary Ellen Synon’s and Kevin Myers’ uglier moments… It’s her who has got personal with oap objectors – clicky linky if you havent seen it before http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5683041.ece

brenda power is trashy tabloid populist alarmist, nothing more