One Berkley court -132m Tower
- This topic has 448 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.jpgI 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.
Morlan wrote: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]
but whty tallaght and sandytford..is that not aping the london/birmingham model as you suggetst… why do you say ballsbridge is no palce for highrise but tallaght or sandyford are?
I believ this area could be wellserved by one highrise landmark builing?
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:
@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 senseWith 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….
Morlan wrote: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]
Agreed. The recent LAP which covered this site, and would have raised heights (but not to Dunne’s levels), has already been shot down.
This is not a designated area for high rise – there is already a shit-load of density on this site by the existing precedents. To permit higher rise here would send out all the wrong signals. There is also the danger of repeating the mistakes of the 60s which saw the CBD move from to Ballsbridge while the city-centre died (see Destruction of Dublin for more).
As to “Dunne v Nimbys”, I note that some months ago Dunne himself wasn’t too slow in filing an objection for a 6/7 floor scheme that was proposed for Ailsbury Road – which is coincidentally where he lives (and obviously not a million miles away from his site)…What’s good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander, I would have thought.
So all in all, just because some developer who is himself a nimby paid too much for a site and has his arse out the window as a result, does it mean that the city should bend and permit an otherwise unsuitable scheme? Methinks not…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
