Cork developments

Lackadaisical

Have a look at the comments under the Tweet linked above. Someone threatening to object just because and seemingly displaying great pride that he can hold up the process.

fonecrusher1

Lackadaisical wrote: »

Have a look at the comments under the Tweet linked above. Someone threatening to object just because and seemingly displaying great pride that he can hold up the process.

Yup that's pretty much the mentality I've been referring to throughout the last few weeks.

Anyway petition signed!

spillcoe

Lackadaisical wrote: »

Have a look at the comments under the Tweet linked above. Someone threatening to object just because and seemingly displaying great pride that he can hold up the process.

Saw that as well - crazy stuff. The real problem is the planning/appeals system though. It shouldn't allow these kind objectors the power to hold up developments for petty reasons.

leahyl

Just signed the petition! Why only 100 signatures as the limit? It says 75/100 signatures received so far.

Lackadaisical

leahyl wrote: »

Just signed the petition! Why only 100 signatures as the limit? It says 75/100 signatures received so far.

AFAIK, they're targets. It will start out with X of 100 and then X of 500 or something like that.

Edit:

It's moved to 103/200 now

Pablo Escobar

kub wrote: »

While the management in The Echo wonder why people do not bother reading their paper anymore.

Agreed. Since their bias against the M28 I haven't bought a copy. The paper is completely anti-development, which makes them anti-progressive. The silent majority will make less noise than the lunatics in the comments sections online.

Even just now they're running with this story about the Sextant site. The tone is as we've come to expect, anti-development - https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Demolition-of-Sextant-will-have-to-meet-planning-regulations-a4d54bf5-0ac9-43e7-9548-706d5bfafa18-ds

Lackadaisical

To be fair, the Examiner has done pretty good coverage on the proposed developments and that whole Cork Rising supplement and all of that.

The Echo seems to take quite tabloid angles these days on a lot of things.

Balanced, reasonable critique is fine, but clickbate for the sake of it annoys me.

namloc1980

What do these objectors want? For the bonded warehouses to continue to crumble and eventually become a ruin? To remain closed off from the public?

Lackadaisical

namloc1980 wrote: »

What do these objectors want? For the bonded warehouses to continue to crumble and eventually become a ruin? To remain closed off from the public?

They were never open to the public at any time in their history as far as I'm aware. They've historic value and it's being preserved and made accessible.

Also is it not somehow fitting that a structure that was built with a commercial purpose remains alive and part of the fabric of the city?

If the City Council took them over, what would they do with them? Where would they get the funds to preserve them? Within a few decades they'd be overgrown with weeds and a pile of rubble and then you'd end up with a permanent loss to the city of a structure that has historical value.

Junkyard Tom

namloc1980 wrote: »

What do these objectors want?

A fella told me a long time ago that there are people who will lodge objections to literally everything in the hope of getting a piss-off-payout. I'm not sure how true that is but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

questionmark?

opus wrote: »

There's a petition just started to support it!

https://twitter.com/julieoleary90/status/1151100904160026630

Signed. Spread the word folks. We can't let stone age thinking hold back Cork.

kub

Lackadaisical wrote: »

AFAIK, they're targets. It will start out with X of 100 and then X of 500 or something like that.

Edit:

It's moved to 103/200 now

So with that amount of positivity, does that out weigh the objections of one ' Artist from Cobh ' ?

God I have issues with her general politics but she's correct here

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

God I have issues with her general politics but she's correct here

Shes pulling out of politics

Rhys Essien

The right thing to do with this Dublin ‘artist’ would be to get Primetime down to interview him as well as the National newspapers. Try and embarrass him (if that’s possible). Get him in the National media. Why is a Dublin guy living in Cobh trying to interfere and hold up development in Cork?. Is someone putting him up to it?

I imagine if a Cork fella tried to do likewise above, he’d end up in the Liffey.

Meursault

Fair play to Julie O’Leary. These serial objectors need to be exposed for the contrarians that they are. Hopefully this counter-objection gains some traction and people vote in big numbers.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of people in Cork are in favour of projects such as these. This is a good opportunity to prove that.

Those of you on Twitter please retweet Julie O’Leary’s online vote

flo8s967qjh0nd

I had hoped this thread had moved past its absolute obsession with people who have different views on certain buildings. Ultimately, planners will decide based on best practice and not because of some fella in a pub or girl on a message board.
Let's all just move on.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

I had hoped this thread had moved past its absolute obsession with people who have different views on certain buildings. Ultimately, planners will decide based on best practice and not because of some fella in a pub or girl on a message board.
Let's all just move on.

No. That's my view.

TheChizler

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

Agreed. Since their bias against the M28 I haven't bought a copy. The paper is completely anti-development, which makes them anti-progressive. The silent majority will make less noise than the lunatics in the comments sections online.

Even just now they're running with this story about the Sextant site. The tone is as we've come to expect, anti-development - https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Demolition-of-Sextant-will-have-to-meet-planning-regulations-a4d54bf5-0ac9-43e7-9548-706d5bfafa18-ds

How is the article tone anti development? They're reporting how the planning department responded to a query. Not everything that doesn't completely promote development is anti development. It's not black and white.

Pablo Escobar

TheChizler wrote: »

How is the article tone anti development? They're reporting how the planning department responded to a query. Not everything that doesn't completely promote development is anti development. It's not black and white.

Developers must comply with the rules shocker!

The tone is negative as it is apparently trying to create an obstacle that already exists. It's not misleading, so it's far from their worst pieces, but it is a little pointless. The headline on their website was "Demolition of Sextant will have to meet planning regulations". Do the weak of mind (found in the comments section on Facebook) then infer that something underhand was afoot (pardon the pun)? God forbid they'd think critically about something.

Meursault

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

Developers must comply with the rules shocker!

The tone is negative as it is apparently trying to create an obstacle that already exists. It's not misleading, so it's far from their worst pieces, but it is a little pointless. The headline on their website was "Demolition of Sextant will have to meet planning regulations". Do the weak of mind (found in the comments section on Facebook) then infer that something underhand was afoot (pardon the pun)? God forbid they'd think critically about something.

I am assuming (hoping) that ABP have set criteria for approving or rejecting planning permission, and the court of public opinion means nothing. If that is the case, I am sure the developers are clever enough to anticipate any potential objections - valid or otherwise - and have prepared for this in the planning process. Given that the developer is Cork-based, I would imagine he is sensitive/aware of local opinions - especially those of the planning authorities.

I am confident enough that this will get the green light.

mire

I am in favor of this development; it is an excellent scheme. From what I have seen so far.

However, I am a bit uncomfortable with all this character assassination of objectors. Cork should be mature enough to have a good open debate about a major development like this, which includes a thorough examination of all aspects of the project.

This development will be decided on its merits in planning terms. As it should be.

The idea of trying to use a petition to somehow attempt to persuade a planning decision is a bit embarrassing. It has a whiff of desperation.

fonecrusher1

mire wrote: »

I am in favor of this development; it is an excellent scheme. From what I have seen so far.

However, I am a bit uncomfortable with all this character assassination of objectors. Cork should be mature enough to have a good open debate about a major development like this, which includes a thorough examination of all aspects of the project.

This development will be decided on its merits in planning terms. As it should be.

The idea of trying to use a petition to somehow attempt to persuade a planning decision is a bit embarrassing. It has a whiff of desperation.

Its not about swaying a planning decision at all. The petition has no baring whatsoever on the planning process.

Its more about replying to the petition created for objection with a statement of support in the form of another petition. Its desperation to create a petition supporting the high rise proposals? Sure you could apply the same logic to the petition for people objecting. Are they not desperate? Where's the desperation? Its just people saying I don't want these high rise buildings or I welcome these high rise buildings. If more people support one petition over the other then you get a factual representation of what most people want for the city.

Anyway lets see which petition gets more support. Purely just to see if the majority of people want high rise or don't want high rise. Very simple.

Flesh Gorden

Lackadaisical wrote: »

Sure in Paris there was absolute uproar about the Eiffel Tower when it went up. It's now an icon of the city, more recognisable than Notre Dame de Paris or anything else in the city.

D'Agger wrote: »

I get your point and agree about striking a balance but I think it needs to be called out that you're comparing a hotel with a rooftop restaurant to the Eiffel Tower :pac:

I was going to write a similar reply, as the proposed tower has more in common with the Tour Montparnasse, which in Paris does stand out like a giant black sore thumb, given it's surroundings.

But we on the other hand have a blank slate, as the city is a random mish-mash of modern and imperial legacy buildings.

The surrounding area is set to be transformed with high rise buildings and the tower, could well be the central star for a long time to come.

it would be a different case, if something this size was randomly dumped in the middle of Washington Street, as it would look out of place there.

Burty330

Unpopular opinion , but the bonded warehouses should be flattened and the rubble taken away to be used in filling pot holes around the county.

Look at the prime real estate those dilapidated ruins are hogging up , on ground level and above?

What purpose to they serve? No tourist visiting Cork will ever walk to the docks to have a gander at a couple of old warehouses. Its in our best interests to use the space to develop much needed infrastructure. You have to let go of the past if you want to move forward!

NYC demolished buildings that , compared to our bonded warehouses, are like a 7th wonder of the world. The old Singer Building for example.
Without making comprises and having the bravery and intent to build upwards , NYC wouldn't be the magnificent place it is today.

We simply can't be hoarders and must do whats best for the future of the city! Im not above being educated however , so im open to being proven wrong about the warehouse and why they should be preserved.

Lackadaisical

To be honest, I think the critiquing of someone because they're from Dublin is a bit parochial and nonsense. I'd be more concerned about people who don't live in Cork City making complaints about issues that have no impact on them.

I'm from Dublin and I'm a Cork City Centre resident and would love to see some proper landmark buildings. Cork needs to learn from Dublin's mistakes, not repeat them. It's sad to see the state of Dublin's these days. It's been turned into a flat, unsustainable, traffic-choked, difficult to build infrastructure for, sprawling mess by very narrow-minded fear of tall buildings.

Ireland seems to have an awful lot of complaints-driven systems that tend to facilitate those with a motivation to lodge complaints, rather than actually placing the emphasis on transparent, open, analysis of what the issues actually are.

You see similar in areas like broadcasting complaints. Instead of regulation based on sane analysis, we've a system that is driven by people sending in complaints about things they're ticked off about.

It ends up more like government by Peter Griffin (Family Guy)'s Grinds My Gears segment ...

j8wk2feszrnpao

mire wrote: »

The idea of trying to use a petition to somehow attempt to persuade a planning decision is a bit embarrassing. It has a whiff of desperation.

mire wrote: »

However, I am a bit uncomfortable with all this character assassination of objectors.

?

Lackadaisical

What's baffling me is that people who are supposedly 'greens', at least from a philosophical point of view, are coming across more like architectural conversationalists. I'm seeing commentary online going on about the scale of the building relative to other buildings and so on.

What about the scale of the buildings relative to the huge structures already in the docks? E.g. ESB power station, silos or even the huge height of the hills that overlook it that will always continue to overlook it, even at 40+ stories. The city's not flat.

It needs adequate normal discussion and critique, but the key thing should be about making the city more sustainable and that inevitably involves denser and higher.

If the city doesn't go up, it goes out. Also more compact, taller structures are easier to service and bring all sorts of advantages in terms of being able to provide highly efficient heating / cooling systems as you get the economies of scale and abilities to use very advanced systems.

If we want to stay with this low density city, with a core that's becoming hollowed out by low rise offices and no residential space, keep it flat and keep building shopping malls, retail parks and business campuses scattered out around the ring road. That's precisely how you build a small-town American-style car dependent sprawl - beltway, bungalow bliss!

Green ≠ conservative, nor should it be fear of technology or the built environment. It's about sustainability, minimising our footprint and living in harmony with the environment. A tall building, despite its modernity and scale actually achieves more of that than a scattering of suburban housing or a sprawling campus in Mahon.

It means more walked / cycled journeys to/from work, school & leisure activities, less CO2, less local air pollution from engines and a way more vibrant city centre.

fonecrusher1

https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/support-high-rise-and-high-density-development-in-the-port-of-cork

Over 500 have signed already. Not bad for a petition that was started only yesterday.

:eek:

kub

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/support-high-rise-and-high-density-development-in-the-port-of-cork

Over 500 have signed already. Not bad for a petition that was started only yesterday.

:eek:

Well so much for the single objector that The Echo reported about a few days ago.


Seems like they got wind of something from somewhere, the other side of the story:


https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Petition-started-in-favour-of-high-rise-buildings-in-Cork-e459f11b-c913-421b-be82-bf0c337bad30-ds


Thank you Echo, if you guys could please not take sides, stay neutral and be professional unlike you when you blindly followed the M28 objectors.