Cork developments

fonecrusher1

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

It is shocking alright. How they're able to get away with it year after year is beyond me. How long has that Ford dealers / garage and the shop been out of action now at this stage? 20 years?

Wasn't it something to do with one of the family living in a house there?
In 2006 Dennehy's were still operating to some extent but I think it was over where the apartments are by Tesco rather than the original site. I got some bodywork done to a new ish Mondeo done there iirc. Also got a flywheel done on the same car under Ford warranty but can't remember where I got that done.... I've an inkling it was Dennehy's Cross also but can't remember being in there.

Iirc Ford went from Dennehy's Cross to Drive Motor Group in 2006 so maybe Dennehy's Cross was still trading until 2005?

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

...........
Seems to be a lot of vans coming and going out of it

Really? As in builders?

Markcheese

timmyjimmy wrote: »

I think the bus station would make a great gallery. It's not really fit for purpose at the moment. Having everything closer to the train station would be a a far better transport hub.

Except people prefer to get closer to patrick st., Slightly more central,. It's only a 10 minute extra walk , but if you've got to walk to the mercy or Washington Street it's 10 mins more from the train station ..

TheChizler

Markcheese wrote: »

Except people prefer to get closer to patrick st., Slightly more central,. It's only a 10 minute extra walk , but if you've got to walk to the mercy or Washington Street it's 10 mins more from the train station ..

Train station is a pain to get to personally, better since adding the new entrance but still a pain.

who_me

timmyjimmy wrote: »

I think the bus station would make a great gallery. It's not really fit for purpose at the moment. Having everything closer to the train station would be a a far better transport hub.

It would! Though to be honest if the bus station were ever going to be re-purposed it probably would be something far bigger in scale.

If you were to merge the bus station foreyard, the building, the rear bays and access (and possibly merge in the buildings behind, if still not redeveloped), you have a huge city centre, river-side plot for a major commercial/residential development. It could draw a lot of foot traffic down from Patrick St. to Parnell Place and link the city centre better with the docklands.

The train station probably should be served by most city-centre bus routes, which could also have stops on Patrick St. / Grand Parade / South Mall as needed. If that happened, the bus station as-is probably wouldn't be needed as much.

Markcheese

Markcheese wrote: »

Except people prefer to get closer to patrick st., Slightly more central,. It's only a 10 minute extra walk , but if you've got to walk to the mercy or Washington Street it's 10 mins more from the train station ..

It's no where near 10 min most people and look at the amount of wasted space at the station.

Foot bridge across to the docklands, for the future developments, from the bus station if at Horgan's key and the new city area is fully supported by public transport

Augeo

Augeo wrote: »

Really? As in builders?

Apparently the developer is McHugh insulation. Maybe a depot/store or something

blindsider

Rochestown Inn re-development has been refused....

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40235615.html

A PROPOSAL to redevelop the former Rochestown Inn has been rejected by Cork City Council, labelled by planners at City Hall as "visually awkward".

In December, developer John Sweeney had applied for permission to demolish the former Rochestown Inn building to construct a new two-and-a-half storey building.......

fonecrusher1

blindsider wrote: »

Rochestown Inn re-development has been refused....

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40235615.html

A PROPOSAL to redevelop the former Rochestown Inn has been rejected by Cork City Council, labelled by planners at City Hall as "visually awkward".

Its hard to disagree with them based on the rendering available in the link. Pretty it ain't.

fonecrusher1

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Its hard to disagree with them based on the rendering available in the link. Pretty it ain't.

Hideous

marno21

M28 case grinds to a halt at the Supreme Court

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40236191.html

Big news for redevelopment of the city centre & Docklands.

namloc1980

Realistically when would the M28 start construction?

the beer revolu

namloc1980 wrote: »

Realistically when would the M28 start construction?

2024 according to the article.
Due to finish 2027

mikeym

Great news for Cork.

marno21

Three years of advance works and land acquisition for the M28.

Longer than normal due to the complexity of some service diversions required and also advance works required on the Rochestown Road.

Treehelpplease

Does anyone have a link to the final plans?

calnand

Treehelpplease wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to the final plans?

https://www.corkrdo.ie/major-schemes/m28-cork-to-ringaskiddy-project/

Not sure how up to date they are, but definitely gives an in-depth overview of the entire route.

Treehelpplease

thank you! will the Rochestown Road work be done before the M28?

marno21

calnand wrote: »

https://www.corkrdo.ie/major-schemes/m28-cork-to-ringaskiddy-project/

Not sure how up to date they are, but definitely gives an in-depth overview of the entire route.

They are fully upto date. That's what went in for planning permission.

ofcork

I see the council are inviting tenders for the new housing development off the old mallow/whitechurch roads.

https://twitter.com/corkcitycouncil/status/1367868781075308547

namloc1980

ofcork wrote: »

I see the council are inviting tenders for the new housing development off the old mallow/whitechurch roads.

600 houses on 54 acres seems very low density for this location which is just 3km from the city centre. It's right adjacent to the train line also but, as I understand it, there is no provision or plan to use the rail line in this development for commuter transport. Another car dependent low density development.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

600 houses on 54 acres seems very low density for this location which is just 3km from the city centre. It's right adjacent to the train line also but, as I understand it, there is no provision or plan to use the rail line in this development for commuter transport. Another car dependent low density development.

Depends on level of retail, amenities, and if there's a school or two going in

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

Depends on level of retail, amenities, and if there's a school or two going in

It's low density housing in anybody's language. Tony Fitzgerald reckons it'll be a piece of the countryside in a urban location and will have a "rural" feel to it. 3km from the city centre and right adjacent to the rail line. Poor use of the site to have low density "rural" suburban density like this given its location.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40238279.html

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's low density housing in anybody's language. Tony Fitzgerald reckons it'll be a piece of the countryside in a urban location and will have a "rural" feel to it. 3km from the city centre and right adjacent to the rail line. Poor use of the site to have low density "rural" suburban density like this given its location.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40238279.html

That's concerning

macraignil

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's low density housing in anybody's language. Tony Fitzgerald reckons it'll be a piece of the countryside in a urban location and will have a "rural" feel to it. 3km from the city centre and right adjacent to the rail line. Poor use of the site to have low density "rural" suburban density like this given its location.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40238279.html

You are completely ignoring the retail, educational and amenity facilities to be included if you are saying this is low density in my language anyway. If we just count 600 houses over the entire 54acre site this is less than 1/10th of an acre or 400m2 per house site with no allowance even for the road and paths and shared green areas that would need to be accommodated. No intention to move to live in Cork city myself but I don't understand the sentiment that home owners should not be allowed have a garden anymore just because some people want to squeeze everyone into some high density high rise apartment type setting, or is it more that you think only the south side of the city should have houses with reasonable size gardens? High density should be one option and may suit some people but does not suit everyone in my opinion.



The city is not that stuck for space that every development needs to be high density and while public transport is good to have some types of job will still require the mobility provided by private transport. People who have private transport and some appreciation of the outdoors should have the option to have a home with a garden and still be able to walk to the city centre in a small urban area like Cork and I don't think this needs to have negative inferences applied by those who want to make public transport mandatory. There are a good number of underused sites closer to the city centre that would make better locations for high density developments.

namloc1980

macraignil wrote: »

You are completely ignoring the retail, educational and amenity facilities to be included if you are saying this is low density in my language anyway. If we just count 600 houses over the entire 54acre site this is less than 1/10th of an acre or 400m2 per house site with no allowance even for the road and paths and shared green areas that would need to be accommodated. No intention to move to live in Cork city myself but I don't understand the sentiment that home owners should not be allowed have a garden anymore just because some people want to squeeze everyone into some high density high rise apartment type setting, or is it more that you think only the south side of the city should have houses with reasonable size gardens? High density should be one option and may suit some people but does not suit everyone in my opinion.

The city is not that stuck for space that every development needs to be high density and while public transport is good to have some types of job will still require the mobility provided by private transport. People who have private transport and some appreciation of the outdoors should have the option to have a home with a garden and still be able to walk to the city centre in a small urban area like Cork and I don't think this needs to have negative inferences applied by those who want to make public transport mandatory. There are a good number of underused sites closer to the city centre that would make better locations for high density developments.

I'm not ignoring it and I didn't mention anything that nobody should have a garden. In fact most of your post is made up strawman arguments.

A councillor has proudly described it as being a rural development in an urban location and that it will be like having the countryside in the city. I have no problem with people having options for garden etc. Every semi d in the country has a garden. The issue is building this piece of "rural living" right next to a major transport line. There are better places for the city council to build that if they want, now that they have an expanded boundary. But development plans and logic clearly call out the need to densify developments adjacent to transport lines. This is just repeating the semi d sprawl of places like Douglas etc, with the inevitable traffic problems and car centered development that follows.

macraignil

namloc1980 wrote: »

I'm not ignoring it and I didn't mention anything that nobody should have a garden. In fact most of your post is made up strawman arguments.

A councillor has proudly described it as being a rural development in an urban location and that it will be like having the countryside in the city. I have no problem with people having options for garden etc. Every semi d in the country has a garden. The issue is building this piece of "rural living" right next to a major transport line. There are better places for the city council to build that if they want, now that they have an expanded boundary. But development plans and logic clearly call out the need to densify developments adjacent to transport lines. This is just repeating the semi d sprawl of places like Douglas etc, with the inevitable traffic problems and car centered development that follows.

It is good to hear you accept people should be allowed have a home with a garden. I was replying to your post saying it was a poor use of the site when I think this country is very short of reasonably priced houses to the extent that my younger brother sees no option but to leave the country in spite of having secured relatively well payed employment supporting our multinational IT industry. I have no objection to a stop for a train being part of the development and I never said I want a repeat of the mistakes made in the development of the south side of the city. You are accusing me of making a post full of strawman arguments and then reply as if I am campaigning for urban sprawl. It is still my opinion that there are a good number of underused sites closer to the city centre that would make better locations for high density developments.



I don't think 600homes in a development of 54acres to include amenity, retail and education facilities is what I would call low density or a poor use of the site. We need to do something to make homes more affordable in the city and not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Suggesting that every house development should be away from transport lines would lead to the car dependence that you are saying you are against so I really don't understand your logic.

namloc1980

macraignil wrote: »

It is good to hear you accept people should be allowed have a home with a garden. I was replying to your post saying it was a poor use of the site when I think this country is very short of reasonably priced houses to the extent that my younger brother sees no option but to leave the country in spite of having secured relatively well payed employment supporting our multinational IT industry. I have no objection to a stop for a train being part of the development and I never said I want a repeat of the mistakes made in the development of the south side of the city. You are accusing me of making a post full of strawman arguments and then reply as if I am campaigning for urban sprawl. It is still my opinion that there are a good number of underused sites closer to the city centre that would make better locations for high density developments.



I don't think 600homes in a development of 54acres to include amenity, retail and education facilities is what I would call low density or a poor use of the site. We need to do something to make homes more affordable in the city and not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Suggesting that every house development should be away from transport lines would lead to the car dependence that you are saying you are against so I really don't understand your logic.

I never said otherwise about gardens. You're just posting in bad faith at this stage.

There is no proposed train stop at this site by the council. It isn't part of their plan. So this is going to be a car dependent development which is unfortunate. The site is low density for a location 3km from the city centre and literally right next to a train line.

Also who said everyone should live in an apartment?? Making stuff up again I see. The vast majority of developments in this country are the 3 bed semi-detached houses that you seem to think are very very rare. What's wrong with having high quality and high density apartments every now and again - especially adjacent to a commuter and InterCity rail line? Is that so terrible? To coin your argument: not everyone wants to live in a semi detached car dependent location, but there are very few options otherwise.

major interest

macraignil wrote: »

I don't think 600homes in a development of 54acres to include amenity, retail and education facilities is what I would call low density or a poor use of the site. We need to do something to make homes more affordable in the city and not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Suggesting that every house development should be away from transport lines would lead to the car dependence that you are saying you are against so I really don't understand your logic.

Provision of housing is certainly welcome. The question is whether the proposals make the best use of the site given its location and proximity to the rail line. At a high level, the housing equates to less than 30 units per hectare. If you allow for the fact a portion of the land will be allocated to non residential, the density will be slightly higher. However, it would still fall well short of the kind of density they should be aiming for in my opinion.

In Dublin, they are finally starting to realise this with more recent developments along the proposed rail lines (e.g. proposed dart+ line) having significantly higher densities with the realisation that such land is a finite resource. This is after decades of poor integrated land use/transport planning in Dublin which resulted in significant, car dependant sprawl. It is also an approach that is being given a stronger footing in national regulations and local area plans (the aim for more efficient use of land adjacent to current/potential transport corridors).

There is definitely potential for a future commuter rail station in the area which would make the site more suited again for increased density.

macraignil

namloc1980 wrote: »

I never said otherwise about gardens. You're just posting in bad faith at this stage.

There is no proposed train stop at this site by the council. It isn't part of their plan. So this is going to be a car dependent development which is unfortunate. The site is low density for a location 3km from the city centre and literally right next to a train line.

Also who said everyone should live in an apartment?? Making stuff up again I see. The vast majority of developments in this country are the 3 bed semi-detached houses that you seem to think are very very rare. What's wrong with having high quality and high density apartments every now and again - especially adjacent to a commuter and InterCity rail line? Is that so terrible? To coin your argument: not everyone wants to live in a semi detached car dependent location, but there are very few options otherwise.

You have been saying that less than a tenth of an acre per housing unit is too low density which to me is allowing for fairly small gardens so I hope you can understand where I am getting the impression that you are against people near transport lines being allowed have significant garden space. My post is nothing to do with bad faith and just responding to your post about what you think is appropriate density. If you are insisting people should live on this site in higher density then I don't understand what other options there are besides apartments which to repeat myself again I think would be more in demand and more appropriate in more city centre locations. I just think to have a high density development in this area would lead to more short term residential use and lower quality social development in the area which has a lot of old industrial units nearby and serious potential for it to become something like a Ballymun for Cork.


I never said a 3 bed semi is very rare in this country but those for sale in Cork city are priced for much higher than they need to be to be affordable to people on an average industrial wage. That is why I am saying we need more supply of this type of housing. I specifically said already that high density should be an option and yet you are asking me about high density being so terrible as if I am campaigning for everyone needing to live in a semi-d. You already accused me of posting with strawman arguments yet each reply to me posting my opinion is taking this strategy to discredit what I have actually said. I think the suggested density from the council is appropriate for this suburban location and your insistence that it needs to be higher density makes no sense with the availability of sites much closer to the city centre that would be better suited to high density housing.