Reply To: Does anyone know the architect name for this building?

Originally posted by Devin
I know that Cork city centre is a special place and that new development there should be of high urban design quality.

I don’t know what the schemes that were refused for Cork city were like, but I did notice that, in all his moaning and sobbing, lexington never once stated the grounds of objection (or refusal) for his schemes. Was it scale? exceedence of recommended plot ratio? architectural design? impact on older buildings? traffic generation? Only once he said something about old warehouses.

The Watergold Building remains a favourite of mine, but it is not a building I would vehemently support in Cork city centre. I am more mystified by its arrogant beauty – in how it stands out unashamedly in an area like Douglas. The real monstrosities of Douglas are that of the Douglas Court SC and Douglas Village SC, were you to see these buildings with relation to the Watergold Building, I think you’d agree it is somewhat of an oasis. My personal preference for architecture has always been rooted in post-modern. However, there is no example of architecture I have ever come across that has reflected this preference. Though I like Watergold, it is not a building I would involve myself in. Of projects we have at preplanning, it is widely agreed, their architectural quality is superior to anything of that in the city at present – with exception to some of the older buildings. I can’t discuss this more but when I can, I will post CGs.

First of all, on ALL the projects I have listed, plus more, I will gladly state the grounds for objection upon your request, just ask or specify a particular project. All the objections can be validated through contact with CCC Planning Dept. on telephone at either (021) 4924321 / 4924324 / 4924325.

After further consultation with Werdna Ltd, all existing warehouse buildings which are NOT protected structures at Water Street are being renovated and retained at large expense in the local public interest (MOLA made such concessions) and at the foresighted risk of objection (this was decided upon BEFORE An T objected or any application was lodged. See the below drawings as proof.) An T objected to this particular project on the grounds that it would be aesthestically adverse to the existing nature of Cork Port (this is a point you can judge for yourself on viewing of the drawings. Even Diaspora, who often varies opinion from me on such issues, agrees the design reflects a high quality) AND that construction may disrupt the condition of existing warehouse structures, as well as the slip-way on the former Cork Port site – ALL of which are being retained and protected for incorporation into the project – changed of use to IT/Business Centre facilities. These are spurious grounds for objection as their retention and preservation are important elements of the development and viability plan and application. NO structural changes are being made with the exception of some internal refurbishment and adjustment from warehousing which is derelict, vacant and NOT protected (see CCC Protected Structures Guide List 2004) to commercial use.

(Picture outlining development plan – note the EXISTING STRUCTURES are highlighted, these are for retention)

The EIS submitted suggests that the main routes of Horgan’s Quay (currently being relayed, resurfaced and widened leading to city centre) and Lower Glanmire Road (an N Route) would be the predominant traffic ways affected by the development which would incorporate 482 vehicle spaces for residential and commercial use. The EIS and Senior City Engineer agree that the proximity of the development to the main routes would mean vehicular activity would be sustainable in consideration that most residents would have easy pedestrian access to the city centre from such a location. The development scale is mentioned below – as you enquired. The development site on Water Street as well as Horgan’s Quay are both zoned for such large scale development – of which Horgan’s Quay has in the past received planning (a plan which for political reasons did not proceed).

Client: Werdna Ltd.
Site Area: 1.6217 hectares (4 acres)
No. of Units: 400 Apartments
– 1 Bed Apartments – 50 units
– 2 Bed Apartments – 314 units
(77 sq.m. to 115 sq.m. per unit)
– 3 Bed Apartments – 36 units
Business Centre
Creche
Shops/Cáfe
Floor Area: Residential
Business Centre
Office
Retail
Creche 44,391 sq.m.
2,500 sq.m.
172 sq.m.
506 sq.m.
253 sq.m.

Parking Area: 11,950 sq.m.
478 Car Parking Spaces

Density: 100 units per acre
Plot Ratio: 1:2.78
Contract Value: €80 million

For similar information on ANY of the projects which I have previously mentioned or haven’t. I will provide all the details you deem important – and in ALL cases show how An T’s objections are weak and destructive (with the exception of the Grangefield Development at the Arbutus Lodge, an objection I whole-heartedly support along with the residents. This is a valid objection with consideration to architectural conservation, resident privacy, zoning and traffic consequences).