Ikea for Cherrywood?

Slutmonkey57b

wolfpawnat wrote: »

As Almagam said, it's already a ugly, the surrounding housing area is ugly. The Industrial park is ugly, but we may as well have a Ben Dunne gym (which we just got) and Ikea, at least they are ugly and useful!

What's useful about a second Ikea, 20 minutes away from an existing one? Why are multitudinous concrete shopping barns "useful" and wildlife habitat or open, wild green space is not? (If you don't believe my descriptions, the official report shows kestrels, bats, badgers, otters and plenty of songbirds in the area). I didn't see them on my travels but that's not surprising with noisy children in tow.

If someone's argument is "I don't have a car": guess what? An Ikea across the road, past some Luas tracks, is going to be just as difficult to get a bedframe out of on foot towards some public transport as the other one is. And, wait for it... you can order the stuff online and not have to use a car at all. So what's the "need" for a second Ikea here?

As many have pointed out, one down the south to service cork/limerick would be a much better idea.

Slutmonkey57b

Amalgam wrote: »

You make it sound like the private developer is purely at fault. The local Council have more or less taken their time moving on from the bust because it doesn't suit them! ..as in, as long as we can't squeeze an unreasonable amount of rates and parking fees out of this situation, zoning etc.. we won't do anything. That's what the present inertia boils down to.

You're clutching at straws now. The site has been empty long before the boom ended, precisely because the developer dug a huge hole, razed large portions of the site, then tried to hold the council to ransom to try and force his terms, and his profit margins, onto the county at the detriment of everyone else. He got into a fight with the developer of Carrickmines, and attempted to use the council as a pawn in that fight. He lost, and left a mess in his wake. Everything that is wrong with that site and the existing development sits squarely at his feet. He even deliberately dumped building waste from the Royal Marine site there and refused to clean it up!

Ikea have an interest in keeping a site to a certain standard, for the sake of their own branding.. That would keep things, 'in balance', for this particular site. It wouldn't be just any old ****ehawke moving in.

Have you seen IKEA in ballymun? Been inside it? Stood outside it? it's the most desolate kip on earth. It's as awful as the flats it replaced; a huge, blank, mausoleum of brutalist horror plonked into a flat, windswept, concrete and tarmac wasteland. Inside, it's a dank, dark, gloomy, bare cavern with an air of desperate zombielike horror.

Is Cherrywood bad now? Yes. Would an Ikea improve things? Buggery no.

Don't presume that the County Council haven't been nudging and pulling here and there, long before things went south there were 'problems' that were entirely of their own making. As I said before, rates and zoning. They're not innocent.

So clearly, we shouldn't use the council to impose any rules on future developments, is your logic? Is this a playground? The council work for the people. We should at least try and get them to work for us, no?

Slutmonkey57b

Tragedy wrote: »

Cherrywood can be made worse, it could be turned into a hellish amalgam of Tyrellstown and Rosemount, which is what the owners seem to want.

It's easy to redevelop waste land into whatever you wish, it's a lot harder to redevelop hundreds(thousands?) of high density apartments, townhouses and industrial units after, surprise surprise, it turns out they aren't what was needed or best for the area.

Your short sighted view is a large part of what has made parts of Dublin into untenable ****holes that families who live there dream of escaping every night.

Exactly. Best post on the thread. Building this would turn that whole corner of the county into a wasteland. That's not a good thing, just so that some people can go shopping and some developer can make a profit.

Amalgam

I'm for Ikea/Dunne Gym, I'm not for flats. Let me make that clear. A commercial zone, anything at all, would round off the LUAS line somewhat. Doing nothing isn't really making use of the area.

Tabnabs

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Why is having 2/3 ikea's something we want to aim for? How does it benefit us, really? Lots more easily broken needless tat in people's houses? Has the recession taught us nothing?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

What's stopping you doing that at the existing location? And how much tat does the average householder need, anyway?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If you walk around Ikea, or any other warehouse retailer, and don't find a depressing amount of tat, then I don't know what you're looking at. Ikea is not alone but its volumes are high. Tat, in this context, refers to "all that materialistic crap people in this country buy in bucketloads to no apparent good purpose"

As to the poster who suggests "as much as they need and can afford" I'll simply point to the levels of personal debt in this country and ask, once again, has the crash/recession taught people nothing? That there should be more to life than standing in a concrete barn every weekend buying crap you don't need so you can show it off to anyone who comes around? That "more concrete barns selling tat" isn't actually a solution to anything?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Have you seen IKEA in ballymun? Been inside it? Stood outside it? it's the most desolate kip on earth. It's as awful as the flats it replaced; a huge, blank, mausoleum of brutalist horror plonked into a flat, windswept, concrete and tarmac wasteland. Inside, it's a dank, dark, gloomy, bare cavern with an air of desperate zombielike horror.

Is Cherrywood bad now? Yes. Would an Ikea improve things? Buggery no.

We get it, it's not so much your objection to development, it's people buying book shelves, couches and furnishings that you despise. So your objection to consumerism is driving your vision of an ecological utopia by the M50. The preserve of children, bats and badgers. Traffic is just a fringe issue, the largest and most popular furniture retailer in the world and all it stands for is the real enemy. This isn't a discussion about development or Cherrywood at all really is it?

wolfpawnat

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

What's useful about a second Ikea, 20 minutes away from an existing one? Why are multitudinous concrete shopping barns "useful" and wildlife habitat or open, wild green space is not? (If you don't believe my descriptions, the official report shows kestrels, bats, badgers, otters and plenty of songbirds in the area). I didn't see them on my travels but that's not surprising with noisy children in tow.

If someone's argument is "I don't have a car": guess what? An Ikea across the road, past some Luas tracks, is going to be just as difficult to get a bedframe out of on foot towards some public transport as the other one is. And, wait for it... you can order the stuff online and not have to use a car at all. So what's the "need" for a second Ikea here?

As many have pointed out, one down the south to service cork/limerick would be a much better idea.

Except the way all the larger companies start out is the same, a few sample stores around Dublin, doted around, then spread to Limerick, Cork and across to Galway. If you think 2 Ikea's in Dublin is bad, two Starbucks on Westmoreland street alone must really get your knickers in a twist And there is the Dell in Stillorgan/Sandyford and a small one in Cherrywood too! That is the way things go, they choose a few locations, no doubt they are looking for something in the West Dublin area too. It is sort of a norm for these companies, Dublin has the most people, in the county and surrounding commuter counties, so naturally they will want to use this to gauge the Irish market, if they are a success, spread. Basic business sense. Cherrywood has ground ready to go and a good transport link, that is what they think and it will make them choose an area like here.

The other HUGE thing here is you jumping down my throat about your issues with it won't change Ikea's mind on where THEY decide to build. I am not the zoning officer, I am merely a resident who voiced that I for one, would like to see it in my area and that when talking to other residents, none voice opposition (please note, it was only a handful and does not in anyway represent the view of those living in Tullyvale as a whole). I would also like to see more schools, playgrounds and shops but there you go, I'll take what I can get.

I don;t think we need more apartments, several in my courtyard are empty and from what I gather, others are too, so why not fill what is here before adding more. The gym was needed I think and the building was already built and half idle so that was a good thing. It is a business park with féck all businesses in there, for those who moved to Cherrywood for employment, I would think anything that goes over there is a good thing.

And I don't plan on buying a bed, so I doubt I'll need to worry about it!

Slutmonkey57b

Tabnabs wrote: »

We get it, it's not so much your objection to development, it's people buying book shelves, couches and furnishings that you despise. So your objection to consumerism is driving your vision of an ecological utopia by the M50. The preserve of children, bats and badgers. Traffic is just a fringe issue, the largest and most popular furniture retailer in the world and all it stands for is the real enemy. This isn't a discussion about development or Cherrywood at all really is it?

Every suggestion I've heard about why "Ikea II : the Expanding" is a good idea boils down to "Umm, shopping is good. Me like to shop." Nobody can explain why the existing Ikea site isn't big enough to service the city (it's enormous). Nobody can explain why one on this site is a better idea than somewhere like Cork. Nobody can explain why "Shopping Barn and huge carpark" provides more social benefit as one poster put it than "wild green space" or "properly planned, decent sized family housing" or "some shops and a windbreak to lessen the howling gales".

All the "ah sure, there's an empty bit of space there, let's build something on it" just makes me wonder whether people actually realise that the country was brought to its knees by a massive property bubble. We don't actually have to build things all the time. Developers are not society's friends, they've universally proved that.

Do I like Ikea? No, clearly not. Do I think Cherrywood is a garden utopia? No, but it's not as desolate as people have made out. Does saying "developers have no interest in what happens 20 years from now, and will screw us over to make a short term profit" make me a hippy? No. Do I think there is more to life than spending a weekend in somewhere like Liffey Valley, then watching the X factor? Yes. Yes I do.

Slutmonkey57b

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The other HUGE thing here is you jumping down my throat about your issues with it won't change Ikea's mind on where THEY decide to build. I am not the zoning officer, I am merely a resident who voiced that I for one, would like to see it in my area and that when talking to other residents, none voice opposition (please note, it was only a handful and does not in anyway represent the view of those living in Tullyvale as a whole). I would also like to see more schools, playgrounds and shops but there you go, I'll take what I can get.

I don;t think we need more apartments, several in my courtyard are empty and from what I gather, others are too, so why not fill what is here before adding more. The gym was needed I think and the building was already built and half idle so that was a good thing. It is a business park with féck all businesses in there, for those who moved to Cherrywood for employment, I would think anything that goes over there is a good thing.

And I don't plan on buying a bed, so I doubt I'll need to worry about it!

See, fixing what's wrong with Cherrywood is fine. That needs doing. But the plan that is being proposed, of which Ikea is only part, looks like making things down there worse. The site is in the state it's in because someone thought "build acres of it and they will come". The current plan is also, sadly, "build acres of it and they will come". It's not even an improved version that learned from the mistakes of the original. Being launched in a massive europe wide recession, it's actually worse.

wolfpawnat

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

See, fixing what's wrong with Cherrywood is fine. That needs doing. But the plan that is being proposed, of which Ikea is only part, looks like making things down there worse. The site is in the state it's in because someone thought "build acres of it and they will come". The current plan is also, sadly, "build acres of it and they will come". It's not even an improved version that learned from the mistakes of the original. Being launched in a massive europe wide recession, it's actually worse.

Sure the original plan was to build apartment complex's on both sides of luas line from Bride's Glen to Carrickmines. That would have been insane! There is nowhere near enough facilities here for that, schools are packed as it is!

Tragedy

Amalgam wrote: »

It is already ugly. The Apartments there are ugly. The wasteland is ugly. having to walk down from the LUAS is a mess. The hodge podge of Mickey Mouse housing in the area, up towards Ballyogan is ugly. There's uglyness all around already.

If you're coming at this from not wanting your idyllic tranquility spoiled in any way because you live somewhere quaint and quiet like Cherrywood Road or similar, I don't sympathise.

Right. You replied after my post, you seem to think you were replying to my post, but your reply has nothing to do with my post.

I didn't disagree that Cherrywood is ugly, I didn't talk about idyllic tranquility, so I don't know what the waffle coming out of you is about - it's certainly nothing to do with my post.

patrickbrophy18

I went on to Google Earth there and measured the length and width of IKEA in Ballymun which works out at 501.41 meters long and 216.74 meters wide. This includes the car park and any micro infrastructure on the land.I then measured the length and width of the wasteland in Cherrywood between Cherrywood Luas Station and the M50. The measurements are almost identical save for less than a meter. I decided to mark the area with a blue rectangle in true IKEA colours (:D) and is 502.05 meters long and 215.98 meters wide. There's even an entry/exit point for cars and other vehicles on the ready . THIS IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL!

Now, I'm not too sure how accurate Google Earths measurements are. However, I was using it to examine the possibilities of an IKEA in Cherrywood purely from a dimensional comparison using the Ballymun site as a basis. Nevertheless, the demand for another IKEA only 30 minutes drive from the existing one is another story.

The only problem (and a big one at that) is that significant chunks of the aforementioned wasteland site are currently reserved for the long term development of a future road network. This road network will link Cherrywood with Carrickmines and will presumably be used by future bus services. Here is a map from the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council website outlining these long term plans at the exact location of this hypothetical IKEA store.

The IKEA site in my hypothesis would completely block this off and may very well jeopardize any future strategic developments in the immediate vicinity. An IKEA store in the Cherrywood location might also potentially generate the demand for new relief roads or QBCs from coastal areas like Sandycove, Dalkey and North Killiney given their close proximity. Planned QBCs in other areas such as Rochestown Avenue, Sallyglen Road and Lower Glenageary Road would almost certainly need to be rushed to completion.

Cookie_Monster

I personally don't see the need for yet another village centre and lots of housing, Dublin expanding ouward yet again. It would be great to see the area returned to the farm land / wilderness it used to be but the infastructure will ensure that never happens and the lack of topsoil means it'll stay a barren mess forever if left as is. Something needs to be done and DLRCoCo's plan is complete pie in the sky craziness, while the idea of an Ikea in what is already a designated industrial park makes sense.

josip wrote: »

The word "tat" is often used indiscriminately about Ikea by people who are not in a position to make a qualified analysis of the products on offer, often due to having little or no experience of those products. Slutmonkey, can you elaborate on why you consider Ikea to be a purveyor of tat, fine or otherwise?

I'm sure selling tat is what got Ikea to the gigantic size they are today, not innovate high quality low cost products
I only wish they had an Ikea over here

Tragedy

Dublin has a need of several thousand new homes per year according to research studies, for at least the next decade. What exactly makes you not see the need for more housing in Dublin? You might not 'like' the idea that Dublin is still growing, that doesn't obviate the fact that Dublin is still growing and will continue to need more housing stock - notably high quality low density developments, as Dublin is already over catered to with apartments/townhouses which were overbuilt during the boom times to maximise profits.

All the above is objective fact, rather than personal opinion/desire.

josip

Tabnabs wrote: »

This isn't a discussion about development or Cherrywood at all really is it?

Hear, hear. +1

josip

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Nobody can explain why one on this site is a better idea than somewhere like Cork.

Slut, let me try to explain, and I'll say it slowly in case it's difficult to understand.

D L R _ C o C o _ w i l l _ g e t _ a _ l o t _ o f _ r a t e _ p a y m e n t s _ f r o m _ I k e a _ in _ C h e r r y w o o d _ b u t _ n o t _ i n _ C o r k.

Capisce?

Larbre34

josip wrote: »

Slut, let me try to explain, and I'll say it slowly in case it's difficult to understand.

D L R _ C o C o _ w i l l _ g e t _ a _ l o t _ o f _ r a t e _ p a y m e n t s _ f r o m _ I k e a _ in _ C h e r r y w o o d _ b u t _ n o t _ i n _ C o r k.

Capisce?

Thats a bit smart for an off the mark statement.

DLR don't want IKEA, it wasnt in the development zone design that they submitted to Bord Pleanala, they dont agree with the scale and function at that location and theyve resisted it inclusion for several years. The reason this came up is the private interests who want it built made a submission to the Board to allow for it when they approve the SDZ. For that reason, we'll do well to know the outcome before the end of the year.

josip

Larbre34 wrote: »

Thats a bit smart for an off the mark statement.

DLR don't want IKEA, it wasnt in the development zone design that they submitted to Bord Pleanala, they dont agree with the scale and function at that location and theyve resisted it inclusion for several years.

Fair enough, I should have been more polite. Apologies to SlutMonkey for any offense.

But what's off the mark about my statement? I didn't say DLR want Ikea there to get the rates. I think a good reason for Ikea to be in Cherrywood is to contribute to the rates of Dun Laoghaire. There are others who think the same.

At the full council meeting in Dun Laoghaire a motion on this topic was lost by only 1 vote. Not unanimously.

Tragedy

Ah I see. We should ignore everything but the money, because that worked so well for zoning and sustainable development during the boom.

How quickly people forget.

josip

Tragedy wrote: »

How quickly people forget.

I'm not going to forget the 50,000 I have paid out to DLR over the last 10 years as a rate payer. I would appreciate all the help I can get in the short to medium term to lessen that burden.

Slutmonkey57b

josip wrote: »

Fair enough, I should have been more polite. Apologies to SlutMonkey for any offense.

But what's off the mark about my statement? I didn't say DLR want Ikea there to get the rates. I think a good reason for Ikea to be in Cherrywood is to contribute to the rates of Dun Laoghaire. There are others who think the same.

At the full council meeting in Dun Laoghaire a motion on this topic was lost by only 1 vote. Not unanimously.

No offence taken, I would just have sarcastically responded that you appeared to have missed my point entirely.

josip wrote: »

I'm not going to forget the 50,000 I have paid out to DLR over the last 10 years as a rate payer. I would appreciate all the help I can get in the short to medium term to lessen that burden.

Why would building an Ikea in DLR reduce the rates that you or other businesses pay?

The only thing that's going to happen with Rates/Household Water/Property tax over the next few years is that they're all going up. Why are they going up?

To pay off the money the taxpayer borrowed ... to bail out the banks ... who lent too much ... to incompetent greedy developers.... like the guy that built Cherrywood...

And the solution?

BUILD! Build like there's no tomorrow!

josip

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Why would building an Ikea in DLR reduce the rates that you or other businesses pay?
...
And the solution?

BUILD! Build like there's no tomorrow!

Re your first question. You and your mates have to buy everyone else in the pub a round of drinks sharing the cost equally between you. In scenario 1, you have 3 mates. In scenario 2, you have 4 mates. In which scenario do you, slutmonkey, pay more?

Re your 2nd point. I think you are confusing one off development levies, an over reiliance on which in the past got DLR into their current situation with recurring revenue from commercial rates, such as Ikea would provide, which is what I have been advocating.

Slutmonkey57b

So.. "build an Ikea, I'll pay very slightly lower rates, the rest of the county will get screwed, but hey"?

And no, the funding gap in councils/local authorities etc is not down to losses due to development levies, I'm talking about the disastrous effect "build build build it's good for the economy" and short term me-fein ism had on the country as a whole. So while yes, it sucks to be a commercial ratepayer, it also sucks to be a paye taxpayer.

The solution to both is not "build more". The solution to high rates could be "force the councils to reduce their rates targets", in a healthy democracy. Which we don't appear to have or want.

ted1

the council should tackle spending before they do anything else.

Breamor Road and the round about fiasco are two examples of bad spending that has cost more than IKEA would bring in, in rates.

the council spending money on privat eparking spaces for staff is another waste, as are the ramps on killiney hill road.

I really don't think they need money and using rates is an excuse. South Dublin in unique in being leafy suburban area and should be protected.

green belts need to be protected as the sequster carbon.

if you look at the plans for cherrywood you'll see the sports village is planned for the far side of the M50, this area alone is a crazy place for that. the area is farily hilly and would cost a fortune to excavate to be flat and provide pitches, i can't see it happening.

Tragedy

josip wrote: »

Re your first question. You and your mates have to buy everyone else in the pub a round of drinks sharing the cost equally between you. In scenario 1, you have 3 mates. In scenario 2, you have 4 mates. In which scenario do you, slutmonkey, pay more?

Re your 2nd point. I think you are confusing one off development levies, an over reiliance on which in the past got DLR into their current situation with recurring revenue from commercial rates, such as Ikea would provide, which is what I have been advocating.

Your rates won't be reduced because DLR earn more, DLR will just spend more.

Fratton Fred

Tragedy wrote: »

Your rates won't be reduced because DLR earn more, DLR will just spend more.

Something that DLRCoco are very good at.

josip

Slutmonkey, ted1 and tragedy. Do you pay rates?
Do any of you live in DLR county?
Who funds your local services?
It's not unreasonable for those who are funding those services to want as much assistance as possible.

Green leafy suburbs are lovely to live in but they won't pay for the lights on your street or the council to maintain the parks.

I agree that the Killiney Towers roundabout has been a fiasco and I have no knowledge of Braemor Road save what I read on boards. However I do know that total expenditure to date on the Killiney Towers roundabout will be €430,000. I don't have figures for Braemor Road. Ikea alone would annually bring in €1,100,000 in commercial rates.

The idea that we shouldn't increase the revenue side of the budget but instead focus entirely on cost savings within the council is an easy but short sighted argument to make. Of course there are areas of spending in the council that need to be addressed and I would be a lot more actively critical of the council than many, but any business whose revenue stagnates will not survive for long.

Tragedy

josip wrote: »

Slutmonkey, ted1 and tragedy. Do you pay rates?
Do any of you live in DLR county?
Who funds your local services?
It's not unreasonable for those who are funding those services to want as much assistance as possible.

Green leafy suburbs are lovely to live in but they won't pay for the lights on your street or the council to maintain the parks.

I agree that the Killiney Towers roundabout has been a fiasco and I have no knowledge of Braemor Road save what I read on boards. However I do know that total expenditure to date on the Killiney Towers roundabout will be €430,000. I don't have figures for Braemor Road. Ikea alone would annually bring in €1,100,000 in commercial rates.

The idea that we shouldn't increase the revenue side of the budget but instead focus entirely on cost savings within the council is an easy but short sighted argument to make. Of course there are areas of spending in the council that need to be addressed and I would be a lot more actively critical of the council than many, but any business whose revenue stagnates will not survive for long.

You said you want Ikea because they will pay rates and that this will decrease your rates.

Your post above has absolutely nothing to do with your prior argument.

Ikea paying rates to DLR will not reduce your rates.

Also just as an fyi, the majority of the CoCo's funding comes from the exchequer, which comes from taxes, which we all pay in one way or another.

ted1

josip wrote: »

Slutmonkey, ted1 and tragedy. Do you pay rates?
Do any of you live in DLR county?
Who funds your local services?
It's not unreasonable for those who are funding those services to want as much assistance as possible.

Green leafy suburbs are lovely to live in but they won't pay for the lights on your street or the council to maintain the parks.

I agree that the Killiney Towers roundabout has been a fiasco and I have no knowledge of Braemor Road save what I read on boards. However I do know that total expenditure to date on the Killiney Towers roundabout will be €430,000. I don't have figures for Braemor Road. Ikea alone would annually bring in €1,100,000 in commercial rates.

The idea that we shouldn't increase the revenue side of the budget but instead focus entirely on cost savings within the council is an easy but short sighted argument to make. Of course there are areas of spending in the council that need to be addressed and I would be a lot more actively critical of the council than many, but any business whose revenue stagnates will not survive for long.

I pay the local property tax which is the residential equivalent of Rates. I live in Killiney which is in the DLR area.

with regards Rates, you'll find that you do nor personally pay rates, the company that you work for/own pay rates. As does the company I work for. what industry are you in?

Having an IKEA will also cost the council more as with greater usage there is more wear and tear and maintenance being involved.

As regards paying for the lights to stay on, theres plenty of new technology otu there that will signifactnly reduce the spend and offers a pay back period of less than 2 years.

josip

Tragedy wrote: »

You said you want Ikea because they will pay rates and that this will decrease your rates.

Your post above has absolutely nothing to do with your prior argument.

Ikea paying rates to DLR will not reduce your rates.

Also just as an fyi, the majority of the CoCo's funding comes from the exchequer, which comes from taxes, which we all pay in one way or another.

My post addresses a number of points raised by you, Ted1 and SlutMonkey. My point is still completely valid, that for any given budgetary year, my rates would be lower if there are additional sources of rates such as Ikea, than if those sources were not present.

Regarding your FYI, the 2013 council budget provisions for a Local Government Fund Grant of €24,772,300. Commercial rates to be levied will be €82,869,000. Please provide the source of your statement that the majority of the CoCo's funding comes from the exchequer.

josip

ted1 wrote: »

I pay the local property tax which is the residential equivalent of Rates.

Local Property tax is a much smaller contribution to the Council's budget than commercial rates.

ted1 wrote: »

with regards Rates, you'll find that you do nor personally pay rates, the company that you work for/own pay rates. As does the company I work for. what industry are you in?

Who said I personally pay them? Does your company also pay you to post on boards during work time ? IT, to answer your question.

ted1 wrote: »

Having an IKEA will also cost the council more as with greater usage there is more wear and tear and maintenance being involved.

Do you think it will be €1.1m more?

ted1 wrote: »

As regards paying for the lights to stay on, theres plenty of new technology otu there that will signifactnly reduce the spend and offers a pay back period of less than 2 years.

New technology is great, but there's an upfront CAPEX and still an ongoing OPEX, even if reduced.