Cork developments

lawrencesummers

bb1234567 wrote: »

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.

I’m saying if a building is of enough historical importance that it warrants a preservation order, painstaking refurbishment and often massive additional costs it looks ridiculous when a cheap franchise goes into it.

Look at this magnificent old historical building from the turn of the century. Shall we go inside and get a happy meal?

No historical building looks attractive when you put a sign above the door for mass market cheap goods.

So I’m saying what’s the point in going to all that trouble to use it for ****e.

mrpdap

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

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


that is the sum of your issue with the project ?


wow

Yes, its just a big tower, a wasted opportunity on a wonderful site to do something that really could be ‘wow’.

For example, the nearby Prism will be ‘wow’. A tower as well, but creative in a small space.

bb1234567

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I’m saying if a building is of enough historical importance that it warrants a preservation order, painstaking refurbishment and often massive additional costs it looks ridiculous when a cheap franchise goes into it.

Look at this magnificent old historical building from the turn of the century. Shall we go inside and get a happy meal?

No historical building looks attractive when you put a sign above the door for mass market cheap goods.

So I’m saying what’s the point in going to all that trouble to use it for ****e.

Well obviously I agree to an extent but we don't live in an ideal world and there's only so many museums and galleries we can dream up to fill the many historic buildings in an old country like Ireland and a starbucks filling a historical building is a better compromise than it being demolished and gone forever! As I said, tenancy is temporary, starbucks can always move out and amore fitting client hopefully move in eventually but if we demolish it it's just gone forever

the beer revolu

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

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


that is the sum of your issue with the project ?


wow

As someone who is in favour of this development, I don't find it difficult to see that scale is a huge factor in the design of any building.
I'd imagine that scale is probably the starting point for any architect designing a building or complex.
To suggest that size and scale aren't important is pretty dumb, if you ask me.

Robust planning is important, stop slapping down anyone who holds a different view to yours.

snotboogie

Big site clearance ongoing this long, long empty site on the South Douglas Rd: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8851359,-8.4614822,3a,75y,1.52h,88.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smZK2Dhuu4F5--1iHLLamgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 Anyone know whats going on?

mire

snotboogie wrote: »

Big site clearance ongoing this long, long empty site on the South Douglas Rd: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8851359,-8.4614822,3a,75y,1.52h,88.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smZK2Dhuu4F5--1iHLLamgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 Anyone know whats going on?

think it's owned by St Finbarr's Hospital

JohnK

There was talk of a housing development going in on an old Johnson & Perrott site, would that be it? They were supposed to be moving on that once Aylesbury was completed and think thats nearly done so initial clearing works would probably be starting around now.

Tolka 123

Hi, I am new to this forum. I am happy with the planned Custom House Tower. It seems to be a good design. I think it is unfair to just judge a building by its external appearance only. After all, buildings are constructed for their internal use - think about houses, hotels, offices, shops, hospitals etc. Architects spend a significant amount of their time designing the internal space to ensure that a building works. The external shape is often the result of what a building is required to do internally. I agree that the external appearance is very important but so also is the internal design.

I also don't think that a buildings large size is necessarily a bad thing. A building doesn't have to be of similar size or appearance to other buildings in its vicinity. There is nothing wrong with a building standing out as long as it is a good design. We can all have different opinions about what constitutes good design. The pyramids in Egypt are huge and don't blend in with anything else in the area. However imagine the uproar there would be if someone proposed demolishing them for that reason alone. Other buildings that are larger or don't blend in with nearby buildings are Cork City Hall, the Eiffel Tower, the Houses of Parliament in London, Buckingham Palace, the glass pyramid in the Louvre in Paris, Bus Aras in Dublin.

I am also pleased with the proposals for the bonded warehouses. These are great buildings with magnificent vaulted ceilings and are closely connected to the maritime history of the city. Unfortunately they have been left to decay badly over the decades. The City Council could have restored them itself but, presumably, couldn't afford the very large cost of doing so. If left as they are, they will ultimately be at risk of collapse or becoming dangerous buildings. We now have a commercial development which incorporates their restoration and which will finally give the public access to them. In my opinion this is a good thing. What's the alternative?

Justin Credible Darts

the beer revolu wrote: »

As someone who is in favour of this development, I don't find it difficult to see that scale is a huge factor in the design of any building.
I'd imagine that scale is probably the starting point for any architect designing a building or complex.
To suggest that size and scale aren't important is pretty dumb, if you ask me.

Robust planning is important, stop slapping down anyone who holds a different view to yours.

except they did not make a point about scale,,,,they simply uttered "its too big"
go back and read the post.


If you were making an onjection would "its too big" be your statement and answer ?

opus

Notice anything missing from the eyesore on North Main St.

lawrencesummers

opus wrote: »

Notice anything missing from the eyesore on North Main St.

People?
Business?
Life?
Attractiveness?
Aesthetics?

hans aus dtschl

Scaffold, presumably?

Treehelpplease

Idk how anyone finds any of those buildings worth saving, except maybe the one nearest to liberty st. horrific. especially that giant balloon. What a run down looking street needs so much

the beer revolu

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

except they did not make a point about scale,,,,they simply uttered "its too big"
go back and read the post.


If you were making an onjection would "its too big" be your statement and answer ?

Keep digging, Justin.
It's entertaining.

How is the size of a building not an incredibly important factor in its design and impact?

Justin Credible Darts

the beer revolu wrote: »

Keep digging, Justin.
It's entertaining.

How is the size of a building not an incredibly important factor in its design and impact.

Go back and read my post, where i quoted their objection which was basically "Its too big".


Hence why i replied "is that it" ??? Drawing attention to the complaint.
There was no mention of "design" no mention of "impact", they never mentioned "scale".
just the phrase its too big.


That is what I was addressing, anyone who read my reply would have fathomed that when I said "is that it" it was obviously referring to the short little reason they offered up.


Had they expanded on their reason it might have been different, but they made no other point, just that short phrase.


go back and check

mrpdap

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

except they did not make a point about scale,,,,they simply uttered "its too big"
go back and read the post.


If you were making an onjection would "its too big" be your statement and answer ?

It really piss3s me off on Boards when two posters have a b!tching match over semantics, as if them getting their point across was more important than the thread in question.
If that building was in downtown Manhattan, it wouldn't be 'big', but where it's proposed it's definitely 'big'. Clearly, I was referring to location, surroundings, scale and context.
I'll try to do better next time, but I'll utter no further.

Justin Credible Darts

the "its too big" could have done with some expansion (excuse the pun) as to why your feel the height of the building is an issue.
I am curious as exactly is the problem in your opinion.

Rhys Essien

mrpdap wrote: »

It really piss3s me off on Boards when two posters have a b!tching match over semantics, as if them getting their point across was more important than the thread in question.
If that building was in downtown Manhattan, it wouldn't be 'big', but where it's proposed it's definitely 'big'. Clearly, I was referring to location, surroundings, scale and context.
I'll try to do better next time, but I'll utter no further.

In fairness though the Albert Quay tower is barely 100m away and will be 25 storey so the Custom House tower won't look that much out of the way.

TheChizler

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

the "its too big" could have done with some expansion (excuse the pun) as to why your feel the height of the building is an issue.
I am curious as exactly is the problem in your opinion.

The actual quote was "its big", you added the "too".

Justin Credible Darts

TheChizler wrote: »

The actual quote was "its big", you added the "too".

my apologies.


"its big"...would that be what you would simply write on an objection ?
The point i am making is you are entitled to an opinion, but a "its big" with no clarification about anything else seems more than vague.


how would a planning appeal look at a complaint that consisted of just "its big"

TheChizler

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

my apologies.


"its big"...would that be what you would simply write on an objection ?
The point i am making is you are entitled to an opinion, but a "its big" with no clarification about anything else seems more than vague.


how would a planning appeal look at a complaint that consisted of just "its big"

Maybe we're at cross purposes but there was no complaint, the poster simply mentioned that the only notable element about the design was that it was big. No complaints about the size. I don't disagree.

Maybe you're referring to the earlier conversation about the artist?

Justin Credible Darts

TheChizler wrote: »

Maybe we're at cross purposes but there was no complaint, the poster simply mentioned that the only notable element about the design was that it was big. No complaints about the size. I don't disagree.

Maybe you're referring to the earlier conversation about the artist?

yep cross purposes, went back and whilst he said its big, his complaint was the design.
He did not expand on that though.


I am not sure what type of design he would be expecting for a building that height.

From a visual point, the pics I saw of the render looked quite nice, but that is my own personal view.

Treehelpplease

Treehelpplease wrote: »

Idk how anyone finds any of those buildings worth saving, except maybe the one nearest to liberty st. horrific. especially that giant balloon. What a run down looking street needs so much

How is that baloon allowed stay but BDSM had to take a sign down?

mrpdap

mrpdap wrote: »

It really piss3s me off on Boards when two posters have a b!tching match over semantics, as if them getting their point across was more important than the thread in question.
If that building was in downtown Manhattan, it wouldn't be 'big', but where it's proposed it's definitely 'big'. Clearly, I was referring to location, surroundings, scale and context.
I'll try to do better next time, but I'll utter no further.

But this makes no sense either?
That "It must fit in with current heights" is what destroyed Dublin and what was specifically voted to ignore recently.

who_me

If you look at it together with the other proposed buildings in the area (doesn't include the Prism, which would be just out of shot on the left) it's not really out of place.



You could argue that "they're all too tall", but that's a more subjective thing.

Justin Credible Darts

I think they not only look great, but it will create work and future employment.

All good in my opinion

leahyl

who_me wrote: »

If you look at it together with the other proposed buildings in the area (doesn't include the Prism, which would be just out of shot on the left) it's not really out of place.



You could argue that "they're all too tall", but that's a more subjective thing.

I think that picture looks great...the chances of the south link one happening though are pretty slim now though aren’t they? Thought there was a setback there?

hans aus dtschl

leahyl wrote: »

I think that picture looks great...the chances of the south link one happening though are pretty slim now though aren’t they? Thought there was a setback there?

Probably won't happen for a long time if ever. Site was flipped.

who_me

leahyl wrote: »

I think that picture looks great...the chances of the south link one happening though are pretty slim now though aren’t they? Thought there was a setback there?

Obviously hard to know what's going to go ahead these days. But yeah, the Railway Gardens proposal was approved back in December last year, and rumoured to be put up for sale earlier this year.

ofcork

Apparently another objection gone in against the moores hotel redevelopment.