Dunner Towers: Application made today

[kerrynorth]

Sean Dunne's application is being made to Dublin CC today. It will include a 37 storey tower. Cllr. was on the radio about it. He says none of the local Cllrs. were invited to a viewing last night and Eamon Keane on Newstalk this luchtime said they were the only media at it. Presumably RTE et al weren't invited! At 37 storeys it is 5 storeys taller than the previous showing to Cllrs. some months back. Highly unlikely to get past DCC but of course ABP will be waiting in the wings for an appeal and ABP can disregard to the Local Development Plan. This is the same ABP that has been stuffed with FF nominees over the last 10 years. Hmmmm......

[The Collective.]

Cool! Thats all I can contribute to this thread.

[Insider2007]

Yet another property developer putting making money ahead of issues like quality of life, the environment, or logical planning.

[The Earl of Desmond]

It never ceases to amaze me how Irish policy formers fail to learn of the mistakes of others - Dublin 4 types would like to think Kensington in London is a similar area so in that case they should look at the massive 37 story Holiday Inn tower plonked in the middlle - it looks hedious and does nothing at all to add value to the area.

But as long as Dunen makes millions who cares - right lads.

[alonso]

But this IS logical planning. Obviously he won't get 37 storeys. He'll be knocked down to 20 at the most, which I believe is still too high for that area. There is scope for up to a thousand new family sized homes of all types and sizes in Ballsbridge, and I hope that these plans, to an extent, come to fruition.

People, it's either put them here within walking distance of the city centre, or stick em in Gorey and consign another tranche of Celtic Tiger ireland to the commuter belt. The quality of life that we could create in this city if inner suburbs like BBridge, Sandymount, Ringsend etc were developed intensely (within reason), when brownfield sites become available, would be far far greater than the current patterns. Don't let the NIMBY BANANA gombeenmen push this development out in it's entirety.

Jurys has been an ugly scar for decades. Good Riddance,. But it must be replaced by an attarctive, mixed use, life-long community. There;ll be new PUBLIC spaces instead of the old gated lot, and new PUBLIC streets. I hope Sean Dunne gets permission, (obviously from ABP) for a development here and I think it's right he should.

[The Earl of Desmond]

The point being it addresses none of the problems of affordable sustainable living ina city like Dublin - where are the people who live there going to send their children to school, where are they going to play, where are they going to park, do their shopping etc etc etc.

All he's planning to build is yet another Ivory tower in D4 - whats that place called where Albert Reynolds used to live - that was built with the same thought as this Dunne proposal and the reality was nothing like was claimed at the time.

[ibis]

People, it's either put them here within walking distance of the city centre, or stick em in Gorey and consign another tranche of Celtic Tiger ireland to the commuter belt. The quality of life that we could create in this city if inner suburbs like BBridge, Sandymount, Ringsend etc were developed intensely (within reason), when brownfield sites become available, would be far far greater than the current patterns. Don't let the NIMBY BANANA gombeenmen push this development out in it's entirety.

I don't think the choices are the inner suburbs or Gorey. What's wrong with the outer suburbs? Why stick big developments like this in the Georgian areas, as opposed to the redbrick areas?

We don't have to choose between breaking the character of the city centre (which to some extent is common property) and sufficient densities for public transport, when we have extensive suburbs of no character whatsoever.

[jam_mac_jam]

People, it's either put them here within walking distance of the city centre, or stick em in Gorey and consign another tranche of Celtic Tiger ireland to the commuter belt. The quality of life that we could create in this city if inner suburbs like BBridge, Sandymount, Ringsend etc were developed intensely (within reason), when brownfield sites become available, would be far far greater than the current patterns. Don't let the NIMBY BANANA gombeenmen push this development out in it's entirety.

I don't think the choices are the inner suburbs or Gorey. What's wrong with the outer suburbs? Why stick big developments like this in the Georgian areas, as opposed to the redbrick areas?

We don't have to choose between breaking the character of the city centre (which to some extent is common property) and sufficient densities for public transport, when we have extensive suburbs of no character whatsoever.

There is plenty of room around the docklands where this type of development would be much more suitable there is no need to go out that far, there is no point in living in a high rise if you are in a suburb. It defeats the whole point.

[HanleyS]

People don't have to move to Gorey if they are prepared to live in high density shoddily built apartments. They choose to buy a decent house where they can afford. These homes will not be competing with the likes of the commuter belt towns.

[alonso]

EoD, I agree re affordability, but in a general sense, the more that's built within the current footprint of the city, the more likely affordable units will come on stream as supply gets closer to demand. I'm yet to get full details on this but the concept of playgrounds, new public streets and new public spaces have been mentioned. He also emphasised Family Sized units giving the impression that these will be life long communities rather than monocultural ivory towers ( the highest buildings will be though due to lack of balconies, but they're only one element).

schools within the suburbs are actually seeing decreasing numbers as families move out. There should be school places available within wlkaing distance, rather than SUV driving distance as is the case in the commuter belt. They will play in the spaces and playgrounds being provided in the development, not just on sh1t open spaces (SLOAP - space left over after planning) that we have seen vomited thorugh out Leinster. They will park underground, and will not need to drive as much in any case, as jobs and leisure will be on their doorstep. They will shop in the shops provided within the development or in town up the road.

Ibis i agree. That;s what makes me sick about the hypocritical rants about DLR Golf Club, where residents proclaiming themselves to be guardians of open space are in fact trying to obstruct housing in an area of population decline, and a new park being built for the people, in order to maintain an elite sporting facility? I would totally support that type of development. And this has been happening in line with transport investment. What was once called the DART effect is now seen by the LUAS effect etc, where monotonous sprawl has been diluted by more interesting focal points.

The reason I chose the comparison was simply because we were talking about Ballsbridge. I don't believe this type of development breaks the character of the city centre. My concern is in relation to the height proposed, which I think could negatively impact on the skyline. But he won't get permission for that height anyway.