Limerick improvement projects

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

Rugby Experience is nowhere near the same height, about half I think. It's also not in as prominent a location.

Do you have no issue with the height?

None. We already have tall buildings in Limerick and permission granted for another one on Bishops Quay. I think the whole idea that something can be ruined because it's overlooked by a tall building as a ridiculous idea unique to Ireland.

zulutango

johnmolloy554 wrote: »

Four storey over basement so. Where do you fit proposed high rise in a Georgian City like Limerick then? Surely any tall building will overlook a Georgian part of the City?

Towards the Docks. You could have a cluster of high rises there which would minimise the impact - Bishop's Quay, Riverpoint and the Clarion are all at that end. The Project Opera one is a long way from those and in a more sensitive location.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

None. We already have tall buildings in Limerick and permission granted for another one on Bishops Quay. I think the whole idea that something can be ruined because it's overlooked by a tall building as a ridiculous idea unique to Ireland.

Really, you'd be happy enough with a 15 storey building beside St. Mary's Cathedral or King John's Castle? Or how about at one end of Sarsfield Bridge? If you're ok with all that, then fair enough. I'm not though.

source

zulutango wrote: »

Really, you'd be happy enough with a 15 storey building beside St. Mary's Cathedral or King John's Castle? Or how about at one end of Sarsfield Bridge? If you're ok with all that, then fair enough. I'm not though.

It's not beside those buildings though is it? It's actually a decent enough distance, it will be visible from St Mary's but I'll be far from beside it. Also personally i would have no issues with a high rise on the Dunnes site.

zulutango

I was just using those examples to show how silly Cookiemunsters point above was. Obviously, the impact of a building on its surroundings is an important consideration on whether it gets planning consent. The plans for Limerick Boat Club some years ago were thrown out for this reason, for example.

kilburn

zulutango wrote: »

I was just using those examples to show how silly Cookiemunsters point above was. Obviously, the impact of a building on its surroundings is an important consideration on whether it gets planning consent. The plans for Limerick Boat Club some years ago were thrown out for this reason, for example.

Are you just objecting to it for the sake of it as usual?

There will be a lot more office employees there than just revenue

zulutango

kilburn wrote: »

There will be a lot more office employees there than just revenue

What proportion of the tower floor area will not be Revenue employees?

kilburn

zulutango wrote: »

What proportion of the tower floor area will not be Revenue employees?

I don't know i don't work for Revenue, Limerick 2030 or any other of the stakeholders.

But i do remember seeing that Revenue would be the anchor tenant

dashoonage

ah here...build this...move revenue...knock sarsfield house, build more big shiny things....rock on.

pigtown

zulutango wrote: »

What proportion of the tower floor area will not be Revenue employees?

I read somewhere that the site will take approximately 3 times the size of Gardens International in employment space, with a third for revenue, another third for start ups expanding from UL and Lit innovation centres, and the final third to be marketed by the IDA

rebs23

zulutango wrote: »

It's an improved plan from the one they had prepared a year ago. I'd query the 60% office allocation though. Most of that is to be made up by Revenue staff moving across the road from Sarsfield House. Seems a pitiful waste of resources to be honest. The 15 storey tower, which is to house the Revenue staff, is a ridiculous proposal for that part of town. Hard to see that being permitted.

The 15 storey looks good in that location. In other countries you'd often see high rise and historical buildings co-existing. As I understand it the Revenue moving to the Opera site is the only way the Opera development stacks up financially and even then.....
It seems a bit crazy for a Local Authority to borrow €170 Million to build offices for Revenue who already occupy offices nearby rent free.
So a semi state body borrows money to build offices for a state agency so the state can pay out rent (presumably) to another state agency.
The taxpayer (Limerick ratepayers) take all the risk and then the Irish tax payer has to pay more to rent out the space. So you the taxpayer are on the hook twice!!
All of this to justify an office development where there is limited demand (Gardens only 50% occupied)!
It does seem a bit bizarre and almost comical.

pigtown

dashoonage wrote: »

ah here...build this...move revenue...knock sarsfield house, build more big shiny things....rock on.

Don't knock Sarsfied House, convert it to grade A apartments

Vanquished

kilburn wrote: »

I don't know i don't work for Revenue, Limerick 2030 or any other of the stakeholders.

But i do remember seeing that Revenue would be the anchor tenant

I went to the consultation and specifically asked about this. Revenue will occupy the entirety of that proposed tower.

Their justification for the height was very flimsy. Apparently it'll make a huge statement and will be very shiny.

zulutango

pigtown wrote: »

Don't knock Sarsfied House, convert it to grade A apartments

I think that was sarcasm, and a cut at the particularly Irish phenomenon of not doing any maintenance, letting good buildings fall apart, knock them and build shiny new ones.

Sarsfield House is on a prime site with great potential. It seems silly to knock it when a refurb and repurposing is all that's needed.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

Really, you'd be happy enough with a 15 storey building beside St. Mary's Cathedral or King John's Castle? Or how about at one end of Sarsfield Bridge? If you're ok with all that, then fair enough. I'm not though.

You know quite well that I was referring to the Opera site. But as rebs23 said, it happens the world over, with London being a prime example.

zulutango wrote: »

I was just using those examples to show how silly Cookiemunsters point above was. Obviously, the impact of a building on its surroundings is an important consideration on whether it gets planning consent. The plans for Limerick Boat Club some years ago were thrown out for this reason, for example.

So my point was silly was it? Not like you at all to be condescending towards other posters opinions :rolleyes:

zulutango

You made a general point that wasn't in reference to the Opera Project, and yes, it was not exactly watertight now, was it?

BoardAtWork

Hopefully Sarsfield House is completely leveled. Its a complete eyesore and knocking it will serve to hugely improve the riverscape and creat a greater link between the castle and the city centre.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

You made a general point that wasn't in reference to the Opera Project, and yes, it was not exactly watertight now, was it?

See condescending again. Actually I'd have no issue with a tall building being built where City Hall is. Look at Cardiff Castle which is only 200m from the 90m tall Millennium Stadium or even Tower Bridge in London with is only 600m from the 300m tall Shard.

panda100

pigtown wrote: »

dashoonage wrote: »

ah here...build this...move revenue...knock sarsfield house, build more big shiny things....rock on.

Don't knock Sarsfied House, convert it to grade A apartments

Apartments there would be much sought after and I quote like Sarsfield House. Even in all its grey ugliness.

Just viewed opera site plans and am very impressed by them. Super excited about the new library in particular.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote:

I think the whole idea that something can be ruined because it's overlooked by a tall building as a ridiculous idea unique to Ireland.

Cookiemunster wrote:

You know quite well that I was referring to the Opera site.

You're tripping over yourself there, Cookie.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

You're tripping over yourself there, Cookie.

You're seeing things that aren't there now mate. Dig up.

Mc Love

If you have any specific comments/feedback for Bus Eireann, Mayor Daniel Butler will be meeting with a senior representative to discuss some of the issues currently being experienced, send them on to his email address daniel.butler@limerick.ie

Townie_P

pigtown wrote: »

Don't knock Sarsfied House, convert it to grade A apartments

Agree totally. Knocking it would be the most brain dead thing they could possibly do. An external refurb with a modern glass facade would totally change the look of the building. It should be sold to a private developer to be converted in to top class riverside apartments. The money raised could be invested elsewhere, such as a CPO of Dunnes Sarsfield Street.

Vanquished

Terribly underwhelming plans by Shannon Foynes Port Company. The space down at the Clayton Hotel, James Casey Walk end is completely wasted and should be redeveloped as high quality apartments all the way over towards Ranks silo and Bannatyne's mill. The views would be superb fronting on to the river and looking over at the Westfield Wetlands and the hills beyond etc. Instead they're building a glorified shed at the edge of the floating dock by the clock tower.

The existing port activities could be consolidated at the totally underutilised lands at the Atlas Avenue end of the docks.

Arrival

Sarsfield House absolutely has to go. Why would you want to polish a ****? You're talking about turning a 5 storey building into luxury apartments lol. No wonder the city is in the state it is. Limerick could be an incredible city famous around Europe yet here we are, eternally held back by small mindedness and completely lacking in innovation. Even the Opera Centre isn't maximising the potential it has

Anyone who has issues with building high buildings, buildings which maximise the area within THE VERY CENTER OF THE CITY, is a troglodyte. Go live in a cottage in the sticks. Cities around the world are expanding quicker than ever. Yes, sudden development of towers may be overbearing - ONLY IN SOME PEOPLE'S OPINIONS - to surrounding old fashioned buildings but these are inevitably going to happen anyway so trying to do some kind of gradual development where we build slightly higher buildings over a number of decades is the approach of a dumbass. Build as high and as dense within the very centre of Limerick and avoid the same fate as Dublin for goodness sake.

Tell me this. Why is it that we allow huge Churches with steeples much higher than ANY high rise buildings (and make no mistake, we don't have ANY skyscrapers in this stupid country, 40+ storeys is a skyscraper and there isn't a single one even close to that) even though these churches are only used for a few hours each week when high rise apartments built to the same height as these wastes of space could house hundreds of people at all times. Housing as many people as possible within the centre of the city and in the near surrounding areas is far more important than providing shelter for people to say their prayers. And for any morons who'll possibly reply to this with an ad hominem; I'm not saying to demolish any Churches, I'm saying if churches can be built so tall then so can housing which serves a much more important purpose

kilburn

Ohhhh the An Taisce brigade are going to be all over you now.......

zulutango

The above rant translates as:

May as well just level King John's Castle and St. Mary's Cathedral. The Hunt Museum too, of course. And the Georgian and Medieval cities aren't worth retaining because they are inevitably going to go. Not fit for purpose. Anyone who disagrees is a troglodyte (angry caps lock removed). We have to maximise the area in the very centre of the city (angry caps lock removed again). And Sarsfield Bridge isn't wide enough. Knock it and build a new one. Such ancient relics are holding Limerick back from being "an incredible city, famous around Europe".

You should listen to yourselves sometimes lads. As for the rant about churches, shouldn't we knock those too considering they're not maximising the space? Level them all and build big shiny towers because "in your opinion" this represents progress. You must be a great admirer of the likes of Oliver Cromwell and Joseph Stalin.

MarkR

I'll remind everyone, this is a discussion forum. Do not make it personal. Saying someone must be a fain of Stalin or Cromwell for an expressing an opinion is not on. Bear this in mind before any further posts.

Arrival

zulutango wrote: »

The above rant translates as:

May as well just level King John's Castle and St. Mary's Cathedral. The Hunt Museum too, of course. And the Georgian and Medieval cities aren't worth retaining because they are inevitably going to go. Not fit for purpose. Anyone who disagrees is a troglodyte (angry caps lock removed). We have to maximise the area in the very centre of the city (angry caps lock removed again). And Sarsfield Bridge isn't wide enough. Knock it and build a new one. Such ancient relics are holding Limerick back from being "an incredible city, famous around Europe".

You should listen to yourselves sometimes lads. As for the rant about churches, shouldn't we knock those too considering they're not maximising the space? Level them all and build big shiny towers because "in your opinion" this represents progress. You must be a great admirer of the likes of Oliver Cromwell and Joseph Stalin.

No surprise that you're the one to come in with the strawmans. I even specifically added a disclaimer basically for people at your level of reasoning at the end of my post and you still come along with this post lmao

nim1bdeh38l2cw

zulutango wrote: »

What proportion of the tower floor area will not be Revenue employees?

Thirty three and a third