Cork developments

snotboogie · 19-06-2018 2:26pm

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 · 22-06-2018 9:31pm

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 · 22-06-2018 9:35pm

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 · 22-06-2018 10:20pm

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 · 22-06-2018 10:39pm

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 · 22-06-2018 10:42pm

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 · 22-06-2018 10:44pm

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 · 22-06-2018 10:45pm

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 · 22-06-2018 10:46pm

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 · 22-06-2018 10:57pm

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 · 22-06-2018 11:28pm

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 · 24-06-2018 12:42am

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 · 24-06-2018 12:44am

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 · 24-06-2018 8:31am

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 · 24-06-2018 8:43am

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 · 24-06-2018 10:20am

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 · 24-06-2018 10:24am

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 · 24-06-2018 11:43am

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 · 24-06-2018 12:36pm

snotboogie wrote: »

Which big development?

277 houses, planning was granted recently enough.

snotboogie · 24-06-2018 12:43pm

Mushy wrote: »

277 houses, planning was granted recently enough.

Ah right, nice one

AugustusMinimus · 24-06-2018 12:48pm

Mushy wrote: »

277 houses, planning was granted recently enough.

What’s the grounds for objection? Insufficient access?

Mushy · 24-06-2018 1:18pm

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 · 24-06-2018 5:07pm

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 · 24-06-2018 7:26pm

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 · 24-06-2018 7:29pm

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 · 24-06-2018 8:29pm

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 · 24-06-2018 8:33pm

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 · 25-06-2018 9:03am

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 · 25-06-2018 1:28pm

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 · 25-06-2018 1:32pm

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.

Cork developments

Comments