Cork developments

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

True.
But many don't/won't.
And this group will, hopefully, be increasing all the time.
However, if we keep providing parking for workers, people will continue to drive. People love their cars.

They do indeed love them but 72 spaces in a development for 1000 needs trimming?
Given our abysmal public transport, that is the kind of thinking that drives companies out to the outer city business parks.

We need them in the city centre to drive regeneration of local support business and develop a lived in city centre.

hans aus dtschl

Deleted User wrote: »

They do indeed love them but 72 spaces in a development for 1000 needs trimming?
Given our abysmal public transport, that is the kind of thinking that drives companies out to the outer city business parks.

We need them in the city centre to drive regeneration of local support business and develop a lived in city centre.

For me, that's not even the biggest issue: there must be a few hundred cheap parking spaces right next door to this development. These are intended to encourage people to use the train.

Secondly the council's "oh we're encouraging people to cycle" schtick is extremely watery. Yeah go look at Alfred Street most of every day, lads.

That can be resolved easily enough with validated parking using the train ticket no?

hans aus dtschl

Deleted User wrote: »

That can be resolved easily enough with validated parking using the train ticket no?

What about Leap users? You're getting into the whole "are you tagged in or out" thing, and I'm not sure quite how capable the servers will be in dealing with this.

questionmark?

Secondly the council's "oh we're encouraging people to cycle" schtick is extremely watery. Yeah go look at Alfred Street most of every day, lads.

Saw the Guards handing out tickets there on Sunday. Say they made their months quota with all the illegally parked cars.

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

They do indeed love them but 72 spaces in a development for 1000 needs trimming?
Given our abysmal public transport, that is the kind of thinking that drives companies out to the outer city business parks.

We need them in the city centre to drive regeneration of local support business and develop a lived in city centre.

But the reality is that we're actually seeing companies moving into the city from outer city business parks e.g. clearstream. The new city centre office developments have nowhere near enough spaces for everyone and there's plenty of activity. I work in a city centre office of c.200 people with zero parking spaces and we all manage to make our way into work every day.

hans aus dtschl

questionmark? wrote: »

Saw the Guards handing out tickets there on Sunday. Say they made their months quota with all the illegally parked cars.

I'm even delighted to hear that much is being done.

Sadly in the same month that city council voted against physical protection for cycle lanes though, "because they don't need protection".

leahyl

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I'm even delighted to hear that much is being done.

Sadly in the same month that city council voted against physical protection for cycle lanes though, "because they don't need protection".

It's unfortuante now though that there is barely any parking in that area in the evenings unless you pay. I have stopped going to yoga down there cos it's so difficult to find a space now that isn't on the cycle lane. I'm not gonna pay 2e for parking in the carpark when I've already spent a tenner on a class. It's also not practical or reliable to get a bus down there - I'd have to add another half hour onto my journey just to make sure I get there on time. As another poster said, for some journeys a car is just needed.

hans aus dtschl

leahyl wrote: »

It's unfortuante now though that there is barely any parking in that area in the evenings unless you pay. I have stopped going to yoga down there cos it's so difficult to find a space now that isn't on the cycle lane. I'm not gonna pay 2e for parking in the carpark when I've already spent a tenner on a class. It's also not practical or reliable to get a bus down there - I'd have to add another half hour onto my journey just to make sure I get there on time. As another poster said, for some journeys a car is just needed.

I'm not sure if you're being serious?

I'll be honest with you here, I don't think that your stated circumstances above are necessarily the same as "car is just needed".

You're going to a yoga class (I'm assuming some degree of mobility on your part: my apologies if I'm wrong!).
There's €2 parking available in the car park.
You have the option of a bus (albeit it's going to require some more of your time, so perhaps a higher frequency would be good).

You're not the stereotypical user that comes to mind when one thinks "a car is just needed".

At a risk of annoying you I'll go slightly further and say you're specifically the type of user that they want to discourage from driving. And you potentially make a good argument for removing street parking further. Unless your post was tongue-in-cheek, of course.

leahyl

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're being serious?

I'll be honest with you here, I don't think that your stated circumstances above are necessarily the same as "car is just needed".

You're going to a yoga class (I'm assuming some degree of mobility on your part: my apologies if I'm wrong!).
There's €2 parking available in the car park.
You have the option of a bus (albeit it's going to require some more of your time, so perhaps a higher frequency would be good).

You're not the stereotypical user that comes to mind when one thinks "a car is just needed".

At a risk of annoying you I'll go slightly further and say you're specifically the type of user that they want to discourage from driving. And you potentially make a good argument for removing street parking further. Unless your post was tongue-in-cheek, of course.

Why would it be tongue in cheek? I'm dead serious. I'm only giving an example and it's just my opinion. All I'm saying is a lot of people use their cars to travel to this place - even from the other side of the city I'd say - so I'd say it's going to lose out on a lot of business and it's a very popular place. It's just unfortunate for the business and it's customers. I'm not making out like I'm the "stereotyical user" like you say. I just feel for some of those businesses in Penrose. I'd have no issue getting a bus if I thought it was reliable and wouldn't take me half an hour just to get down and then back again. You can't just blanket take away all parking and expect everyone to cycle or get the bus - I've never cycled in my life (apart from when I was a child) because I just wouldn't feel safe and I'm not experienced. It's easy to say if you're not in the situation yourself.

I'm all for decereasing the dependancy on the car but not in all situations. The car unfortunately is king in Ireland and no matter how much you push for people to cycle or get public transport, people still have to drive. There has to be a major overhaul of public transport and the frequency and reliability of it; then who knows....maybe I'll hop on a bus on a wet, cold winters night and head off to yoga Or maybe I'll just have to suck it up and pay the 2e :pac:

Black_Knight

Did snotboogie post any Q2 review yet?
He's the MT Cranium of Cork development posts!

If we look at huge apartment towers going up, with hundreds of apartments, should developers have to start provisioning school buildings, as part of the plans?
I'm a bit concerned that we are looking at thousands of units being built, in the city. If even only half of these have kids that is a minimum of 1 primary and 1 secondary school needed.

Some of the proposals would need school on their own (Mahon), as they are basically small towns in volume.

hans aus dtschl

leahyl wrote: »

Why would it be tongue in cheek? I'm dead serious. I'm only giving an example and it's just my opinion. All I'm saying is a lot of people use their cars to travel to this place - even from the other side of the city I'd say - so I'd say it's going to lose out on a lot of business and it's a very popular place. It's just unfortunate for the business and it's customers. I'm not making out like I'm the "stereotyical user" like you say. I just feel for some of those businesses in Penrose. I'd have no issue getting a bus if I thought it was reliable and wouldn't take me half an hour just to get down and then back again. You can't just blanket take away all parking and expect everyone to cycle or get the bus - I've never cycled in my life (apart from when I was a child) because I just wouldn't feel safe and I'm not experienced. It's easy to say if you're not in the situation yourself.

I'm all for decereasing the dependancy on the car but not in all situations. The car unfortunately is king in Ireland and no matter how much you push for people to cycle or get public transport, people still have to drive. There has to be a major overhaul of public transport and the frequency and reliability of it; then who knows....maybe I'll hop on a bus on a wet, cold winters night and head off to yoga Or maybe I'll just have to suck it up and pay the 2e :pac:

I appreciate your reply and I'll respectfully say that I strongly disagree with you.
Travelling to an activity class located between the train station and bus station. If you still consider the car the most viable option, then sadly a lot more stick will need to be used by council. They'll probably have to increase parking costs considerably.

hans aus dtschl

Deleted User wrote: »

If we look at huge apartment towers going up, with hundreds of apartments, should developers have to start provisioning school buildings, as part of the plans?
I'm a bit concerned that we are looking at thousands of units being built, in the city. If even only half of these have kids that is a minimum of 1 primary and 1 secondary school needed.

Some of the proposals would need school on their own (Mahon), as they are basically small towns in volume.

Makes sense to me. They already demand creches in new housing estates.

hans aus dtschl

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I appreciate your reply and I'll respectfully say that I strongly disagree with you.
Travelling to an activity class located between the train station and bus station. If you still consider the car the most viable option, then sadly a lot more stick will need to be used by council. They'll probably have to increase parking costs considerably.

Yeah.
I could understand business owners there being concerned, as it limits customers, but it's not as if there are not dozens of such classes available elsewhere, to the poster.

Businesses such as these (if they can survive) will soon be able to access a catchment of young professionals getting apartments, within walking distance. They will be the types of social activities which the city will need to keep in the centre, to make city life attractive.
What I see happening is that multi purpose studios will start appearing, once apartment complexes complete. The days of a class being in it's own small space rented in a corner of a building will wind down.

snotboogie

Black_Knight wrote: »

Did snotboogie post any Q2 review yet?
He's the MT Cranium of Cork development posts!

Coming at the end of the month. Pretty decent update this time I think, unlike Q1 where essentially nothing happened. Still no major project started in 2019 though but I think there is a good chance of a massive flurry of activity starting at the end of Q3.

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

If we look at huge apartment towers going up, with hundreds of apartments, should developers have to start provisioning school buildings, as part of the plans?
I'm a bit concerned that we are looking at thousands of units being built, in the city. If even only half of these have kids that is a minimum of 1 primary and 1 secondary school needed.

Some of the proposals would need school on their own (Mahon), as they are basically small towns in volume.

The state is responsible for providing education facilities for our children. Abdicating that responsibility to private developers makes no sense.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

The state is responsible for providing education facilities for our children. Abdicating that responsibility to private developers makes no sense.

How is that abdication of some duty? And no private schools ever get built?

Who builds schools presently? Private or otherwise?

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

How is that abdication of some duty? And no private schools ever get built?

Who builds schools presently? Private or otherwise?

The state does.

fash

fash wrote: »

The state does.

The state builds private schools?

The state has a construction division which physically builds public schools?

hans aus dtschl

Deleted User wrote: »

The state builds private schools?

The state has a construction division which physically builds public schools?

One concern I'd have about requiring the developers to provide school buildings or contribute to school buildings is the fact that so many school buildings were built badly over the past few years around the country.

Anyway, we digress. What you're saying makes perfect sense though.

hans aus dtschl

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

One concern I'd have about requiring the developers to provide school buildings or contribute to school buildings is the fact that so many school buildings were built badly over the past few years around the country.

Anyway, we digress. What you're saying makes perfect sense though.

Yeah, it's not like I am saying that they must donate the school or build it for cost. Just that it needs consideration in planning applications for large developments.

Your concern is valid, regarding build quality, but that will happen no matter.

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

The state builds private schools?

The state has a construction division which physically builds public schools?

The state does develop schools and has that responsibility. They then contract the construction out to building companies. I think you're getting confused between developers and construction contractors. It's up to the planning laws and planning authorities to consider adequate infrastructure, not individual developers.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's up to the planning laws and planning authorities to consider adequate infrastructure, not individual developers.

And I am proposing that this is something that could be changed. That If a developer is looking for planning for over a 1000 units that a school might be required as part of the plan. I'm not saying that they build it for free or run it but it's in the plan for the state to fund the construction, as part of the overall development.

It would have several benefits. New school buildings would be planned for, public sector laziness is combated and schools arrive as required, developers would not be shot down for there being no schools in the area, developments become even more attractive for families to purchase.

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

And I am proposing that this is something that could be changed. That If a developer is looking for planning for over a 1000 units that a school might be required as part of the plan. I'm not saying that they build it for free or run it but it's in the plan for the state to fund the construction, as part of the overall development.

It would have several benefits. New school buildings would be planned for, public sector laziness is combated and schools arrive as required, developers would not be shot down for there being no schools in the area, developments become even more attractive for families to purchase.

And how do you get the developer to give over X% of their site to a school thus reducing the housing stock they can build on that site? Are they compensated for this loss of land for instance? Also don't think a school slap bang in the middle of a housing development is as attractive as you think.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

And how do you get the developer to give over X% of their site to a school thus reducing the housing stock they can build on that site? Are they compensated for this loss of land for instance? Also don't think a school slap bang in the middle of a housing development is as attractive as you think.

I have said that the government would have to fund a build.
If Mahon does go ahead, where will those kids go to school? Local schools are fairly crowded and that entire development is basically a town.

What about 34-44 (what ever it could be) floor Port of Cork tower? Where is the nearest primary school?
The city centre has a fairly small population and schools to cater for this. If we are going to massively increase city centre population what will happen? Cars needed to drive kids to schools in the suburbs., completely negating the point of high density living space.

The government is not going to do CPO of buildings in the city, to build schools.

hans aus dtschl

namloc1980 wrote: »

And how do you get the developer to give over X% of their site to a school thus reducing the housing stock they can build on that site? Are they compensated for this loss of land for instance? Also don't think a school slap bang in the middle of a housing development is as attractive as you think.

Yes well they already do this for social and affordable housing, and creches, so I'd agree they should include schools too.

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

And I am proposing that this is something that could be changed. That If a developer is looking for planning for over a 1000 units that a school might be required as part of the plan. I'm not saying that they build it for free or run it but it's in the plan for the state to fund the construction, as part of the overall development.

If they are not building it for free, why are you getting a quite possibly entirely inexperienced-in-building-schools
contractor to build a school for quite possibly a massively inflated price in a location that probably doesn't make sense? How does this work under Ireland's public procurement obligations?

marno21

FYI 16 page supplement in tomorrow’s Sunday Business Post on developments etc in Cork

snotboogie

Crane up in Penrose dock making it 12 in the city centre and 14 if you include the metro area. We must be close to overtaking the height of the Celtic Tiger for development. Looking to the future the count will hover around 12 to 15 until the end of the summer before dropping down to (or very close to) single figures. It will then shoot up early in the new year again with a surge of student apartment activity in the west of the city. If half of the stuff that is promised goes to construction we'll be well into the 20's by next summer. Susceptibility to economic changes, a lack of will to build large apartment developments and a complete apathy from central government are obviously the major concerns.