developments in cork

@rebel_city wrote:

Just wondering with all the plans for the docklands, is the train station still going to be incorporated into the grand plan? I heard that the station was going to be switched around, meaning that the entrance would be south facing, opposite to now.

It will be reoriented and expanded to a size similar to that of Dublin’s Heuston Station. Kent Station’s development value is posit at around €20 and will be realised in tangent with the phased larger Horgan’s Quay redevelopment by Manor Park Homebuilders. Numerous informative posts are found throughout this thread – use the Search tool at the top of the page.

Horgan’s Quay Masterplan (working model)

😎 John F. Supple Contractors have today erected a tower crane over their joint venture scheme with the Montgomery/Kenneally Partnership at Cogan’s Field along the Boreenmanna Road. The venture is constructing 157 residential units over 8 blocks – designed by Derek Tynan & Associates. 50 units will be provided for social provision. The partners are also seeking a similar type of project at Chapel Field in Churchfield, currently the subject of much controversy.

Images of the Cogan’s Field project can be found here.

@Aidan wrote:

Lexington, do you know if the Cork Commuter Rail (including the Midleton link) can go ahead before Kent Station is redeveloped? That image you’ve posted above seems to show the existing station building (its a PS, and can’t be touched) only, and no mention of the new station further east or the associated car park.

I don’t have a copy of the Faber Maunsell Report, or any of the IE doc, but I seem to remember that there were through traffic issues with Kent Station, what with Commuter Rail and inter city sharing the same platforms.

(thanks for the ref to Cork CoCo)

According to Transport21 the extended Midelton Line should come into full operation for late 2008/2009 (as best I remember, feel free to correct that). It is hoped that MPH and CIE should have applications lodged on Horgan’s Quay for sometime in 2006 – according to an individual involved in the project, no date is set as a number of issues have yet to be ironed out regarding the development (not least quayside discussions with the PoC, settlement on issues of heights and densities etc etc). The plus side is that OMP, the associated consulting engineers (whose name for some reason escapes me :rolleyes: ) and TPA have a lot of work behind the project established and a number of options have been presented to CCC. Final designs and layouts etc – should be run through the mill over the coming months – how many months that will take, I don’t know, but let’s say for argument applications are lodged late 2006, undoubtedly we can expect submissions, further information (perhaps 2 sets) and if it’s not appealed third-party, conditions could be appealed on a 1st Party Basis. So let’s be reasonable and give the project 1 and half years in planning. That’s late 2007/2008 before the project gets a clear. If the DoT keep their word, Midelton Line work should be well under construction by then. If MPH steam into the project, we’re saying Phase 1, Kent Station and the new National Route work (which will go hand-in-hand) should be complete about 18-months later – give or take. So by mid-to-late 2009 Kent Station should be reoriented and able, and completion will run relatively in sync with the Midelton Extension completion (perhaps a little later – however temporary measures will be implemented to facilitate such an occurence). Through commuter traffic is facilitated by aligned tracks running south of the existing terminus and between the new concourse to the south – which will (if MPH have their way) integrate as part of a larger mixed-use project forming part of the Alfred Street extension.

Kent Station reoriented to face water – new concourse adjacent to the new National Route

Regarding the existing Kent Station Terminal, true – it is a PS and is in line for retention, however it can be adjusted subject to justification, and indeed it will have to be in some capacity. Works are soon to be underway to revamp the station to facilitate the medium-term as a matter of interest.

Regarding the terminal, the North Docklands Local Area Plan states:
“The remnant of the 1860s railway station is extremely important from an industrial archaeological viewpoint as it is the earliest and only surviving side entry railway terminus building in Ireland. Its significance is that it provides invaluable evidence of the former layout of the original railway station. The implications of its significance need to be further considered in any redevelopment of the site. The central range of 5
rooms forming the Station Masters Office remain (Rynne, 2002) of the former station.”

If you compare the layout stated in CCC’s NDAP, and prior to that the CCDS 2004, the O’Mahony Pike drawings I posted earlier – are near on the button. Clearly the product of extensive dialogue between the 2 parties. See the CCC proposed layout below.

Important to this project and to the larger Docklands Development Strategy (North and South) will be the progress made by the Port of Cork in relocating it’s activities to its lands near Ringaskiddy – and by extension, the efficient, on-time completion of the N28 Dual-Carriageway link Cork city to Ringaskiddy will be important for the PoC. A Stakeholders Forum is being established by CCC (to be operated by the Docklands Development Division at Naviagtion House) to ensure an efficient dialogue for all parties involved in the North Docklands Development, and the South Docklands. This will hopefully satisfy the PoC’s complaints that it has not been provided a sufficient level of updating and overall input into docklands progress. Though CCC dispute Mr. Keating’s claims, I don’t think anyone can argue the vital importance to future docklands development (and its associated economic importance) that the role of the PoC will play in staging movement out to Ringaskiddy. Startegy Assessment Reports have been commissioned by the PoC on the move – at a cost of approx. €200m, it’s no small undertaking. It’s in everybody’s interest that the move goes efficently and swiftly. For the PoC’s own expansion and progressive interests, the move is a most important realisation for them. I would, in the long-term, be of the view that both CCC and CorkCoCo, in conjunction with the DoT/RPA etc should look very seriously into providing a competent rail-link to Ringaskiddy from the city (possibly with stops at Carrigaline – the most car dependent town in Ireland), Rochestown and linking up with the old rail corridor via Mahon Point and into the city, via the docklands. It makes good economic, environmental and social sense.

@A-ha wrote:

I would like to see an independant Cork City bus service set up (like Dublin Bus) and also the Cork Commuter Railway (like Dart). If it was in control of local people they would have a better idea of our public transportation needs.

“Local People” were responsible for passing a motion trying to cap suburban building heights at 3-storeys :rolleyes: A complete ride in the face of sustainable economic, social and enviromental development.

That said, we do have some very competent individuals in Local Governement and Management – another few would be no harm either 😉

Something I am very supportive of is establishing a sufficient, well regulated commuter transport system across Cork. Very often this is dismissed given Cork population base – well, I argue that. The metropolitan population and geographical layout is quite capable of supporting such a system – the trick is to make a system people will use and to develop it in such a way that it is a preferable transport option over say, the car (but of couse individual modes of transport will always be some persons 1st choice irrespective) – but above all, make the system cost-efficient, regular and efficient. The Midelton Commuter line is a first step. Stops at Carrigtwohill and Dunkettle will be important to support the growing populations there and the Park-and-Ride proposed at Dunkettle. I do think, a few years down the line – with sufficient docklands development undertaken and the extension of the city centre south-east, a Blackpool stop would be a quite feasible option. But the big challenge will be providing a suitable light rail-based infastructure for the south – that includes the line I mentioned in my previous post originating at Ringaskiddy (via Carrigaline, Rochestown/East Douglas, Mahon Point, Blackrock, South Docklands), another from perhaps South Docklands, along South Link stop at Black Ash, Bishopstown, Bishopstown Court (to facilitate P&R from West Cork commuters), Ballincollig. A wider-scale pedestrianisation of Cork city’s existing centre (or rather a regulated access arrangement – i.e. pedestrian priority from 7am to 7pm Mon to Wed, 7am to 9pm Thurs, Fri and 8am to 6pm Sat) encompassing Grand Parade, Cornmarket Street, North Main and South Main Street (in its redeveloped capacity), Liberty, Grattan, Sheares and Adelaide Streets. St. Patrick’s Street, the French Quarter, Emmet Place, Drawbridge Street, Maylor, Caroline Streets, Parnell Place and South Mall. Obviously, this pedestrian priority strategy would have to take place on a phased basis according to infastructural development – starting with St. Patrick’s Street, Academy Street, Oliver Plunkett Street – then Grand Parade following its redevelopment completion.

@A-ha wrote:

Thinking about it recently after seeing that horrible photo of Victoria Cross, would you blame the locals for wanting to cap suburban building heights at three storeys. I think that Victoria Cross scared people sh*tless. It’s a manky building and if I thought that I’d have to look at a group of those out side my sitting room window, I’d die. But obviously, the residents aren’t with it if they think that people will stand for more of those shoeboxes to be built. It was a once off…… I hope, and I can’t see buildings like that getting the go ahead in Cork again.

I assume you’re referring to Victoria Mills designed by Derek Tynan & Associates?

You must remember CCC Planners were presented with a variety of model alternatives during preplanning discussions – the one which exists was the agreed option. Generally, and this is a preference issue, I do not like Derek Tynan & Associates’ work as a rule. That isn’t a knock to the firm’s talent in the least, structurally, many of their projects – including Victoria Mills – are actually very very clever. However from an aesthetic perspective I (I personally) think Victoria Mills does not compliment its location from a wider perspective (but that’s not to say, to many others, it is not a very good project). There are a myriad of arguments regarding perception – however this is my personal opinion and is not to conflict with the opinion of others. That said, a height cap is non-sensical – with respect to the example you cite, the logic of such a cap in application to Victoria Mills is arguing that it is disliked based on its height? Or rather, that its (as some residents may argue) its supposed “ugliness” is emphasised by its height? I disagree, I think its height is quite suitable for its location. The devil, as they say, is in the detail – or rather, its design. It’s not the paper’s fault the contract is cruel. Assessing its purpose, the site size on which it is built is pretty special – the building’s height in part has allowed it achieve a capacity without consuming the entire site in concrete and allowing for open spaces which take advantage of its pretty river setting from ground level. People forget that these student developments (which are winding down somewhat now) take students (a % of them that is) out of investor housing, which does in turn edge at the fabric of the original housing’s material use which is owner-occupancy (including families). In that sense, purpose built, quality student accommodation is a positive contribution. Had the 3 storey cap been in place at the time of Victoria Mills conception, the likelihood is that the site (were it granted) would be consumed in a low-rise block (if the developers deemed it viable) which could still have the same basic design. Other arguments for height include viability in light of land values and the associated broader economic impact that has. By extension, take CUH and its new Maternity Wing and proposed Cardia/Renal Unit – both 6-storeys, given the restricted site, structural issues and breakmark capacity issues – it is quite likely, such vitality needed provisions would have been severely compromised under a cap – if built. Blanket caps restricted development capacity and associated benefits – but I’ll let you review those issues in previous posts. You can be sure, if height wasn’t an issue – some people will always find an issue to raise war over, whether that’s usage, proximity, colouration, location, design, whatever…there’ll always be something.

As for Victoria Mills being a ‘one-off’, I don’t think its that simple. Personally think we have to keep pushing the architectural boundaries. Cork is well positioned to seek higher standards and I think some developers are responding. There is no such thing as a bar too high as I see it. In this push for new and higher standards, various developments will present various interpretations – some we will like, some we won’t like so much. The trick will be to produce, not monotonous (God no!), but sympathetic architecture which either adds positively to an area or sets a new precedent. Small steps to this have been produced so far, we must now encourage developers and architects alike to be willing to experiment in conceptualisation stages allowing for a positive realisation. It’s a small pet wish of mine to drag Cork to a level in which all citizens and visitors alike can find a sense of satisfaction in the buildings that surround them – and in some cases awe. It’s a long hard road, but the goal should be to make visitors from other cities come to Cork and leave thinking, “That’s how it should be done!” as oppose to the other way around. 🙂