Cork developments

marno21

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Its pure bloody greed is what it is. And a complete failure by our pretend government to actually set out regulatory boundaries to prevent it. I don't blame JCD for scrapping it. Why would they build something that was never even going to get anywhere near full occupancy.

I just don't understand why they are considering revising it back to 16 floors as an office only development. Why not just keep the 25 floor design but obviously redesign the interior for office space.

Floor heights number one. The entire interior plan doesn't suit office space at all. They can go with wider floor plates for office space so they don't have to have the windows for apartments requirement.

The Irish housing model is completely broken if this requires a 50% premium on luxury, Celtic tiger apartments down the road to make this work. Absolute madness.

MrDerp

Whatever about the apartments, which are a disappointing loss, I’d really hope that whatever office scheme replaces this will keep the restaurant space in the protected building as before. I was very excited about that aspect.

Separately, it’s very interesting that they’d consider this height of an office, as it would be a lot to build and then lease floor by floor. I wonder if they have advanced enquiries on a large footprint from their leasing discussions elsewhere.

marno21

PP in with Cork City Council.

Will be 17 storeys, 77.5m. External terraces at Level 2, 6, 13 and 15. Ground floor deli/cafe with outdoor seating.

1.5m short of that yoke at the end of the South Docks in Dublin. Would be nice to regain the title of Ireland's tallest buildings given we are blatantly the city with Ireland's tallest ambitions. Hopefully the Custom House Tower can address this for us.

Meursault

What a disappointment. I can't see how this is feasible as an office. it would accomodate thousands of workers, half of whom - lets face it - will not be from Cork. where are they planning on housing all these workers?

I can't see the 35 storey tower going ahead either. its all bullsh*t, these grandiose plans. all we seem capable of is some gigantic housing estate with no facilities located on the outskirts of some town like carrigaline.

snotboogie

The reaction on twitter seems a tad over the top. I've seen one lad compare the destruction of the sextant to the demolition of Penn Station as a watershed moment for Ireland! It was an auld pub with a nice paint job, the Docklands were a derelict ****hole before developers moved in. A bit of perspective is needed.

Meursault

snotboogie wrote: »

The reaction on twitter seems a tad over the top. I've seen one lad compare the destruction of the sextant to the demolition of Penn Station as a watershed moment for Ireland! It was an auld pub with a nice paint job, the Docklands were a derelict ****hole before developers moved in. A bit of perspective is needed.

Twitter isn't exactly renowned as a place of reasoned debate. I'd pay no attention to most of the stuff posted there.

I agree on the sextant. the building had its charm, but it wasn't exactly the Taj Mahal.

Fred Cryton

The fact that rents of €2,800 are required to make viable a modest 25 storey apartment block in Ireland cannot be underestimated, in fact it's probably the most important issue facing the country.

There's got to be monopolistic price gouging going on by building suppliers or contractors. Someone needs to get to the bottom of this - compare line by line the costs of everything in Ireland with regional British cities and find out what is happening.

Mr.CoolGuy

I would be wary of writing the obituaries for city-centre apartment living based on this project being scrapped. A 25 storey tower wouldn't come cheap. I'll start getting worried if no apartments are planned for the docklands, because there is plenty of room there for a few tall office blocks and hotels, while having many blocks of apartments of 8-12 storeys. If those aren't viable, then we're in big trouble.

whisky_galore

Meursault wrote: »

Twitter isn't exactly renowned as a place of reasoned debate. I'd pay no attention to most of the stuff posted there.

I agree on the sextant. the building had its charm, but it wasn't exactly the Taj Mahal.

Most buildings in cork aren't. Should we level all that aren't Taj spec and have glass boxes instead because we need 'de chobs'

Spideoige

whisky_galore wrote: »

Most buildings in cork aren't. Should we level all that aren't Taj spec and have glass boxes instead because we need 'de chobs'

Cork has had so much of it's architectural heritage degraded that I'm glad to see that people are speaking up, especially when there is very little intervention from the Council. We need to work with what we have. It's insulting that this site was levelled with no real plausible plans in place. The plans were permitted on the basis that this site would provide important residential accommodation in a key city centre location. I wonder if this had been for an office building from the get go would the Council have made more of an argument for it's retention similar to lots of other offices across the city.

Meursault

whisky_galore wrote: »

Most buildings in cork aren't. Should we level all that aren't Taj spec and have glass boxes instead because we need 'de chobs'

I thought it was obvious that I was being facetious there, but evidently not.

Look, if it was a listed building, it would have been saved. Simple as that.

Sextant was unremarkable but the hipsters and the pig on a spit fans got in there for a while so there's a bit of woe is me going on.
Plenty folk still complaining about the lights on Patrick Street and the ole cinema being demolished etc etc.

Justin Credible Darts

strange that when the sextant was actually open hardly anyone was a regular.

now every person who had one drink in over ten years was a regular, and the tacky looking building now being thought of as sort of shrine.

I was in there a few times over the years and saw nothing that made it any more special than most other pubs. Its like the "all change is evil" brigade just want to moan for the sake of moaning.

Treehelpplease

It was nice because it had a good paint job that made it stand out. other than that big meh, most of it. Totally uninvitng ground floor with no street activation and unoriginal pvc windows. the rear side is a gray wall. i prefer this iteration of the building. https://goo.gl/maps/LikNCXtUVY68512C7

Nerdlingr

Not everyone likes big glass boxes .
Practically every single new development build or proposed build is a big square full of glass. And us poor lay people are some kind of dummies for not seeing the fantastic architectural design in these ugly buildings. Fair enough the sextant might have been full of "hipsters , didn't have a regular crowd or people enjoyed their Friday pig on a spit" inside there...so what? The building had a bit of character/history about it. It was different. People don't like to see old buildings demolished in the dead of night to be replaced by... absolutely nothing.

Justin Credible Darts

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Not everyone likes big glass boxes .
Practically every single new development build or proposed build is a big square full of glass. And us poor lay people are some kind of dummies for not seeing the fantastic architectural design in these ugly buildings. Fair enough the sextant might have been full of "hipsters , didn't have a regular crowd or people enjoyed their Friday pig on a spit" inside there...so what? The building had a bit of character/history about it. It was different. People don't like to see old buildings demolished in the dead of night to be replaced by... absolutely nothing.

You do know you can hate glass boxes, and STILL think the sextant was over rated, and a building of meaningless structure.




Your argument is flawed in that you appears to think if someone has no objection of the sextant going, they therefore must be pro glass boxes.

Treehelpplease

The "dead of night" was obviously because of it being next to a major road in and out of the city centre. also, 1albert quay and 1 horgan's quay are the only new buildings that could be described as a glass box. the other eight major docklands buildings are mixes of stone, concrete and cladding

snotboogie

https://tripeanddrisheen.substack.com/p/a-city-risingtowards-what

This is the exact sort of article that captures the tone of the response to the sextant. In one sentence its complaining about the out of scale docklands developments and in the next demanding that the ridiculously out of scale R&H Hall needs to be preserved. No reason given as to why either, just because its been there for a long time one would assume.

Markcheese

It's a done deal - the sextant is gone - for good or bad - ( I kinda liked the appearance,but wouldn't be too hung up on it ) , r and h hall is a massive concrete silo , it's cool (as a working grain silo goes ) ,and if some clever architect can come up with an imaginative reasonably cost effective way to incorporate it into a development then brilliant - but i kind of doubt it could be done well...( And if it can't be done well ,don't do it ... ), The building down there I'd hate to see gone is the odlumns building - I think the frontage is listed...
But that should be relatively easy to incorporate into a development ...

fonecrusher1

snotboogie wrote: »

https://tripeanddrisheen.substack.com/p/a-city-risingtowards-what

This is the exact sort of article that captures the tone of the response to the sextant. In one sentence its complaining about the out of scale docklands developments and in the next demanding that the ridiculously out of scale R&H Hall needs to be preserved. No reason given as to why either, just because its been there for a long time one would assume.

Its mostly a load of oul moaning bullsh1t is what it is. Obviously the deaths of two homeless people is tragic but what the hell has that got to do with the approval of a couple of tall building developments in Cork city?

It just comes off as strawman journalism to get a bit of attention.

macraignil

snotboogie wrote: »

https://tripeanddrisheen.substack.com/p/a-city-risingtowards-what

This is the exact sort of article that captures the tone of the response to the sextant. In one sentence its complaining about the out of scale docklands developments and in the next demanding that the ridiculously out of scale R&H Hall needs to be preserved. No reason given as to why either, just because its been there for a long time one would assume.

Thanks for the link to the article which I think well sums up the current state of the docklands development with modern high rise not fitting well with the remaining older buildings and providing little hope to the groups of people in the city for whom high rise living is not the best option. I think your summary of what the article says is a bit inaccurate.



I fail to see why increasingly dense living is such a good idea and a recent report from the Irish society of chartered surveyors highlighted how building up is not going to improve affordability for housing.



"Our research shows the higher you go the greater the costs. This is due to the fact that these buildings have a more complex structure and require a wider range of mechanical and electrical services, sophisticated facades, basement parking and much more.”


I'm not saying there should be no high rise apartments but the collapse of the Sextant site apartment plan shows that other types of accommodation will have to make up the bulk of future housing stock as high rise apartments are simply too expensive. The report linked above puts the average cost in euros of a low rise apartment in Dublin at 293,000 where even for medium rise apartment blocks this rises to between 470,000 and 578,000. To say Cork is in trouble if we can't put people in high rise apartment blocks makes little sense to me. The greater Cork area has plenty of space for people to live non high rise lives which I think could for many be much nicer than struggling to pay for one of these high rise units.

Justin Credible Darts

I agree, surely if high rise building cost far more to build, its hardly a surprise the cost of the apartments will also be large to recoup the money, so it wont be "affordable".

That said, from an aesthetic viewpoint they might make for an impressive skyline, make the city more modern looking but I would rather live outside the city in a house with a garden and my car parked outside the door than live in some box in the city.

But each to their own

snotboogie

macraignil wrote: »

Thanks for the link to the article which I think well sums up the current state of the docklands development with modern high rise not fitting well with the remaining older buildings and providing little hope to the groups of people in the city for whom high rise living is not the best option. I think your summary of what the article says is a bit inaccurate.



I fail to see why increasingly dense living is such a good idea and a recent report from the Irish society of chartered surveyors highlighted how building up is not going to improve affordability for housing.



"Our research shows the higher you go the greater the costs. This is due to the fact that these buildings have a more complex structure and require a wider range of mechanical and electrical services, sophisticated facades, basement parking and much more.”


I'm not saying there should be no high rise apartments but the collapse of the Sextant site apartment plan shows that other types of accommodation will have to make up the bulk of future housing stock as high rise apartments are simply too expensive. The report linked above puts the average cost in euros of a low rise apartment in Dublin at 293,000 where even for medium rise apartment blocks this rises to between 470,000 and 578,000. To say Cork is in trouble if we can't put people in high rise apartment blocks makes little sense to me. The greater Cork area has plenty of space for people to live non high rise lives which I think could for many be much nicer than struggling to pay for one of these high rise units.

The benefits are well documented. Below is one example of an article detailing them:

One study found that living in more compact, dense areas versus more sprawling areas makes a difference of about two-and-a-half years in life expectancy. Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated cities on earth has the world's highest life expectancy.

This is largely thought to be due to lifestyle choices. "People who are living in dense areas are significantly more likely to have physical activity," says Hamidi. "Density gives us the option to be physically active; walking, biking, running and less likely to drive. Chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease – all of these are linked to more sprawling types of development and living in more sprawling areas."Dense metropolitan areas also tend to have better access to healthcare, higher-grade facilities, more specialised levels of services, as well as faster emergency response times. In fact, one study found that people living in more sprawling areas are three times more likely to be in a fatal crash than their counterparts in more dense areas.

You are also significantly less likely to be obese living in dense areas. A study by Oxford University and the University of Hong Kong showed that in 22 British cities people living in more dense areas had lower levels of obesity and exercised more than residents in scattered, suburban homes.
Again it comes down to a greater amount of movement and less reliance on cars to get around. “Higher density areas are more likely to be well served by public transport and public transport travel always involves a walking component," says Chris Webster, a professor of urban planning and development economics at the University of Hong Kong.

It's not just our physical health that benefits. According to Layla McCay, director for the Centre of Urban Design and Mental Health, “facilitating walking and [a] more vibrant street life can provide opportunities for positive social interactions and ultimately lessen isolation."

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201201-the-surprising-upsides-to-living-in-cities

macraignil

snotboogie wrote: »

The benefits are well documented. Below is one example of an article detailing them:

One study found that living in more compact, dense areas versus more sprawling areas makes a difference of about two-and-a-half years in life expectancy. Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated cities on earth has the world's highest life expectancy.

This is largely thought to be due to lifestyle choices. "People who are living in dense areas are significantly more likely to have physical activity," says Hamidi. "Density gives us the option to be physically active; walking, biking, running and less likely to drive. Chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease – all of these are linked to more sprawling types of development and living in more sprawling areas."Dense metropolitan areas also tend to have better access to healthcare, higher-grade facilities, more specialised levels of services, as well as faster emergency response times. In fact, one study found that people living in more sprawling areas are three times more likely to be in a fatal crash than their counterparts in more dense areas.

You are also significantly less likely to be obese living in dense areas. A study by Oxford University and the University of Hong Kong showed that in 22 British cities people living in more dense areas had lower levels of obesity and exercised more than residents in scattered, suburban homes.
Again it comes down to a greater amount of movement and less reliance on cars to get around. “Higher density areas are more likely to be well served by public transport and public transport travel always involves a walking component," says Chris Webster, a professor of urban planning and development economics at the University of Hong Kong.

It's not just our physical health that benefits. According to Layla McCay, director for the Centre of Urban Design and Mental Health, “facilitating walking and [a] more vibrant street life can provide opportunities for positive social interactions and ultimately lessen isolation."

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201201-the-surprising-upsides-to-living-in-cities

That is a very pro urban lifestyle media article alright full of quotes from people who are in favour of dense urban living and some who are employed in planing these. I particularly find it amusing that the piece ends with the quotation ending .....Small-town life is small town life for a reason." like it is supposed to be nearly self explanatory that living in a small urban development is inferior after listing the factors some may appreciate about urban life and ignoring the benefits of less dense residential alternatives.



There are advantages to life expectancy of being close to a hospital. I agree that there may be a place for some dense residential development in Cork as I already said but some of the benefits from urban living that you point out may not be as significant as this one sided article seems to suggest. The levels of obesity and life expectancy of those found in dense urban areas may be due to factors like the population there being over represented by younger high earning professionals compared to the wider population. Someone who has chronic illness or obesity may be more likely to live in a more suburban area due to the economics of simply not being able to afford the cost of having a place to live in a more dense urban area. People can choose to be physically active in urban and in rural areas and I agree with the article you linked to that these results are likely to be very much linked to lifestyle choices. For balance here is a link to an article from a scientific study in the UK that showed rural life expectancy is higher there than in urban areas.

snotboogie

macraignil wrote: »

That is a very pro urban lifestyle media article alright full of quotes from people who are in favour of dense urban living and some who are employed in planing these. I particularly find it amusing that the piece ends with the quotation ending .....Small-town life is small town life for a reason." like it is supposed to be nearly self explanatory that living in a small urban development is inferior after listing the factors some may appreciate about urban life and ignoring the benefits of less dense residential alternatives.



There are advantages to life expectancy of being close to a hospital. I agree that there may be a place for some dense residential development in Cork as I already said but some of the benefits from urban living that you point out may not be as significant as this one sided article seems to suggest. The levels of obesity and life expectancy of those found in dense urban areas may be due to factors like the population there being over represented by younger high earning professionals compared to the wider population. Someone who has chronic illness or obesity may be more likely to live in a more suburban area due to the economics of simply not being able to afford the cost of having a place to live in a more dense urban area. People can choose to be physically active in urban and in rural areas and I agree with the article you linked to that these results are likely to be very much linked to lifestyle choices. For balance here is a link to an article from a scientific study in the UK that showed rural life expectancy is higher there than in urban areas.

Nobody is going to force people to live in dense cities. The issue is we barely have the option in Ireland now aside from maybe a few areas in Dublin. We are the least urbanised developed economy in the world. The entire country is basically suburban and semi rural sprawl. I don't see the issue with creating some density in Cork City to avail of the economies of scale for facilities and jobs?

Justin Credible Darts

snotboogie wrote: »

This is largely thought to be due to lifestyle choices. "People who are living in dense areas are significantly more likely to have physical activity," says Hamidi. "Density gives us the option to be physically active; walking, biking, running and less likely to drive. Chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease – all of these are linked to more sprawling types of development and living in more sprawling areas.

I refuse to believe that.
For example, i and guess most people that did live in an apartment before might never have had a dog, where would you walk a dog, around the city center ?


As for going for a walk, try that late at night in the city center, with all the junkies, beggars, pissheads, and other scum and try it outside the city, I know which one i would prefer.
Living in a house in the suburbs or in the country I would imagine you get far more exercise, if its only gardening, cutting the grass, walking the dog, walking further to work, hanging around at bus stops if you use public transport,


That report makes no mention of other such things like diet, ethnicity etc where asians have far better eating habits and seem to have less obesity.

MrDerp

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I agree, surely if high rise building cost far more to build, its hardly a surprise the cost of the apartments will also be large to recoup the money, so it wont be "affordable".

That said, from an aesthetic viewpoint they might make for an impressive skyline, make the city more modern looking but I would rather live outside the city in a house with a garden and my car parked outside the door than live in some box in the city.

But each to their own

You can do both you know. Live in a rented glass box when you’re in your late 20s and want to live near work and pubs and restaurants. Then buy the house when you want to settle.

People fixate on the ‘these are not homes’ argument when build to let is intended for mobile transient work forces.

I loved living in boxes in Dublin in my mid to late 20s. Then guess what? We started going out less as we got older, and started saving so we rented a cheaper house in the suburbs and then ultimately bought a suburban house with room for 2 cars in Cork after we got married.

Nobody is forcing you to raise a family in high density, in fact the more high density apartments we have for students and transient/young workers, the more likely there’ll be a house free for you to rent or buy as a family. Everything has a place.

Justin Credible Darts

you are making the presumption that first...everyone works in a job in the city centre

secondly presuming living in the city is cheaper than living outside the city and commuting.

I can only speak for myself, I could not live in an apartment again.
I can understand some people have no problem, and that is fine as said each to their own, and these new high rise might make a good view, but rather look at them than live in them

the beer revolu

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I refuse to believe that.
For example, i and guess most people that did live in an apartment before might never have had a dog, where would you walk a dog, around the city center ?


As for going for a walk, try that late at night in the city center, with all the junkies, beggars, pissheads, and other scum and try it outside the city, I know which one i would prefer.
Living in a house in the suburbs or in the country I would imagine you get far more exercise, if its only gardening, cutting the grass, walking the dog, walking further to work, hanging around at bus stops if you use public transport,


That report makes no mention of other such things like diet, ethnicity etc where asians have far better eating habits and seem to have less obesity.

I think you are missing point.
Of course there is ample opportunity for exercise with suburban living but the fact is that the majority of people living in suburbia do not walk anywhere - every time they leave their house, it's in their car.
Conversely, city folk tend to walk to the shops, pubs, restaurants and work or walk /use public transport.

Many, many city dwellers have and walk dogs.
And most people who live in cities don't appear to be as terrified of disenfranchised people as you seem to be.

I think it's fair to say that most city dwellers get far more exercise while going about their daily lives than most suburban dwellers do.
Obviously, there are exceptions to this.

snotboogie

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

you are making the presumption that first...everyone works in a job in the city centre

secondly presuming living in the city is cheaper than living outside the city and commuting.

I can only speak for myself, I could not live in an apartment again.
I can understand some people have no problem, and that is fine as said each to their own, and these new high rise might make a good view, but rather look at them than live in them

He never once said everyone works in the city centre or that living in a city is cheaper. He said that many young people prefer to live in cities, which is true.