Cork developments

questionmark?

Apogee wrote: »

Echo wrote:

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Developers-plan-to-significantly-increase-the-number-of-apartments-on-Horgans-Quay-site-bdd6da67-d976-4710-b842-3aa45ab989c1-ds

Had they not already applied for this some time ago? Either way it's some more badly needed apartments in the city centre.

the dark phantom

nyck04 wrote: »

However there is a chance of getting quality bus corridors in place which will really help get people onto public transport.
I'm currently spending time in Cambridge which has a city population of 100,000 and a total population of around 150,000. There are 4 quality park and rides and a quality bus corridor. The city is extremely pro cycling and there is even a high rise bike park next to the main train station. There is also a bike park in the main shopping centre.
There are minor traffic bottlenecks at peak times but overall traffic flows as people are prepared to use public transport and bikes. Cork could do worse than take a good look at Cambridge.

Cork City will never have quality bus corridors, Its so unorganised regarding traffic and public transport, The bus lanes they do have are ok to an extent but have loads of bottlenecks and loads of badly timed traffic lights, theres no way in hell cork city council or the nta are going to buy and demolish buildings at bottlenecks or spend money widening roads or removing traffic lights, just never going to happen. I spent some time in Norwich which also has a similar size and population to Cork and Norwichs transport and efficiency particularly in rush hour is light years ahead.

TheChizler

Interestingly, An Bord Pleanála have recommended that the developers increase the height of the tower development on the link road, just shows you what they see as acceptable for Cork!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-apartment-block-project-increased-by-four-floors-after-consulting-an-bord-pleanala-946826.html

The Railway Gardens development, located just 200 metres from the 17-storey Elysian tower, was initially planned to be 13 storeys tall but was described as "stocky and out of proportion" by the Bord, which advised an increase in height.

SleetAndSnow

TheChizler wrote: »

Interestingly, An Bord Pleanála have recommended that the developers increase the height of the tower development on the link road, just shows you what they see as acceptable for Cork!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-apartment-block-project-increased-by-four-floors-after-consulting-an-bord-pleanala-946826.html

We will take that!

Thats amazing really

fonecrusher1

Its actually very encouraging. Fair play ABP. Hopefully this is a sign that planning will be approved for the bigger projects.

Markcheese

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Its actually very encouraging. Fair play ABP. Hopefully this is a sign that planning will be approved for the bigger projects.

Maybe not, the higher you go the more expensive it can get, the developer may have preferred to stick at 13 floors...
(or maybe not)

opus

opus wrote: »

And in a change from the big apartment developments, this one (3 maybe) is taking shape on Woods St next to PC Services (who I can totally recommend btw).

Exterior of this is pretty much finished now.

igCorcaigh

https://twitter.com/emhaitch13/status/1167013435957288961?s=19

fonecrusher1

Markcheese wrote: »

Maybe not, the higher you go the more expensive it can get, the developer may have preferred to stick at 13 floors...
(or maybe not)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is its great the ABP are finally coming round to logical thinking with regard to building apartments in the city. 10 - 15 years ago they would have been telling the developers to knock 4 floors off.

Steve456

So it looks as if UCC will actually be able to build its new Business School in the centre of town, despite its general lack of funds.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/state-to-invest-nearly-100m-in-five-third-level-building-projects-1.4001715

bingo9999

Steve456 wrote: »

So it looks as if UCC will actually be able to build its new Business School in the centre of town, despite its general lack of funds.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/state-to-invest-nearly-100m-in-five-third-level-building-projects-1.4001715

Saw that, really hope this progresses swiftly. I heard they are doing a redesign on the permitted designs, which I am fine with. I would personally prefer something more like a pastiche of something more classical. Not too likely though

snotboogie

bingo9999 wrote: »

Saw that, really hope this progresses swiftly. I heard they are doing a redesign on the permitted designs, which I am fine with. I would personally prefer something more like a pastiche of something more classical. Not too likely though

That's disappointing, I was really hoping for a completely new design, the trinity quarter plans are horrible. Any news on UCC's other big project? The perennially delayed Crows Nest

opus

Steve456 wrote: »

So it looks as if UCC will actually be able to build its new Business School in the centre of town, despite its general lack of funds.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/state-to-invest-nearly-100m-in-five-third-level-building-projects-1.4001715

Lack of funds? I work in UCC & they're spending like drunken sailors! Even my boss was astonished by how much that was spent in kitting out the TSB building.

I know of at least one more new building that's already budgeted & approved but I'd guess won't be announced 'til the next general election is called.

Agree with the other posters, that design is ugly beyond belief.

ScrubsfanChris

This is the kind of backwards thinking stagnating the growth of the City/Country:
https://twitter.com/oliver_moran/status/1167544348873035776?s=20

j8wk2feszrnpao

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

This is the kind of backwards thinking stagnating the growth of the City/Country:
https://twitter.com/oliver_moran/status/1167544348873035776?s=20

"Want Green. Vote Oliver Moran". More like want urban sprawl, vote Oliver Moran.
The Greens are anti-Green in their development ideas. And like so many of their "heritage" ideas, it's been let buildings fall into ruin, then try piggyback on the investment/work of others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3YzTt0lb0w

the beer revolu

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

This is the kind of backwards thinking stagnating the growth of the City/Country:
https://twitter.com/oliver_moran/status/1167544348873035776?s=20

He's not actually objecting to the building.
Not to the height or location of it.
Did you read the submission?

namloc1980

munstermagic11 wrote: »

"Want Green. Vote Oliver Moran". More like want urban sprawl, vote Oliver Moran.
The Greens are anti-Green in their development ideas. And like so many of their "heritage" ideas, it's been let buildings fall into ruin, then try piggyback on the investment/work of others.

He isn't objecting to the building at all. Read the submission first before commenting.

Roger Hassenforder

His submission isnt the worst from him, his was lambasted previously for decrying the height though, he looks to a have shifted position slightly. This doesnt mention height, but maintaining public access.

A green should be welcoming the removal of port activities from an urban area considering the air pollution from shipping.

opus

No sure I understand his point, there's no access to that area at present? Took a walk past earlier on this morning, the old warehouses badly need renovation.

Before the locals he was all about the height.
It's not a public amenity, as it stands, and never would be

ScrubsfanChris

the beer revolu wrote: »

He's not actually objecting to the building.
Not to the height or location of it.
Did you read the submission?

Did I say he was?

ofcork

There is access I think?

MrDerp

ofcork wrote: »

There is access I think?

Two gates for port of Cork staff. Clearly marked as private property. There is a small marina currently which might be the point of the argument, and it’s not unreasonable to expect an element of public realm, but there is plenty of scope to provide it on the other side of the channel.

As for the ratty old sign? Iconic me arse.

ScrubsfanChris

MrDerp wrote: »

Two gates for port of Cork staff. Clearly marked as private property. There is a small marina currently which might be the point of the argument, and it’s not unreasonable to expect an element of public realm, but there is plenty of scope to provide it on the other side of the channel.

As for the ratty old sign? Iconic me arse.

Yup, all I can see its being used for (besides that small jetty) is lovely private car park for Port of Cork employees and their friends.

Ironically the proposed plan has more public access then it currently has...

fonecrusher1

the beer revolu wrote: »

He's not actually objecting to the building.
Not to the height or location of it.
Did you read the submission?

Its still just looks like whinging to me. Green Party are a waste of space as far as i'm concerned. Any party who stands in the way of cork city's potential are literally anti-progressive.

namloc1980

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Its still just looks like whinging to me. Green Party are a waste of space as far as i'm concerned. Any party who stands in the way of cork city's potential are literally anti-progressive.

In fairness, a publicly owned asset is being sold to private ownership. Perfectly reasonable for public representatives to ask questions in situations like that.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

In fairness, a publicly owned asset is being sold to private ownership. Perfectly reasonable for public representatives to ask questions in situations like that.

But his history on this matter has not been such. He is against the building, and its height, only recently changing tack, to this amenity nonsense.

Yes it was state owned but was never for public use. It's purpose was to manage the industry in that area, never community purposes.

Markcheese

I could understand peoples wish to keep it in state ownership, if there was a purpose for it... Those warehouses (the ground floor anyway) are going to be difficult to repurpose, while restoring them properly... It would have been a bit different if there was a definite state/council /public need or use for a grade a listed, 19th century brick, bonded warehouse, surounded by water on 3 sides, in a prominent city centre location... .
IMO, the sooner the bonded warehouses are restored and used the better

genericgoon

The current design is, at least in part, a result of back and forth (in a non-confrontational consultative manner) between the developer and representatives like Oliver. We have already seen this proposal being moved from the tip in the original design to being more integrated with the warehouses in the present design, which hopefully should encourage everyone involved (both private and public) to make proper use/restore them. Seems like both parties positions have evolved over time, presumably something to be welcomed!

Asking how to legally guarantee public access in perpetuity (which the current developer seems to more or less to favour as well) seems reasonable, since the choice will be outside the state's purview after this, while the marina and sign issues seem like things to at least consider, though more minor imo.