Cork developments

fash

fash wrote: »

Because once there is a contract in place, it is only either changes or interferences which allow additional money to be paid.
Why are you talking about anything else? Do you understand what a construction contract is?

Yes and you're stating that it's government changes causing problems.
Care to enlighten.

Because I've seen government tenders treated as post commencement gravy trains, vs very strict privately procured tender contracts, by companies.

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes and you're stating that it's government changes causing problems.
Care to enlighten.

Because I've seen government tenders treated as post commencement gravy trains, vs very strict privately procured tender contracts, by companies.

Because changes or interferences are made by the owner to the agreed contract or else, there is no fixed price contract yet in place.
If no fixed contract is yet in place, then the project is still in the development phase.

fash

fash wrote: »

Because changes or interferences are made by the owner to the agreed contract or else, there is no fixed price contract yet in place.
If no fixed contract is yet in place, then the project is still in the development phase.

Oh FFS. Contractors have repeatedly come back with "unforeseen" costs to public projects. They are not being penalised for this, which is the point of anger towards overrun. There is endemic under "estimation" in the tender process.

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh FFS. Contractors have repeatedly come back with "unforeseen" costs to public projects. They are not being penalised for this, which is the point of anger towards overrun. There is endemic under "estimation" in the tender process.

Perhaps you should read a construction contract some time - start here:
https://constructionprocurement.gov.ie/contracts/
The only "unforeseen" costs once the contract is agreed are owner interferences, changes or changes to assumptions which the owner specifically obliged the contractor to make. Even many of these are not recoverable.
So please explain what it is you are talking about and please do it by reference to which provision of which contract allows a contractor to unilaterally seek additional payment (and furthermore please explain how that is legal under EU procurement law.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

janfebmar

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh FFS. Contractors have repeatedly come back with "unforeseen" costs to public projects. They are not being penalised for this, which is the point of anger towards overrun. There is endemic under "estimation" in the tender process.

A few brown envelopes keeps everyone happy.

rebs23

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh FFS. Contractors have repeatedly come back with "unforeseen" costs to public projects. They are not being penalised for this, which is the point of anger towards overrun. There is endemic under "estimation" in the tender process.

The tendering system it is set up so that the lowest price wins. Most of the marks are awarded for price, therefore when a contractor tenders they only ever price what's in front of them in the spec and the drawings. If the design is incorrect or incomplete that is hardly the contractors fault that they then charge for any extra work that is asked for by the client. The client asks for the price of the job according to the spec and then always awards to the lowest.
It's an extremely competitive market with very low margins.

fash

fash wrote: »

Perhaps you should read a construction contract some time - start here:
https://constructionprocurement.gov.ie/contracts/
The only "unforeseen" costs once the contract is agreed are owner interferences, changes or changes to assumptions which the owner specifically obliged the contractor to make. Even many of these are not recoverable.
So please explain what it is you are talking about and please do it by reference to which provision of which contract allows a contractor to unilaterally seek additional payment (and furthermore please explain how that is legal under EU procurement law.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Because they client agrees to the changes and extra price. There is no conflict to resolve when the client rolls over and accepts it.
What's so hard for you to understand about that?
That is the issue, I mentioned.

Where is my knowledgle on this? Being on project teams on both sides.
No private project I've been on has ever blindly accepted changes (and yes there have been overruns for unforseen reasons but any increases hit the supplier harder)

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they client agrees to the changes and extra price. There is no conflict to resolve when the client rolls over and accepts it.
What's so hard for you to understand about that?
That is the issue, I mentioned.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that public sector clients and their representatives are paying for things a second time as changes which are already contained in the original scope. If that is actually true, the (almost certainly private sector) contract administrator is at a minimum exceptionally negligent, likely corrupt, in breach of professional obligations and codes of conduct and liable to the state for the additional costs. If they were employed under the PWC terms of agreement I believe they themselves will also be penalised for the mere fact is getting the costings wrong. To whom have you reported the incidents and how have the cases progressed?

Where is my knowledgle on this? Being on project teams on both sides.
No private project I've been on has ever blindly accepted changes (and yes there have been overruns for unforseen reasons but any increases hit the supplier harder)

this suggests that your experience is that this is a systemic issue - and possibly that you have engaged in illegal activities (assuming you have failed to comply with your obligations to report notifiable events of possible corruption in state contracts- which appears to be what you are implying -please correct me if I am wrong) - It should be noted that the PWCs are far stricter in terms of risk transfer.

fash

fash wrote: »

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that public sector clients and their representatives are paying for things a second time as changes which are already contained in the original scope. If that is actually true, the (almost certainly private sector) contract administrator is at a minimum exceptionally negligent, likely corrupt, in breach of professional obligations and codes of conduct and liable to the state for the additional costs. If they were employed under the PWC terms of agreement I believe they themselves will also be penalised for the mere fact is getting the costings wrong. To whom have you reported the incidents and how have the cases progressed?

this suggests that your experience is that this is a systemic issue - and possibly that you have engaged in illegal activities (assuming you have failed to comply with your obligations to report notifiable events of possible corruption in state contracts- which appears to be what you are implying -please correct me if I am wrong) - It should be noted that the PWCs are far stricter in terms of risk transfer.

No, I'm saying that they do not challenge changes half enough. Or, if they do, they do not push penalties back to the provider.

But rather than understand that the tender process is broken and allows for manipulation you are seeing criminal conspiracies everywhere.
Tgere is nothing illegal about coming back with extra costs (if required), it's up to the client to challenge.

who_me

Dermo123 wrote: »

An unintended development may have to take place in North Main Street...... again. Well they will probably just knock the top 2 floors and leave it at that. Apparently owned by NAMA.

Was wondering what was going on there, saw the street was closed off. If it's in an unsafe state, I'm glad it was caught before anyone was hurt.

who_me

who_me wrote: »

Was wondering what was going on there, saw the street was closed off. If it's in an unsafe state, I'm glad it was caught before anyone was hurt.

1999 a woman was killed at the junction of North Main St and Washington St
2009 building comes down on Castle St
2019 building comes down on North Main St

Entire area needs to be investigated and brought down, as required.

who_me

Deleted User wrote: »

1999 a woman was killed at the junction of North Main St and Washington St
2009 building comes down on Castle St
2019 building comes down on North Main St

Entire area needs to be investigated and brought down, as required.

To clarify: I'm glad that no one - that I'm aware of - was hurt in this incident. But certainly there seem to be good cause for inspections in that entire area.

I remember walking down North Main St. in '09 (I think) too, and returned about an hour later only to see a big hole in the middle of the street, it looked like a pipe exploded and blew out a hole in the surface.

Markcheese

[Deleted User] wrote: »

1999 a woman was killed at the junction of North Main St and Washington St
2009 building comes down on Castle St
2019 building comes down on North Main St

Entire area needs to be investigated and brought down, as required.

Careful though, it wouldn't be unheard of for buildings to be left go derelict... With the excuse of knocking them because they're dangerous... Although I don't think there's much of architectural significance above ground in the area..

Markcheese

Markcheese wrote: »

Careful though, it wouldn't be unheard of for buildings to be left go derelict... With the excuse of knocking them because they're dangerous... Although I don't think there's much of architectural significance above ground in the area..

Yeah, impose massive fines on (or remove title from) speculators sitting of property allowing it go dangerously derelict.
Prevent such actions of those trying to circumvent planning.
That road has the old St Peter's church and potentially that place that used to have Mahers (Mr. Price there now) as the only buildings of significance

It's a pity because with Leaders, Bradleys, Murphys, BDSM, TableTop Cafe and a few other small places there is a nice heart to the street that could grow nicely. The abandoned buildings will kill investment though.

It's a street crying out for mixed development buildings giving the area a lived in and active business feel

Brussels Sprout

Deleted User wrote: »

1999 a woman was killed at the junction of North Main St and Washington St

I remember this distinctly. I was in a barbers on Washington street on the third or fourth floor, near that junction, waiting to get a hair cut and we heard this massive noise. It sounded like a truck had crashed but it transpired that it was actually pieces of the building had fallen onto the street from a height.

Brussels Sprout

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I remember this distinctly. I was in a barbers on Washington street on the third or fourth floor, near that junction, waiting to get a hair cut and we heard this massive noise. It sounded like a truck had crashed but it transpired that it was actually pieces of the building had fallen onto the street from a height.

Yeah, Mannix lost most of the building after that and loads of others needed structural repair but more and more decaying buildings are going to come down.
Knowing this, do you think anyone will face criminal charges? Will they what...

Also, I know that it is technically South Main St but everyone calls it NMS up to that point.

the beer revolu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also, I know that it is technically South Main St but everyone calls it NMS up to that point.

Really?
I don't.

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

Really?
I don't.

Well no one I know then.
That OK for you?

Ask most people where the Raven, Castle, Brick Lane are and will they say NMS or SMS?

who_me

Deleted User wrote: »

Well no one I know then.
That OK for you?

Ask most people where the Raven, Castle, Brick Lane are and will they say NMS or SMS?

Yeah, any time it comes up everyone seems to consider North of Washington St. "North Main..". Hell, I even know it's wrong, yet I got it wrong in my post above.

mire

who_me wrote: »

Yeah, any time it comes up everyone seems to consider North of Washington St. "North Main..". Hell, I even know it's wrong, yet I got it wrong in my post above.

The two streets meet at Paradise place but lots of people assume it is Washington St. Keep correcting people on this. !

the beer revolu

Deleted User wrote: »

Well no one I know then.
That OK for you?

Ask most people where the Raven, Castle, Brick Lane are and will they say NMS or SMS?

I wasn't being smart.
I, genuinely, never knew people confused this.

I drank in The Liberty Bar for years and never heard anyone describe it as being on NMS.

whisky_galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah, Mannix lost most of the building after that and loads of others needed structural repair but more and more decaying buildings are going to come down.
Knowing this, do you think anyone will face criminal charges? Will they what...

Also, I know that it is technically South Main St but everyone calls it NMS up to that point.

Who is liable for criminal charges? The original builders, the current owners or the procession of neglectful owners and slumlords since A.D. Eighteen Hundred and squat?
The Tans should have torched this lot, then we might have some reasonably solid buildings in that area and not tottering piles of red brick.

marno21

Cork Crane Count on Twitter managed to post a video of the proposals for the Sextant site by JCD

Videos have been taken down but they may still be visible on Twitter. Looks like they are going for 200 apartments on the site, the render of the building looks at least twice the height of the Navigation Square next door

https://twitter.com/corkcranecount?lang=en

Tomtom364

marno21 wrote: »

Cork Crane Count on Twitter managed to post a video of the proposals for the Sextant site by JCD

Videos have been taken down but they may still be visible on Twitter. Looks like they are going for 200 apartments on the site, the render of the building looks at least twice the height of the Navigation Square next door

https://twitter.com/corkcranecount?lang=en

25 story tower apparently

questionmark?

Tomtom364 wrote: »

marno21 wrote: »

Cork Crane Count on Twitter managed to post a video of the proposals for the Sextant site by JCD

Videos have been taken down but they may still be visible on Twitter. Looks like they are going for 200 apartments on the site, the render of the building looks at least twice the height of the Navigation Square next door

https://twitter.com/corkcranecount?lang=en

25 story tower apparently

That would be amazing intent. Cork is certainly looking up and hopefully learning from Dublin's low rise mistakes in their docklands.

350125GO!

marno21 wrote: »

Cork Crane Count on Twitter managed to post a video of the proposals for the Sextant site by JCD

Videos have been taken down but they may still be visible on Twitter. Looks like they are going for 200 apartments on the site, the render of the building looks at least twice the height of the Navigation Square next door

https://twitter.com/corkcranecount?lang=en

From a post on the skyscrapercity forum...(see attached)

questionmark?

350125GO! wrote: »

marno21 wrote: »

Cork Crane Count on Twitter managed to post a video of the proposals for the Sextant site by JCD

Videos have been taken down but they may still be visible on Twitter. Looks like they are going for 200 apartments on the site, the render of the building looks at least twice the height of the Navigation Square next door

https://twitter.com/corkcranecount?lang=en

From a post on the skyscrapercity forum...(see attached)

If that went ahead it would be the tallest residential building in the Republic! Would also make planning for the potential Port of Cork tower a bit easier.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Who is liable for criminal charges? The original builders, the current owners or the procession of neglectful owners and slumlords since A.D. Eighteen Hundred and squat?
The Tans should have torched this lot, then we might have some reasonably solid buildings in that area and not tottering piles of red brick.

Survey now, highlight dangers, current owners are liable for it

snotboogie

questionmark? wrote: »

If that went ahead it would be the tallest residential building in the Republic! Would also make planning for the potential Port of Cork tower a bit easier.

It would almost certainly be the tallest building period in the republic. Looking at the image above the top floor longe looks to have a huge floor to ceiling height which may even take it above the Obel in Belfast to be the tallest on the island.