Cork developments

macraignil

major interest wrote: »

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.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on the site use. I think it should potentially include a suburban rail stop alright and this could also serve some of the surrounding existing housing. I'm not sure insisting on higher density would lead to a better quality if life for those living in the area however and I think the current density proposals are appropriate.

namloc1980

macraignil wrote: »

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.

It's 3km from Patrick Street, we're not talking about Carrigaline or Ballincollig here. Can you point out these numerous sites of similar size that are close to the city centre and are on an existing high capacity transport link such as this one? Also as pointed out there are no plans to have a a train station there, do you not accept this is very poor from the Council as a long term sustainable planning objective?

the beer revolu

namloc1980 wrote: »

do you not accept this is very poor from the Council as a long term sustainable planning objective?

I think that poster made it pretty clear that they do not. A few times.

timmyjimmy

You know what makes housing more affordable in the city? Not having to pay for a car. No train station at that site is a joke.

hans aus dtschl

timmyjimmy wrote: »

You know what makes housing more affordable in the city? Not having to pay for a car. No train station at that site is a joke.

The whole thing is a joke.
An rural urban car-centric development on a rail line within walking distance of the city centre.

macraignil

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's 3km from Patrick Street, we're not talking about Carrigaline or Ballincollig here. Can you point out these numerous sites of similar size that are close to the city centre and are on an existing high capacity transport link such as this one? Also as pointed out there are no plans to have a a train station there, do you not accept this is very poor from the Council as a long term sustainable planning objective?

What has this site got to do with Carrigaline or Ballincollig? I never mentioned either of these places and I don't understand what point you are trying to make.


I never said the sites I can think of closer to the city centre are a similar size and I think higher density housing could be developed successfully on sites smaller than this and would be most beneficial for the development of Cork if they were being renovated from old industrial or other urban use or on what are called brown field sites.


As the Beer revolution pointed out I have already said I do not accept this as very poor from the council in light of the current housing need in the city.

the beer revolu

macraignil wrote: »

As the Beer revolution pointed out I have already said I do not accept this as very poor from the council in light of the current housing need in the city.

Just to be clear, I do not agree with your view at all. I was just point out that you had made your view abundantly clear.

hans aus dtschl

macraignil wrote: »

What has this site got to do with Carrigaline or Ballincollig? I never mentioned either of these places and I don't understand what point you are trying to make.


I never said the sites I can think of closer to the city centre are a similar size and I think higher density housing could be developed successfully on sites smaller than this and would be most beneficial for the development of Cork if they were being renovated from old industrial or other urban use or on what are called brown field sites.


As the Beer revolution pointed out I have already said I do not accept this as very poor from the council in light of the current housing need in the city.

I think we can all accept there's a severe housing shortage, and I suspect everyone on here agrees that this site should be built on. But we should also all accept that there's a severe issue related to bad planning, historically.

Building low density on a rail line within walking distance of the city centre is very much in the realm of "bad planning" unfortunately. If you don't accept that much, then we're all going to go around in circles forever.

The "having a garden" / "not wanting to live in an apartment" / etc is absolutely fine. But you must also accept that it's every person's dream to live on a large plot, in a quiet neighbourhood, with perfect public transport links, within walking distance of the city centre, with no traffic. This is not reality though, it's just a dream world. In reality you must accept that you'll be a little bit further from the urban area if you want that bigger plot. And you must accept worse transport links to the urban area.

So using what is highly connected land for low density development....
It would be lovely for the developer and the few rich people who would get to live there, but it would be a net negative for the city. The transport links would need more subvention and the people who would have been more than happy to live in high density there will be left without homes.

AugustusMinimus

Never understood why we don’t see extensive ribbon development along the Dublin rail line. At the moment it is completely under utilised. Quite baffling. Not have a station which could be used for Mallow commuter services is shocking call.

namloc1980

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Never understood why we don’t see extensive ribbon development along the Dublin rail line. At the moment it is completely under utilised. Quite baffling. Not have a station which could be used for Mallow commuter services is shocking call.

When you have a councillor proudly saying the development will have a "rural" feel kind of sums up the attitude to be honest.

macraignil

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I think we can all accept there's a severe housing shortage, and I suspect everyone on here agrees that this site should be built on. But we should also all accept that there's a severe issue related to bad planning, historically.

Building low density on a rail line within walking distance of the city centre is very much in the realm of "bad planning" unfortunately. If you don't accept that much, then we're all going to go around in circles forever.

The "having a garden" / "not wanting to live in an apartment" / etc is absolutely fine. But you must also accept that it's every person's dream to live on a large plot, in a quiet neighbourhood, with perfect public transport links, within walking distance of the city centre, with no traffic. This is not reality though, it's just a dream world. In reality you must accept that you'll be a little bit further from the urban area if you want that bigger plot. And you must accept worse transport links to the urban area.

So using what is highly connected land for low density development....
It would be lovely for the developer and the few rich people who would get to live there, but it would be a net negative for the city. The transport links would need more subvention and the people who would have been more than happy to live in high density there will be left without homes.

Historic bad planning should in my opinion not be used as an excuse for poor planning in future. I don't see that insisting on this site having more than 600 homes would bring any real benefit to those choosing to live there. Without any station to serve commuter rail use in the area why should it be more high density and even if one is built in the future there are a number of adjacent areas which have yet to be built on and could in future be used for more dense housing if the demand is there. I also don't regard that number of homes with the specified amenities also taking up space to be that low density and require a high amount of extra transport infrastructure subvention compared to other areas of the city. It's like you are saying it is fine to have leafy suburban housing sprawling for a much greater distance from the city centre on the south side but if there is to be housing on the north side of the city it needs to be densely developed or people will go homeless.


The developer will make money regardless of the density of the development so I don't understand your point there. Insisting that the north side of the city has to be geared to housing lower income groups in danger of otherwise being homeless just sounds too much like the way the city has been badly developed already and using a rail line as an excuse to perpetuate this imbalanced is just wrong in my opinion. The city needs decent family homes built to suit long term residents and how you view this as a negative for the city is something I don't understand.

Pete_Cavan

Presumably any train station would be planned by Irish Rail not the County Council. It could be included in the Cork commuter network project.

They don't seem to have done the Part 8 yet, these seem to be the best images for the site I can find online;

http://www.bslarch.com/whitechurch.html

marno21

Apple taking the top 3 floors of Horgan’s Quay 1

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40240229.html

whatever76

marno21 wrote: »

Apple taking the top 3 floors of Horgan’s Quay 1

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40240229.html

thats great news !

the beer revolu

While I can understand people's misgivings about our relationship with multinational companies, and with Apple, in particular, the amount of money that apple pours into the local economy on a monthly basisis very significant for Cork!

snotboogie

OCP must be sick. I wonder will Amazon take up Navigation Square now?

The North Docks have done quite well considering both Penrose Dock and Horgans Quay opened during a pandemic and both are nearly fully let (if you believe Apple have options for the rest of Horgans Quay 1) before people can even return to offices.

questionmark?

marno21 wrote: »

Apple taking the top 3 floors of Horgan’s Quay 1

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40240229.html

Excellent news. A shot of confidence into commercial construction in the city which is vital for the city to thrive.
You'd wonder will this help the decision making for other planned buildings to go ahead.

marno21

questionmark? wrote: »

Excellent news. A shot of confidence into commercial construction in the city which is vital for the city to thrive.
You'd wonder will this help the decision making for other planned buildings to go ahead.

As snotboogie said, two large scale office developments have now been almost fully let with offices closed and most people working from home.

Fingers crossed they might also help with the viability of the HQ apartments and also the JCD apartments nearby at Albert Quay.

Still no movement on NSQ though. If Amazon end up taking NSQ we may see movement on NSQ 3/4 and HQ2/4. HQ2 would be fantastic as the current development at Horgan's Quay looks very incomplete with the eastern facade bringing down the appearance of the development.

Oafley Jones

marno21 wrote: »

Apple taking the top 3 floors of Horgan’s Quay 1

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40240229.html

Will they be paying rent for this one?

TheChizler

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Will they be paying rent for this one?

Article mentions €32/sq foot quoted, not sure what Apple are paying. We were enquiring about taking a floor there last year and were quoted something like €44, they must have had trouble securing tenants. Or were holding out for bigger fish.

Rhys Essien

A city manager (who trained as a nurse) on almost 150k a year gets to extend her 7 year contract by 3 more years. Only in Cork.

IMO she’s been a disaster for the city.


https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1369328375408455680?s=21

Hibernicis

Rhys Essien wrote: »

A city manager (who trained as a nurse) on almost 150k a year gets to extend her 7 year contract by 3 more years. Only in Cork.

IMO she’s been a disaster for the city.


https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1369328375408455680?s=21

Is it in order to ask your objective rational for declaring her to be a disaster, nursing qualification aside ?

cantalach

Rhys Essien wrote: »

A city manager (who trained as a nurse) on almost 150k a year gets to extend her 7 year contract by 3 more years. Only in Cork.

IMO she’s been a disaster for the city.


https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1369328375408455680?s=21

We voted against the proposal to directly elect our city’s chief executive, and we elected the councillors who have now reappointed her. So we really only have ourselves to blame.

TheChizler

cantalach wrote: »

We voted against the proposal to directly elect our city’s chief executive, and we elected the councillors who have now reappointed her. So we really only have ourselves to blame.

I don't think councillors have anything to do with it, do they?

Mardyke

Rhys Essien wrote: »

A city manager (who trained as a nurse) on almost 150k a year gets to extend her 7 year contract by 3 more years. Only in Cork.

IMO she’s been a disaster for the city.


https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1369328375408455680?s=21

It's a disaster for the city. Very depressing for the future or Cork.

cantalach

cantalach wrote: »

We voted against the proposal to directly elect our city’s chief executive, and we elected the councillors who have now reappointed her. So we really only have ourselves to blame.

Notwithstanding its a different Council who have nothing to do with this extension, the last Council tried to block her appointment IIRC.

cantalach

TheChizler wrote: »

I don't think councillors have anything to do with it, do they?

Oh you’re quite right. She just availed of an automatic entitlement to extend. I misread the line in the article that referred to the news being announced at the council meeting. I read it as “after” the meeting.

Rhys Essien

Hibernicis wrote: »

Is it in order to ask your objective rational for declaring her to be a disaster, nursing qualification aside ?

Nothing against her personally but after 7 years she has shown to be miles out of her depth and incapable of running a city. She should do the honorable thing and quit.

We need to be getting in a person capable of running a city.

timmyjimmy

Hibernicis wrote: »

Is it in order to ask your objective rational for declaring her to be a disaster, nursing qualification aside ?

The city is falling down around us. She was on Ecoeye a few ago weeks focusing on the new developments in Horgan's Quay etc which looked well in fairness. Duncan had no problem do pointing the dereliction around the city do, not much to be proud of as a chief executive.
There seems to be little pride in the city too, they would be more in line with hiring a city architect than hiring the likes of her again. The architect who's idea for Oliver P street must be reeling with the upkeep of his/her installation. It's a case of tarmac over anything that needs to be reviewed, bollards bent and cars driving up and down the pedestrianized street.
Also, Pana ban has pretty much failed, she does nothing for public transport, she has a car centric attitude that is unlikely to change.
Pedestrianization measures have failed too, cars on all pedestrianized streets, OPS, Tuckey, Paul st, Parnell Place, it's half arsed at best.
Cycling infrastructure leaves a lot to be desired, one way cycle lanes are not much use and there's probably cars parked in them anyway.
Her time is done, someone more progressive is what the city needs.

Mardyke

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Nothing against her personally but after 7 years she has shown to be miles out of her depth and incapable of running a city. She should do the honorable thing and quit.

We need to be getting in a person capable of running a city.

It's embarrassing for her, she is so far outside her skillset and comfort zone. but moreso it's disastrous for Cork.

Aside from her proven inability to work with people, she has shown no modern thinking in her time at the helm.

Depressing for Cork.