Cork developments

A 15-story office building is actually much closer in height to a 25-story apartment building than you might think because the individual floors are much higher in an office building. Height aside, the location, quantity, and size of things like lifts, stairs, bathrooms, etc. are also very different for practical and regulatory reasons. So the two planning cases here are quite distinct and unrelated, i.e. the offices application wasn’t just a modification to the original apartment application. It’s not simply a case of doing some minor paperwork to change the 15-story planning permission from offices to apartments. The news reports this week said that they would seek only to make minor changes to the original apartment permission.

Longwinded way of saying that the proposed office tower was to be 77.5m high, whereas the proposed residential tower was to be just over 90m and that they aren't the same, which is pretty obvious.

The Elysian is 68m by comparison.

Interesting video on Vimeo of the residential tower as originally planned: https://player.vimeo.com/video/380454960?dnt=1&app_id=122963

Long term gain from short term pain

Rents also very much climb as the building rises because of said build costs and of course the picturesque views of lads openly dealing drugs and homeless alcoholics pissing on the streets.

I get we need volume but not sure that sextant site is the best use of government subsidies if the top 10 floors are all 3k a month to rent even as "cost rental".

I also hope they stay within their site and have a good plan on how to not screw up traffic in that area for the years of construction, it's bad enough as it is!

Ideally any necessary quay side improvements will be done without the flood relief scheme which would destroy the city centre. There are more viable alternatives such as a tidal barrier.

No this is where the government need to grow a pair, if they supply a lot of risk, ie finance, grants etc, that needs to come.w8th stipulations, offices will fill out more in town if accom is available

Regarding drunks, drugs etc., that is a policing issue and is happening regardless of building height, that is very much a social and lack of policing issue

My parents were in a social house (sister is an SNA now and I'm in IT)

They paid multiples of the mortgage back over their time.

I’m not talking about current housing budget. OP wants taller buildings and I’m asking is he willing to pay more tax to go 10 stories higher? Setting minimum height for buildings is what he is proposing and I’m asking is he happy to pay more tax or divert funds away from other services to achieve this.

Thats great , wait till you find out about inflation,

You completely missed the point. They are subsidising already, make it a condition to receive that subsidy that a minimum storey building is built. Comparing this to health is so ridiculous, let's stop all road building and pump it into health so. Let's switch off your street lights so you can pump more into health.

Building higher buildings will in turn have savings, as another poster said it will reduce the need for expanding services like roads, schools, broadband, electric etc etc. and condense it. Also it will boost the city economy with a greater number of people, it would also have a knock where more people would go into town as they would feel safer

"you just can't put a value on it"

The chartered surveyors of Ireland have made a study of apartment costs depending on whether they are part of a high rise or low rise development and they have put a value on it. The cost of an apartment in their study could almost be double that of a low rise apartment if it was to be in a high rise development because of the extra cost of building the entire structure to hold the weight of more floors and more complex facade structures and other factors. To say you will only allow government supports for housing to be applied to buildings over a minimum floor number like you are suggesting could lead to dramatically fewer homes being built and those that would be built would be too expensive for anyone besides the highest earners. To say the government should only support housing that caters for the most wealthy portion of society is just bizarre in my opinion.

Why would I pay more tax when the government have already put a subsidy package together? Why do you need to increase tax when we have a surplus that can be strategically spent on once off costs such as housing. So to answer your question, no I am not willing because funds are set aside

And to add the subsidy would remain the same, and yes richer people would be willing to build the higher apartments which would be a higher cost. But those rich people will be higher property tax and building rates which will sustain the lower level apartments of the building, not allowing for the increased spend from that so called rich person