admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Whatever opinions are regarding the esteem the building is held in, whether its considered to be a sharp interpretation or perhaps a lesser parody of Mies; there is unanimous agreement that this intervention as proposed (and for me any intervention) is and should be out of the question.
Short sightedness, penny pinching, who knows :rolleyes:
Terminating metro at SSG is crazy, but sure there have been people shouting about this for years now with no change, given the tighter budgets we’ll all have to live within, its pretty much certain SSG is as far as it will go.
Its also certain calls for it to be extended will start within its first year of service.
At least Luas red line will shortly continue to the east docks, removing itself from the realm of ‘An Larism’ transport planning.
Ageed the Loop line looks a lot better and at its pivotal position it was indeed worthy to clear the view towards the Custom House of attention grabbing advertising; Pearse Street is a less concerning location in that it is a less important view and probably worth as much to CIE in advertising revenue which would be based on traffic levels.
On the buildings at O’Connell Bridge having advertising hoardings it is very disapointing and clearly something that it would have been preferable to nip in the bud in decades past. However the costs of compensating the building owners who under planning laws could effectively receive the full financial value of their losses would in all probability exceed the benefit to the public good in monetary terms. Frank McDonald in the Destruction of Dublin is on record as claiming that the value of the then Guinness sign (Now Heinekin) on O’Connell Bridge House exceeded the value of the rents for the remainder of the building.
Given the rents that media companies pay for new sites at high profile locations and the lack of enforcement of property owners who take that chance I can understand why they do; it is an area that requires tightening up.
There isn’t a stretch of the Thames like this; I’ve always been of the opinion that Dublin reacts with its river more like Paris or Cork than London in this respect. In the riverside in London from Westminster to London Bridge you have either absolute icons or absolute muck there is very little middle ground on the main stretch of the Thames.
I really hope that the drawings translate to the icon the promotors claim it is and that some of the sentiments bove are misplaced; I am however unconvinced.
@dave123 wrote:
Limerick is doing pretty welll right now. The city centre is buzzing atm. New developments coming on nicely. The Thomas street development will really kick off the Bedford/Thomas street commerical uprising atm. The Opera centre will attact millions back into the city centre. This will futher bring rates down and keep investment flowing into the city centre. Bedford Row is now ubelievable and a thousand’s time better since prior to the pedstrianisation. The city centre will continue to attract investment, when the final pedstrianasation phases come through along the other streeets. The Limerick Tunnel will also give the city back to its people. The city will become one of Ireland’s friendliest pedstrianized cities.. Stop your f****** negativism please. Limerick is doing fine, especially without your sh!t.
I realise this is not an economic forum and my intention is not to distract from the discussion on Limerick’s Architectural development. However, I do feel it is worthy of mention that the Economic situation has changed and will (in my view) continue to change dramatically and this will impact on the proposed plans for Limerick.
Not discussing these things won’t change the facts.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.
With a mixed use office and residential scheme there will always be a small retail element to service the primary uses and appease the locals who in their obeisity ccouldn’t be bothered walking half a mile to the local shops.
Traditionally one would have said on a site this size with no existing retail provision in the vicinity one would have started with a convenience spore, a pharmacy, dry cleaners, video shop, cafe and three other units that they’d never let unless the locals didn’t mins a pizza store and then they’d have two units they couldn’t shift; one opf which would end up as the site managment suite for the Jani.
Today I’d suggest that an 8 run parade would have the unibiquitous Spar/Centra, pharmacy, Costa/Insomnia but what other 5 local uses would you get into a hypothetical location like this outside the retail core or office core?
I regret to say, I am of the opinion that a lot of the large proposed projects for Limerick City will now be shelved. Why would anyone build more retail space, Hotels, offices and apartments when whats there isn’t selling or leasing. Consumer spending will drop so shops will continue to close.
Also, I expect the powers that be will shelve the re-generation projects. They won’t announce it as cancelled though – just string it along in planning stage for years.Learning how to serve is a watershed for any of us
I’m lucky I’ve learned to serve ……………
Not to stroke and consequently don’t have to look over my shoulder albeit being signifanctantly feited by real players.
@the hawk wrote:
If you cannot understand you should not be questioning the knowledge of others.
Having handled a 100 plus cpo files before concentrating on property asset management my knowledge of the specific sub-field is decent; however if I used an agricultural example when dealing with a commercial client I’d be fired for gross stupidity.
QUOTE=the hawk;82812]The principle of compensation should not be confused with the quantum. .[/QUOTE]
The quantum of what; we are not discussing big box rent reviews in a shopping centre.
@the hawk wrote:
The use and zoning of land has to be factored, but so too must other equally valid factors..
For example that no comparable transactions have occured within the last 30 years if ever and that no reputable development team in the City would touch it.
@the hawk wrote:
Its the amount of compensation that causes you to loose sleep. A jealous mind is hard to live with.
Its not jealousy its that I care passionately about the suburb of Ranelagh having spent some of the best time of my life there. What Noel O’Gara is proposing gives the development industy a very bad name and having development focussed clients on some instructions I want my connections to think of their personal qualities as opposed to a sorry excuse for a man like O’Gara who sells tiles from a caravan to annoy local families because they want a park for their children to play in. These people pay a lot of tax and they do not deserve to have a sorry excuse for a man insult them in this fashion in his warped attempt to create such a fuss that he is compulsorily purchased in a deal rationalised on the back of a major box.
@the hawk wrote:
Your angst is displayed in your request that I do not return to the forum. So much for open debate! .
My firewall protects from phishing scams; if I were moderator which I am not I’d ban you as a troll
@the hawk wrote:
What you seek is a commitee of fools. Or maybe my earlier comparison with Mugabe was more apt than I first thought. .
As previously explained to you a lack of regulation leads to $5bn sandwiches which when you think of it is a bit like the economics that O’Gara is trying to front in his valuations.
Zimbabwe dollars – O’Gara valuations
@the hawk wrote:
ps. How was I to explain injurious affection and severance to you if I were to agree to your request and not return to the forum. Private lessons would cost you.
Whats your charge rate per hour on paper and far do you exceed it on performance? You couldn’t afford my rates even if you were lucky enough to get a written opinion as a favour;
Hutton behave this guy/gal is making enough of a fool of himself by continuing to argue using language thats a good few levels above him/her.
@the hawk wrote:
In terms of compensation valuation I would refer you to Keane CJ supreme court judgement in relation to the 1999 bill
“the landowner is to be compensated, not merely for
the market value of his land, but also for such additional
elements of damage to him as disturbance, injurious affection
and severance.”This is farmland case law; do you know what you are talking about?
Please define injurious affection and severance seperatley; I had kind of considered going into the only other type of cpo compo o noffer business disturbance but what business distrubance could one attribute to not being able to operate a caravan selling tiles without planning permission; he’d owe money for the costs of not defending a prosecution for breach of planning law.
Noel please do not return to this forum
@the hawk wrote:
Land has an inherent value and its relationship with other lands, buildings and infrastructure is transitory. The likelihood of Dartley Square remaining as it is in three hundred years time is remote. Cities evolve and change is inevitable. I appreciate that regulation is required to give form to our built environment, but this should be done with the aid of land use zoning objectives in development plans which are reviewed every six years. To travel the route of legislation effectively ousts people from their lands, and the practice is more suited to Mugabe’s Rhodesia..
You acknowledge regulation is apt but when new regulations are proposed to regulate it is equated to Zimbabwe you mix ZANUPF with the entity they removed why so? In adequately regulated markets a sandwich doesn’t cost $5bn because the necessary regulation is introduced as and when it is required.
@the hawk wrote:
A more apt correlation is between the quantum of value of land and the appreciation people have for it. It is not merely measured in development potential terms, but also has to have regard to its aesthetic and amenity value. If such land is privately owned, I say that the owner has the right to be compensated if the use of that land is designated for public use, for his private enjoyment of his land is eroded..
He was offered a settlement of some €300k which not only reflected the amenity value but also took as comparable the most developed central Dublin park St Stephens Green calaculated what a park ranger lodge site would be worth and offered the value for same without fully assessing the negative value directly attaching to perfoming the likely planning conditions on long term tree preservation i.e. significant annual expenditure to keep the trees in a condition where they are capable of securing POL (Public liability Insurance) and keeping the railings in good repair.
@the hawk wrote:
In relation to the CPO I agree that the equation cannot be solved on the back of fag box. I disagree however that the valuation process should have regard only to development potential as I have outlined already. There is a reluctance to proceed with the established procedure to acquire the lands which was forced by the council. This is indicative of the bully tactics of the Council who is trying to mitigate its own ineptitude. “We will force you to sell but we will not pay what it is worth”.
There is no development potential under the present zoning and any valuer would have to consider that regulation is more likely to tighten than loosen on the regulation of amenity land within the inner suburban zone that carries a tree preservation order and is situate within a conservation area. The valuers hands are tied he must value the holding subject to its adjoining land values, comparable transactions and all regulations that have the capacity to limit use of the land. Ask yourself why the owners of Fitzwilliam or Merrion Squares have never proposed development within the curtilage of the holding? In any event on the date of the notice to treat expiry there have been no comparable transactions for such a period that it would be impossible to support any development potential whatsoever.
@the hawk wrote:
The legislative changes you speak of are fine once they relate solely to publicly owned lands. To impose such laws on private lands for the sake of this individual debacle amounts to nothing more than blatant bureaucratic back stepping. I fail to understand your point on intensification of use in relation to amenity land. Are you proposing jail for the over planting of geraniums? I am being flippant and I presume you are referring to unauthorised change of use, but your points on controlling alcohol consumption and the provision of insurance only copper fastens my belief that all amenity lands designated for public use should be in public ownership, and a fair price should be paid for the transition of such lands. What the landowner paid for these lands in the first instance is irrelevant.
Should geraniums be over planted it would be no surprise however in the context of the irish climate one could hardly argue that it would constitute even agricultural use as to make such a species profitable one would require greenhouses. The intensification of land use would be any of the following
1. Car parking
2. retailing
3. residential
4. commercial Finservices / offices
5. institutional usesGeraniums don’t need foundations and should any landowner breach a tree preservation order or change the use of land or construct foundations then that land owner should explain their actions before a judge who would listen to arguments from both sides. Contempt in the place of a court is what actually results in jail time
What led me to comment on this site was the statement of John Gormley that he would introduce legislation to deal with Mr. O’Gara. This is an acceptance that legislation as it exists support Mr O’Gara. We do not live in Stalinist Russia or nazi Germany where we can introduce laws where we can deny to a person his property simply because it is desired by others.
Land is a hetrogenous commodity precisely because it is unlike anything else in that it is affected by many different circumstances; primarily based upon a specific plots’s relationship with adjoining plots, public ways, the water table below and the air above; location and point of the market cycle being the only other major factors .
There is a direct correlation between the intensity of a land use and the level of regulation affecting same; i.e. in an area where there is a lot of human activity land is zoned to specify what is and is not permissable. This system is common accross the developed World and in the greater scheme of things the Irish system is probably considered to be at the lower end of the top quartile in that respect.
The laws that are proposed do not affect Mr O’Gara’s right to own the land he has purchased but rather to regulate his use of it in the same way as lead was banned from petrol the regulation will prevent misuse by any owner of what is clearly amenity land created as recreational space to give architectural context to what was in this case the centre piece of the Darley Estate but the same principles could equally be applied to Say Merrion Square or Fitzwilliam Square should they fall into the hands of someone who has no respect for the law of the land and or shows no respect for the law or the servants of same. The regulations are aimed preserving architectural conservation areas and I for one welcome moves in this direction.
My advice is that the Council should independantly value the land with the aid of objective valuers assisted by legal and planning experts. This could be done outside the CPO process, and if this value is affordable then it should be offered to Mr. O’Gara. I am sure he would accept a reasonable offer at this point. The problem with some people is that they don’t want the park as much as they don’t want to see Mr. O’Gara profit. Pay the man what he is due or leave him alone ,or to put it straighter, piss or get off the pot
A Compulsory Purchase Valuation is not something undertaken on the back of a John Player box it must be grounded and supported by comparable evidence to take into account that the losing party may take legal action and as such must stand up to necessary scrutiny. As outlined above the development potential of this plot of land which forms a protected vista from some 50 dwellings and three roads is very close to nil.
Combine this with a tree preservation order and likely condition to keep the residual curtilage and railings in good repair and you start to get a picture of just how much downside this holding has.
Legislation is required and it must ensure an outright prohibition upon the development of any recreational lands in planned square with an ACA designation.
It must place a requirement to keep insured any recreational areas in urban areas that are bounded on all sides by public highways.
It must set out substantial fines for allowing lands within urban areas to be used for consumption of alcohol by minors by way of not secured such lands in a reasonable manner.
It must set out substantial penalties for carrying out uses constituting an intensification of land use without the consent of the planning authority; including imprisonment for repeated breaches even if these are different uses.
I am privalaged to work in the property industry and love development, but in conservation areas alterations must be exactly that and what is best must be protected from greedy opportunists who over hear a pub conversation and throw entire neighbourhoods into chaos.
If you read the exact wording he is considering
However I do agree with your sentiments if steps beyond consideration and moves from foul metaphors to vile planning breaches he may well become a trans EU ex-prisoner as I’m sure the legislative response from Gormley and bye law response led by Quinn will crystalise his obligations and signifacantly ramp up the penalities if he stops mouthing off and goes Pearse style and actually crosses the line either the ones existing today or those rushed through before he starts digging his own very personal hole;
BoB
I’ve been enjoying your little spats with some of the boards more argumentative types of late and as an ex-pat I’m facinated to see where you are based to know where Nirvana is because I like the natives am obviously losing out.
@hutton wrote:
South Dublin Labour Party councillor OisÃn Quinn said locals were not happy with the council’s decision and that Dartmouth Square had become a health hazard. “It’s in appalling condition. The square is overgrown, full of rubbish and has become a place where people gather to drink.”
The public health acts and Derelict sites act seems the likely routes to go down now to re-open more traditional grounds for compulsory purchase; Should a cpo be undertaken the land if laid to waste as Cllr Quinn is suggesting could potentially have a negative value as the costs of reinstating and subsuquent inflated maintanance costs for the existing planting, trees and structures in a manner consistent with an ACA designation could be less than zero.
I’d further look for public liability insurance cover to be produced and the insurers views on incapacitated persons being present on the site in view of a highly litigious society most particularly when people under the influence damage themselves and we wouldn’t want to see people being hurt most particularly given that the individuals are likely to be underage drinkers.
What are DCC doing to protect young and vulnerable people from an unscrupulous landlord who is determined to use any negative to attempt to pester the residents into submission?
I couldn’t agree more and would add that the naturally ventilated Fingal County Offices at Swords are a shining example of the gulf bridged between 1992 and the present. Commercial development in no way resembles pre boom days whilst purists will not rate schemes such Elm Park or Dundrum Town Centre (another award won on Wednesday Night) that have been built or schemes such as Dublin Central that are on the drawing board. To contextualise lets look back to Stokes Place or Ilac Centre because that was the height of both office and retail development before this kicked off.
The Battersea Power Station project launched yesterday is what we should be looking to as the model when the next cycle of lending kicks in late 2009 i.e carbon neutral and linked to tube.
Hopefully the economy will be more resilient than it was after the last commodity led collapse in the late 1970’s; an ability to ensure efficiency and competitiveness could be helped massively by some environmental responsibility. Thankfully the number of one off houses being built has remained at roughly 20% and not accelerated but 20%of 26,000 units is a lot better than 25% of 92,000 units; travelling around in an SUV and inviting all your mates around to your 5,000 sq foot pile 5 miles from anywhere is exactly why oil is $136 a barrell and why the boom has ended. Can we correct our psychology in time or has our addiction to a development pattern model 20 years out of date going to lead to another mass exodus? International companies want to do business in Ireland but only if it is an efficient model with all the bells and whistles such as zero carbon buildings and housing for ex pats in the right places.
…why can I see this turning into the standard old versus new argument?
I have no problem with new architecture, as long as it doesn’t degenerate into an exercise in egotism. I sometimes wonder how many buildings are desgined deliberately to clash with their surrounding environments simply as a means of drawing attention to the architect.
@lostexpectation wrote:
what the situation with the park at the moment, can people access it, is it being looked after by the council?
surely never buying it is the best tactic for the council, and it’ll stay as is and o’gara doesn’t can’t do anything with it or get money out f it.
The thought struck me after reading Frank’s post it will rot should it stay in the current ownership and given the way O’Gara is talking there most certainly won’t be any planning permission.
There are other commercial uses other than housing that might accord with an amenity zoning. Other squares in the area have tennis clubs etc
The destruction of the nearby Mount Pleasant Square over time and subsequent incremental programmes of work over a 30 year period is exactly why you would not secure this type of permission.
The hope value has to be taken into consideration and many irish speculators considering a long game would be happy to buy it for a few million with an eye to the future. After all, development plans are issued every few years, people come and go from the administration of planning and local politics.
Expressly excluded by all relevant case law; the most compelling argument for the cpo is that the current use and zoning are all that can be reasonably considered and the zoning, situation in an ACA and tree preservation order would completely kill all hope value in the eyes of a valuer. I’m not saying that two agents doing a set of heads on the back of a beer mat wouldn’t find value after the 8th pint but hope value simply doesn’t stack up in the CPO arena. It is for that reason that motorway accomodation works settlements where the works were never completed often were the only way that farmers being cpo’d for motorway schemes got to make money in the last tranche of the NDP; i.e. I need a bridge it costs €2m; change your mind and cry oh just give me the funds.
Even a single house on these two acres with its mature trees and surrounding would be worth millions. Credit crunch or not.
I’m not so sure given that any hypothetical house would be single storey, set back in a way incapable of making a statement, have no carparking and no doubt have a planning condition to maintain the 2 acres in a manner consistent with an ACA with a massive liability to maintain all the trees covered by the tree preservation order. Then factor in construction costs, multiple planning applications and very poor demand for unbuilt residential property.
I’m almost coming around to the idea of waiting for a planning application and I have no doubt that no council in my lifetime will alter the zoning on this space. However should the existing fittings not be maintained the cost of reinstatment could be much higher and for this reason it is crazy that the cpo was not served.
