Cork developments

The ONLY thing, which I would have against such developments, is that they still focus on office space in the city without the apartments needed to populate such office space.

No point having a 44 floor tower with people unable to live nearby (or afford the houses on the public transport routes)

Anteayer

If I were looking at that part of the docklands from a green point of view, the key concerns I would have would be cleaning up the former industrial wasteland that is all around the Marina.

The power plant is shut down and the regulator (CRU) has basically delisted as a generator, so it's not coming back. That site should be vacated and remediated. Also getting rid of that huge ugly pylon that crosses the port would be a massive improvement form a visual point of view.
(BTW: I don't buy the nonsense about EM fields, I just think the structure's hideous.)

I would be concerned someone will try to list that building as somehow significant. The old 50s brick structure might be usable as something else, but the stacks and the gas turbine and all of that gear should be demolished and restored to landscaping.

In my opinion that whole era around the old docklands is a mess. All that former industrial stuff that's being used as light industry / wear housing around there is a total misuse of land and is turning what should be an amenity and desirable area into a bit of a mess. Also getting the Tivoli docks moved to Ringaskiddy opens up a whole new world down there.

From an environmental point of view both in terms of opening up more sustainable living and working space in the city itself and also removing sources of local pollution from a high density area and opening up amenities, all of those projects make absolute sense.

marno21

Deleted User wrote: »

The ONLY thing, which I would have against such development, is that they still focus on office space in the city without the apartments needed to populate such office space.

No point having a 44 floor tower with people unable to live nearby (or afford the houses on the public transport routes)

I agree here. The Cork on the Rise supplement had one quote that the last apartment block completed in the city was the Elysian. There really needs to be a push on the residential element.

Cough cough.. docklands LAP, Tivoli Docks LAP, CMATS............

Anteayer

If we don't create the density of living space to go with the office space, it will just turn into an inward commuting and parking issue, in a city that has basically already got totally inadequate public transport.
It will just mean yet more traffic on the already choked road network.

fonecrusher1

I've read a few articles stating the Port of Cork tower would comprise both office and apartment space, and a hotel.

Its not going to be office space only.

Brussels Sprout

marno21 wrote: »

As per Limerick74 in Infrastructure, CMATS breakfast in the Cork International Hotel on May 24th

https://chamber.corkchamber.ie/events/details/may-business-breakfast-2019-featuring-anne-graham-ceo-national-transport-authority-20822

About time.

Weird to do it on the day of the local elections. Suspicious in fact, as it'll get far less media coverage.

hans aus dtschl

Anteayer wrote: »

If I were looking at that part of the docklands from a green point of view, the key concerns I would have would be cleaning up the former industrial wasteland that is all around the Marina.

The power plant is shut down and the regulator (CRU) has basically delisted as a generator, so it's not coming back. That site should be vacated and remediated. Also getting rid of that huge ugly pylon that crosses the port would be a massive improvement form a visual point of view.
(BTW: I don't buy the nonsense about EM fields, I just think the structure's hideous.)

I would be concerned someone will try to list that building as somehow significant. The old 50s brick structure might be usable as something else, but the stacks and the gas turbine and all of that gear should be demolished and restored to landscaping.

The turbine hall(s) could and should be made into events / exhibition hall(s).

snotboogie

Deleted User wrote: »

The ONLY thing, which I would have against such development, is that they still focus on office space in the city without the apartments needed to populate such office space.

No point having a 44 floor tower with people unable to live nearby (or afford the houses on the public transport routes)

In the last press statement in the Examiner, Tower Holdings only mentioned hotel space in the tower. There seems to be a slowdown in the demand for office space in the city center so I wouldn't be surprised to see no office space in the tower. I also heard something about a precedent being set by The Prism that would help the Docklands Tower in planning, so I would imagine ABP's extensive 6 month+ processing time is the major hold up.

snotboogie

snotboogie wrote: »

In the last press statement in the Examiner, Tower Holdings only mentioned hotel space in the tower. There seems to be a slowdown in the demand for office space in the city center so I wouldn't be surprised to see no office space in the tower. I also heard something about a precedent being set by The Prism that would help the Docklands Tower in planning, so I would imagine ABP's extensive 6 month+ processing time is the major hold up.

I was going by this old thing which mentioned that they would consider apartments

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/skys-no-limit-for-new-cork-as-40-storey-towerproposed-for-port-site-448208.html

Fully accept that it is 2 years old, it was just the one that was stuck in my head.

But I was not referring to that development, in particular. Just that there is not home building in the city, in general.
CMATS is a joke; FG delaying it until the local elections show what they really think of the city. They are willing to risk growth/investment to buy a couple of council seats. If that had been released on time we would already see planning for several apartment complexes (IMHO), once the developers know where the population points will be.

snotboogie

Deleted User wrote: »

I was going by this old thing which mentioned that they would consider apartments

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/skys-no-limit-for-new-cork-as-40-storey-towerproposed-for-port-site-448208.html

Fully accept that it is 2 years old, it was just the one that was stuck in my head.

But I was not referring to that development, in particular. Just that there is not home building in the city, in general.
CMATS is a joke; FG delaying it until the local elections show what they really think of the city. They are willing to risk growth/investment to buy a couple of council seats. If that had been released on time we would already see planning for several apartment complexes (IMHO), once the developers know where the population points will be.

Given its being announced on the day of the elections it may be that FG fear the NIMBY's

fonecrusher1

Never heard of CMATS. Is it the deciding body for developments in Cork or something? Would more news on the Port of Cork tower be forthcoming?

fonecrusher1

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Never heard of CMATS. Is it the deciding body for developments in Cork or something? Would more news on the Port of Cork tower be forthcoming?

Here ya go: Cork Metro Area Transport Strategy

https://www.google.com/search?q=cork+metropolitan+area+transport+strategy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE827IE827&oq=cork+metropolitian+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.7080j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


It lays out the transport options and plans for the city, allowing developers to focus apartment/office building in areas catered to by public transport

fonecrusher1

Deleted User wrote: »

Here ya go: Cork Metro Area Transport Strategy

https://www.google.com/search?q=cork+metropolitan+area+transport+strategy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE827IE827&oq=cork+metropolitian+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.7080j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


It lays out the transport options and plans for the city, allowing developers to focus apartment/office building in areas catered to by public transport

So basically a lot of the big developers (including Port of cork tower) would be waiting on this before progressing?

fonecrusher1

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

So basically a lot of the big developers (including Port of cork tower) would be waiting on this before progressing?

That would be my guess (that and being held back by ABP and Taisce)

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

I was going by this old thing which mentioned that they would consider apartments

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/skys-no-limit-for-new-cork-as-40-storey-towerproposed-for-port-site-448208.html

Fully accept that it is 2 years old, it was just the one that was stuck in my head.

But I was not referring to that development, in particular. Just that there is not home building in the city, in general.
CMATS is a joke; FG delaying it until the local elections show what they really think of the city. They are willing to risk growth/investment to buy a couple of council seats. If that had been released on time we would already see planning for several apartment complexes (IMHO), once the developers know where the population points will be.

CMATS has actually been completed for a long time. The delay is because Cork based politicians want the North Ring Road to be included, and it will be, if only in an aspirational sense.

marno21

cgcsb wrote: »

CMATS has actually been completed for a long time. The delay is because Cork based politicians want the North Ring Road to be included, and it will be, if only in an aspirational sense.

They would be much better banging the door of Simon Coveney's office and asking why Galway is getting a €600m North Ring Road and Limerick is getting a €150m one.

rebs23

Can anyone tell me why there is so little public infrastructure investment in Cork across all sectors? When was the last major fully funded public project in Cork? Only for all the private sector investment the place would be f...ed.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

CMATS has actually been completed for a long time. The delay is because Cork based politicians want the North Ring Road to be included, and it will be, if only in an aspirational sense.

Yeah, but it's release date has been timed to coincide with elections (as snotboogie highlights, to prevent criticism)

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, but it's release date has been timed to coincide with elections (as snotboogie highlights, to prevent criticism)

Possibly. Local finegaelers wanted the CNRR project included, because they're culchies and they like bypasses, people vote for bypasses etc. The NTA resisted this, hence the long delay. The exact date is probably due to elections but the delay thus far is due to culchie-itus.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

Possibly. Local finegaelers wanted the CNRR project included, because they're culchies and they like bypasses, people vote for bypasses etc. The NTA resisted this, hence the long delay. The exact date is probably due to elections but the delay thus far is due to culchie-itus.

CNRR is wanted by much more than rural politicians.

Having THAT much traffic cutting off at Watergrasshill, across Sarsfield, Upper Glanmire, to Dublin hill is a nightmare. Also loads westbound traffic to the Tunnel and causes huge problems for traffic going to Mallow/Limerick, pushing them to Mayfield ring road

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

CNRR is wanted by much more than rural politicians.

Having THAT much traffic cutting off at Watergrasshill, across Sarsfield, Upper Glanmire, to Dublin hill is a nightmare. Also loads westbound traffic to the Tunnel and causes huge problems for traffic going to Mallow/Limerick, pushing them to Mayfield ring road

The vast bulk of trips start and end within the urban area and the vast bulk of those are journeys are under 10km long, CMATS will push the most of those journeys onto trams buses and bicycles. Demand management and closing junctions on the N40 will restore it to it's original function as a national road for long distance trips.

Overall CMATS will reduce car journeys rather than add more roads. Expect there to be some lip service to CNRR but until the M20 has some shovels in the ground, there won't be any need.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

The vast bulk of trips start and end within the urban area and the vast bulk of those are journeys are under 10km long, CMATS will push the most of those journeys onto trams buses and bicycles. Demand management and closing junctions on the N40 will restore it to it's original function as a national road for long distance trips.

Overall CMATS will reduce car journeys rather than add more roads. Expect there to be some lip service to CNRR but until the M20 has some shovels in the ground, there won't be any need.

As long as those long trips are on the south side of the port tunnel.

CMATS will do nothing for articulated traffic moving through Mayfield/Blackpool to Mallow-beyond.
I also do not think that it will take that much domestic traffic off the current NRR. Great public transport and strategic developmentally important roads are not mutually exclusive.
The NRR is required for business to grow in the new northern boundaries of the city, especially with heavy traffic going to pour out of Ringaskiddy (M28) heading to the north city - further.


So I can understand why politicians want it included in CMATS. If it is not there then it becomes another "Next year" project

marno21

cgcsb wrote: »

The vast bulk of trips start and end within the urban area and the vast bulk of those are journeys are under 10km long, CMATS will push the most of those journeys onto trams buses and bicycles. Demand management and closing junctions on the N40 will restore it to it's original function as a national road for long distance trips.

Overall CMATS will reduce car journeys rather than add more roads. Expect there to be some lip service to CNRR but until the M20 has some shovels in the ground, there won't be any need.

This is the core issue. If the M40 NRR is delayed til post M20, you will have years of "why the **** did we wait until after the M20 opens to start the North Ring?"

The North Ring should be part of the M20 scheme. Anything else is a **** up.

cgcsb

Yes CMATS will do lots for truck movements, by removing a lot of the cars out of their way. CMATS will be quite forceful in it's push for modal shift. Expect a massive reduction in car journeys.

cgcsb

marno21 wrote: »

This is the core issue. If the M40 NRR is delayed til post M20, you will have years of "why the **** did we wait until after the M20 opens to start the North Ring?"

The North Ring should be part of the M20 scheme. Anything else is a **** up.

Agreed it should be in place at the same time as the M20, but most likely won't be. It's not central to CMATS though, a different project altogether.

marno21

cgcsb wrote: »

Yes CMATS will do lots for truck movements, by removing a lot of the cars out of their way. CMATS will be quite forceful in it's push for modal shift. Expect a massive reduction in car journeys.

The bigger issue is trucks running through residential areas such as Mayfield rather than traffic congestion blocking trucks.

cgcsb wrote: »

Agreed it should be in place at the same time as the M20, but most likely won't be. It's not central to CMATS though, a different project altogether.

Agreed there. It shouldn't even need CMATS, the need is obvious without it requiring part of a broader transport strategy. Funny how the need was obvious 10-20 years ago but not so much now

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

Agreed there. It shouldn't even need CMATS, the need is obvious without it requiring part of a broader transport strategy. Funny how the need was obvious 10-20 years ago but not so much now

It shouldn't but without it will it always be on the back burner.

Although you could argue that CMATS needs it, to remove so much traffic from Dunkettle. Traffic that is not going into the city and public transport will not facilitate, but blocks up the main artery into the city.

snotboogie

There is work being done on the mound of rubble on Sullivan's Quay. While it is an eyesore and possible health risk it may be bad news for the Events Centre as it was planned for use on site there.

kub

snotboogie wrote: »

There is work being done on the mound of rubble on Sullivan's Quay. While it is an eyesore and possible health risk it may be bad news for the Events Centre as it was planned for use on site there.

Bam may need another car park in the city centre now.

Just curious, how would a mound of stones pose a health risk?
Is it in case some thugs throw them at people?

who_me

kub wrote: »

Bam may need another car park in the city centre now.

Just curious, how would a mound of stones pose a health risk?
Is it in case some thugs throw them at people?

I'm guessing: dust being blown off it. I'd assume the building was free of (or cleared of) any asbestos or anything like that, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the dust couldn't be very harmful. It's a bit of a hot topic at the moment - how air quality/pollution can cause strokes / cancer / heart issues.