Reply To: Look at de state of Cork, like!
It’s called democracy I suppose. Maybe it will detract from the view of St. Fin Barre’s. Let the experts decide! (ABP).
Anyway you seem very gung ho about all the development in Cork, even Mahon Point which I doubt has much in the way of architectural merit. My point is not all development is necessarily a good ting in itself. If the scheme is wrong maybe it’s better it gets knocked back, the next one that comes along may be better.
anto, I understand the principles of democracy – and you’re right, not all development is positive, because I mention it (by way of informing people) doesn’t necessarily mean I endorse it. I have raised my concerns with projects like that as Grangefield Developments Arbutus Lodge project (in which I assisted some residents in the area – with perfectly valid reasons for objection – with their appeal), Cumnor Construction’s original plan for Sunday’s Well (which I’m glad to say has been revised and improved satisfactorily) and Howard Holdings project at 16 Lavitts Quay which is a rather horrible design benefitting nothing positive to the city’s aesthetics whatsoever (7-storey hotel designed by RORSA) – I have also raised my concerns regarding plans for another 7-storey city hotel at Crosses Green and Victoria Mills development. Just because its investment, doesn’t necessarily mean its good investment. I know this.
In reference to Mahon Point, if you have ever followed my posts regarding the development over the months, you see that I have criticised the project on many occassions for its bland and boxy form – its shopping centre element provides nothing more than dismal architectural scribbles. Due to the scale of the development, and its effects to surrounding areas, it is hard to avoid comment every-so-often – but this does not advocate support for its design. However, a project such as this must also be weighed up for its positive effects (the creation of 3,000 jobs, an increased diversity of services to the community, the improvements associated with local infastructure – see N25 Overhead bridge extensions etc).
The Jurys Development has been granted by the local authority as it views it as making a valuable contribution to the regeneration of the city centre. Even An Taisce commented on its architectural merit – something you don’t see too often. Reductions in height, apartment numbers, repositioning of buildings etc etc all were made by the developer and as outlined by planning conditions. However, the SWRG are objecting from 2 miles away – and a member of that group is also using a city centre business front she represents to contribute a 2nd appeal (but from the same person). Other appeals are based on a disgruntled response to the developer based on ‘other’ issues – which one individual very blatantly boasted to me in a private conversation before he realised my own position on the development. True colours were shown. However, one appeal is quite genuine and I have no issue with it being raised – it is their perfect entitlement to do so if they remain unhappy with a planning decision. My angst regarding this scenario is centred in the fact that I believe one should object to a development based on valid grounds – which include objection based on issues directly related to a development as a stand-alone project and not due to some past related issue (its simply destructive behaviour). I am also further appalled at the use of the aforementioned ‘childrens allowance’ scenario which is being used to financed the appeals (see previous posts).
Gung-ho? Perhaps regarding some developments – but I’d rather the expression, enthusiastic. I don’t readily and blindly support every project proposed, I don’t see many of these projects contributing positively economically, logistically or aesthetically to the city – and in such cases, I seek adjustment or other appropriate action. So yes, let democracy take its course – I agree, but don’t block the benefit of others based on selfish cause. Thats not democratic, thats plain old greed.