Cork developments

the beer revolu

TheChizler wrote: »

It's been listed on the NIAH site for a good while, it had some architectural merits, not enough to keep it though: https://www.buildingsofireland.ie/buildings-search/building/20508014/the-sextant-albert-quay-albert-street-cork-city-cork-city-cork-city

No need to be so dismissive of other people's opinions, they're as valid as your own.

Diziet wrote: »

Actually, there would be a lot of upset if these protected structures were knocked. The station and adjoining building have a lot of history.

The Sextant was just more visible, and a landmark in that corner. Initially, as it is part of an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA), the council claimed the exterior would be preserved. That clearly did not happen. It's all part of the fabric of the city, which is being eroded. It is perfectly possible to incorporate landmarks without flattening everything.

Yes there's a real mob, "if you're not with us, you're against us", attitude to this building.
People making assumptions about anyone who voices a wish to see the building preserved and dismissing these people as quacks.

A few points:

Not everyone who wanted to see the building preserved liked it as a pub.
Personally, I hated it as a pub - really not my kind of scene at all.

I'm all for that site being developed - we need more residential accomodation in the city - but there is no reason why the frontage of that building couldn't have been incorporated into the design, softening the look of that corner. This is routinely done with older building and new developments - sometimes done well, other times not.
Wanting to maintain that building is not being anti progress, in itself.


So, by all means, disagree but please don't be an arsehole about it, and please don't project views that I don't hold onto me.


This post display's exactly what I mean:

give over....the sextant is hardly Notre dame, or some classic building of note.


It was a pub where people only liked it, not for its structure, aethetic look or anything, but because some people had a memory of drinking there.


sick of this "progress is evil" vibe so many have

Treehelpplease

whisky_galore wrote: »

Conserving some of the fabric of a city, developments and jobs aren't mutually exclusive, either/or. Some attractive European cities keep a historic centre, here we flatten, gut and stick ugly Dermot Bannon glass boxes on things.

no we dont. what exactly have we flattened? sheds across the docklands, an old pub with essentially no architectual merit, stone walls? also, notice how every docklands development so far has retained many older buildings like navigation house, loads of buildings idk in horgans quay, penrose dock has the old steampacket building, one albert quay retained a stone wall, eglinton street office retained all of a stone wall lining the building and so on. the dramatics out of people acting like historical gems are being ripped to shreads in front of our very eyes all in the name of GLASS BOXES !!!! is hilarious. especially since none of the buildings built except two have been glass boxes. Navigation house is full of stone, glass, the retained facade, copper. Penrose Dock is full of white stone and black steel beams. One albert quay is the only glass box and even then just because its a glass box doesn't mean its bad. its extremely well designed and looks great. the capitol is beautiful art deco and the 8586 south mall is a stone building that slots in perfectly to the south mall. south main street is full of brick, white stone and glass. give me a break

even with that. the sextant plans include the rentention of two PROTECTED buldings which are vastly superior to the sextant but not a peep about them. your opinion that it is sad to see it go or it should have been kept is completely valid. but people turning this in to some big conspiracy plot to wreck the history of cork in the name of glass is embarrasing

CHealy

Obviously this is down to personal taste, but was it even that nice of a bar? My memory of it is dark and nothing above a standard bar, with what Iv seen online the last few days you'd swear it was where the War of Independence was coordinated from.

Idle Hour was a nicer pint????

the beer revolu

CHealy wrote: »

Obviously this is down to personal taste, but was it even that nice of a bar? My memory of it is dark and nothing above a standard bar, with what Iv seen online the last few days you'd swear it was where the War of Independence was coordinated from.

Idle Hour was a nicer pint????

It's irrelevant whether it was a nice bar or not.
It's the building under discussion.
I couldn't give a toss about the pub but I think that building is a loss to the cityscape.

Treehelpplease

and that is a perfectly valid opinion to have. i think You're right to feel that way. there's many buildings i like that others would have no issue seeing steamrolled. I just don't like when people turn it into something it's not "the city being flattened for glass"

Justin Credible Darts

CHealy wrote: »

Obviously this is down to personal taste, but was it even that nice of a bar? My memory of it is dark and nothing above a standard bar, with what Iv seen online the last few days you'd swear it was where the War of Independence was coordinated from.

Idle Hour was a nicer pint????

if you said the old cork savings bank, or thompson house, st finbarrs or any of a whole heap of lovely building should be preserved i would totally agree.


But it was the sextant,. it was hardly good looking, or classy in my opinion, it looked like a typical old building, that had as much beauty as square deal had

marno21

Expansion of the student accommodation development on the Bandon Road to 554 bed spaces (some elements already under construction) approved by An Bord Pleanala

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/307096.htm

kub

marno21 wrote: »

Expansion of the student accommodation development on the Bandon Road to 554 bed spaces (some elements already under construction) approved by An Bord Pleanala

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/307096.htm

Out of curiosity I clicked on your link, then went to the Cork City section, just for a look.
Is it pure laziness or what by all authorities but this one that they have listed properties in the Cork City section, like Blarney and Glanmire, still as County Cork, this a year after the boundary extension :rolleyes:

cantalach

lawrencesummers wrote: »

There is a road onto the south link from before Douglas Golf club that cars would use going out in the morning.

Yeah, that’s the slip road from Maryborough Hill onto the N28 northbound. But this new development is up Carr’s Hill. The only way for all those cars to get to that slip road would be to drive through the existing Maryborough Woods estate and then turn right onto Maryborough Hill. That doesn’t work even a small bit.

cantalach

whisky_galore wrote: »

Demolish all buildings in cork of "no historic or architectural significance" and you won't have much city centre left.

I didn’t suggest demolishing all insignificant buildings in Cork. I just said that that label was applicable to *this* particular building. And I said that because people seemed to be losing their shït like Hagia Sophia was being demolished.

I don't see what these glass things bring to the "architectural significance" table, all looking much the same.

I agree. But, again, I didn’t say the new buildings would be significant. I said they would provide homes, and homes bring people, and people bring life.

Justin Credible Darts

The question you have to ask...

Which is better for the people and the city

A new building, new apartments for people, or a scabby old unused pub that provided nothing.

cantalach

TheChizler wrote: »

No need to be so dismissive of other people's opinions, they're as valid as your own.

This is way off topic on my part but that statement is post-truth thinking at its very best. Yes, everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they choose, and to express that opinion provided doing so doesn’t break any laws. But that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally valid. When people equate those two distinct concepts we end up with Donald Trump, Brexit, anti-vaxers, anti-maskers, home-schoolers, etc., etc.

Justin Credible Darts

cantalach wrote: »

But that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally valid. .

That's only your opinion

kub

cantalach wrote: »

Yeah, that’s the slip road from Maryborough Hill onto the N28 northbound. But this new development is up Carr’s Hill. The only way for all those cars to get to that slip road would be to drive through the existing Maryborough Woods estate and then turn right onto Maryborough Hill. That doesn’t work even a small bit.

This development is actually an extension of the existing Maryborough Ridge Development which already has a frontage onto Maryborough Hill opposite Broadale, with entrances and exits to Maryborough Hill.
It is indeed alongside Carrs Hill, however there is no vehicular access to or from Carrs Hill from the estate in this immediate area.
Vehicles will continue to access the N28 Northbound as they currently do and have since the estate was opened in 2006
Obviously it is best for all concerned that the M28 is developed in this area and a proper access ramp to and from the M28 is built as planned.

AugustusMinimus

kub wrote: »

This development is actually an extension of the existing Maryborough Ridge Development which already has a frontage onto Maryborough Hill opposite Broadale, with entrances and exits to Maryborough Hill.
It is indeed alongside Carrs Hill, however there is no vehicular access to or from Carrs Hill from the estate in this immediate area.
Vehicles will continue to access the N28 Northbound as they currently do and have since the estate was opened in 2006
Obviously it is best for all concerned that the M28 is developed in this area and a proper access ramp to and from the M28 is built as planned.

Maryborough Ridge was to have direct access to the M28 via a dumbbell interchange.

The residents moaned and moaned and it got removed. They’ll be the ones complaining when the M28 gets built without this access.

TheChizler

cantalach wrote: »

This is way off topic on my part but that statement is post-truth thinking at its very best. Yes, everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they choose, and to express that opinion provided doing so doesn’t break any laws. But that doesn’t mean all opinions are equally valid. When people equate those two distinct concepts we end up with Donald Trump, Brexit, anti-vaxers, anti-maskers, home-schoolers, etc., etc.

But we're not talking about any of those things, we're talking about the subjective historic and architectural worth of the facade of an old building in a prominent location. Not that it matters any more.

s1ippy

whisky_galore wrote: »

Conserving some of the fabric of a city, developments and jobs aren't mutually exclusive, either/or. Some attractive European cities keep a historic centre, here we flatten, gut and stick ugly Dermot Bannon glass boxes on things.

Absolutely. There are so many beautiful old walls and examples of historic architecture all over London, Prague, even Galway. I dunno if anyone here is cultured enough to have been inside the Triskel but there's such a rich history preserved inside there from several eras, brought into modernity.

sheff_ wrote: »

Directly behind the sextant site, before you cross the road to the old redbrick tram buildings. So much fuss over the sextant because people enjoyed a pint there, yet if the station and adjoining building which are far superior and historically more important were knocked we wouldn't have heard a sound from most.

They're both important historically, nice architecturally and should have been preserved.

Everyone who likes them knocking historic structures and erecting big glass buildings without any attempt at preservation (and just before a preservation order kicks in) can, respectfully, suck my balls. Yer man isn't planning on developing it any time soon either so prepare to be left waiting for your beautiful empty cube beside the other ugly fuçkin cube.

AugustusMinimus

s1ippy wrote: »

Absolutely. There are so many beautiful old walls and examples of historic architecture all over London, Prague, even Galway. I dunno if anyone here is cultured enough to have been inside the Triskel but there's such a rich history preserved inside there from several eras, brought into modernity.


They're both important historically, nice architecturally and should have been preserved.

Everyone who likes them knocking historic structures and erecting big glass buildings without any attempt at preservation (and just before a preservation order kicks in) can, respectfully, suck my balls. Yer man isn't planning on developing it any time soon either so prepare to be left waiting for your beautiful empty cube beside the other ugly fuçkin cube.

What on Earth was “historic” about the Sextant?

s1ippy

It was built in 1877, survived the burning of Cork, was the dockers bar enjoyed by many working class men. It was a good example of architecture from its time and it was still standing today. Half the buildings built in my lifetime are falling apart.

namloc1980

s1ippy wrote: »

It was built in 1877, survived the burning of Cork, was the dockers bar enjoyed by many working class men. It was a good example of architecture from its time and it was still standing today. Half the buildings built in my lifetime are falling apart.

Ok I'll bite. Show us these buildings (half of them) built in your lifetime that are "falling apart"?

mire

I am really glad that there has been so much controversy over the demolition of the Sextant building. It is a sign of a mature city conversation on development and planning, and I think that we should always have a good scrap over these things.

Personally, on balance I think it’s ok that this building was removed. It had some heritage value but it was not deemed to be sufficiently unique or special to merit 'protected structure’ status. It belonging to an Architectural Conservation Area does not confer immediate protection; this designation is about maintaining the architectural character of groupings of buildings. I think that it’s ok to make a judgment that the loss of this nice but ordinary structure is acceptable considering the strategic value of the overall redevelopment of the site including the restoration of the quite special buildings to the rear.

In terms of the potential to integrate the building into the new scheme, I think that it would have had to have been done in such a way that meant a complete physical separation of new and old. This would have drastically reduced density of the site which would have been simply unviable. Personally I think the end result would have been a bit sloppy and incongruous, sometimes when the retained building is fairly ordinary and its dwarfed by a much larger building the end result is awful (Lavitts Quay) – that is not how heritage should be treated. When the retained building is substantial and special (the Steampacket building on Penrose Quay), the contrast between the old and new is spectacular.

I love the city’s diverse heritage including the ordinary and unspectacular. Not just the special bits. I also am in favour of good quality contemporary design and the proposed development is a high quality scheme that is appropriate for a docklands location. I don’t really understand the whole 'glass box’ critique.

Anyway I’d much prefer relentless debates on this stuff than a desperate pro any development atmosphere. Cork needs good development, not simply development.

hans aus dtschl

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

if you said the old cork savings bank, or thompson house, st finbarrs or any of a whole heap of lovely building should be preserved i would totally agree.


But it was the sextant,. it was hardly good looking, or classy in my opinion, it looked like a typical old building, that had as much beauty as square deal had

My issue actually is little to do with the Sextant itself: I didn't go there as a pub. Rather, having "all new" facades means that it could be anywhere in the world. It's clean and modern, but that has some drawbacks too.

We have a reasonably old city with old buildings, and many newer cities would be envious of that history. Frankfurt, Toronto, I can think of a few other modern cities where the ground-floor architecture is modern but isn't impressive. It makes those cities feel "bland" and "boring" because of the uniformity of it.

I absolutely don't feel strongly about the Sextant, but thought that the corner facade would have been a little bit different looking. Whereas I don't see...any...architectural merit in the new design at all. It's a nondescript building to me. It might look better when built maybe.

The new buildings on Penrose Quay and Railway street are a different story. I like those. Some of the limestone facades that have been kept look fantastic, and the juxtaposition with the ultra-modern designs of the buildings around them works very well.

Justin Credible Darts

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

My issue actually is little to do with the Sextant itself: I didn't go there as a pub. Rather, having "all new" facades means that it could be anywhere in the world. It's clean and modern, but that has some drawbacks too.

We have a reasonably old city with old buildings, and many newer cities would be envious of that history. Frankfurt, Toronto, I can think of a few other modern cities where the ground-floor architecture is modern but isn't impressive. It makes those cities feel "bland" and "boring" because of the uniformity of it.

I absolutely don't feel strongly about the Sextant, but thought that the corner facade would have been a little bit different looking. Whereas I don't see...any...architectural merit in the new design at all. It's a nondescript building to me. It might look better when built maybe.

The new buildings on Penrose Quay and Railway street are a different story. I like those. Some of the limestone facades that have been kept look fantastic, and the juxtaposition with the ultra-modern designs of the buildings around them works very well.

I am not one of those that think something automatically trumps the old.
As I stated earlier I am all for preserving buildings, if they are ones worth preserving.


Some "modern buildings" have been awful....like connolly hall.


But you have to look where the sextant was, its position, what is replacing , and see that all these new apartments, are a benefit to people and the city, and the pros massively outweigh the cons

the beer revolu

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

The question you have to ask...

Which is better for the people and the city

A new building, new apartments for people, or a scabby old unused pub that provided nothing.

It's not a binary option.

There can be development and conservation. Of course you know that, but it doesn't suit your shouting down style of argument.

And, this is not to annoy you, but I'd object strongly to Connolly Hall being knocked - I think it has cultural and architectural merit.

You or I, alone, don't get to decide these things, thankfully. I am most certainly not against progress or development but, I'd guess that we'd disagree on pretty much every example of architecture and conservation. This doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

the beer revolu

mire wrote: »

I am really glad that there has been so much controversy over the demolition of the Sextant building. It is a sign of a mature city conversation on development and planning, and I think that we should always have a good scrap over these things.

Personally, on balance I think it’s ok that this building was removed. It had some heritage value but it was not deemed to be sufficiently unique or special to merit 'protected structure’ status. It belonging to an Architectural Conservation Area does not confer immediate protection; this designation is about maintaining the architectural character of groupings of buildings. I think that it’s ok to make a judgment that the loss of this nice but ordinary structure is acceptable considering the strategic value of the overall redevelopment of the site including the restoration of the quite special buildings to the rear.

In terms of the potential to integrate the building into the new scheme, I think that it would have had to have been done in such a way that meant a complete physical separation of new and old. This would have drastically reduced density of the site which would have been simply unviable. Personally I think the end result would have been a bit sloppy and incongruous, sometimes when the retained building is fairly ordinary and its dwarfed by a much larger building the end result is awful (Lavitts Quay) – that is not how heritage should be treated. When the retained building is substantial and special (the Steampacket building on Penrose Quay), the contrast between the old and new is spectacular.

I love the city’s diverse heritage including the ordinary and unspectacular. Not just the special bits. I also am in favour of good quality contemporary design and the proposed development is a high quality scheme that is appropriate for a docklands location. I don’t really understand the whole 'glass box’ critique.

Anyway I’d much prefer relentless debates on this stuff than a desperate pro any development atmosphere. Cork needs good development, not simply development.

Excellent post. Although probably a bit too nuanced and reasonable for most in this thread.

Regarding the preservation of older building on Lavit's Quay:

There are two examples of this on that quay - one done really well and the other done really badly, IMO.
The bad one is part of the Apple building just by Half Moon Street - that preserved building is dwarfed and encroached upon - it looks terrible - a pointless exercise.
The other is further along the quay, part of Vibes and Scribes, I think. This one looks really well, IMO. They allowed the roofline to remain and they pulled back the new construction back from it a little, allowing it space to exist.

I think these are excellent examples on how to do it and how not to do it, on the same quay.

sheff_

s1ippy wrote: »

It was built in 1877, survived the burning of Cork, was the dockers bar enjoyed by many working class men. It was a good example of architecture from its time and it was still standing today. Half the buildings built in my lifetime are falling apart.

1877 might be historic in a west coast of north america city, but here much of the existing city centre and inner suburb buildings would pre-date that. Take a stroll up the river, or along Douglas St/Barrack St/Shandon St for example, and you'll find plenty of well maintained and used buildings from the same period and earlier. These are going nowhere.

1 building within 300 metres of the sextant was affected by the burning of cork. it's survival was hardly some miracle, most if the city survived it.

Justin Credible Darts

the beer revolu wrote: »

And, this is not to annoy you, but I'd object strongly to Connolly Hall being knocked - I think it has cultural and architectural merit..

I am not questioning your opinion.


If you genuinely believe that about connolly hall I can accept that, but that does not mean the a whole heap of others who thinks it looks hideous are any less entitled to their opinion.


I would venture to say, if a poll was taken of the worst "modern buildings in the city" connolly hall would absolutely make the list, and what compounds it even more is where it is and what surrounds it.

Treehelpplease

connolly hall isn't that bad, if it was somewhere less important where it could blend in like the grand parade or Oliver Plunkett Street. But where it is is hideous. I would love to see it knocked and replaced with a park to take advantage of the views of city hall which is a car park and road right now. they could remake the wall that would be blank of the Cork Savings bank. Would look incredible imo

Justin Credible Darts

its a tacky looking building nestled alongside the lovely savings bank and that other red brick building, and as you say right across from the city hall.

Will be curious to see what the building proposed for the back of the connolly hall will look like, which is in the old motorbike shop spot

kub

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Maryborough Ridge was to have direct access to the M28 via a dumbbell interchange.

The residents moaned and moaned and it got removed. They’ll be the ones complaining when the M28 gets built without this access.

The residents that moaned and moaned were actually the same ones that are currently objecting to the M28.
They did not like the proposal of losing the exit to Mount Oval from the N/ M28, so chances are we will have a unique motorway when it is complete with an exit directly into a housing estate :rolleyes: