Corrib Great southern on fire.

MyNameIsMethos

Every time I see this post re-emerge I have to laugh: country lad&I'm not used to having an inferno in my back garden!

Guaranteed that the lads setting these fires are quite probably scumbags but it's better that their scumbagginess is concentrated in one place; bit of security/a sly IR camera & whoever-the-hell is in charge of the place would surely catch 'em.

Mrs OBumble

MyNameIsMethos wrote: »

Every time I see this post re-emerge I have to laugh: country lad&I'm not used to having an inferno in my back garden!

Guaranteed that the lads setting these fires are quite probably scumbags but it's better that their scumbagginess is concentrated in one place; bit of security/a sly IR camera & whoever-the-hell is in charge of the place would surely catch 'em.

I hear you re don't scatter the pigeons. But there might be other scummers in a different part of the building at the time, and people tend to get upset if their kids get roasted. To stop that happening, firefighters (who generally aren't scummers) have to put themselves in danger to go in and put it out.

maniac2003

it looks worse by the day

3fullback

maniac2003 wrote: »

it looks worse by the day

It's a prime example of the broken windows theory !

Wompa1

This was going on when I was back a few weeks ago. I don't understand how there's so much anger and politicking being aimed at the owners and very little is being said about the little a-holes that seem to think it's ok to set fire to other peoples property and knowingly endanger the lives of the firefighters. The people involved need to be put in prison.

And of course, the owners could do with just tearing the building down. At this stage, I don't think a few more hoardings around it will stop them

thesandeman

You're right Wompa. But they did buy it for a tenth of what it was worth a few years ago and they seem intent in holding on to it for a while so they should have some sort of security set up in there.
All the need is somebody in a secure room, cameras and a phone. I'd nearly do it myself.

Wompa1

thesandeman wrote: »

You're right Wompa. But they did buy it for a tenth of what it was worth a few years ago and they seem intent in holding on to it for a while so they should have some sort of security set up in there.
All the need is somebody in a secure room, cameras and a phone. I'd nearly do it myself.

I don't get it. If you buy a building. Do you have an obligation to do something with it? When they bought it, it was just a building sitting idle.

It's not their fault a bunch of sh1theads have decided they can easily get away with setting fire to it and breaking out the windows. Will they need a security guard down at the ArtHouse Cinema too? That's just been sitting there for a while now too? Ditto Crown Square. It's madness. Tackle those committing the actual crime and it will stop

thesandeman

Yes and no. Those lads are buying property all over the place at the moment at a fraction of the Tiger prices (I've no problem with that at the moment... at least they are local) but the Corrib seems to be the only place they seem to be neglecting totally.
You can't really have a Garda sitting outside all the time waiting for the next dickhead who tries to burn it down.
They have been made an offer for the place but turned it down. It's not like they are stuck with it. If they are holding on for more money then they should be prepared to keep an eye on it. If anything really bad happens it won't do their currently good reputation (or insurance policy) any favours.

Wompa1

thesandeman wrote: »

Yes and no. Those lads are buying property all over the place at the moment at a fraction of the Tiger prices (I've no problem with that at the moment... at least they are local) but the Corrib seems to be the only place they seem to be neglecting totally.
You can't really have a Garda sitting outside all the time waiting for the next dickhead who tries to burn it down.
They have been made an offer for the place but turned it down. It's not like they are stuck with it. If they are holding on for more money then they should be prepared to keep an eye on it. If anything really bad happens it won't do their currently good reputation (or insurance policy) any favours.

But what does what they paid for the place have to do with? Or that they turned down an offer for it. If it was my building, I'd like to think the Gardai would do more about it then just telling me I have to fix it and to prevent further attacks I need to get security. What law even states they have to do something about it? The building was perfectly save the way it was. It's being destroyed by a bunch of wannabe thugs. If they get hurt then, f**k 'em, they are trespassing

thesandeman

If it was your building would you just abandon it while taking care of everything else you own? That's the bit I find really strange. It's not the way those lads operate. It's like whoever is managing that part of their portfolio is making a total liathróidí of it.
Some of the 'trespassers' there seem to be people who just need somewhere to sleep while others are just vandals. Like yourself I couldn't care less about the latter.

listermint

Wompa1 wrote: »

I don't get it. If you buy a building. Do you have an obligation to do something with it? When they bought it, it was just a building sitting idle.

It's not their fault a bunch of sh1theads have decided they can easily get away with setting fire to it and breaking out the windows. Will they need a security guard down at the ArtHouse Cinema too? That's just been sitting there for a while now too? Ditto Crown Square. It's madness. Tackle those committing the actual crime and it will stop

If you buy a building of scale that is centrally located yes you have a moral obligation not to let the building fall into disrepair. This would also entail provision of security in the property to prevent this occurring. Like it or not empty large buildings are a target and it is not the Gardai job to provide security for private enterprise in this manner.

Even nama paid for security on the buildings in its portfolio. The former anglo bank head quarters on the quays in Dublin is a prime example and that was merely a concrete shell.

Just buying a building and owning it doesn't remove the obligation to look after it its a duty of care to the locality not just some property to sit on.

dilallio

Article in the City Tribune

http://connachttribune.ie/arson-hotel-to-be-added-to-citys-list-of-derelict-sites-166/

Partial quote from article:

The City Council has served notice on the owners of the former Corrib Great Southern Hotel that the building is to be added to the Register of Derelict Sites.
Ultimately, that could lead to fines and up to six months in prison – alternatively, the Council can get a current valuation of the site and impose a levy of 3% per annum on the owner.
...
...
...
...

Mrs OBumble

listermint wrote: »

If you buy a building of scale that is centrally located yes you have a moral obligation not to let the building fall into disrepair.

I don't think that the central location makes a bit of difference.

And I believe that the obligation is legal, not moral. That's why the council can serve various orders on derelict buildings. Trouble is, there's quite a long process associated with this. Longer than is desirable here, methinks.

Greaney

I'm under the impression that the owners might have been approached by folk who offered 'security service' and when they declined fires may have started. Could be just gossip, but its been known to happen.


In some parts of the UK, public buildings like small hospital buildings and unused fire stations are rented to groups of individual artists etc. for small rent, on unsecure tenancy agreements because it's cheaper than hiring security. My cousin has an entire ward/studio in one project. It's the only way he can afford to live in central London... I think it's a smart option, to house folk who are willing to live a little alternitivly and don't need the security of tenure as much as say, a family.

kabakuyu

Greaney wrote: »

I'm under the impression that the owners might have been approached by folk who offered 'security service' and when they declined fires may have started. Could be just gossip, but its been known to happen.


In some parts of the UK, public buildings like small hospital buildings and unused fire stations are rented to groups of individual artists etc. for small rent, on unsecure tenancy agreements because it's cheaper than hiring security. My cousin has an entire ward/studio in one project. It's the only way he can afford to live in central London... I think it's a smart option, to house folk who are willing to live a little alternitivly and don't need the security of tenure as much as say, a family.

Ah the rumours,:rolleyes: the fact is that the building has not been secured, ground floor windows and doors were wide open for weeks and nothing was done about it,are you also aware that there is no security on the premises whatsoever.

Earl Turner

Drove past it yesterday, what a depressing scene. Needs to be knocked down.

dloob

There was permission granted to demolish it a few years ago, but nothing happened.
That was in its pre-NAMA days.

irisheddie85

It's on fire again

RHJ

This post has been deleted.

irisheddie85

RHJ wrote: »

Would it really be that much of a loss if the place completely burnt to the ground.

It will be completely flattened before any development takes place. Just a pity the council can't seem to put actual pressure on the owners to do something with the site

dok_golf

It's prime site for affordable student accommodation if the relevant authorities could get their acts together.

jimbobaloobob

i think that was proposed before, but the owners didnt want the cost of knocking it and neither did the college if they purchased it.

TerrorFirmer

That was investigated as a possibility but I believe GMIT could not afford the asking price being asked for the property (in the sense that they're not able to bid far above market value given their public funding).

You'd think the Comers are wealthy enough with their €1,000,000,000 fortune that they could just do the decent thing - no-one's asking for charity, just sell the bloody site at a reasonable price for a good cause (not just GMIT, the fact that it's literally a blight on a main gateway to Galway City as well).

sgthighway

If I were the Comer Brothers I would only knock the building if I had agreement from the various Planning Authority that I could build something on the same scale again. Very easy to get planning to rebuild it but if they don’t have plans currently to rebuild it’s a case of objectors could upset future plans.

TerrorFirmer

This is from 2014.

Galway Bay fm newsroom – GMIT has expressed its continuing interest in purchasing the site of the Corrib Great Southern Hotel.

The Hotel, which closed in 2007, was sold to Galway-born brothers Luke and Brian Comer for just over €3.5 million in May of last year.

The figure was a fraction of the €30 million believed to have been paid for the hotel by developer Gerry Barrett in 2006.

GMIT says it’s interested in the site for development to meet expected demand of future students – but the asking price is ‘substanially’ above their bid of €3.75 million.

Speaking on Galway Talks, Secretary and Financial Controller of GMIT Jim Fennell says that they can’t afford to pay above market value for the site.

JupiterKid

Given all that’s happened to it, that circa 1970 built monstrosity should be demolished and something more aesthetically pleasing built in its place.

It’s a complete eyesore and a playground for vandals and arsonists. The city council should have powers to compulsorily acquire the site within a specified timeframe if the developer refuses to redevelop it. It’s not as if there’s a lack of demand for either hotel or housing accommodation in Galway.

Greaney

JupiterKid wrote: »

Given all that’s happened to it, that circa 1970 built monstrosity should be demolished and something more aesthetically pleasing built in its place.

It’s a complete eyesore and a playground for vandals and arsonists. The city council should have powers to compulsorily acquire the site within a specified timeframe if the developer refuses to redevelop it. It’s not as if there’s a lack of demand for either hotel or housing accommodation in Galway.

You know, there's not a lot of good arguments for compulsory purchase, but this is one of them. We seem to have a shortage of houses & schools in this country, but a glut of empty shops and derelict 'development potential'!!:rolleyes:

biko

I suppose student accommodation for GMIT etc would be a good reason.

flazio

Well talking about eyesores, the GMIT library and the new Garda regional HQ might not to be everyone's taste so....
I care little about what it looks like as long as it's put to good use.

Robbo

Now that they've realised €70 million or so in profit from one of their Dublin investments, Luke Comer says they'll be turning their attention towards residential development (including Galway).

It'll be coming up on 5 years they've been hoarding the Corrib Great Southern site, having purchased it for €3.5m. Previously, the ownership syndicate had applied for an extension to permission to knock the place due to "inability to source funding for the [demolition]".