admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I also know Damien and can say that everything he does is with the best intentions and further agree that the loss of Kilmainham Gaol would probably have occured without his intervention.
I disagree with his stance on fire safety as the standards imposed generally by the fire regs in respect of tall buildings makes their evacuation a lot more efficient and if you can’t get down there is a lot further to go up and given the number of compartments that a tall building has it would take a large quantity of combustable material to prevent rescue plans being put into play fully.
The high rise debate had I hoped moved on from one where conservationists threw the kitchen sink at it and where proponents bleated on about sprawl. There are places in Dublin that are right for tall buildings and other places that aren’t the debate lies in site specific discussions predicated on site specific view points.
One final note on Damien he is a practicing solicitor who was instrumental on having Bewleys reopened.
so with the DDDA themselves objecting to this, approval would seem unlikely ?
I’d have thought the developer would have broached this with them & attempted to proceed with the DDDA on side, maybe they did & just weren’t getting anywhere.
The land would automatically transfer to the management company once you sub-divide and sell even one unit; statutory wisdom apparently! Unless you grant 125 year leases which would influence value downward.
A JV is just a loose term for doing a deal with a professional developer who has the expertise to handle all aspects of the project from planning to disposal; there are a lot of relationships to be managed, architects, planners, contractors, quantity surveyors, estate agents, solicitors, and most critically the funder all of which have their pitfalls.
Your options would be to agree a price for the site should planning be secured or a percentage of the residual value once project costs were deducted or a set number of units or a percentage of the completed units.
I’m sure that a lot of architects who were doing spec dev resi over the past decade would be happy to discuss such a project if they felt you had the support to take it forward.
@murphaph wrote:
You see, when I read ‘innovative’ I think $$$$$!!! I have to think of that. I have the responsibility to develop the site on behalf of my mother who is too elderly to do very much. I have to think of her financial best interests and how I can give her the best return possible.
Having spoke to our builder friend he reassures us that we will need to spend tens of thousands of euro before a drop of concrete is poured (thanks Larry!). He also (having been a builder for decades) told me that some architects are to be avoided as they are more interested in winning prizes than delivering the best return for the client. That may sound controversial on a forum with a load of architects…discuss!
Taking the personality out of it the site will have a value based upon what comparable sites have fetched previously and in the current market that certainly will be a small proportion of the gross development value.
The basis of that is that risk aversion has risen dramatically as prices have cooled; the fact that the site is so close to Liffey Valley, Phoenix Park and Kings Hospital will make it a very desirable location given the local amenities.
I would view your position as three entirely different propositions; firstly you may dispose of the site at market value;
Secondly you could enter a JV with a developer structured as follows; you grant an exclusive right to a developer to apply for permission which if successful would lead to a fixed price being payable or a percentage of the gross development value at the point of disposal.
Thirdly you could commission designs from a reputable architectural practice however I would talk to a property consultant involved in mixed use developments to scope which architects to appoint. There is little point in commissioning an architect to design a scheme if it is felt that there would be insufficient demand or that the numbers just wouldn’t stack up.
In terms of quality of design there is certainly going to be a higher density if you hire a talented architect and the planners will react much more favourably to something that doesn’t look like it is made from lego. In a buyers market purchasers are also more savy on what they will buy and it is felt that the fall off in demand for buy to let purchases predicated on income returns alone have killed off demand for boxes that are fine to rent but you wouldn’t live in yourself; this unquestionably has altered the market considerably as many of the buyers of this asset class have moved into small lot UK or European buys where rental returns of 7 – 11% are typical.
My advice; talk to a top 3 property practice to get an opinion and do a JV with a developer who will bear all the risk and insist on decent design satandards to ensure that there is demand for the end product. The most successful developments in Dublin to date for me are Dundrum SC, 69-76 Stephens Green and the former Johnston Mooney and O’Brien scheme at Ballsbridge; all involved higher densities based upon high design standards.
Back to the present & the DDDA are capping their own, ahem, ‘modern mile’ (i like to call it the ‘mile of crap’) with, you’ve guessed it, 32 stories of crap 😀
ok, i’m being a little harsh … the alignment of the watchtower is actually a good thing – the completed Mayor street will probably be the longest ‘closed vista’ in the city. Although the renders of the watchtower aren’t promising, i’m hoping the finished product might be worthy of its on axis location.
Would have to question the alignment of city hall too Paul, definitely intended to terminate the vista, but it does sit slightly off line with parliament.
Can’t say i do consider the Rotunda off-axis, there’s too much in it. I’ve no issue with the skewed angle; that would have added to the potential vista all the more – to have the domed steeple lined up with the central median of O’Connell Street, with Parnell square directly behind would have been great. As it is, Upper OCS, despite the likes of the Parnell monument, lacks direction & sense of place.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Interesting challenge- can anyone name an urban building that is located and oriented precisely on an axis?
(I say urban because a few country houses are bang on- though fewer than you might think. Would this merit a new thread?)
Yep maybe a new thread for this one !
Can’t think of many in Dublin anyway … I think Leinster House is pretty much on line with Molesworth Street, until that street itself runs off course after its junction with south frederick.
What do ye reckon ?@RoryW wrote:
Have we forgotten how to close vistas in this country
Not sure if we ever knew, starting with Upper O’Connell street … surely the Rotunda could have done a nice job capping that one.
Having viewed the Square again I am totally clear in my mind that any proposal to alter the character of this square remains entirely unjustified.
Furthermore the applicant should learn that if it looks too good to be true that it probably is!
All attempts to claim in anyway that the Lemas era politicians were in any way forming a conspiracy to con the common man out of his or her rights as opposed to securing a planning system on the interests of the common good is entirely laughable.
wow thats great stuff. I wonder what pat the aul spal’peen did for Ruth to go to that trouble, & that much later !
ah the toss up, you see I want this ;
but not this
The north quay front needs such a solid, uncompromising intervention to save it from itself, simplicity on an appropriate scale; a welcome break from the myriad of nauseating granite, glaze & sun grill laden tat – complete with an all singing, dancing conference centre, that varies the format, vegas style, solely to save the passer by from descending in to slumber.
Unfortunately there is no middle ground, its a simple yes or no to Shay Cleary’s hotel, or at least it should be. The danger is that DCC will shovel stories off the top, destroy the proportions, save the mile & leave the docklands with a flatulent stump.
I concede that in the context of the mile, allowing this proposal to go ahead constitutes a precedent with beginning & end, i.e. it wont matter much what projects in to the mile’s vista thereafter.
I can’t make up my mind.
@GrahamH wrote:
Purely on an objective basis, to be able to stand in a virtually intact townscape of such enormous scale without the slightest signifcant later intrusion is one of the great wonders of this part of Dublin.
I take your point Graham & its well made, but really the potential area for incursions in to the vista of the mile covers a large tract of the city.
Perhaps whats surprising, is that it’s a structure on the north side of the river, a considerable distance, that may finally break the parapet. Had this been a more conventional proposal (by Irish standards) for a 120m structure, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. However, given the ratios, such dimensions are unworkable for Cleary’s proposal imo.
The point being though that while it takes 157 metres & 35 stories to have a significant impact from the north side, a fairly modest 8 – 10 story within the vista’s frame on the southside is also likely to break the line.
The intrusion of this tower & its alignment are unfortunate, but I suppose I saw an incursion at some stage as inevitable. Not that it has to be of course ! but obviously fairly draconian planning restrictions, covering a large tract of the city, are required if this is not to be the case.
Is this with DCC or can the DDDA just rubber stamp it through ?
McNamara never gets it wrong; unlike some people a little closer to home.
This scheme will do exceptionally well as between the Burlington/Allianz holding relief can be provided to the pent up demand for large floor plates in the Central Dublin office market.
I very much doubt that his bankers are very worried at all given his covenant strength and the requirements in the market.
@StephenC wrote:
I agree GregF the arguement about impact on the Georgian mile was always nonsensical.
For the record, not my argument ! I’m just suggesting we’re likely to hear that type of guff from certain third parties.
I think they complement each other … not sure how i’d feel about the hotel without the conference centre cushioning it from the river however.
The original high rise effort proposed for spencer dock isn’t worth talking about.
@Andrew Duffy wrote:
Not since the sewage plant in Poolbeg was built in 2003. Sandmount strand may not have a blue flag yet, but it’s immeasurably better now than previously. However, I suspect you don’t really venture into the city often, do you Noel? Nowhere to park?
You have to be a resident to get a disc!
Good image Miss archi
You could take it further and say that Dublin is in the noose due to a lack of a fully functional metro and rail network which will come one day
@TheWillinator wrote:
COST: Port Tunnel to M50 junction at Sandyford via Sandymount Strand.
Forgive my “back of the envelope type calculations”, ( sur, it’s what they all do at the NRA!) I’m not a professional in this area, and will just try to make an intelligent estimate based on current project costs. I searched the internet and was unable to find any sound costing.
Sandymount Strand land cost : zero
Sandymount Strand dyke and motorway + 1 junction : 500 million
Port Tunnel to Sandymount CPO Land cost : 300 million
Port Tunnel to Sandymount via Tunnel / Road + 2 No. junctions: 700 million
Booterstown to Sandyford M50 CPO land cost : 500 million ( most of route is reserved)
Booterstown to Sandyford M50 via Tunnel / Road + 3 No junctions: 1 billion.Total Cost : 3 Billion
Any kind of elevated roadway through sandymount strand or dublin bay will never happen … and nor should it imo. Tunneling is the only way for this thing to go. Throw the 3bn in to the interconnector.
