Dub guy wrote: » I have pity for the residents in the houses facing Bradys they are some of the finest houses in the area. I would say this development if it gets the green light their house values will be hit big time and if it starts to take in less desirables they could be unsellable.
Dub guy wrote: » Point taking but when you get rid of a lovely landmark pub and replace it with a 5 storey building with more doors than mountjoy prison and move God knows who into it the area is less desirable.
daymobrew wrote: » The previous planning application in 2016 was for 34 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom units - a total of 89 bedrooms. This new application is for a lot more people! The downside to objecting to something is that something worse can come along.
beauf wrote: » its a nice looking building, but was it ever that popular? Likewise the restaurants above it? Castleknock Inn (previous building) before it wasn't that popular either. I think because a lot of people pass other pubs before getting to that one.
angel eyes 2012 wrote: » I remember as a kid it was called Scotts, late 80s early 90s and it had a grand piano and white leather seating, very Miami Vice. It was very popular then, but in fairness there wasn't as much competition around and it was located on the main Navan Road as the bypass was built later on.
miss misty wrote: » Before that Twin Oaks ... owned by Donnelly family
beauf wrote: » The twin oaks that's it...
dodzy wrote: » Moving on to co-living..... I’m guessing that these type of developments are not forced to provide a percentage of social units ? ( could not see that ever working)
Cllr Currie said she was "shocked" the development had been been given planning approval. "The concept of co-living is for urban locations with strong transport links and that would appeal to a mobile workforce. This location, in my opinion, is completely at odds with the vision of co-living."
Lord Derpington wrote: » Confused by this quote from Cllr Currie. The site location is on the 37, 38, 38A, 39, etc bus lines all going to the city plus the rest and walkable distance to the Castleknock train station, not sure how "at odds" the location really is with that vision. Each of these transport links may be overloaded/at capacity most of the time but that's a different issue.
jonnybravo wrote: » I'd say a big issue with this development is that there is no car parking. I'd say it would be highly unlikely that the 210 apartments will have no cars..... I'd hate to live on this street during the building phase and then parking after will be a nightmare.
blanch152 wrote: » Agreed, but that is the only problem. It is also a short-term problem. One-day and other short-term car rentals will become more prevalent over the next few years.
beauf wrote: » The usual issues with these are #1 Traffic (its been a choke point for years) #2 Parking (previous long standing issues with this - 12 lock etc.) #3 Being overlooked (devalue near by properties) #4 Different profile (students etc).
