Height limits for buildings in Cork City

Outkast_IRE

Meursault wrote: »

The delay with Sullivan's quay is a disgrace. The old tax building is hideous. The complaint - (the negative impact on Griffith College, during construction) - is nonsense. Navigation sq is going up without any fuss, and there were no complaints from Carey's tools, sextant, idle hour, etc.

Of course there was no complaints from them, they are going to massively benefit from this development and it will increase the value of their land hugely.

namloc1980

Meursault wrote: »

The proposed 40 storey development will be interesting. It will be built on the point between the two channels, therefore it wont be restricting any other business or obstructing anyone's views. The Elysian is already located in that area, so its hard to object, due to height - (admittedly, this will be much taller), and it could potentially be a real landmark as you approach the city from Tivoli.

In reality, someone is bound to object. For some reason, a lot of Irish people appear to have a phobia of buildings with more than 5 storeys.

The delay with Sullivan's quay is a disgrace. The old tax building is hideous. The complaint - (the negative impact on Griffith College, during construction) - is nonsense. Navigation sq is going up without any fuss, and there were no complaints from Carey's tools, sextant, idle hour, etc.

For one An Taisce will be all over it given the 40 floor building is to be adjacent to the bonded warehouses and Port of Cork building. There'll be numerous other bodies and individuals object on those grounds alone. I think they'll be a lot of objections and in Ireland there's really no limit on how frivolous a complaint/objection can be. You can object on virtually any grounds whatsoever.

Meursault

namloc1980 wrote: »

For one An Taisce will be all over it given the 40 floor building is to be adjacent to the bonded warehouses and Port of Cork building. There'll be numerous other bodies and individuals object on those grounds alone. I think they'll be a lot of objections and in Ireland there's really no limit on how frivolous a complaint/objection can be. You can object on virtually any grounds whatsoever.

The proposed development involves the bonded warehouses, which are currently lying idle, and falling in to disrepair. You'd imagine An Taisce would support this, but you are probably right. They are likely to do everything they can to prevent it from going ahead.

cgcsb

I'd love to see the 40 storey go up. In reality though An Taisce has government funding behind it and can afford to appeal and appeal and go to higher and higher courts until private developers run out of money.

the beer revolu

Meursault wrote: »

The proposed development involves the bonded warehouses, which are currently lying idle, and falling in to disrepair. You'd imagine An Taisce would support this, but you are probably right. They are likely to do everything they can to prevent it from going ahead.

I don't think that the bonded warehouses are idle. Or at least up until recently, they were still being used as bonded warehouses. Beautiful vaults.

I'm all for the 40 story tower, btw, but no doubt, we will get a terrible, compromised, wishy washy version of it.

Meursault

the beer revolu wrote: »

I don't think that the bonded warehouses are idle. Or at least up until recently, they were still being used as bonded warehouses. Beautiful vaults.

I'm all for the 40 story tower, btw, but no doubt, we will get a terrible, compromised, wishy washy version of it.

I didnt realise they were still in use. The look dreadful from the outside, but they definitely have great potential.

namloc1980

Meursault wrote: »

The proposed development involves the bonded warehouses, which are currently lying idle, and falling in to disrepair. You'd imagine An Taisce would support this, but you are probably right. They are likely to do everything they can to prevent it from going ahead.

Guaranteed they will object on the basis that the modern building imposes on the bonded warehouses. Have no doubt they'll object.

snotboogie

the beer revolu wrote: »

Meursault wrote: »

The proposed development involves the bonded warehouses, which are currently lying idle, and falling in to disrepair. You'd imagine An Taisce would support this, but you are probably right. They are likely to do everything they can to prevent it from going ahead.

I don't think that the bonded warehouses are idle. Or at least up until recently, they were still being used as bonded warehouses. Beautiful vaults.

I'm all for the 40 story tower, btw, but no doubt, we will get a terrible, compromised, wishy washy version of it.

The footprint is so small there they can't go much lower and keep it commercially viable.

mire

may i ask - objectively, what is it about a 40 storey tower that is deemed to be so important?

I think there is merit in a landmark/tall element there, and an economic/financial tradeoff with the cost of restoration of historic structures, but why 40 storeys? It is coming across as a bit 'desperate' i.e 'Cork needs to project an image to the world..' This is kind of outdated and a teeney bit insecure.

btw, i'm in favour of a tall building there, but not as some kind of brash, look at us 'statement'

PreCocious

Meursault wrote: »

The proposed 40 storey development will be interesting. It will be built on the point between the two channels, therefore it wont be restricting any other business or obstructing anyone's views. The Elysian is already located in that area, so its hard to object, due to height - (admittedly, this will be much taller), and it could potentially be a real landmark as you approach the city from Tivoli.

In reality, someone is bound to object. For some reason, a lot of Irish people appear to have a phobia of buildings with more than 5 storeys.

The delay with Sullivan's quay is a disgrace. The old tax building is hideous. The complaint - (the negative impact on Griffith College, during construction) - is nonsense. Navigation sq is going up without any fuss, and there were no complaints from Carey's tools, sextant, idle hour, etc.

Carey's and The Idle Hour both submitted quite detailed objections to Navigation Square.

The owners of the Elysian objected to One Albert Quay. The owners of a number of bars near the Event Centre objected to the Student Accommodation planned for the Event Centre site.

Sometimes objections go in because developers haven't fully engaged with other stakeholders and as a result things have to be sorted/ confirmed during the planning process.

AugustusMinimus

mire wrote: »

may i ask - objectively, what is it about a 40 storey tower that is deemed to be so important?

I think there is merit in a landmark/tall element there, and an economic/financial tradeoff with the cost of restoration of historic structures, but why 40 storeys? It is coming across as a bit 'desperate' i.e 'Cork needs to project an image to the world..' This is kind of outdated and a teeney bit insecure.

btw, i'm in favour of a tall building there, but not as some kind of brash, look at us 'statement'

Because Ireland has a population density problem. We don’t have sufficient population density in any of our cities to support decent public transport.

And every time we try to build up to sort this issue, the buildings go through planning hell and get rejected. It’s infuriating.

snotboogie

mire wrote: »

may i ask - objectively, what is it about a 40 storey tower that is deemed to be so important?

I think there is merit in a landmark/tall element there, and an economic/financial tradeoff with the cost of restoration of historic structures, but why 40 storeys? It is coming across as a bit 'desperate' i.e 'Cork needs to project an image to the world..' This is kind of outdated and a teeney bit insecure.

btw, i'm in favour of a tall building there, but not as some kind of brash, look at us 'statement'

Very limited space and Times Square want a mixed use; office, hotel, residential and commercial development. To achieve that they need to build up.

marno21

Here come the fruitcakes

http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Corks-Custom-House-would-be-destroyed-by-skyscraper-6c6cd5ab-f9b7-4860-ad6e-d02dcda71db5-ds

Water John

Had he been around, one suspects he would have objected to the cathedral in his home town. Too high, out of tune with its surroundings.

Roger Hassenforder

281 other people in Cork North Central liked the cut of his jib in 2011.

Water John

Problem is, like as happened in the Apple/Athenry case, one of the objectors has notched up over ten, judicial reviews.
It only takes one, to try and drag this out for years.

AugustusMinimus

Someone on Facebook keeps commenting on The Echo that Cork is embarrassing itself by trying to keep up with Dublin when there is literally any form of new build or investment going on. I cannot fathom it.

Cork people are Cork’s worst enemy. Unless we build up instead of out, there is no way we’ll reach critical density to support BRT lines or god forbid, light rail.

A very tall building like proposed is ideal for this site and will be a fantastic landmark when entering the city along the lower Glanmire road.

If high rise isn’t allowed here, it will effectively kill development on this site as the current bonded warehouses are protected structures and therefore the entire site will be economically unviable for just about any use.

Perceived use as a tourist site is pie in the sky. They are bonded warehouses with a small amount of architectural interest. They are not a site of vast cultural interest that An Taisce and the likes of this artist are trying to convey. And hell, no one actually wants to knock them.

But without private funding, they will go undeveloped. And Cork City Council will not put public money into them.

Meursault

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Someone on Facebook keeps commenting on The Echo that Cork is embarrassing itself by trying to keep up with Dublin when there is literally any form of new build or investment going on. I cannot fathom it.

Cork people are Cork’s worst enemy. Unless we build up instead of out, there is no way we’ll reach critical density to support BRT lines or god forbid, light rail.

A very tall building like proposed is ideal for this site and will be a fantastic landmark when entering the city along the lower Glanmire road.

If high rise isn’t allowed here, it will effectively kill development on this site as the current bonded warehouses are protected structures and therefore the entire site will be economically unviable for just about any use.

Perceived use as a tourist site is pie in the sky. They are bonded warehouses with a small amount of architectural interest. They are not a site of vast cultural interest that An Taisce and the likes of this artist are trying to convey. And hell, no one actually wants to knock them.

But without private funding, they will go undeveloped. And Cork City Council will not put public money into them.

Agree completely with this.

All there is in those bonded warehouses at the moment is potential. They look like sh*t at the moment, as does most buildings beyond the Idle Hour, on both sides of the quay. we need private investment to regenerate the city. we need to build up because we can't keep going out.

I bet this guy who is objecting never ventures near the city from one week to the next. And i bet he isnt stuck commuting from some satellite town for over an hour in the morning and again in the evening.

the Elysian has set the precedent. our world didnt collapse because they built a 20 storey building, nor will it collapse if this new place is built.

Roger Hassenforder

Meursault wrote: »

Agree completely with this.

All there is in those bonded warehouses at the moment is potential. They look like sh*t at the moment, as does most buildings beyond the Idle Hour, on both sides of the quay. we need private investment to regenerate the city. we need to build up because we can't keep going out.

I bet this guy who is objecting never ventures near the city from one week to the next. And i bet he isnt stuck commuting from some satellite town for over an hour in the morning and again in the evening.

the Elysian has set the precedent. our world didnt collapse because they built a 20 storey building, nor will it collapse if this new place is built.

Although i like his painting on his facebook page, as an artist a significant amount of his income is probably* art grants and bursaries.
Wish he'd STFU and let Cork city grow/develop into a modern city.
All these naysayers are quick to say what they dont want , but slow to offer practical, pragmatic and workable solutions other than 'pie in the sky' stuff.


*i could be completely wrong!

snotboogie

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Someone on Facebook keeps commenting on The Echo that Cork is embarrassing itself by trying to keep up with Dublin when there is literally any form of new build or investment going on.  I cannot fathom it.

Cork people are Cork’s worst enemy.  Unless we build up instead of out, there is no way we’ll reach critical density to support BRT lines or god forbid, light rail.

A very tall building like proposed is ideal for this site and will be a fantastic landmark when entering the city along the lower Glanmire road.  

If high rise isn’t allowed here, it will effectively kill development on this site as the current bonded warehouses are protected structures and therefore the entire site will be economically unviable for just about any use.

Perceived use as a tourist site is pie in the sky.  They are bonded warehouses with a small amount of architectural interest.  They are not a site of vast cultural interest that An Taisce and the likes of this artist are trying to convey.  And hell, no one actually wants to knock them.

But without private funding, they will go undeveloped.  And Cork City Council will not put public money into them.

To be fair the comments and likes on the article are predominantly in favor of the development and against the artist and his petition.It's the usual loud, entitled, minority who are against it

AugustusMinimus

snotboogie wrote: »

To be fair the comments and likes on the article are predominantly in favor of the development and against the artist and his petition.It's the usual loud, entitled, minority who are against it

Yes. But the media always give equal time to the nay sayers even though they are in the vast majority.

They also giving equal weighting to their arguements even though they can be poposterous.

The M28 is a case in point where the Echo are taking it seriously that the motorway will cause gridlock in Douglas.

D'Agger

namloc1980 wrote: »

Guaranteed they will object on the basis that the modern building imposes on the bonded warehouses. Have no doubt they'll object.

We should have a whip round for a prize for namloc1980 here

TBQH - I see some merit in his point regarding Cork needing a museum & given the rich history of Corks port the idea of a maritime museum isn't the worst, however, given that would require public money and organisation from local councils....that's a complete pipe dream, it'll join the pile with Tramore Valley & marina parks I reckon.

To me, the Port of Cork buildings are the most important in the city. The history behind them is important and the beautiful stonework on them is unbelievably beautiful. There's no appreciation for that kind of stuff in the city,”

You don't appreciate what you don't deem useful - those buildings offer nothing to the city at present from what I can tell - correct me if I'm wrong there. It's the classic argument of wanting to protect heritage but not preventing progress. His arguments shift towards the latter from where I stand.

Given the precedent of One Albert Quay going up, further development in this area is both necessary & I would hope...inevitable.

D'Agger

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Yes. But the media always give equal time to the nay sayers even though they are in the vast majority.

They also giving equal weighting to their arguements even though they can be poposterous.

The M28 is a case in point where the Echo are taking it seriously that the motorway will cause gridlock in Douglas.

The echo need clicks or buys from both the people expressing those views & those who oppose them. Giving oxygen to these stories is best for their bottom line as ultimately both sides of the party will consume it.

opus

snotboogie wrote: »

To be fair the comments and likes on the article are predominantly in favor of the development and against the artist and his petition.It's the usual loud, entitled, minority who are against it

Is there anyway to tell the council that you support the project given it seems to be the naysayers who get a lot of the publicity?

AugustusMinimus

opus wrote: »

Is there anyway to tell the council that you support the project given it seems to be the naysayers who get a lot of the publicity?

This is the problem. All the structures in place magnify the naysayers.

GavRedKing

He says:

“To me, the Port of Cork buildings are the most important in the city. The history behind them is important and the beautiful stonework on them is unbelievably beautiful.

Are they really beautiful enough to warrant the use of the word twice? :pac:

Roger Hassenforder

GavRedKing wrote: »

He says:



Are they really beautiful enough to warrant the use of the word twice? :pac:

They must be very very important too.

https://twitter.com/CorkGreens/status/959086856066551808
Jasis H. Christ. I see the greens are pushing a petition now.

marno21

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

They must be very very important too.

https://twitter.com/CorkGreens/status/959086856066551808
Jasis H. Christ. I see the greens are pushing a petition now.

Cork Greens showing themselves up as total fruitcakes here. Lets object to the densification of Cork City Centre and preserve some old derelict warehouses during a housing crisis and make people live out in Glanmire and drive into the city.

Are they for real?

Imagine going back to the time when these warehouses were built, of no architectural merit whatsoever, and telling the people who lived in very poor conditions that in 2018 the plan to replace these warehouses with a 40 storey tower as part of securing Cork's future prosperity is being held back to preserve something of **** all benefit to anyone in Cork.

Meursault

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

They must be very very important too.

https://twitter.com/CorkGreens/status/959086856066551808
Jasis H. Christ. I see the greens are pushing a petition now.

Oh for f**k sake. Its a wonder there are any multinationals at all in this country with these nutcases objecting to everything.

snotboogie

Here is a Green TD explaining his reasoning for objecting:

https://twitter.com/oliver_moran/status/959199900243243008

AugustusMinimus

The Greens are quickly becoming like Solidarity and Sinn Fein. Objecting for the sake of objecting.

If the building was lower down in the Docklands they’d still object.

Roger Hassenforder

snotboogie wrote: »

Here is a Green TD explaining his reasoning for objecting:

https://twitter.com/oliver_moran/status/959199900243243008

He didnt get in, and I cant believe i voted for him.

Roger Hassenforder

Greens are getting a bit of a battering on twitter!

AugustusMinimus

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Greens are getting a bit of a battering on twitter!

The poster they made is very reminiscent of the M28 “Steering Group’s” work. A touch of scaremongering especially in its language and use of colours.

Water John

The Greens would always have had two wings, Eamon Ryan and Mary White who would be progressive thinking and another section who could be described as Luddites.

namloc1980

As expected the objectors are coming out in force even before this really begins. As seen with the Apple farce in Athenry it only takes 1 person or objector to bring a development like this to a grinding halt. Unfortunately I can see this rumbling on for years in planning hell and judicial reviews. Meanwhile the bonded warehouses will continue to crumble and be of zero use to the people of Cork. Greens in particular are a disgrace.

D'Agger

A park was suggested as an alternative - would be cool, however, given the councils track record with parks I think we should really just leave this to the private sector and develop the docklands because we'll actually see an end result that would benefit the city rather than becoming another project the council mucks up and becomes a nuisance to maintain.

The comments I'm reading are suggesting to use a different part of the docklands, just not this part - what other part are they referencing? It's very easy to point and say - don't do this, here are alternatives, but these alternatives weren't being proposed with the last X amount of years while the site remained unused. The minute there's a proposal from the private sector - Boom - all the suggestions for parks and other uses come flying out. That's what makes this so annoying - where were all these progressive ideas the last few years?

Full of suggestions & alternatives the minute somebody actually moves to do something with the property. Reactive politics.

snotboogie

D'Agger wrote: »

A park was suggested as an alternative - would be cool, however, given the councils track record with parks I think we should really just leave this to the private sector and develop the docklands because we'll actually see an end result that would benefit the city rather than becoming another project the council mucks up and becomes a nuisance to maintain.

The comments I'm reading are suggesting to use a different part of the docklands, just not this part - what other part are they referencing? It's very easy to point and say - don't do this, here are alternatives, but these alternatives weren't being proposed with the last X amount of years while the site remained unused. The minute there's a proposal from the private sector - Boom - all the suggestions for parks and other uses come flying out. That's what makes this so annoying - where were all these progressive ideas the last few years?

Full of suggestions & alternatives the minute somebody actually moves to do something with the property. Reactive politics.

They are not progressive ideas, they are scrambling excuses to justify their NIMBYism. These are the same people who will complain about jobs going to Dublin, not enough tourists in Cork and a lack of housing, then turn around and protest a mixed development with office, apartment and hotel space. Here is the enlightening Facebook post from our local anti progress TD:

Speaking this morning, Oliver Moran, the party’s representative in Cork North Central, said The idea of a forty-storey skyscraper at the head of Lapp’s Island is ludicrous. It has all of the airs of a vanity project that the city will end up regretting in a very short time. Our focus should be on redeveloping the docklands north of Centre Park Road and around the train station in a way that will have a true impact on the city’s future. That’s where the future of city living in Cork lies, with good public transport links, like a Cork Luas or a Bus Rapid Transit system.”
What this proposal shows is the urgency of taking the Custom House and bonded warehouses into public ownership before someone does something to the city that we will never forgive them for. We should see this site as a social and community hub for the future of the docklands. What we’d like to see is a river amenity centre, with moorings and training facilities, as well as a retail and cultural centre. But that can’t happen if the site is taken over by a garish skyscraper that belongs in another part of the docklands away from a building of national significance like this.”

Forty-storey tower “would never be forgiven”, says Green Party

AugustusMinimus

Could someone explain how an old stone bonded warehouse is a building of national significance?

mire

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Could someone explain how an old stone bonded warehouse is a building of national significance?

Under the NIAH,http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=CC&regno=20506374

Description

Sixteen-bay three-storey bonded warehouse, built 1814-49, built on a trapezoidal plan having canopies to ground floor level. Built of rubble sandstone with squared and cut limestone having large cast iron rainwater goods and timber and slated canopies. Vaulted stores to ground floor and stone spiral stairs within external semi-circular towers.

Appraisal
A large warehouse, unique in Cork, situated on a very prominent site and using building materials traditional to the area. Although suffering from lack of maintenance, the warehouse retains the majority of its original fabric and is a landmark building within the city.

D'Agger

snotboogie wrote: »

They are not progressive ideas, they are scrambling excuses to justify their NIMBYism. These are the same people who will complain about jobs going to Dublin, not enough tourists in Cork and a lack of housing, then turn around and protest a mixed development with office, apartment and hotel space. Here is the enlightening Facebook post from our local anti progress TD:

They are progressive if they're proposing adding amenities where disused property currently sits. I think it's too easy to simply slate all opposition to the proposed development as NIMBYism which is a term that gets thrown around a lot on this forum tbh but I digress.

There's a reason people are objecting - they see it as a vanity project - I can see a bit of reasoning there to an extent, it's a gigantic building tbf. I also agree with Olivers idea that North of Centre Park road needs development. That said, the property was sold without (unless I'm mistaken) objection - what did they think was going to happen here only private development.

Why not push for development North of Centre Park Road with the ideas mentioned here - the amenities, training centres etc.

I see some valid points here, but they seem to be specific to this site and I don't understand that side of their argument one bit. The building where it stands would be some beacon for Cork and people entering the city - I'd like to think it would spur development in the surrounding areas mentioned previously. The worry there, as is being preached by the Greens here - is will we be left with a bigger version of the Elysian, not close to being full if hard times should roll around once again with the surrounding area still in the same condition.

Personally I don't see that happening but can understand how some might harbour doubts about it - pun fully intended

snotboogie

D'Agger wrote: »

snotboogie wrote: »

They are not progressive ideas, they are scrambling excuses to justify their NIMBYism. These are the same people who will complain about jobs going to Dublin, not enough tourists in Cork and a lack of housing, then turn around and protest a mixed development with office, apartment and hotel space. Here is the enlightening Facebook post from our local anti progress TD:

They are progressive if they're proposing adding amenities where disused property currently sits. I think it's too easy to simply slate all opposition to the proposed development as NIMBYism which is a term that gets thrown around a lot on this forum tbh but I digress.

There's a reason people are objecting - they see it as a vanity project - I can see a bit of reasoning there to an extent, it's a gigantic building tbf. I also agree with Olivers idea that North of Centre Park road needs development. That said, the property was sold without (unless I'm mistaken) objection - what did they think was going to happen here only private development.

Why not push for development North of Centre Park Road with the ideas mentioned here - the amenities, training centres etc.

I see some valid points here, but they seem to be specific to this site and I don't understand that side of their argument one bit. The building where it stands would be some beacon for Cork and people entering the city - I'd like to think it would spur development in the surrounding areas mentioned previously. The worry there, as is being preached by the Greens here - is will we be left with a bigger version of the Elysian, not close to being full if hard times should roll around once again with the surrounding area still in the same condition.

Personally I don't see that happening but can understand how some might harbour doubts about it - pun fully intended

The Greens proposals are naked anti development. They are suggesting building a park and preserving the custom house buildings, where is the room for that? Times Square bought the site for €6 million in 2016, so we are looking at a minimum of €6 million of public money being spent before any warehouse regeneration, maritime museums or boating clubs are put in this space. Vanity, complexes about Dublin are pure waffle, this is a private development for private industry, I would imagine that a private business (with no connections to Cork beyond this site) is looking to make a profit couldn't care less about Cork vs Dublin or vanity projects for the city. 

The Eylssian shouldn't scare people, it was completed at literally the worst moment possible and a decade later it is a massive success, sold on to private business and fully occupied. If anything it shows the resilience of these buildings if done right, no matter the timing.

namloc1980

The talk of a maritime museum is pie in the sky stuff. With the ongoing farces of the Event Centre, Marina Park and Tramore Valley Park I wouldn't trust the City Council or any public body to do anything right in the city.

marno21

The North of Centre Park Road also needs development - that doesn't justify not building the 40 storey on Anderson Quay

This bull**** about the warehouses being of significance - do these fruitcakes not understand evolution? Cork needs major development more than it needs old crumbling warehouses for artists and pensioners to admire whilst they watch all the young people of Cork head away on the train to Dublin.

Cork needs real development, real jobs and real accomodation more than it needs a "maritime museum" in an old warehouse.

PreCocious

D'Agger wrote: »

A park was suggested as an alternative - would be cool, however, given the councils track record with parks I think we should really just leave this to the private sector and develop the docklands because we'll actually see an end result that would benefit the city rather than becoming another project the council mucks up and becomes a nuisance to maintain.

The comments I'm reading are suggesting to use a different part of the docklands, just not this part - what other part are they referencing? It's very easy to point and say - don't do this, here are alternatives, but these alternatives weren't being proposed with the last X amount of years while the site remained unused. The minute there's a proposal from the private sector - Boom - all the suggestions for parks and other uses come flying out. That's what makes this so annoying - where were all these progressive ideas the last few years?

Full of suggestions & alternatives the minute somebody actually moves to do something with the property. Reactive politics.

Incorrect.

When Custom House went up for sale there was a serious drive to retain it and the warehouses. The warehouses had been used for the SafeHarbor festival.

Currently the rhetoric seems to be build and be damned but yet all the reports say that Cork should have a cohesive natural historical core

namloc1980

PreCocious wrote: »

Incorrect.

When Custom House went up for sale there was a serious drive to retain it and the warehouses. The warehouses had been used for the SafeHarbor festival.

Currently the rhetoric seems to be build and be damned but yet all the reports say that Cork should have a cohesive natural historical core

What "serious drive" was that? Who was behind it and did they put in an offer to buy it?

kub

PreCocious wrote:

Currently the rhetoric seems to be build and be damned but yet all the reports say that Cork should have a cohesive natural historical core

What's the issue here? As has been shown in the plans of this proposed development the now eye sores of warehousing are being maintained not demolished.
They are more than likely listed buildings anyway and one has to wonder as to the intellectual ability of The Green Party in suggesting these structures will be demolished.
They could badly do with some TLC that is for sure and if this development allows for that then I am all for it, but not for just that reason.

namloc1980

I fear what will happen here is that the objectors and NIMBYs will frustrate the process through ABP appeals and judicial reviews to the point that the developers will eventually shrug their shoulders and move on. The Greens and their pals will slap themselves on the back for a job well done and then the site will continue to lie unused for years to come and fall further and further into disrepair. You can guarantee the Greens won't be seen when that happens.

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

I fear what will happen here is that the objectors and NIMBYs will frustrate the process through ABP appeals and judicial reviews to the point that the developers will eventually shrug their shoulders and move on. The Greens and their pals will slap themselves on the back for a job well done and then the site will continue to lie unused for years to come and fall further and further into disrepair. You can guarantee the Greens won't be seen when that happens.

This is exactly what will happen. The site is commercially unviable without high rise.

Soccarboy11

I'm for this certain 'historicalness' of the city but this can be done while progressing and modernising. Was in New York last year, down in the Financial District and there was an ancient small church in between two 30-40 story buildings. To say it was eyecatching and unique is an understatement. Things can be done and imo having the warehouses next to a 40 story building would save them from crumbling to ruin, would draw tourists to them most likely and would also help preserve them. Sick of this anti-development keep everything below 7 story people. Having a small park right on the entrance to the city through the port is possibly one of the stupidest ideas ive heard. Theres a reason the greens aren't in power in government anymore right?

They say they want to preserve the warehouses, yet nothing will be done to help that if the site isn't developed in the first place. The Image of the skyscraper they used clearly shows the skyscraper, along with the warehouses being preserved and restored. The fact the petition has over 1200 signatures is depressing also.