Cork developments

AugustusMinimus

who_me wrote: »

Interesting that it's sold. IIRC, that was the site of the long-dead Atlantic Quarter proposal, but I hadn't heard about anything new since then.

I'd always thought it most likely that the docklands would be developed as is happening now - growing 'organically' out from the city centre; rather than a few massive developments in the middle of the docklands (Atlantic Quarter, Marina Commercial Park etc.) with the space between them filling up. So I'd love to hear why this site at the Eastern end has now been bought up. I guess it could just be someone investing in the site long-term given the docklands is starting to heat up.

That end of the Docklands will become quite attractive now with Pairc Ui Chaoimh built and MRina Park on the way. Could see a 2 pronged approach of development from either end.

If the new bridge got built there it would become very attractive.

who_me

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

That end of the Docklands will become quite attractive now with Pairc Ui Chaoimh built and MRina Park on the way. Could see a 2 pronged approach of development from either end.

If the new bridge got built there it would become very attractive.

Well, yeah, the bridge is the key (no pun intended).

Infrastructure projects obviously tend to have a much longer lead time, so it's always likely to be a bit of a wait-off. Developers don't want to build in the middle of an isolated industrial area not yet well served by the infrastructure; and it'd be tough to push through a costly bridge project especially when they're isn't currently much at either end.

I guess it's easy to see why development has tended to be creep/sprawl and not new landmark developments!

marno21

I see the Academy of Urbanism are having their annual congress in Cork shortly:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/cork-an-emergent-success-as-urban-outfit-comes-to-town-1.3526621

marno21

There is a full supplement on Cork developments in today's Sunday Business Post. Haven't read it yet but posting now as it's getting late and it is a Sunday if you want to get a copy

snotboogie

marno21 wrote: »

There is a full supplement on Cork developments in today's Sunday Business Post. Haven't read it yet but posting now as it's getting late and it is a Sunday if you want to get a copy

Anything new in it?

Port of Cork development started, it doesn't say much about the BAM dispute

BUNK1982

snotboogie wrote: »

Anything new in it?

Port of Cork development started, it doesn't say much about the BAM dispute

I flipped through it but didn't get a chance to read it properly - didn't see anything that hasn't been covered here.

Featured a bit more from CIT/ UCC and a lot on recent job announcements or hotel developments. Chamber of Commerce feature in it - no mention of things like the new flood defences which i think are a bad idea but that's another thread.

BUNK1982

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-80-million-port-of-cork-container-terminal-will-help-secure-cork-as-an-international-gateway-for-trade-1.3535272

This was on the news last night - really important step in freeing up the city centre.

AugustusMinimus

BUNK1982 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-80-million-port-of-cork-container-terminal-will-help-secure-cork-as-an-international-gateway-for-trade-1.3535272

This was on the news last night - really important step in freeing up the city centre.

There are actually people complaining about this. Where the hell do they expect a container terminal to go?

Inland?

TheChizler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

There are actually people complaining about this. Where the hell do they expect a container terminal to go?

Inland?

They're objecting to the motorway built to the terminal, not the terminal itself. I haven't heard any objections to the terminal anyway.

who_me

snotboogie wrote: »

Anything new in it?

Port of Cork development started, it doesn't say much about the BAM dispute

Hadn't heard about the BAM issue before. They're really not making it easy on themselves, it's only helping paint a picture of them as 'bait and switch'ers.

snotboogie

who_me wrote: »

snotboogie wrote: »

Anything new in it?

Port of Cork development started, it doesn't say much about the BAM dispute

Hadn't heard about the BAM issue before. They're really not making it easy on themselves, it's only helping paint a picture of them as 'bait and switch'ers.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/12m-tender-mistake-could-stall-cork-port-scheme-36570164.html

Apogee

snotboogie wrote: »

The Prism: A 15 storey 70 metre office development on the triangle site on Clontarf Street. Planning lodged in the middle of May and a decision is due on the 10th of July.

Evening Echo wrote:

HERITAGE body An Taisce has lodged a planning objection opposing a new development in the heart of Cork city saying it would have a negative impact on the city’s skyline.The Prism, a €20 million glass-fronted building 15 storeys high, is planned for a small triangular site next to the Parnell Place bus station.

https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/An-Taisce-objects-to-20m-Cork-skyscraper-3ef1a74f-5694-4467-9362-f57286087634-ds

SleetAndSnow

Oh for god sake, It would ADD to the skyline! The elysian is just across the way ffs. ''An Taisce, We hate development!''

Hopefully their appeal gets rejected, it looks like a gorgeous building.

marno21

I hope the Council have their shredder well oiled for this type of rubbish.

One of the few organisations in this country determined to keep the country in the 19th century. It's about time we moved on.

flo8s967qjh0nd

Apogee wrote: »

https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/An-Taisce-objects-to-20m-Cork-skyscraper-3ef1a74f-5694-4467-9362-f57286087634-ds

This seems to be the only image of this development in the public sphere. I haven't looked at the planning documents. I wonder what it looks like from Oliver Plunkett, South Mall, etc. Not as sleek as this view, I bet.
An Taisce have a job to do. They do more good than harm in general. It's there role to raise these issues.

blindsider

An Taisce...seriously! FFS!

someone seriously needs to look at their Terms of Reference, strategic purpose or whatever you want to call it.

How can we publicly fund an organisation whose default position seems to be "OBJECT" to every new development.

They'll have us back 'dancing at the crossroads' next!!!

SleetAndSnow

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

This seems to be the only image of this development in the public sphere. I haven't looked at the planning documents. I wonder what it looks like from Oliver Plunkett, South Mall, etc. Not as sleek as this view, I bet.
An Taisce have a job to do. They do more good than harm in general. It's there role to raise these issues.

I don't think they have done that good of a job in Dublin, we do not want to end up like them down here. No thanks.

At least CCC is more open minded to high rise vs DCC and will hopefully push for the objection to fall. Ridiculous.

marno21

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

This seems to be the only image of this development in the public sphere. I haven't looked at the planning documents. I wonder what it looks like from Oliver Plunkett, South Mall, etc. Not as sleek as this view, I bet.
An Taisce have a job to do. They do more good than harm in general. It's there role to raise these issues.

It's 15 storeys tall. Not 70. Take a look at the Flatiron Building in Manhattan from the same angles and you'll see. Except in New York they had the sense to build tall buildings around tall buildings instead of objecting to the first "tall" building before you fill in the blanks. Cork will never achieve its potential if there is a 5/6 storey limit on riverside buildings.

The days of Dev's Ireland are gone and we need to evolve now.

marno21

SleetAndSnow wrote: »

I don't think they have done that good of a job in Dublin, we do not want to end up like them down here. No thanks.

At least CCC is more open minded to high rise vs DCC and will hopefully push for the objection to fall. Ridiculous.

Exactly. Acres upon acres of prime development land in Dublin destroyed by the "shoebox cancer" that both DCC and all the others desire so much.

Why should we do it simply because they did. We can at least learn from the mistakes made in Dublin.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

An Taisce have a job to do. They do more good than harm in general.

Wouldn't agree with that. They have way too much influence.

blindsider

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

This seems to be the only image of this development in the public sphere. I haven't looked at the planning documents. I wonder what it looks like from Oliver Plunkett, South Mall, etc. Not as sleek as this view, I bet.
An Taisce have a job to do. They do more good than harm in general. It's there role to raise these issues.

They don't though - they're a self-serving bunch of academic naivetes, who would rather focus on the prevention of any innovation, than anything meaningful of their own volition!

flo8s967qjh0nd

marno21 wrote: »

It's 15 storeys tall. Not 70. Take a look at the Flatiron Building in Manhattan from the same angles and you'll see......

The days of Dev's Ireland are gone and we need to evolve now.

The very definition of a 'flat iron' is that it must have a broad side and a narrow side. We'te only seeing the 'sleek' narrow side of the building. The broad side, presumably is, eh...broader.

Dev's Ireland? Get a grip.

flo8s967qjh0nd

blindsider wrote: »

They don't though - they're a self-serving bunch of academic naivetes, who would rather focus on the prevention of any innovation, than anything meaningful of their own volition!

If you think that about An Taisce, that's fine. I'm not here to defend them. But this 'flat iron' is not innovation.

Mushy

Technically not in the city, but carrigtwohill community council appealing the big development out here. Valid grounds too, BAM never adhered to last permission grounds, so no trust in them.

AugustusMinimus

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

The very definition of a 'flat iron' is that it must have a broad side and a narrow side. We'te only seeing the 'sleek' narrow side of the building. The broad side, presumably is, eh...broader.

Dev's Ireland? Get a grip.

Both sides of the building will obscure the same proportion of view unless you think you can see through the building from the narrow end.

An Taisce’s aim here is to stifle development as they object to literally anything above 5 stories.

flo8s967qjh0nd

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Both sides of the building will obscure the same proportion of view unless you think you can see through the building from the narrow end.

Ok. Maybe I need to be clearer. Take the above photomontage and rotate it 90 degrees. That's what I mean by the broadside (i.e. west to east view).

AugustusMinimus

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

Ok. Maybe I need to be clearer. Take the above photomontage and rotate it 90 degrees. That's what I mean by the broadside (i.e. west to east view).

I’m not sure exactly where you can stand on either side and what view you are blocking.

From the west you will be blocking views of the old warehouses which had Flor Griffin and Maher’s Outdoor. You may also miss the top of Merchsnts Quay and car park.

From the other side you will block views of the back of Jury’s Inn and the back of the Clarion Hotel.

An Taisce don’t care. It could be a view of a rubbish dump, they’d still object.

IMO you are actually creating an architectural feature. Do people in NY complain of lack of views?

snotboogie

Mushy wrote: »

Technically not in the city, but carrigtwohill community council appealing the big development out here. Valid grounds too, BAM never adhered to last permission grounds, so no trust in them.

Which big development?

Mushy

snotboogie wrote: »

Which big development?

277 houses, planning was granted recently enough.

snotboogie

Mushy wrote: »

277 houses, planning was granted recently enough.

Ah right, nice one

AugustusMinimus

Mushy wrote: »

277 houses, planning was granted recently enough.

What’s the grounds for objection? Insufficient access?

Mushy

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

What’s the grounds for objection? Insufficient access?

Before the current development was built, BAM had to built a link road from IDA park to near train station. Hundreds of houses and decade plus later, no road built yet. Think community centre and football pitch mentioned too, but nothing built.

So essentially saying any conditions imposed, why trust them!

blindsider

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

If you think that about An Taisce, that's fine. I'm not here to defend them. But this 'flat iron' is not innovation.

Is there any 'flat iron' building in Ireland? I'll argue relative innovation if there isn't.

The proposed development is 15 storeys - for Cork, that's definitely innovative IMO!

Rhys Essien

Only the other day An Bord Pleanala turned down an objection from An Taisce for an expansion to the Savoy Hotel in Limerick.It is now going ahead.Hopefully they do the same here with The Prism job.

Story here.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/319096/jobs-boost-as-limericks-savoy-hotel-gets-go-ahead-for-8m-development.html

AugustusMinimus

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Only the other day An Bord Pleanala turned down an objection from An Taisce for an expansion to the Savoy Hotel in Limerick.It is now going ahead.Hopefully they do the same here with The Prism job.

Story here.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/319096/jobs-boost-as-limericks-savoy-hotel-gets-go-ahead-for-8m-development.html

Really nice integration of old and new.

flo8s967qjh0nd

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I’m not sure exactly where you can stand on either side and what view you are blocking.

From the west you will be blocking views of the old warehouses which had Flor Griffin and Maher’s Outdoor. You may also miss the top of Merchsnts Quay and car park.

From the other side you will block views of the back of Jury’s Inn and the back of the Clarion Hotel.

An Taisce don’t care. It could be a view of a rubbish dump, they’d still object.

IMO you are actually creating an architectural feature. Do people in NY complain of lack of views?

To be fair it's not about blocking views of particular buildings. People get far too hung up on that and it's not what is being objected to here. It is about altering the overall view in that direction, not about blocking some rather average buildings.

AugustusMinimus

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

To be fair it's not about blocking views of particular buildings. People get far too hung up on that and it's not what is being objected to here. It is about altering the overall view in that direction, not about blocking some rather average buildings.

There has to be a view of something to block this development.

If you can block this building just because it blocks a view of anything, that’s basically a licence to block all development above 6 stories.

Is that what this country needs? Low density development everywhere, creating sprawl and not providing enough density for proper public transport. As Marno has said, Dublin has wasted nearly all of its brownfield sites in the City Centre through 6 story buildings. Let’s hope Cork doesn’t do the same.

JupiterKid

An Taisce has utterly abused its position as our unofficial national trust agency and literally object to anything and everything in this country.

They should be hugely reformed with forward, 21st thinking members or disbanded altogether. They are not fit for purpose any longer.

flo8s967qjh0nd

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

There has to be a view of something to block this development.

This building will be prominent in the skyline. It will change the skyline, for better or worse. I'm not saying this building should be turned down because of that but it's fair that people are free to argue the merits of it. What's so wrong with that? The planners will decide whether An Taisce (or me or you) like it or not. This demonisation of An Taisce because it objects to fairly average looking buildings has got to stop. It is not always the case that 'any building' is better than 'no building'.

SleetAndSnow

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

This building will be prominent in the skyline. It will change the skyline, for better or worse. I'm not saying this building should be turned down because of that but it's fair that people are free to argue the merits of it. What's so wrong with that? The planners will decide whether An Taisce (or me or you) like it or not. This demonisation of An Taisce because it objects to fairly average looking buildings has got to stop. It is not always the case that 'any building' is better than 'no building'.

But the Elysian is already there? It won’t drastically change it? If they object to every high rise building because it will change the skyline we will never have another one built, you have to start building them and change the skyline for them to fit in.

flo8s967qjh0nd

SleetAndSnow wrote: »

But the Elysian is already there? It won’t drastically change it? If they object to every high rise building because it will change the skyline we will never have another one built, you have to start building them and change the skyline for them to fit in.

And you think the Elysian wasn't objected to at the time? Just because it's there doesn't mean every other tall building is a great idea, regardless of its design. There seems to be a view that tall buildings are great and should be approved almost without due process. Tall buildings are fine but they've got to look good.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

This demonisation of An Taisce because it objects to fairly average looking buildings has got to stop. It is not always the case that 'any building' is better than 'no building'.

That's a complete hyperbole.
An Taisce are an independent body, that have way too influence, and tend to object to anything that gets up their nose.

AugustusMinimus

You say An Taisce is being demonised. Do you therefore agree with their methodology of appealing every single building in the country above 5 stories? They object literally every development going.

SleetAndSnow

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

And you think the Elysian wasn't objected to at the time? Just because it's there doesn't mean every other tall building is a great idea, regardless of its design. There seems to be a view that tall buildings are great and should be approved almost without due process. Tall buildings are fine but they've got to look good.

I’m not saying it wasn’t objected too at the time, I’m saying that the “ruin the sky setting” or whatever can’t be used because there is another (taller) building just across the way. And from the drawings it does look good and fits in. Objecting to every building above 5 stories is exactly what got Dublin to where it is today. Flat shoeboxes.

When’s the appeal decision meant to come out?

GavRedKing

Cork City has a great chance to build up, something that Dublin City seems to have curtailed or stifled, for some time.

It doesnt have to be New York, it never will be, but high rise buildings in the City will add to it.

As long as they're not concrete boxes from the 1970's, they will suit the skyline, IMO,

flo8s967qjh0nd

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

You say An Taisce is being demonised. Do you therefore agree with their methodology of appealing every single building in the country above 5 stories? They object literally every development going.

They don't though, do they?
I mean, people like to suggest that An Taisce appeal every development above x number of stories, but there is no evidence of that.

flo8s967qjh0nd

SleetAndSnow wrote: »

I’m not saying it wasn’t objected too at the time, I’m saying that the “ruin the sky setting” or whatever can’t be used because there is another (taller) building just across the way. And from the drawings it does look good and fits in. Objecting to every building above 5 stories is exactly what got Dublin to where it is today. Flat shoeboxes.

When’s the appeal decision meant to come out?

Ah I see. The old "we've ruined this now, we might as well build any old tat" argument
Like it or not, this building runs counter to the Cork City Development Plan and its plans for tall buildings in the city. That isn't An Taisce's fault. It's the fault of Cork City Council and those who drew up the development plan.

It's not an appeal. It's a planning application and An Taisce have (or are likely to) submit an observation on that application. Decision is due on the 10th July.

blindsider

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

Ah I see. The old "we've ruined this now, we might as well build any old tat" argument
Like it or not, this building runs counter to the Cork City Development Plan and its plans for tall buildings in the city. That isn't An Taisce's fault. It's the fault of Cork City Council and those who drew up the development plan.

It's not an appeal. It's a planning application and An Taisce have (or are likely to) submit an observation on that application. Decision is due on the 10th July.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-city-hall-begins-talks-with-skyscraper-developers-821146.html

Pat Ledwidge, deputy chief executive of Cork City Council, said that the local authority has had conversations with the Kerry duo behind the proposals in a bid to ensure that all the requirements are met.

“We have had — and are having — ongoing engagements about this plan,” he said.
“They are funding this plan and the information and planning relating to it. It is something we all want to see come to fruition but it has to meet certain criteria.”

Not sure where you're getting your info, but Mr Ledwidge seems to have a different idea....and this is for a 40-storey building!!!

mire

But An Taisce are absolutely entitled to make submissions on developments that might have an impact on the character and heritage of the city. I've heard this nonsense about An Taisce needing to be disbanded because they object to developments before, and it usually comes from cities and towns that are so desperate for development that anyone who objects to them are to be sidelined. Cork does need development - but not unopposed development, and it certainly doesn't need poor quality development. Also, this notion that An Taisce are responsible for preventing development is rubbish – if projects are being refused, that it is because projects are substandard and unacceptable. I disagree as a lot of what they might say in relation to new developments, but I am glad that there is a voice questioning and challenging planning decisions. There also seems to be a belief that Cork City council should grant permission for tall buildings just because they are tall, and there seems to be very little interest in examining the merits of the proposals as they stand. Cork City council should be granting planning permission for developments that are high quality and appropriate, and consistent with the statutory development plan - regardless of whether these are 3 storey or 33 storey.

An Taisce are factually correct in pointing out that the proposal as it stands is probably in conflict with provisions of the city development plan, despite what the director of services has said. This does not mean it needs to be refused, but if the city council are minded to grant permission for something that is a material contravention of their own development plan, they should have a good reason to do so.

I am unsure about the merits or otherwise of this development as I have not seen the full set of drawings. Some people seemed to be quite excited about the project based on one CGI image. In principle, a tall buildings on the site could be quite attractive and appropriate, but subject to a detailed assessment of its positive and negative impacts – which means including the perspectives of heritage interests who might have a reasonable concern about the scheme. Cork does need some taller buildings, but shouldn’t be behaving like a provincial town getting weak at the knees about the idea of some high-rise buildings. I think we should aim higher than this [pun intended]. I’d rather we got excited about high quality buildings [tall, short, long, wide]....

j8wk2feszrnpao

Nobody is claiming that An Taisce, or anyone else, doesn’t have the right to place an objection.
The issue with An Taisce is that; 1. they have a clear objective, and it’s always a no when these developments are suggested, and 2. they (as a private body) have too much influence.
An Taisce lodging an objection is just standard. They’re like the boy that cry’s wolf at this stage.