Cork developments

who_me

snotboogie wrote: »

Work to start later this year on 165-bed Cork city centre hotel

2020 could be a massive year for Cork

The Council made €1m profit on the site? Nice to see some good (deserved) press for a change.

who_me

Also, the Council are initiating proceedings against BAM for the non-clearance of the Sullivan's Quay site.

(Which, I believe, basically means they'll send a second, strongly-worded letter, and then consider legal action).

cantalach

who_me wrote: »

Also, the Council are initiating proceedings against BAM for the non-clearance of the Sullivan's Quay site.

(Which, I believe, basically means they'll send a second, strongly-worded letter, and then consider legal action).

It's pathetic how slowly local authorities move in these situations. BAM was given until mid-March to rectify. But it's somehow only now - almost three months after that deadline - that they actually even start that process. What in the Hell were they waiting for?

Anteayer

cantalach wrote: »

It's pathetic how slowly local authorities move in these situations. BAM was given until mid-March to rectify. But it's somehow only now - almost three months after that deadline - that they actually even start that process. What in the Hell were they waiting for?

I would guess that they were trying to informally move them along first as taking legal proceedings is potentially expensive, even where successful. They don't spend public money where they don't have to.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Anteayer wrote: »

They don't spend public money where they don't have to.

A rock solid contract would eliminate legal costs. The wastage on legal fees for the event center being a prime example.

snotboogie

cantalach wrote: »

It's pathetic how slowly local authorities move in these situations. BAM was given until mid-March to rectify. But it's somehow only now - almost three months after that deadline - that they actually even start that process. What in the Hell were they waiting for?

Bam are one of only 3 companies who build anything in Cork. The reason the council are dragging their feet is because Cork needs BAM more than BAM needs Cork. Also BAM are not moving on the rubble because they plan to use it as infill in the events centre site. It’s all well and good saying we should throw the book at them but it would massively curtail investment and development in the city at an absolutely crucial juncture. It is what it is.

Apogee

Apogee wrote: »

Photos/plans are online now.

Echo wrote:

Twin office buildings, six storeys and seven storeys in height, are planned for Penrose Quay adjacent to the under-construction Penrose Dock development.

However, planners in City Hall have now asked the developers to significantly reduce the 72 planned basement parking spaces. They noted that the plans submitted "clearly demonstrates that the proposed development site benefits from a very high level of accessibility by public transport, by virtue of its city centre location and an extensive cycle network." The planners have also asked for the seven-storey building to be reduced by one storey to bring it in line with the neighbouring, under construction, Penrose Dock development.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cork-office-developer-told-to-cut-the-number-of-car-parking-spaces-1aa433ad-a6af-48f9-ab8f-cf7bd03db51c-ds

cantalach

snotboogie wrote: »

Bam are one of only 3 companies who build anything in Cork. The reason the council are dragging their feet is because Cork needs BAM more than BAM needs Cork. Also BAM are not moving on the rubble because they plan to use it as infill in the events centre site. It’s all well and good saying we should throw the book at them but it would massively curtail investment and development in the city at an absolutely crucial juncture. It is what it is.

Summary: we should let powerful companies flout the law because they do useful things for us. You really think that!?

snotboogie

cantalach wrote: »

Summary: we should let powerful companies flout the law because they do useful things for us. You really think that!?

No, it's not that simple. I just explained that.

hans aus dtschl

Apogee wrote: »

However, planners in City Hall have now asked the developers to significantly reduce the 72 planned basement parking spaces. They noted that the plans submitted "clearly demonstrates that the proposed development site benefits from a very high level of accessibility by public transport, by virtue of its city centre location and an extensive cycle network."

Lol, I got a chuckle out of that one.

This plan by City Hall is coming from the right place. But unless/until there's safe cycle routes from the suburbs to town, virtually nobody's going to use the bike for their commute, it's going to stay at around 3-5% modal share.

I suspect the result of this one is that the train station car park will get very full very fast.

cgcsb

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Lol, I got a chuckle out of that one.

This plan by City Hall is coming from the right place. But unless/until there's safe cycle routes from the suburbs to town, virtually nobody's going to use the bike for their commute, it's going to stay at around 3-5% modal share.

I suspect the result of this one is that the train station car park will get very full very fast.

basically every city in the world with a good cycle network started in the centre and worked it's way out, except for Dublin and Galway of course, mounds of cycle lanes in the burbs, due to land availability and none in the centre due to not wanting to upset car drivers by removing space from them. It's a failed policy, every consultant worth their salt will tell you start at the centre and work outwards so that you maximize the earlier benefits.

That lesson being learned, we're now only getting the Liffey cycle way in Dublin, horribly under designed, but something none the less.

Apogee

Apogee wrote: »

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cork-office-developer-told-to-cut-the-number-of-car-parking-spaces-1aa433ad-a6af-48f9-ab8f-cf7bd03db51c-ds

Reduce by one floor, they be increasing height not reducing it. Time to go higher and may efficient use of the city centre land

chalkitdown1

Deleted User wrote: »

Reduce by one floor, they be increasing height not reducing it. Time to go higher and may efficient use of the city centre land

You can't be ruining the view of the grey sky for people up the hill, there.

72 spaces in a 1,000 person building is not exactly excessive. That would cover people who are NOT served by public transport or cycle lanes.
It would also cover shift workers, depending on the companies going in there.

No point mentioning the LUAS in the article as that may or may not happen in the next 25 years.

kub

Lip service in action here by the City Council, what are the alternatives for people not living in suburbia?

It would be more in Cork City Councils interest now to sit down with NTA / IrishRail / Bus Eireann and sort out Park and Ride sites at places like Dunkettle on the Eastern Rail line and the Blarney area on the Northern line.

Then they can start dictating about parking spaces in private developments, when the clowns can offer real alternatives.

Or perhaps they might look at themselves and shut down their won staff multi storey car park, again that would be a fine example of showing the way, I have my doubts we will ever see that ever happen though.

They might suggest the existing P&R route in Blackash, but people would want to bring their rain gear in this country for the walk from that 213 service.

cgcsb

kub wrote: »

They might suggest the existing P&R route in Blackash, but people would want to bring their rain gear in this country for the walk from that 213 service.

Oh no, rain, you'd swear we couldn't do much of anything at all in this country before the motorcar because of 'the rain'.
Babyboomers can be such snowflakes sometimes.

kub

cgcsb wrote: »

Oh no, rain, you'd swear we couldn't do much of anything at all in this country before the motorcar because of 'the rain'.
Babyboomers can be such snowflakes sometimes.

Well i can assure you I am far from a Babyboomer and most certainly not a snowflake.


All I am doing is presenting the moans of those that are used to air conditioned offices, desk chairs at the right height, the water dispenser being too warm.......
I trust you get where I am going here.

who_me

snotboogie wrote: »

Bam are one of only 3 companies who build anything in Cork. The reason the council are dragging their feet is because Cork needs BAM more than BAM needs Cork. Also BAM are not moving on the rubble because they plan to use it as infill in the events centre site. It’s all well and good saying we should throw the book at them but it would massively curtail investment and development in the city at an absolutely crucial juncture. It is what it is.

While it's wonderful to have a positive and cooperative relationship with private developers, it's also important not to be a doormat. If we take a "we can't afford to hold you to account on anything", then that will, over time, inevitably be abused. Cost overruns. Not meeting planning specifications. Not meeting environmental standards.

If I ran a development firm and I knew that a client (which was a public body) was going to be receptive to cost-overruns, or oversights, or unexpected changes, then there's no way in hell that wouldn't impact how that project is delivered.

It has to be said too, it's not just an aesthetic issue, air/dust pollution is very much a health issue, contributing to respiratory and cardiac issues, and cancer.

kub

kub wrote: »

Well i can assure you I am far from a Babyboomer and most certainly not a snowflake.


All I am doing is presenting the moans of those that are used to air conditioned offices, desk chairs at the right height, the water dispenser being too warm.......
I trust you get where I am going here.

You mean mid 20s who have honours Bachelors degrees as a minimum, will never earn as much as those in their 40s, will never afford a "nice" house, will be relatively poorer than the previous generation no matter what?

And, most importantly for this thread, have been forced to live outside the city and away from the much heralded public transport?

Yeah they have had it easy

hans aus dtschl

cgcsb wrote: »

basically every city in the world with a good cycle network started in the centre and worked it's way out, except for Dublin and Galway of course, mounds of cycle lanes in the burbs, due to land availability and none in the centre due to not wanting to upset car drivers by removing space from them. It's a failed policy, every consultant worth their salt will tell you start at the centre and work outwards so that you maximize the earlier benefits.

That lesson being learned, we're now only getting the Liffey cycle way in Dublin, horribly under designed, but something none the less.

I'm 100% in favour of cycling, I cycle commute myself.

But the primary route to this development from the east (Tivoli) was turned into a cyclist death trap and two months later the same council want to reduce car parking spaces in the hope that more people will cycle. You can't have it both ways.

Or as kub says: free multi-storey car park for council employees and not even a paid car park for the private developments. Again, they want to have it both ways.

The council really need to either sh1t or get off the pot on the sustainable transport thing: they either need to remove the useless lads doing road design or they need to upskill them. And by upskill, I would suggest they start by getting them to try using their own appalling death-trap designs. Similarly they either need to get their own staff to use sustainable transport or shut up about the rest of us.

cgcsb

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

But the primary route to this development from the east (Tivoli) was turned into a cyclist death trap

I'm curious what exactly you're referring to here? haven't been in Cork for a while.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

and two months later the same council want to reduce car parking spaces in the hope that more people will cycle. You can't have it both ways.

The thing about buildings is, they don't just exist in the hear and now, they tend to last for decades, or even centuries. Buildings approved now, should match with the vision for the future. In the 60s that vision was an immature one based limitless oil, and never ending growth. Thankfully we've moved past that. The reality is, the more parking you provide, the more cars you attract.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Or as kub says: free multi-storey car park for council employees and not even a paid car park for the private developments. Again, they want to have it both ways.

What year was the car park built for the council employees?

I think you're just looking at this the wrong way. You shouldn't view yourself/the citizenry as errant teenagers being told off by a hypocritical adult(the council). Rather you should be thinking of what all of society should do to improve things.

Councils are generally anti-progress old men's clubs anyway, most of their powers have been handed over to the civil service because they're so useless.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

The council really need to either sh1t or get off the pot on the sustainable transport thing: they either need to remove the useless lads doing road design or they need to upskill them. And by upskill, I would suggest they start by getting them to try using their own appalling death-trap designs. Similarly they either need to get their own staff to use sustainable transport or shut up about the rest of us.

Or you could demand that your councilors follow sustainable policies, and remind them of such at election time. One thing is for sure, adding more car parking is counter productive.

Buildings have to be built for the "now" not thinking about tenants 50 years in the future.
Office builders need to attract tenants now and part of that is a certain level of parking. A <1:10 parking ratio is not excessive in the slightest

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

Buildings have to be built for the "now" not thinking about tenants 50 years in the future.
Office builders need to attract tenants now and part of that is a certain level of parking. A <1:10 parking ratio is not excessive in the slightest

That's what the developer wants, not what society needs.

hans aus dtschl

cgcsb wrote: »

I'm curious what exactly you're referring to here? haven't been in Cork for a while.

The design is available here:
https://www.dunkettle.ie/gallery-silversprings

Very bad design westbound, deathtrap eastbound.

Westbound: Old design saw all users (motor+cycle) at 50kmh merge into a single lane at the end of the dual carriageway and a split for Mayfield / town. New design sees roads widened, increased speeds, cyclists swept left using a line of paint through a large pool of standing water, onto a footpath with two crossings with tactile pavement at road surface level and a third crossing of the Silversprings slip ramp, again with tactile pavement at road level and an increased speed limit.

Eastbound: Previous design saw all users on one lane, with a left-turn lane beginning for Mayfield and a traffic island at Silversprings protecting the 50kmh Mayfield merge lane.
New design sees two widened lanes at increased 60kmh limits, the traffic island has been enlarged to prevent left-lane traffic from proceeding straight and Mayfield merge traffic is at an increased speed limit too.

For both directions, the safe route for bikes is to cross the lane of traffic, into the right-hand-lane, all at an increased speed limit of 60kmh.

Sorry, I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I'm completely fed up with the "we really want people to cycle" tokenism from the councils. It's the equivalent of "some of my best friends are from that ethnic minority".

hans aus dtschl

cgcsb wrote: »

What year was the car park built for the council employees?

That's irrelevant to me: I find it more important to ask "what year is it free for council employees?" 2019.

cgcsb wrote: »

I think you're just looking at this the wrong way. You shouldn't view yourself/the citizenry as errant teenagers being told off by a hypocritical adult(the council). Rather you should be thinking of what all of society should do to improve things.

Or you could demand that your councilors follow sustainable policies, and remind them of such at election time. One thing is for sure, adding more car parking is counter productive.

I don't view myself as an errant teenager being told off: I see myself as someone who's fed up with spending time reviewing designs, directly contacting council engineers and council planning teams and explaining why their designs aren't going to work and how they can be easily amended during part 8 planning stages, before seeing same designs go to the build stage unchanged, and nobody using the completed designs at the end.
And I'm fed up with then reading "we really wish more people would use that crappy unusable infrastructure, so we're going to use a bit of stick".

I also contact councillors before, during and after election time FWIW. And you're right about the old boys club.

Treviso

For me to even consider cycling to work, they would need to create cycle lanes like the ones on pope quays & Anglesea St/Parnell place - separated to the road by parked vehicles. Even then, you still in danger of pedestrians crossing those lanes and cars parking there with hazards on. I can't see how they are going to do it though - sorry I don't see them making an effort to install them. If they were serious about the car ban on Patricks Street, they should install these cycle lanes there and link that road up to other cycle lanes

cgcsb

If you want to see a murder in the making in the road design world, I suggest you check this doozey out in Dublin

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Liffey_Cycle_Route_Summary_Document.pdf

hans aus dtschl

cgcsb wrote: »

If you want to see a murder in the making in the road design world, I suggest you check this doozey out in Dublin

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Liffey_Cycle_Route_Summary_Document.pdf

Plenty paint on the ground there: nothing could possibly go wrong!
That's up there with the gems on the Douglas road.

I'll stop derailing the thread now: I just wanted to point out that the parking space directive from the council was the usual tokenism.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

That's what the developer wants, not what society needs.

The developer needs to make a profit.
If society needs it then let society build the office (or better yet the transport infrastructure)

MrDerp

Re parking at Penrose Quay it’s worth noting that:
1. The main footprint of this proposed building is already a car park, so any net increase in spaces is minimal
2. The train station car parks will be jammed from 7.30 and unavailable to rail travelers once this area has been built up.

I’m pro public transport but it’s naive to pretend people won’t drive because of the lack of spaces. Every new building should have some limited underground parking and not pretend like it won’t push the pressure elsewhere.

There’ll be no parking for the 8am train, or any thereafter as it is