Hawkins House to be demolished

FreudianSlippers

Muahahaha wrote: »

I found it difficult to believe that they can get 50% extra office space from the same footprint but if they can then fair play. I was also surprised that there is only 400 staff on site, at a guess it is 10 storeys high which would mean an average of 40 staff per floor. Does anyone know if a number of floors are just lying empty or something?

The building won't have the same footprint. As someone on Skyscraper City pointed out, the current building footprint uses a shameful amount of the space - even having street-level parking.

It should be easy to maximise the space with a larger footprint on that same site - but they should be building it taller as well.

However, given the approval of the awful Exo and the rejection of any kind of elegant/modern design, I wouldn't be hopeful that a nice and tall building would get permission.

derekbro

New update today, doesn't look like they're going very high from the images

www.rte.ie/news/2016/0603/793008-department-of-health/
(Sorry, can't post proper links - mod fixed)

donegal.

Pepe LeFrits

The article seems incomplete - there are plans for Apollo House to be demolished also, and more pics of both buildings together:

http://www.thejournal.ie/hawkins-house-plan-2803781-Jun2016/

cgcsb

new buildings will be lower than the 1963 blocks....can't cope.

Col_30

The new building already looks dated in the renderings. I think it's awful. It looks like a 1960's office block. Is this an homage to the original? i do like the sound of a pedestrian route from Tara Street to College Green though. I've always quite liked the in your face brutalism of Apollo House.

newacc2015

cgcsb wrote: »

new buildings will be lower than the 1963 blocks....can't cope.

Well the new normal in Dublin City is building 3/4 storeys in the basement due to height restrictions. RSCI and TCD have building 4 storeys underground. A lot of new office blocks around Molesworth St etc all are going underground.


I personally can't understand why these only look around 5/6 storeys when Oisin House at TCD is going to be 7 storeys high. IMO these office blocks should be around 10-12 storeys at least and let the top floors to other companies. The Government should be aiming to make all office blocks in the city self financing ie the revenue from them means the tax payer pays nothing

Spanish Eyes

I don't think any Government Department should be in the business of property development. Imagine, the DOH that cannot fund cancer treatment for melanomas is going to spend 50m redeveloping this site.....

What benefit is that to the taxpayer anyone know? It's not as if they are going to lease the space out or anything AFAIK. And the design is just so bland. Where is the innovation of design architects these days at all? Probably wouldn't get planning since the dinosaurs at DCC and APB would baulk. What!!! That!! you must be joking.

Anyway, to shut myself up, why not sell the site, stick the money in DOH coffers, and bloody well rent the BOI forever.

Sorry, went off on one there.

LXFlyer

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't think any Government Department should be in the business of property development. Imagine, the DOH that cannot fund cancer treatment for melanomas is going to spend 50m redeveloping this site.....

What benefit is that to the taxpayer anyone know? It's not as if they are going to lease the space out or anything AFAIK. And the design is just so bland. Where is the innovation of design architects these days at all? Probably wouldn't get planning since the dinosaurs at DCC and APB would baulk. What!!! That!! you must be joking.

Anyway, to shut myself up, why not sell the site, stick the money in DOH coffers, and bloody well rent the BOI forever.

Sorry, went off on one there.

It has nothing to do with the Department of Health.

The Office of Public Works manage all government and state properties. It is a completely separate budget.

Spanish Eyes

lxflyer wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the Department of Health.

The Office of Public Works manage all government and state properties. It is a completely separate budget.

OPW is a Government Body. Taxpayer's money is being used to fund this development. The profit from the sale of the site COULD go the Health couldn't it.

So there we are, A Government Department in the property development business. Like I said....:D

LXFlyer

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

OPW is a Government Body. Taxpayer's money is being used to fund this development. The profit from the sale of the site COULD go the Health couldn't it.

So there we are, A Government Department in the property development business. Like I said....:D

Bizarrely enough government departments and public bodies need offices to work from.

You could take your argument about any item of public expenditure.

Or are you saying money shouldn't be spent on anything except the health service?

Interested Observer

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

OPW is a Government Body. Taxpayer's money is being used to fund this development. The profit from the sale of the site COULD go the Health couldn't it.

So there we are, A Government Department in the property development business. Like I said....:D

Well yeah but you could say that about absolutely anything at all the government spends money on, anything. You can't just fire every penny in the coffers at health.

newacc2015

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't think any Government Department should be in the business of property development. Imagine, the DOH that cannot fund cancer treatment for melanomas is going to spend 50m redeveloping this site.....

What benefit is that to the taxpayer anyone know? It's not as if they are going to lease the space out or anything AFAIK. And the design is just so bland. Where is the innovation of design architects these days at all? Probably wouldn't get planning since the dinosaurs at DCC and APB would baulk. What!!! That!! you must be joking.

Anyway, to shut myself up, why not sell the site, stick the money in DOH coffers, and bloody well rent the BOI forever.

Sorry, went off on one there.

Except the point of a budget is that you have limited means and have to decide what is best overall. Is spending €140k on treating a single patient or hiring 5 new teachers better ? Sure why don't spend half of the health budget on experimental drugs with little merit and have infrastructure like some African country? That is the best thing for the overall well being of Ireland?

Have you look in any of this? I imagine not as renting an office in BOI is about €600-650 a sq meter per year. It is one of the most expensive office blocks in Dublin. It would be cheaper and better value for the tax payer to redevelopment this site. But sure we will free up money for experimental drugs if we choose to rent out an expensive office?

cgcsb

The but what about health argument is often rolled out against every capital project getting state funding. The reality is more money wont help the health service. We already spend more than most oecd countries on health. The reality is no government is willing to pull the rug under from the hundreds of 'managers' through various layers of the service and replace them with a more efficient structure. Such a project would take many years, longer than one govt cycle and would attract the wrath of the unions.

andekwarhola

The pressing question is will this be finally reopened?

D Trent

It's only TODAY that permission has been granted to raise Hawkins house.

http://www.thejournal.ie/apollo-house-demolition-3149988-Dec2016/?utm_source=facebook_short

The much talked about in the recent news, Apollo house, also granted demolition permission

FreudianSlippers

I wouldn't imagine they are going to start demolition this side of the New Year, so (legal issues aside with regard to squatting) let them stay until 1st January.

Although, I do have sympathy for the owners of the building - they're in a ****ty situation with regard to PR and legal issues by letting them stay.

amtc

There's a cottage on top of the gpo and a vegetable garden

D Trent

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1220/840244-apollo-house-high-court/

I can see this getting messy and being of huge expense to the taxpayer

Esel

D Trent wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1220/840244-apollo-house-high-court/

I can see this getting messy and being of huge expense to the taxpayer

How, exactly?

D Trent

Esel wrote: »

How, exactly?

Read article

Esel

D Trent wrote: »

Read article

I did. Maybe I missed something.

L1011

amtc wrote: »

There's a cottage on top of the gpo and a vegetable garden

(assuming that the lack of context wasn't some form of sarcasm)

Neither exist. Aerial photography destroys urban myths. The GPO has a pitched roof the entire way around bar the very top of the portico

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Jervis+Shopping+Centre/@53.3492871,-6.2610345,58m/data=!3m2!1e3!5s0x48670e82537dd1df:0x996fed2b36c6df20!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xaee60e4658e219bf!8m2!3d53.3481849!4d-6.2656724

FreudianSlippers

D Trent wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1220/840244-apollo-house-high-court/

I can see this getting messy and being of huge expense to the taxpayer

I don't think so. There is no way the occupiers can win this injunction - best they are hoping for is that it is kicked to touch in the New Year (which I would bet won't happen).

The receivers will win this and costs follow the event, so the occupiers should have to pay legal costs.

In any event, the receivers are private company so I don't see how this could cost the State anything?

D Trent

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think so. There is no way the occupiers can win this injunction - best they are hoping for is that it is kicked to touch in the New Year (which I would bet won't happen).

The receivers will win this and costs follow the event, so the occupiers should have to pay legal costs.

In any event, the receivers are private company so I don't see how this could cost the State anything?

From article:
"He said they had tried to avoid court as the taxpayer would be liable for the costs of these proceedings."

It's before the courts right now so it has cost the state and until it's resolved, will cost the state more.

FreudianSlippers

D Trent wrote: »

From article:
"He said they had tried to avoid court as the taxpayer would be liable for the costs of these proceedings."

It's before the courts right now so it has cost the state and until it's resolved, will cost the state more.

Don't know what to tell you... costs follow the event, so when Mazars/NAMA eventually wins their injunction they will make an application for costs against the occupiers and should win.

D Trent

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Don't know what to tell you... costs follow the event, so when Mazars/NAMA eventually wins their injunction they will make an application for costs against the occupiers and should win.

Did nobody tell you the occupiers are homeless and actually don't have a penny to their name ?

L1011

D Trent wrote: »

Did nobody tell you the occupiers are homeless and actually don't have a penny to their name ?

The organisers are neither.

FreudianSlippers

In any event, it's cheaper for the state to pay to have them kicked out than the alternative of allowing them to remain and something happening to one of these people whilst illegally occupying a property controlled by NAMA.