Cork developments

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.

marno21

Getting back to the topic of development rather than archaic groups trying to block development, the City Council have published a tender for ground investigation for upgrades to the city centre to Docklands road network. Good to see movement here and hopefully it will help open up land soon for much needed city residential development

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase.asp?PID=131315

AugustusMinimus

marno21 wrote: »

Getting back to the topic of development rather than archaic groups trying to block development, the City Council have published a tender for ground investigation for upgrades to the city centre to Docklands road network. Good to see movement here and hopefully it will help open up land soon for much needed city residential development

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase.asp?PID=131315

Marno, do you have any details of the realignments and a timeframe for them.

I believe the beginning of the Monaghan Road will be realigned. Will this work also involve creating new streets before full developments begin?

Apogee

snotboogie wrote: »

Student : Western Road/Muskerry Service Station (190 beds) has one crane and the Beamish site (413 beds) has two tower cranes erected. Copley Street (126 beds) should be finished by 2019 and Student Hub in UCC has one tower crane up.

Beamish site previously had approval for "417 bedrooms in 61 apartments in a mix of four to eight bedroom units." This has now been raised to 67 apartments.

Evening Echo wrote:

BAM has been granted planning permission for extra student apartments for the northern end of the former Beamish & Crawford brewery site.

Construction work is already well underway at the location where more than 400 student bedrooms are being built on the site referred to as Zone A.

The company had lodged fresh plans in February seeking permission to increase the number of apartments from 61 to 67 through the addition of a seventh floor on one of the four blocks and other changes to the existing permission.

https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Student-apartments-extended-at-Beamish-site-but-no-Event-Centre-6d49a76b-58c9-42fd-a7cb-13e2e47609e7-ds

BAM Application wrote:

the proposed development comprises amendments to the previously granted planning permission reference 16/37064 on the northern area (Zone A) of the overall former brewery site as follows: increase in provision of student accommodation from 61 to 67 no. apartments through (a) provision of an extra floor (seventh floor) to Blocks A2 & A3 and (b) the extension of the floor plates on the northern end of Block A3 at fifth and sixth floor level; Addition of 2 no. student accommodation bedrooms at mezzanine level of Block A3 and an associated change to the adjacent roof level over the ground floor retail space; Provision of additional glazed openings to Lambley's Lane in the ground floor retail unit in Block A3;Reduction in the floor area of the basement and the floor area of Block A1 on all levels. The application relates to a site which contains a protected structure. The former Beamish and Crawford Brewery South Main Street Cork

http://www.corkcity.ie/services/strategicplanningeconomicdevelopment/viewplanningapplications/planninglists/planninglists2018/planningapplicationsreceived2018/PlanningApplicationsReceived_160218.pdf

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Marno, do you have any details of the realignments and a timeframe for them.

I believe the beginning of the Monaghan Road will be realigned. Will this work also involve creating new streets before full developments begin?

I believe they are starting with this: https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Entrance-to-the-Cork-Docklands-set-for-a-6m-upgrade-4a3d4145-d5e9-4bed-9d56-fc63be55c194-ds but am open to correction.

The full amount of road work to be done in the Docklands is phenomenal and will likely require significant Governmental funding. The sooner it's released the better so we can get cracking on it.

AugustusMinimus

marno21 wrote: »

I believe they are starting with this: https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Entrance-to-the-Cork-Docklands-set-for-a-6m-upgrade-4a3d4145-d5e9-4bed-9d56-fc63be55c194-ds but am open to correction.

The full amount of road work to be done in the Docklands is phenomenal and will likely require significant Governmental funding. The sooner it's released the better so we can get cracking on it.

Interesting alignment from what I can see. 2 independent carriageways starting at DeValera bridge along Albert Quay with one allowing you to go along the Quay or Centre Park Road and the other allowing you to go up the Victoria Road only.

Access to Marina terrace from where the Roundabout is now will be cut off.

flo8s967qjh0nd

blindsider wrote: »

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!!!

Read the Cork City Development Plan. It's all there. The 40-storey building is not in planning and won't be submitted for planning until the development plan is amended (likely to be some time near the end of the year).

who_me

marno21 wrote: »

I believe they are starting with this: https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Entrance-to-the-Cork-Docklands-set-for-a-6m-upgrade-4a3d4145-d5e9-4bed-9d56-fc63be55c194-ds but am open to correction.

Hadn't seen that before, thanks. Something like this is badly needed, I don't think anyone wants to build a shiny new office/apartment building/store on a dusty, potholed road with dodgy footpaths.

Have to admit I can't really follow the graphic at the bottom of the page. Looks like there's a very wide pedestrianised area across Victoria Rd (the Eastern lane, at least) from West to East.

marno21 wrote: »

The full amount of road work to be done in the Docklands is phenomenal and will likely require significant Governmental funding. The sooner it's released the better so we can get cracking on it.

IIRC, the Centre Park Rd. supposedly needs to be raised in the region of 3 metres, which seems a bit of a mammoth undertaking given the length of it and (presumably) a wide area to either side will need to be raised as well.

snotboogie

Camilla Better Muffler wrote: »

Read the Cork City Development Plan. It's all there. The 40-storey building is not in planning and won't be submitted for planning until the development plan is amended (likely to be some time near the end of the year).

I thought the Docklands development plan was due this month?
https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/1bn-Cork-docklands-project-to-move-forward-in-2018-95635ecc-ebaa-477c-9f83-48f23f7b8cff-ds

marno21

Port of Cork getting the ball rolling on the redevelopment of Tivoli when the container operation moves to Ringaskiddy

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/thousands-of-homes-set-to-be-built-on-cork-dock-site-472383.html

Apogee

Irish Times wrote:

A superbly located development site just off the N40 South Ring Road and 5.5km from Cork city centre is expected to attract considerable interest in the construction industry when it goes for sale later this week.Joint agents Savills and Agar Commercial Consultants are to invite offers in excess of €6 million for the 6.43 hectares (15.9 acres) at Bishopstown, which are zoned as an “existing built-up area” and most suitable for mixed-use, office, residential or hotel development.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/development-site-outside-cork-city-on-sale-for-more-than-6m-1.3542905

BUNK1982

Apogee wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/development-site-outside-cork-city-on-sale-for-more-than-6m-1.3542905

Great - right next to SRR :rolleyes:

AugustusMinimus

BUNK1982 wrote: »

Great - right next to SRR :rolleyes:

Not sure of your point. The site will have no direct access to the N40.

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Not sure of your point. The site will have no direct access to the N40.

I believe this development ties in with a council plan to "upgrade" the N71 in that area and install a roundabout on the N71.

I am surprised this has been permitted by TII if approved as the N71 is more than 3 times over capacity in that area without adding to the mess.

AugustusMinimus

marno21 wrote: »

I believe this development ties in with a council plan to "upgrade" the N71 in that area and install a roundabout on the N71.

I am surprised this has been permitted by TII if approved as the N71 is more than 3 times over capacity in that area without adding to the mess.

Planting a roundsbout has to tie in with suggestions that TII May look to setting the Bishopstown to Ballinhassig section of the N71 in the long term.

Access for development on both sides of the N71 is horrible st present.

snotboogie

Sullivans Quay Development gets go ahead

AugustusMinimus

A real pity. This development will block views of surrounding buildings when you are up close to this building.

questionmark?

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

A real pity. This development will block views of surrounding buildings when you are up close to this building.

You should apply for a job with An Taisce. They called this excessive in height and scale.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Apogee

snotboogie wrote: »

Sullivans Quay Development gets go ahead

Some of the planning inspector's comments are interesting in light of earlier discussion of An Taisce and their objection against 'The Prism'.

Irish Examiner wrote:

An Taisce’s appeal claimed the BAM development was “excessive in height and scale” for the city centre location, would impact on important heritage features locally, and on several protected views. In his report, inspector Kevin Moore said a similar scheme had been permitted in 2006 and many of the concerns in the current appeals had been dealt with before.

He noted the increased tower height, but said: “If anything, the increased height of the proposed tower strengthens the visual impact and better qualifies the closure of the vista from Grand Parade.” In relation to An Taisce’s concerns about the scheme’s impact on heritage and architecture, he said: “The notion that new development should ultimately genuflect to protected structures within a vibrant city centre quarter that requires to evolve cannot reasonably by accepted in this instance.”

D'Agger

Nail on head stuff from Moore there - An Taisce are effectively asking new developments to genuflect to older, protected buildings.

By all means, protect buildings of architectural importance and preserve their grandeur, but to suggest that new buildings will impact on the views of these buildings is absurd.