Height limits for buildings in Cork City

the dark phantom

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.

And the warehouses will be burnt to the ground in true Cork style.

fash

The current design of the tower is poor and it should be limited to somewhere between 25-30 storeys and a better design required (the Elysian is pretty good). A hotel taking up a good chunk of it could be good - bringing a population of visitors to the area allowing the warehouses to become something like CHQ in Dublin.

marno21

Can I point something out

The petition was originally sign if you want to preserve the buildings, unrelated to the 40 storey. It's now used as a petition against the 40 story development

Water John

Rarely sign any type of petition, as it lends my name to others.

AugustusMinimus

fash wrote: »

The current design of the tower is poor and it should be limited to somewhere between 25-30 storeys and a better design required (the Elysian is pretty good). A hotel taking up a good chunk of it could be good - bringing a population of visitors to the area allowing the warehouses to become something like CHQ in Dublin.

That isn’t the design though. It is just a preliminary drawing. Final design may not look like that at all.

snotboogie

fash wrote: »

The current design of the tower is poor and it should be limited to somewhere between 25-30 storeys.

Why?

Water John

Because any plan submitted for any project, is subject to cuts, invariably. As a friend of mine says, planner says, we'll take a bit off this corner, a bit of that corner and a good slice off the top.

snotboogie

Water John wrote: »

Because any plan submitted for any project, is subject to cuts, invariably. As a friend of mine says, planner says, we'll take a bit off this corner, a bit of that corner and a good slice off the top.

I am asking why it should be limited, not why it will be limited

Water John

Well, I'm a bit cynical. In the reason column, it's whatever comes to mind.

fash

snotboogie wrote: »

fash wrote: »

The current design of the tower is poor and it should be limited to somewhere between 25-30 storeys.

Why?

It’s out of scale to the site around it.

opus

I had a read of the GP submissions for the docklands all sounds fine & dandy but I assume it can just be put with the many reports the council have produced on the docklands as aspirational rather than realistic. Eg the pictures for the proposed Marina park are either from a kids fairy tale book or the people who drew them are taking some serious pharmaceuticals!

Hasn't the site with the bonded warehouses already been sold? So the thing that none of the objectors have stated is who exactly should try and buy it back (if that's even possible) and where the funding is going to come from? Given that Tramore Valley park isn't opened yet I don't think the council are flush with cash. Another example is that the roof caved in last year in the craft centre in Shandon as the council couldn't/wouldn't come up with the ~€30k for remedial work. What do people think the chances of those bonded warehouses would be in their care?

<rant>Ironically I used to be a GP voter & always come out green in those political tests of which party you should vote for but after what the greens did to Ireland by changing the tax regime to promote diesel vehicles when they were in power means I will never vote for them again. I heard whoever is their current leader on the radio recently saying they'd been duped by the car companies but ignorance is no defence in my book. </rant>

kub

fash wrote:

It’s out of scale to the site around it.

The river is it?

marno21

fash wrote: »

It’s out of scale to the site around it.

Or when you look at it from an Ireland point of view, the site around it is out of scale with the tower.

If you don't start somewhere you never will, this will hopefully be one of many medium size towers to be built in the future.

We're only fooling ourselves thinking we're going to get anywhere otherwise.

Roger Hassenforder

fash wrote: »

It’s out of scale to the site around it.

Its certainly not sympathetic to its environment.
Its not rundown, not decrepit. Its new, shiny and modern.

mire

There is no proposal for the site; there is an artist's impression, that's all.

The site lends itself to a tall element, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a contemporary and tall building right next to the bonded warehouses. It does however need to be a high quality design that relates to its surroundings in some way.

cgcsb

The green party??? their core mandate is environmentalism, what is more environmentally friendly than denser Cities in terms of land and energy usage.

Outkast_IRE

I honestly dont understand the issue. Under the current proposal the bonded warehouses are going to be retained and given a fresh lease of life, acting as an internal avenue up to the building, providing local services to the offices, residents and visitors to the building.

Along the riverside there is proposed to having plantings, seats etc making it into a usable space.

Yes the tower is tall, but once the design has some architectural merit and isnt a standard glass box, i would have no issue with them going to that height on a landmark site. The visualisation shown also doesnt show the 1 albert quay building and the new navigation square building which will provide some context to the higher rise structure.

The horgans quay development will help "frame" out the development on approach to the city. This is the kind to large scale development thats needed, lets not get caught in the trap of shiny new low rise buildings like dublin, and then struggle for space.

opus

The was a GP guy on Newstalk this morning talking this. His main point seemed to be that this would be a great place for the people of Cork to go see the sunrise in the morning so they shouldn't be allowed to build there!

I sometimes go for a jog before work if I wake early and indeed there can be nice sunrises (pic is from Tivoli direction last April) but strangely I didn't see any groups of people staring at it

Outkast_IRE

opus wrote: »

The was a GP guy on Newstalk this morning talking this. His main point seemed to be that this would be a great place for the people of Cork to go see the sunrise in the morning so they shouldn't be allowed to build there!

I sometimes go for a jog before work if I wake early and indeed there can be nice sunrises (pic is from Tivoli direction last April) but strangely I didn't see any groups of people staring at it

But again the planners will be able to stipulate that there is seating and planting and all the trimings provided to allow the public to sit at the rivers edge and look down the river lee.

D'Agger

The main gripe with the talk of parks is

a) Tramore park is still sitting dormant
b) There's a park planned for the Marina

A park there would be cool, but you can still pop down there for a coffee, sit down and a view on the water if the building is there. In fact, you're more likely to do this than if there's just a park there I reckon

Crazy stuff from the Greens imo

Any word on when we might see actual plans from developers as opposed to initial drawings? Apologies if mentioned already I skimmed the last few pages.

cgcsb

Pointless location for a park, there is no foot traffic going through the area and parks are not trip generators by themselves. A major development such as that proposed is a trip generator. The Greens must own a piece of land somewhere that they want to get zoned for urban sprawl. There's always an agenda with these clowns their out for self interest only, they haven't even attempted a rational argument against the development they're just agin' it.

Water John

Statement to The Irish Examiner (back page) from Kevin O'Sullivan, Developer is interesting reading. They intend restoring the buildings, as a visitor attraction.
As some above posters have said, let's wait and see, the plans.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/port-of-cork-skyscraper-developer-responds-to-petition-466739.html

We have outrage here from John Adams and 1,300 signatures. This must nearly rate as the definition, of a nothing burger. Find some thing else to get irate about.

snotboogie

Water John wrote: »

Statement to The Irish Examiner (back page) from Kevin O'Sullivan, Developer is interesting reading. They intend restoring the buildings, as a visitor attraction.
As some above posters have said, let's wait and see, the plans.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/port-of-cork-skyscraper-developer-responds-to-petition-466739.html

We have outrage here from John Adams and 1,300 signatures. This must nearly rate as the definition, of a nothing burger. Find some thing else to get irate about.

Worth noting as well:

Planning won’t be lodged until local area plans for the docklands are finalised

means planning has been pushed back to at least June

CHealy

snotboogie wrote: »

Worth noting as well:

means planning has been pushed back to at least June

This was always the case, City Council do not have this area marked for high rise, I expect this to be changed at this announcement.

This is a good clear statement put out by the developers, should put the bed any argument the pointless petition crowd have, but I reckon they'll find something else to cure their boredom.

Herb Powell

marno21 wrote: »

Here come the fruitcakes

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

Meursault wrote: »

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.

I know the guy personally and you'd be wrong with that assumption.

I think he's being misunderstood here. I'm for the development and I think it's needed, but I do think his concern is valid, given our history of fuccking up developments. Ireland isn't exactly renowned for architecture, so it would make sense to try and preserve the little bit of heritage we have remaining. As far as I know, from what I've been told, the plans do take the buildings into account, and they're listed. Given the history of so many developments in this country, hopefully they';; stick with those plans.

As I've said, I don't object to the development and I haven't signed the petition, but I don't agree with the "build first, ask questions later" approach that some people seem to be favouring on this. I don't think it's fair to call John Adams a crazy NIMBY regressive over this.

CHealy

Herb Powell wrote: »

I know the guy personally and you'd be wrong with that assumption.

I think he's being misunderstood here. I'm for the development and I think it's needed, but I do think his concern is valid, given our history of fuccking up developments. Ireland isn't exactly renowned for architecture, so it would make sense to try and preserve the little bit of heritage we have remaining. As far as I know, from what I've been told, the plans do take the buildings into account, and they're listed. Given the history of so many developments in this country, hopefully they';; stick with those plans.

As I've said, I don't object to the development and I haven't signed the petition, but I don't agree with the "build first, ask questions later" approach that some people seem to be favouring on this. I don't think it's fair to call John Adams a crazy NIMBY regressive over this.

As you said, the buildings are listed, what exactly is his problem so? It screams "I have absolutely nothing better to be doing" and look its worked out pretty well for him, even got his name in the Echo. The buildings themselves are a mess, grey, unkept, pretty much useless to anyone, Im all for preservation of history but as the mast as you come into our city from the Lower Road, I wouldnt mind seeing the things being completely razed and we go all out with a new development. Luckily, the City Council and Coveney & Co. are all in support of Cork going high rise so petitions like this will be quiet quickly lobbed into the nearest City Council bin.

snotboogie

CHealy wrote: »

snotboogie wrote: »

Worth noting as well:

means planning has been pushed back to at least June

This was always the case, City Council do not have this area marked for high rise, I expect this to be changed at this announcement.

This is a good clear statement put out by the developers, should put the bed any argument the pointless petition crowd have, but I reckon they'll find something else to cure their boredom.

They were originally set to out it forward in Q1 2018, makes sense what they are doing now though.

marno21

http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/5/42433/05th_February_2018_-_Newstalk_Breakfast_Part_1/

First item on the show yesterday was in relation to the 40 storey tower

snotboogie

marno21 wrote: »

http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/5/42433/05th_February_2018_-_Newstalk_Breakfast_Part_1/

First item on the show yesterday was in relation to the 40 storey tower

Half of his argument was that the development is a "hotel" which of course it's not, it's a mixed use development with a hotel as a feature. The rest of his argument about it being a public amenity and the presenter rightly pointed out that features like a bar would bring people down there, as opposed to now where nobody can go down there and enjoy it.

Meursault

The Greens and this guy who started the petition haven't a leg to stand on. You can't object to something, without even knowing what its going to look like. The Greens are using this as a handy publicity stunt. They are an insignificant party at local and national level, and this story gives them the publicity they are desperate for.