Cork developments

marno21

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40064654.html?type=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Tower Holdings in early engagement with several international brands for the hotel. They plan on using a six month window to sort out a tenant before construction after the appeals window eventually closes.

These ****ers complaining about the warehouses being vandalised or whatever creative language they want to use should read this:

As part of the proposal, the public will have access for the first time to bonded warehouses on the site which will be used to house an interactive visitors centre representing Cork’s rich maritime heritage, as well as retail, food and beverage (F&B) outlets, and a new micro-distillery.

Is the status quo really better than that? Really?

Rhys Essien

kilrush wrote: »

Realistically unless you live within a 'X' km radius of a development or are a recognised protection organisation you have no business objecting to things that don't affect you (I'm not even sure of the point of the second one). Allowing people across the country object for their entertainment is what holds up so much development in this country. This isn't parochialism, it's common sense.

Spot on.

You’d wonder are there other people encouraging artist guy to object or what.

Justin Credible Darts

cantalach wrote: »

Yes, but just before that you said, “The idea that somebody not from Cork...” so you clearly think that it has at least some relevance. It has none. I have no problem with the rest of what you said but “blow-in!” has no place in modern Ireland.

the "not from cork " was a factor when combined with him not living in cork as well. They were the 2 together not singularly. I thought you could decipher that from my last post,



As for the term "blow-in" I never used that term, so maybe in your haste to complain, you are using someone elses words and attributing them to me.

Rhys Essien

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40064654.html?type=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Tower Holdings in early engagement with several international brands for the hotel. They plan on using a six month window to sort out a tenant before construction after the appeals window eventually closes.

These ****ers complaining about the warehouses being vandalised or whatever creative language they want to use should read this:



Is the status quo really better than that? Really?

If my memory serves me right, aren’t they spending something like €20m alone doing up the warehouses. Mind boggling we have idiots wanting to leave everything as is, cobwebs and all.

Justin Credible Darts

Rhys Essien wrote: »

If my memory serves me right, aren’t they spending something like €20m alone doing up the warehouses. Mind boggling we have idiots wanting to leave everything as is, cobwebs and all.

Indeed.


Sadly the "progress is evil" brigade love to have their say

Danger781

calnand wrote: »

Looks like it's these houses,

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Council-to-resume-house-building-in-Clonakilty-51937f0f-5292-49ed-9375-d5368cfd63c6-ds

https://www.corkcoco.ie/en/news/progress-resumes-delivery-clonakilty-homes

It's a county council project, hence why it's not on the planning application website. why that's the case, I don't know.

Unfortunately that's not it either! That site is up Fernhill Road which goes off the R588 / Western Road in Clonakilty. The site I'm talking about is actually next to the Pudding Factory. I drove through Clon the other day and noticed the new estate going up, and got curious about why I could see absolutely nothing online.. And I'm still confused

cantalach

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

the "not from cork " was a factor when combined with him not living in cork as well. They were the 2 together not singularly. I thought you could decipher that from my last post,

I did decipher that. My point is that it shouldn’t be a factor at all. It is irrelevant. It’s like somebody saying, “my daughter’s new man is black and, more to the point, he’s a drug dealer” and then trying to maintain that the statement wasn’t in any way racist because the important point was the criminality.

As for the term "blow-in" I never used that term, so maybe in your haste to complain, you are using someone elses words and attributing them to me.

I know you didn’t. My use of quotes gave the wrong impression. My bad. I was simply likening your statement to calling somebody a blow-in because it’s the same mindset behind both.

TheChizler

Rhys Essien wrote: »

If my memory serves me right, aren’t they spending something like €20m alone doing up the warehouses. Mind boggling we have idiots wanting to leave everything as is, cobwebs and all.

Call me cynical but we keep seeing these cultural attractions that win favour with planners, the media, and the public tacked on to big projects, and abandoned just before construction. Happened at the cineplex and Beamish and Crawford sites.

calnand

Danger781 wrote: »

Unfortunately that's not it either! That site is up Fernhill Road which goes off the R588 / Western Road in Clonakilty. The site I'm talking about is actually next to the Pudding Factory. I drove through Clon the other day and noticed the new estate going up, and got curious about why I could see absolutely nothing online.. And I'm still confused

This might be it then from 2006,

http://planning.corkcoco.ie/ePlan/AppFileRefDetails/0650050/0

kub

TheChizler wrote: »

Call me cynical but we keep seeing these cultural attractions that win favour with planners, the media, and the public tacked on to big projects, and abandoned just before construction. Happened at the cineplex and Beamish and Crawford sites.

Because that site is surrounded on both sides by water and a road on the other side, they would really have to sort out those sheds, especially also with a building that size looking down on top of them.
Logic suggests they will have to.

lawrencesummers

TheChizler wrote: »

Call me cynical but we keep seeing these cultural attractions that win favour with planners, the media, and the public tacked on to big projects, and abandoned just before construction. Happened at the cineplex and Beamish and Crawford sites.

Are you suggesting that some very old warehouses are cultural attractions? They are an eye sore and never in the history of Cork has anyone said “make sure if your visiting the English market, or the Gaol, of the grounds of UCC that you take in the old falling warehouses down by the customs house”

I’m all for the preservation and rejuvenation of historical and significant buildings, but some of this has got way out of hand.

Take the old Dunlop’s social club that’s for sale a long time, it’s windows are documented as historical, it’s a rotten old crumbling inefficient building that isn’t worth anything if somebody has to gut it with a scalpel and keep many aspects of it. Just let it be knocked and build modern proper housing.

Look at the back of opera lane where they kept the building on the Paul st. Side. It looks nice, it’s tied in well with the glass of the modern stores can, but then they put a Starbucks in there. It’s either historic and important enough to be used for something important or it’s not.

Some of this old building preservation order stuff is nonsense.

TheChizler

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Are you suggesting that some very old warehouses are cultural attractions? They are an eye sore and never in the history of Cork has anyone said “make sure if your visiting the English market, or the Gaol, of the grounds of UCC that you take in the old falling warehouses down by the customs house”

I'm talking about this part of the linked article

As part of the proposal, the public will have access for the first time to bonded warehouses on the site which will be used to house an interactive visitors centre representing Cork’s rich maritime heritage, as well as retail, food and beverage (F&B) outlets, and a new micro-distillery.

lawrencesummers

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm talking about this part of the linked article

Be interesting to see how they are going to keep that intact while drilling foundations for such a big building.

whisky_galore

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Are you suggesting that some very old warehouses are cultural attractions? They are an eye sore and never in the history of Cork has anyone said “make sure if your visiting the English market, or the Gaol, of the grounds of UCC that you take in the old falling warehouses down by the customs house”

I’m all for the preservation and rejuvenation of historical and significant buildings, but some of this has got way out of hand.

Take the old Dunlop’s social club that’s for sale a long time, it’s windows are documented as historical, it’s a rotten old crumbling inefficient building that isn’t worth anything if somebody has to gut it with a scalpel and keep many aspects of it. Just let it be knocked and build modern proper housing.

Look at the back of opera lane where they kept the building on the Paul st. Side. It looks nice, it’s tied in well with the glass of the modern stores can, but then they put a Starbucks in there. It’s either historic and important enough to be used for something important or it’s not.

Some of this old building preservation order stuff is nonsense.

Anything is an eyesore if it's neglected, Shandon and the Gaol would be eyesores if you did f all to them. A modern building would be an eyesore in a decade if similarly treated.
Lazy simplistic thinking.

lawrencesummers

whisky_galore wrote: »

Anything is an eyesore if it's neglected, Shandon and the Gaol would be eyesores if you did f all to them. A modern building would be an eyesore in a decade if similarly treated.
Lazy simplistic thinking.

Your missing the point.
The preservation orders on buildings are adding a cost to development that mean it’s not Often feasible to develop, and in many cases questionable to even do so, therefore leaving an old building rot further.

The balance between progress/ development and preservation is often weighted in favor of historical building that have little or no significance.

Shandon and the Gaol different as they are museums essentially, they operate with an income From visitors.

mire

the intolerance to people who hold different views on this development is sad to observe

unless you enthusiastically support this development you are a whinger, a clown or a sad ****er

i am pro development and I like the general approach to the regeneration of the site - but i think that the building is overscaled

i respect the contrary view of course

btw the parochial stuff 'he is not even from Cork' is cringeworthy

PreCocious

kilrush wrote: »

RAllowing people across the country object for their entertainment is what holds up so much development in this country. This isn't parochialism, it's common sense.

How many people object for "entertainment" ? It costs money to make an observation. Have you checked to see if this artist has actually put pen to paper and made a formal observation or are you possibly confusing newspaper columns and social media articles with formal observations that cost €20 ?

fonecrusher1

PreCocious wrote: »

How many people object for "entertainment" ? It costs money to make an observation. Have you checked to see if this artist has actually put pen to paper and made a formal observation or are you possibly confusing newspaper columns and social media articles with formal observations that cost €20 ?

Have you? I'm all ears, please share.

lawrencesummers

mire wrote: »

the intolerance to people who hold different views on this development is sad to observe

unless you enthusiastically support this development you are a whinger, a clown or a sad ****er

i am pro development and I like the general approach to the regeneration of the site - but i think that the building is overscaled

i respect the contrary view of course

btw the parochial stuff 'he is not even from Cork' is cringeworthy

I can’t wait till the dubs are up in arms about both having the tallest building Anymore.

It will be worth it for that alone.

the beer revolu

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

the "not from cork " was a factor when combined with him not living in cork as well. They were the 2 together not singularly. I thought you could decipher that from my last post,

So, where someone is born is a factor in whether, according to you, someone should be allowed to object to something or not?
You really should be embarrassed for publicly expressing that idiotic opinion.

No matter what way you dress it up, that's what you said.
I despair for the future.

PreCocious

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Have you? I'm all ears, please share.

I don't need to. I'm not the one blaming him.

who_me

mire wrote: »

the intolerance to people who hold different views on this development is sad to observe

unless you enthusiastically support this development you are a whinger, a clown or a sad ****er

i am pro development and I like the general approach to the regeneration of the site - but i think that the building is overscaled

i respect the contrary view of course

btw the parochial stuff 'he is not even from Cork' is cringeworthy

I just can't get over the whole contradiction:

"I don't want this built near me" - THAT'S SUCH A NIMBY ATTITUDE!

"I don't want this built, in another city" - IT'S NOT NEAR YOU, SO YOU SHOULDN'T GET TO OBJECT!

mrpdap

mire wrote: »

the intolerance to people who hold different views on this development is sad to observe

unless you enthusiastically support this development you are a whinger, a clown or a sad ****er

i am pro development and I like the general approach to the regeneration of the site - but i think that the building is overscaled

i respect the contrary view of course

btw the parochial stuff 'he is not even from Cork' is cringeworthy

Well said. I'm pro development, but people are entitled to object even if they don't live within eyesight of a development.
I'd like to see something done with that site, but the proposed structure is just big, its got nothing else going for it.

fonecrusher1

You can have as many objections as you want and you're entitled to do so but the the fact is the vast majority of people are happy to see it get built. I'm absolutely delighted to see it get approved. Its just frustrating it will get delayed by at least a year processing all the appeals. But I guess it doesn't matter because they wont be breaking ground on this for a long time.

mrpdap

mrpdap wrote: »

Well said. I'm pro development, but people are entitled to object even if they don't live within eyesight of a development.
I'd like to see something done with that site, but the proposed structure is just big, its got nothing else going for it.

Nothing going for it?


It's next to train and bus stations and is on one of the easiest routes to/from the airport in the city.
It's right next to the proposed city expansion and any LUAS will run right by it


Top it all off by literally being walking distance, for guests, to anywhere in the city centre and got fantastic river access for boating guests.

mrpdap

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing going for it?


It's next to train and bus stations and is on one of the easiest routes to/from the airport in the city.
It's right next to the proposed city expansion and any LUAS will run right by it


Top it all off by literally being walking distance, for guests, to anywhere in the city centre and got fantastic river access for boating guests.

You’re referring to the location, which is fabulous. However, I was referring to the ‘design’ which has nothing going for it. Its big. That’s all.
Something better could surely be done.

fonecrusher1

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing going for it?


It's next to train and bus stations and is on one of the easiest routes to/from the airport in the city.
It's right next to the proposed city expansion and any LUAS will run right by it


Top it all off by literally being walking distance, for guests, to anywhere in the city centre and got fantastic river access for boating guests.

Well said.

I can't fathom how this is perceived by some people as a bad idea. Its basically waste land with a few old warehouses crumbling away for decades and look what it could be in a few years time. Its a ****ing no brainer ffs!

bb1234567

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Are you suggesting that some very old warehouses are cultural attractions? They are an eye sore and never in the history of Cork has anyone said “make sure if your visiting the English market, or the Gaol, of the grounds of UCC that you take in the old falling warehouses down by the customs house”

I’m all for the preservation and rejuvenation of historical and significant buildings, but some of this has got way out of hand.

Take the old Dunlop’s social club that’s for sale a long time, it’s windows are documented as historical, it’s a rotten old crumbling inefficient building that isn’t worth anything if somebody has to gut it with a scalpel and keep many aspects of it. Just let it be knocked and build modern proper housing.

Look at the back of opera lane where they kept the building on the Paul st. Side. It looks nice, it’s tied in well with the glass of the modern stores can, but then they put a Starbucks in there. It’s either historic and important enough to be used for something important or it’s not.

Some of this old building preservation order stuff is nonsense.

Regarding the second last paragraph, I don't know much about the building but presume it was privately owned. Are you seriously saying CCC should instruct which tenants are allowed to inhabit buildings of merit. That's overly controlling, and would do more damage to historic building stock than protect as it would greatly limit investment from an already generally reluctant and unwilling source.

Heritage protection authorities instruct how best to preserve the architecture, what brand sets up shop inside is pretty irrelevant. And it can always change in future. If no 'suitable' tenant is interested, are you saying it should be demolished. That would obviously be a much worse compromise.

bb1234567

I don't agree that objections should only be allowed by people in the immediate vicinity. How vague is that. Can people in towns just outside Cork not object then, at what point does an objection go from valid to ridiclous based on the person's proximity to the building.

People can be concerned about areas they don't live in at all times and still have insightful reasons for objections even if they are not personally affected by it. Buildings have impact beyond their visual massing and the shadow they cast, on pedestrian movement in the city and area, transport and traffic, wildlife, culture and historical reasons. Not all potential issues will be addreessed by the applicant and people outside of the immediate area may find valid issues not noticed by others.

Justin Credible Darts

mrpdap wrote: »

You’re referring to the location, which is fabulous. However, I was referring to the ‘design’ which has nothing going for it. Its big. That’s all.
Something better could surely be done.

That is your complaint ?
"its too big"...thats it ?


that is the sum of your issue with the project ?


wow