Cork developments

You're being excessive. My family lives right there too, I have nothing against the area. I've been reasonably heavily involved in campaigning for infrastructure and services for the area. And I also call where I'm living "commuter sprawl" too: it's not an insult whatsoever.

I am not against the provision of additional housing in the area in general: my issue is explicitly and specifically around building density (apartment complexes, large developments) without supporting infrastructure and amenities. I also believe we should be focusing on density nearer the city centre, and not on the very outskirts. That's pretty much my entire complaint in a nutshell.

A 30 minute walk to the city centre and on the 207 route (which consists of no infrastructure that I can think of) is not sufficient, in my eyes. This looks like unsustainable development to me because I suspect that the vast majority of the future residents will drive everywhere they need to go (school drops and then on to work). I don't think very many of them will walk to work in the area and most of the employment centres are badly connected to it via public transport so they will need to drive. It's essentially between major north city rat-runs, and that is how people will travel.

That's all just my opinion. But...

The city's own development plan (2022-2028, published just a few months ago) literally reads "Significant areas of land on either side of Ballyhooly Road to the northeast of Ballyvolane are identified for future growth including residential, employment, local services and open space. The majority of this land rises in a north-easterly direction. This land release will require associated infrastructure, social and community services and facilities including education, community centre, sustainable and active travel, retail, community sports grounds and public open space."

It looks like I'm not the first person who's ever had this opinion and written it down!

It’s cork not LA…. The city has to grow which means expanding…All this talk of high density city centre wouldn’t happen because high density costs more to build and despite today’s expensive price and rent these high density buildings won’t be built unless apartments sell for 600k+ or rents of 3k a month. .There not going to be built at a loss so if the city is to grow as per the plans it will need to expand or start using the rail network to grow commuter towns in north and east cork.

4000 homes is a drop in the ocean…. They would need to be looking at a min of 20k units with all the necessary amenities. If cork does provide the housing to grow the city… business will go elsewhere.

How am I being excessive, since writing my post I thought of a number of other amenities in the area that I did not mention, so my list is in no way excessive? I have no problem with additional services and amenities being brought to the area, but if even the existing ones like schools are to be kept working effectively additional young people need to be able to have somewhere to live in the area. Having an organic growth of population living in an area is the very definition of sustainability as less new amenities need to be built from scratch as the existing ones can continue to be used and more efficiently just improved.

There was a plan for improved mobility on the north side of the city with a proper north ring road to mirror the south ring road but it will probably be never built due to people like yourself insisting that normal working people should not be allowed to use a car to help make their lives more comfortable. If you can't afford a high rise apartment within 15minute of everything you need (that cost 600,000euro to build) then live with your parents or become homeless seems to be the policy you are promoting and I hope those in charge of development in Cork don't follow your opinion.

Apologies, I should have been clearer: when I said "Excessive" I meant your suggestion that I called it "commuter sprawl" because it is a development on the north side of the city. That was the "excessive" bit.

What you're describing as "sustainable" is considered abnormal internationally. Organic expansion of an area is what we've done for 60 years or so, and it's absolutely the incorrect thing to do. We should be planning the area and building according to that plan. We should not be tacking on estates onto the edges, with all of the downsides that come with.

With regards "people like me" insisting that normal working people should not be allowed to use a car to help make their lives more comfortable and this "preventing the North Ring Road from getting built" I strongly suggest you check my post history, where I've argued strongly and repeatedly in favour of the North Ring Road. And a Northern Bypass also. And the Southern Distributor too. I discuss them regularly in the infrastructure forum.

I could make this personal too, and make false accusations just like you did, but I don't see how that's constructive. Suffice to say that your effort at painting me as someone who's "against things that de normal people need" is very far wrong.

For the record, I'm not even against more housing estates in Ballyvolane, I just thought apartments at the very edge of the city in a greenfield with almost no supporting infrastructure was a strange one to allow.

Yes it was not clear from your post as to how you meant I was being excessive. I am sorry if you have posted in the past about the benefits of a proper north ring road but I did not investigate your posting history and this was not obvious from what you posted in reply to my post about a new development in Ballyvolane. I have nothing personal against you but your cloud cuckoo land housing strategy sounds to me like impractical nonsense. You literally said there was no infrastructure or jobs to match a residential development within about 50metres of an existing city bus stop and only slightly more than 30minute walk to the very centre of the city so it very much came across as you have some bias against development on the north side of the city. High rise apartments due to construction costs in Ireland are typically constructed at a cost of over 600,000euro so even if it is abnormal internationally to look at alternative housing models so people can have affordable homes they need to be accepted if we are not to have huge levels of homelessness or emigration out of the country in my opinion.

thanks thats a great post of what is being built.

I assume the majority are build to rent and cost is about 500k per unit (assuming 2 bed) which working on a 6% yield will mean the rent would be 2.5k a month.

Would you reckon that is about right or are ballpark costs lower than 500k per unit for 5-7 storeys?

"It's not easy to access anything from that area without a car"

You obviously misread my first reply to your post about the new development in Ballyvolane that listed a good number of amenities that are within 15 minutes walk of the new site but to simplify things here is a list again of some of what is easy to access on foot from the new development:

Lidl (the outline of the Lidl store can be seen on the plan for the new development that I provided a link to an article about)

Fox and Hounds bar (and also on this site a take away pizza business, Chinese restaurant and take away, bookmaker, off-license, hair dresser and other units that could be occupied if there was more new housing in the area to increase population density in an already urban area)

Dunne's stores (with butcher's and cafe in the same building)

The Glen Resource and Sport centre,

Former Callaghan's garage site that now has a fast food outlet as well as a garage and shop.

Mayfield school and sports complex.

Glen Rovers hurling club.

St. Aiden's community college (and another convenience shop close to there last time I passed).

City North Business park.

Murphy's Rock bar.

Kempton park playground literally across the road.

Leeds park sports grounds.

and more businesses and amenities.

I have no problem myself with walking from this area to the city centre where I work part time.

I did make a submission to a recent invite for public input to the area development plan but got no response to my suggestion that housing should be encouraged on the farm to the Lidl side of the already mentioned development that is currently at ground work stage. The farm mentioned in my submission was previously zoned for residential use a few decades back but that was rescinded to allow for road works related to the new north ring road that is now likely never to happen. The plan in the article I linked to actually has house access roads running up to the ditch of this farm I suggested should also be considered as suitable for housing and I know the owners of this farm are eager to sell as it is no longer viable to run a farm on just 28acres as was the case when they were growing up in the farm house in between Lidl and the Fox and Hounds.

I think there should be improvements to the road access to the area, and even if it is not the proper ring road planned, a distributor route around that edge of the city is needed and should already be under construction. I do not have any access to this information on city road building plans but there is some new road mentioned in the article on the new development I provided a link to. I have my own opinions and they do not align with a cloud cuckoo land idea that everyone is going to have their home, a job and all the amenities they need within 15minutes. Sounds like a great idea but in practical terms I don't think a crisis in housing and homelessness is worth making worse just to stick to this ideal.

You shouldn't falsely attribute opinions to people and justify it on the basis that they did not demonstrate to you that they do not hold that opinion! That really is bad faith arguing and is extremely tedious.

Less of the "people like you" kind of arguments, I'm sure would be appreciated by most here.

You claimed that "people like him" blocked the north ring road. And when pulled up on it, you justified it by saying that he said nothing to convince you otherwise!

I don't know why I'm bothering you repeat myself. Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with my post!

I was referring to the anti north side development aspect of what they were after saying in claiming apartments would not be suited to the area. It's obvious I was not claiming he actually went out and campaigned against the road that had been planned and blocked it and as he said later himself he was in favour of the project.

I am in agreement with the poster that the area could do with improved transport infrastructure but think such improvements are more likely if affordable residential development continues in the area and that is why I grouped him with policy makers that seem to be restricting development of an area that is now within the city bounds has existing amenities and businesses within walking distance and has recently had a sewage system upgrade to deal with the area having more residential use. As I have stated a number of times it is not that much of a chore to walk the 30 odd minutes to the city centre where many employers are based.

Due to availability issues a city centre apartment is likely to be more expensive than one built at the outskirts of the city and for some workers like those with the option of remote working, working at times beginning and ending outside of normal road congestion peaks or with commutes to different places that may allow for travel time being variable an option to get somewhere to live that is cheaper should be accommodated in my opinion.

The post from me you quoted does not say anything about "people like him" and in the post you quote I am actually apologising if I misinterpreted his opinion having not looked into his posting history and just responded to what he had said in this thread about a complete inaccessibility to anything in the area without a car which is simply not true.

No, you didn't say it in the post I quoted, you said it elsewhere.

And subsequently denied doing it.

Then you did a "sorry, but" and went on to justify your behaviour. That's not an apology.

I don't know why you keep going on about the merits of this Ballyvolane development to me. It really has nothing to do with the point I was making,which was about your bad faith style of arguing. But I see it is pointless because you will constantly deflect, deny and distract.

You literally accused another poster of having the North ring road blocked (or, at least, "people like them"). When it was pointed out that this was untrue and unreasonable, rather than apologise probably and own your actions , you justified it by blaming the other poster for not making it obvious to you that they didn't block it.

You really can't see how this kind of behaviour is problematic for open and constructive discussion?

I most likely won't reply to you again. It just isn't worth the effort.

Just in case you don't remember the accusations you made (which you never genuinely apologised for), I'm quoting them below.

"There was a plan for improved mobility on the north side of the city with a proper north ring road to mirror the south ring road but it will probably be never built due to people like yourself insisting that normal working people should not be allowed to use a car to help make their lives more comfortable. If you can't afford a high rise apartment within 15minute of everything you need (that cost 600,000euro to build) then live with your parents or become homeless seems to be the policy you are promoting and I hope those in charge of development in Cork don't follow your opinion."