Limerick improvement projects

damowill

Arrival wrote: »

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

'Old Fashioned Buildings' ??? oh dear! If you feel some people should live in the sticks, perhaps you would be more at home in a less cultured city like LA. Plenty of high rise there and not a Medieval Quarter to be seen....


But you spoke like a true Property Developer of the Celtic Tiger era, after your 6pints last night. Where there is land, you will build!!

Cookiemunster

damowill wrote: »

'Old Fashioned Buildings' ??? oh dear! If you feel some people should live in the sticks, perhaps you would be more at home in a less cultured city like LA. Plenty of high rise there and not a Medieval Quarter to be seen....


But you spoke like a true Property Developer of the Celtic Tiger era, after your 6pints last night. Where there is land, you will build!!

You do know that LA didn't exist in medieval times? So, you know, the couldn't actually have a medieval quarter as there weren't any medieval buildings there in the first place? Not exactly the best example to be comparing Limerick with. (as if comparing Limerick with any mega city in the world makes any sense)

zulutango

Arrival wrote: »

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

Apologies, I didn't get that far into your masterpiece of Trumpian soliloquy. I might get in trouble for drawing a comparison between Cromwell, Stalin, Trump and Arrival now :pac:

source

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.

Ah here ZT, come on that post is highly disingenuous. No one on here is advocating the wanton destruction of our built heritage. We are simply stating that the proximity of old buildings to proposed sites for new buildings should not halt progress.

The point is being made that as Limerick is a largely intact Georgian city that if your approach was taken then we’d never make any progress, as you can’t throw a rock anywhere in this city without hitting a building less than 100 years old.

Progress needs to be sympathetic to its surroundings, agreed. But you cannot state that a high building shouldn’t go at Bank place because 300m and a river crossing away there is a historic church.

Also the point about churches was that they are already of a height, in areas where any other building of a similar height would not be allowed. The question here is, why allow a building that only contains a small number of people for a short time, when buildings of similar height would support accommodation for large number of people.

Your thoughts on these topics are very hard to grasp, in some posts you advocate high density living within the city centre and in others you state that the current parapet height of Georgian buildings should be the height limit. Those points are completely contradictory. I take your point that high rise could be limited to the Docklands area, I would personally advocate the knocking of Steamboat Quay and Mount Kenneth Place to be replaced with decent large buildings and striking into the Docks. But doing so will further move the focus away from the city centre and create a new central business district, which I suggest would also have a detrimental effect on the traditional Georgian city core.

A balanced development across the city is the way forward, yes sympathetic to the surroundings as best as can be done, but we should not hold ourselves back either.

One final point here, green space and public spaces are required throughout the city, I believe the current plan is to knock Sarsfield House to provide a public park extending from Arthurs Quay to Merchant’s Quay. That would be a very beneficial use of the space, and one that would enhance the riverfront no end by providing a required public amenity and opening up the riverfront to the Opera Centre site.

zulutango

Source, your thoughtful and reasoned response is appreciated.

I am quite keen on high density in the right location. I think we shouldn't use it as a reason to destroy heritage. These things have to be carefully assessed. I'm quite ok with medium and high rise from Bishop's Quay and west of it. Build lots of tall buildings down there. There's fantastic opportunities. Building an isolated tall building near very prominent and valuable historic structures is not something I could support when there is an alternative. We have a unique built heritage in Limerick and we should protect and refurbish it. Bear in mind that the original Opera plans called for the destruction of most of the Georgian buildings on the street. Plenty of people said knock them down, what value are they. Now, even Limerick 2030 is placing high value in these and is restoring them.

On Sarsfield House, there is an very legitimate argument for knocking it in favour of a providing a public space.

kilburn

zulutango wrote: »

Source, your thoughtful and reasoned response is appreciated.

I am quite keen on high density in the right location. I think we shouldn't use it as a reason to destroy heritage. These things have to be carefully assessed. I'm quite ok with medium and high rise from Bishop's Quay and west of it. Build lots of tall buildings down there. There's fantastic opportunities. Building an isolated tall building near very prominent and valuable historic structures is not something I could support when there is an alternative. We have a unique built heritage in Limerick and we should protect and refurbish it. Bear in mind that the original Opera plans called for the destruction of most of the Georgian buildings on the street. Plenty of people said knock them down, what value are they. Now, even Limerick 2030 is placing high value in these and is restoring them.

On Sarsfield House, there is an very legitimate argument for knocking it in favour of a providing a public space.

Based on above i presume you were against building Riverpoint 100m from the Bishops palace?

On our unique built heritage you might have more luck on this forum if you were promoting having our medieval walls restored etc

zulutango

kilburn wrote: »

Based on above i presume you were against building Riverpoint 100m from the Bishops palace?

No, you must have misread the above. I said I am happy with tall buildings from Bishop's Quay and west of it.

kilburn wrote: »

On our unique built heritage you might have more luck on this forum if you were promoting having our medieval walls restored etc

You don't value the Georgian City? Tourists constantly remark on it. It's highly unique and one of our strongest assets.

kilburn

zulutango wrote: »

No, you must have misread the above. I said I am happy with tall buildings from Bishop's Quay and west of it.



You don't value the Georgian City? Tourists constantly remark on it. It's highly unique and one of our strongest assets.

But i am sure when it was first muted you must have had an issue as it contradicts all of your points about high rise beside historical buildings.

Of course i value the Georgian City but i also embrace change and development and have no issue with a few out of kilter parapets

source

zulutango wrote: »

No, you must have misread the above. I said I am happy with tall buildings from Bishop's Quay and west of it

I honestly think that approach would have a very bad effect on the traditional city centre.

damowill

Cookiemunster wrote: »

You do know that LA didn't exist in medieval times? So, you know, the couldn't actually have a medieval quarter as there weren't any medieval buildings there in the first place? Not exactly the best example to be comparing Limerick with. (as if comparing Limerick with any mega city in the world makes any sense)

there was no comparison Cookie... I was contrasting and picked LA because?? yes!

Cookiemunster

damowill wrote: »

there was no comparison Cookie... I was contrasting and picked LA because?? yes!

That might make sense in your head, but not when you write it down.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

No, you must have misread the above. I said I am happy with tall buildings from Bishop's Quay and west of it.

You're against building high near historical Georgian buildings on Rutland St, but you have no issue building high next to the historical Bishops Palace building on Henry St. (and other Georgian buildings on Mallow St.) Contradicting yourself a bit there mate. One could say tripping over yourself......

geotrig

What about the historical ranks building or the historical gas works site ! I fully agree having all the high rises concentrated west of bishops quay is a bit baffling for various reasons.

I'd be sad to see Sarsfield house knocked also as its our best bit 60's brutalist type architecture , a good conversion to apartments would be welcomed and maybe if that didn't work ,then rip it down.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote:

You're against building high near historical Georgian buildings on Rutland St, but you have no issue building high next to the historical Bishops Palace building on Henry St. (and other Georgian buildings on Mallow St.) Contradicting yourself a bit there mate. One could say tripping over yourself......

The two settings are very different. Do you not agree?

keane2097

zulutango wrote: »

The two settings are very different. Do you not agree?

How so? As a fairly uninformed person on this sort of thing I agree with the sentiment that your criteria appear fairly selectively applied or even contradictory.

I would be interested in how you come to different conclusions about the different areas etc. What makes one area ok for high rise and another not?

The point that you can't swing a cat in Limerick without being within the distance between the Opera site and St. Mary's of some important historical building or area seems fairly valid.

BoardAtWork

zulutango wrote: »

On Sarsfield House, there is an very legitimate argument for knocking it in favour of a providing a public space.

You have already argued against that stating that it should be turned into apartments.

While I agree that fantastic apartments could be built there with great views of the city, those views of the castle and river would be only of benefit to those living there. Knocking Sarsfield House would open up views of the castle and the river towards the city centre; you'd be able to see the castle while sitting in Burger King. There would also be great river views from the Opera Centre site.

Save the refurbishment for Arthurs Quay. Build great apartments there that will have views of the river and castle. Arthur's Quay park and the site where Sarsfield House stood could be developed as a leading public space which strengthens the links between the river, castle, and the city centre.

If the old Dunnes site could be developed as high quality apartments, that whole area of the river front up past the Hunt museum, through the Potatoe Market, and towards the castle could be hugely enviable. If done right, the proposed foot-bridge could serve to further improve the area.

This stretch of river between Sarsfield and Thomond bridges should be the centre focus around which the city develops.

keane2097

geotrig wrote: »

What about the historical ranks building or the historical gas works site ! I fully agree having all the high rises concentrated west of bishops quay is a bit baffling for various reasons.

I'd be sad to see Sarsfield house knocked also as its our best bit 60's brutalist type architecture , a good conversion to apartments would be welcomed and maybe if that didn't work ,then rip it down.

This is one of those things that I read and am a little bit baffled by. If you type 'best examples of brutalist buildings' into Google you get a veritable cornucopia of images of what can only be described as ****ing ugly buildings.

I'm sort of at a loss as to what the merits of keeping such an ugly edifice in such an otherwise stunning locale could be?

It's a bit like saying it would be a shame for your father to cut off his mullet and moustache because he's our best example of the ill-advised fashions of the 1970s. Keep the pictures, dig them out the odd time and have a good laugh and them, but throw the bell bottoms and bolo ties in the trash where they belong!

zulutango

BoardAtWork wrote:

You have already argued against that stating that it should be turned into apartments.

I was acknowledging Source's legitimate counter point. These have to be weighed up. If you look back you'll see that I qualified my comment. I didn't take a firm stance on it. I can see arguments for retaining in favour of repurposing and also demolishing in favour of improving the public realm. We don't have enough information to take absolute positions. In a lot of these discussions nuance is lost and people prematurely take sides. My position on the Opera Tower, as opposed to the rest of the project is considered, having viewed the plans and discussed with people who are involved. I'm supportive of the project but dubious about the tower. My principle point on it was that I don't think it will get permission by An Bord Pleanála, and I've cited the reasons. That's a different discussion as to whether it should get permission, which is what many hear seem to want to argue.

BoardAtWork

keane2097 wrote: »

This is one of those things that I read and am a little bit baffled by. If you type 'best examples of brutalist buildings' into Google you get a veritable cornucopia of images of what can only be described as ****ing ugly buildings.

I'm sort of at a loss as to what the merits of keeping such an ugly edifice in such an otherwise stunning locale could be?

It's a bit like saying it would be a shame for your father to cut off his mullet and moustache because he's our best example of the ill-advised fashions of the 1970s. Keep the pictures, dig them out the odd time and have a good laugh and them, but throw the bell bottoms and bolo ties in the trash where they belong!

Brutalist buildings can be very nice, even if they are an aquired taste.

My main issue with Sarsfield House is the location. Its essentially a curtain which hides the castle from the rest of the city. The council could bring in world-class architects to refurbish the building or even build a new one, and I'd still prefer it to be levelled for use as public space which strengthens Limerick's ties with the river and castle.

geotrig

keane2097 wrote: »

This is one of those things that I read and am a little bit baffled by. If you type 'best examples of brutalist buildings' into Google you get a veritable cornucopia of images of what can only be described as ****ing ugly buildings.

I'm sort of at a loss as to what the merits of keeping such an ugly edifice in such an otherwise stunning locale could be?

It's a bit like saying it would be a shame for your father to cut off his mullet and moustache because he's our best example of the ill-advised fashions of the 1970s. Keep the pictures, dig them out the odd time and have a good laugh and them, but throw the bell bottoms and bolo ties in the trash where they belong!

lol i fully understand as i said i'd like to see it retained as i like brutalist buildings but if it was transformed into a fantastic space that wasnt just another apartment block i woulnt mind either

yop

mod note: posters were asked to stop the personal attacks and also didn't heed mod asks.
2 bans handed out and we ask those remaining to please tone it back and discuss it with a level of civility.

timesnewroman

Regarding Sarsfield House, my own preference would be to retain it (as apartments) but shave about 20 foot off the gable end that extends towards the river (if that was possible). That would not only open up the view of the river/castle but also the lovely walkway that runs from the Potato Market via the back of the Hunt to Arthur’s Quay (and providing much needed accommodation for the city).

kilburn

Maybe if they knocked the block closest the river which floods and made the second part of the building high end apartments we could get both with more open space onto the river

mdmix

Cookiemunster wrote: »

You do know that LA didn't exist in medieval times? So, you know, the couldn't actually have a medieval quarter as there weren't any medieval buildings there in the first place? Not exactly the best example to be comparing Limerick with. (as if comparing Limerick with any mega city in the world makes any sense)

Yes, but they did preserve their original settlement. They also preserved Chinatown little japan and all the other settlements of cultural importance. Limerick city and the Georgian quarter cover a very small geographical area, it should not be a problem to restrict building height in the city core. Nothing wrong with building high rise by the docks

Cookiemunster

mdmix wrote: »

Yes, but they did preserve their original settlement. They also preserved Chinatown little japan and all the other settlements of cultural importance. Limerick city and the Georgian quarter cover a very small geographical area, it should not be a problem to restrict building height in the city core. Nothing wrong with building high rise by the docks

Firstly there's a huge difference between a living area which is ethnically distinct from the rest of the mega city of LA and a row of houses, that even before they were bought up and boarded up, were not exactly the place to be in Limerick. If we are to preserve every single example of Georgian Limerick (not all of it deserves saving) at the cost of development, then the city will die a slow painful death.

Anyways the Georgian block along Rutland St is going to be preserved. As will the Granary. The high rise won't be replacing any historical buildings, just a monstrosity of a 20th century office building. As I said earlier, I fail to see how a tall building will damage any of this.

Look at the Gardens development for example. A modern office block very well integrated in with the restoration of an historical building.

Twoman Fullbackline

Would definitely be in favour of knocking Sarsfield House. It's not actually the worst building from that genre of architecture, far from it if only they could clean it/give it a lick of paint. But a larger park extending from the back of the old Dunnes' all the way to the Hunt Museum, with the old Custom House as the main building in this area, would be a great amenity for the city. Is the plan to knock Arthur's Quay shopping centre as well?

panda100

Twoman Fullbackline wrote: »

Would definitely be in favour of knocking Sarsfield House. It's not actually the worst building from that genre of architecture, far from it if only they could clean it/give it a lick of paint. But a larger park extending from the back of the old Dunnes' all the way to the Hunt Museum, with the old Custom House as the main building in this area, would be a great amenity for the city. Is the plan to knock Arthur's Quay shopping centre as well?

We can't just knock everything, there'd be no Limerick left! Haven't heard anything about knocking Arthur's Quay shopping centre?

I think it would be a real shame to knock Sarsfield House. It looks structurally sound and I'm sure could be quite swiftly converted to apartments. I think the main priority with that part of town is making Arthur's quay park a more pleasant public space as it currently isn't really. They also need to open up the walkways and remove that horrid metal gate at the side of Sarsfield House. Access to the river there and a few simple adjustments would make it a much more pleasant area without the need to knock the whole structure.

keane2097

What was the thinking with making that 'park' entirely out of concrete? It's fairly unique.

Twoman Fullbackline

panda100 wrote: »

We can't just knock everything, there'd be no Limerick left! Haven't heard anything about knocking Arthur's Quay shopping centre?

I hadn't even heard anything about knocking Sarsfield House, so know nothing about Arthur's Quay.

Just if the plan is to create a park down there, all knocking Sarsfield House will achieve is two separate mini parks, unless the boundary is extended into the river.

phog

keane2097 wrote: »

What was the thinking with making that 'park' entirely out of concrete? It's fairly unique.

It's not, the sunken/amphitheater area, steps and pathways are concrete/paving but there's a lot of grass areas & trees there too.