developments in cork
- This topic has 2,179 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Is the new kiosk-like structure that appeared next to the busman’s prefab yesterday its permanent replacement or something totally unrelated?
@ToMuchFreeTime wrote:
Does any one know whats happening to the esso garage next to the jurys site as it was up for sale. not sure if sold or not??
The 0.6acre Muskerry Service Station was sold earlier this summer through CBRE Gunne for €8.5m – the station was due to be closed in October but will now operate until late December (subject to change). An application was expected in December, but that remains to be seen.
:rolleyes: Jim O’Donovan, Director of services gave a robust defence of architectural standards in Cork in todays Irish Times letters page. He rightly mentions most, if not all of the good recent developments in Cork.
He does however fail to give a mention to the building that was “highly commended’ by the Opus awards…The VICTORIA MILLS, surely an oversight??@jungle wrote:
Is the new kiosk-like structure that appeared next to the busman’s prefab yesterday its permanent replacement or something totally unrelated?
I saw it and I can’t say its a beauty. For a brief moment, the only thing that distinguished it from the Portacabin was the absense of graffiti. 😮 I had expected a structure more in line with the style of the nearby bus-stops, it’s pretty prominent.
sorry to annoy ye again for info, but I need to get my hands on residential info (past, present, future, facts & figures) regarding Blackpool and how it is developing! Anyone know where I can get info online?? Have got a bit of info from newspapers and the corpo website but need something a bit more facts and figures based. Please let me nkow if you know of anything, cheers Leesider!!
Re Cork City FC and the redevelopment of the Shed End. I saw the plans previously and it is essentially something along the lines on the present Donie Ford stand (the stand running the lenght of the field with the TV gantry on top). Considering that “The Box” as it is fondly known was four muddy banks not that long ago, the redevelopment of the spectator facilities there has been impressive. Obviously, the days of expecting people to to come and stand on a grass bank in bad weather are fast disappearing. Nevertheless, and not to detract from the obvious improvements at Turner’s Cross, it is obvious that the designer of the stands is not an architect, or at least not a very good one. The Curragh Road stand is essentially a concrete terrace with seats bolted in. Sadly, they are extremely tight in terms of space, and not very comfortable. The Donie Forde stand is acceptable although that also is a bit of a squeeze, and the new stand replacing the Shed will no doubt be a vast improvement as well. I only wish the design actually had a bit more flair to it. A clock tower on the roof for example. Still, don’t get me wrong…the improvements there, and in other stadia around the country (both GAA, football, and rugby) are great to see.
I saw that Frinailla invited Kathleen lynch to have some input into their discussions on material finishes to Ladywell despite her having objected. Interesting move i’d say.
With all these serial objectors and talk of them lately wasnt there suppose to be legislation put forward to limit serial objectors?? What happened to that??
@ewankennedy wrote:
I saw that Frinailla invited Kathleen lynch to have some input into their discussions on material finishes to Ladywell despite her having objected. Interesting move i’d say.
With all these serial objectors and talk of them lately wasnt there suppose to be legislation put forward to limit serial objectors?? What happened to that??
I think that’s a bit harsh on Deputy Lynch. As an elected representative, it is her job to represent the views of her constituents– just like any other elected representative. Therefore, it is not a great surprise that she makes a large number of submissions on proposed developments in her constituency (both negative AND positive).
That is all they are- submissions. If the planners believe there is no basis to the submission (or any submission) they can just ignore them and grant permision. There may be a number of crank, serial submitters out there, but it is surely up to the planners to make the final decision.
Kathleen Lynch’s submission on the Frinailla project has meant that what has now been green-lit is many times better in terms of architectural standards than the “monolithic” monstrosity which was first proposed.@Radioactiveman wrote:
I think that’s a bit harsh on Deputy Lynch. As an elected representative, it is her job to represent the views of her constituents– just like any other elected representative. Therefore, it is not a great surprise that she makes a large number of submissions on proposed developments in her constituency (both negative AND positive).
That is all they are- submissions. If the planners believe there is no basis to the submission (or any submission) they can just ignore them and grant permision. There may be a number of crank, serial submitters out there, but it is surely up to the planners to make the final decision.
Kathleen Lynch’s submission on the Frinailla project has meant that what has now been green-lit is many times better in terms of architectural standards than the “monolithic” monstrosity which was first proposed.I’m sorry, just to clarify something – are you saying because of her objection the project is better in architectural terms? Did she not object to the current proposal also and in light of the planning report expressed disappointment that the Board did not adhere the recommendation by David Dunne (Planning Inspector)? :confused:
I’m saying that from the outside looking in, had the first “draft” of this development been granted permission we would be in a worse position than we are in now. If you get my drift.
i.e. The final draft is a compromise between the “monolithic” and frankly awful proposals in the first planning application and what some local residents and representatives would argue for (which of course is often a ridiculously low density, suburban, faux-antique mess). I’m not saying its a perfect system, but i think its ridiculous to suggest that any negative input from locals should be disregarded just because they are not developers or architects.
And certainly, I think public representatives are of course likely to make submissions representing the views of constituents– that is their job- to represent their constituents views. I note that Kathleen Lynch has admitted her disappointment that the Board did not back up their own Inspector, but she has also accepted that it is the decision of the Board and she will respect that decision.
Due process is all locals and local representatives want- it is not their fault that CCC and ABP are so underfunded that they cannot deal with applications and appeals in a more timely manner.
Sorry for the rant- but I do feel there is a part of this thread which would prefer if the city was carved up between CCC and developers and residents should have no input at all.
On an unrelated topic, I saw the new Bus Eireann office/porto cabin in Patrick Street today. Its not bad looking – bit tank-like but should stand the test of time, rain and drunk people. A great improvement on the old portocabin.A light-hearted (partially speculative) look at some retail development in the city…
Following protracted demand for numerous retaillers about a lack of sufficiently sized higher-order retail accommodation in Cork city centre – it seems at last, the tide is turning. At a wider level, the retail scene in surburban Cork has also seen a notable turn.
We begin with…
Dunnes Stores at 102 to 105 St. Patrick’s Street – the company have submitted an extensive plan for the redevelopment of its ‘birth’ store along the street. The development, designed by Bertie Pope & Associates, is due for a decision on November 28th 2005, and will see the entire store and structures to the rear facing Drawbridge Street demolished, save for the facades along Patrick’s Street. A 6-storey over basement retail structure of some 130,000sq ft is sought permission to host Dunnes Stores’ flagship Cork store.
Academy Street – O’Callaghan Properties have enlisted Project Architects (Dublin & Cork) and Gehl Architects (Copenhagen) to design a new, highly anticipated and prominent mixed-use structure occupying the former Irish Examiner offices and printing press, as well as various other acquired properties including the Johnson & Perrott Motor Dealership and Grand Circle Lounge at Emmet Place, Jean Scene building, 95 Patrick’s Street, Le Chateau and others along St. Patrick’s Street in a land acquisition effort approximated at in or above €80m. The site will house a 6-storey structre with apartments on the upper levels, office space and over 200,000sq ft of retail space housing up to as many as 40 units over a number of levels – over residential basement car-parking and loading areas. The retail element will host higher order, predominantly fashion based outlets and form the centre-piece of a larger retail scheme which will host elements at…
…16 Lavitts Quay, the nearby site acquired by OCP from Howard Holdings – adjacent to OCP HQ @ 21 Lavitts Quay. It is understood that the upper floors will host residential and office elements – and should provide a nice sense of well designed quayside continuity in terms of height with consideration to 21 Lavitts Quay. This affords a nice link to…
…Paul Street S.C. and Multi-storey car-park, which is subject for a noteworthy refurbishment. The existing elements of this centre offer a grocery element in the form of Tesco, to the overall higher-order retail link. A connection may also be afforded across Paul’s Lane to…
…Rockfell Investments’ Cornmarket Street development, which is due for construction early next year. 9 large units will be provided over 120,000sq ft + of retail mall. Above which, 65 apartment units will be provided in a scheme designed by Frank Ennis & Associates.
Recent acquistions by a consortium, involving Joe O’Donovan at St. Patrick’s Street, Market Lane, Grand Parade and apparently Oliver Plunkett Street suggest a site collection for a potentially large upper-scale retail development linking Cork’s 3 prime retail streets. A possible, delicate linkage may be afforded the English Market, providing a grand mix and arrangement of retail and commercial functions. A possible residential element may also be constituent. Speculation assumes discussions have been made with Paul O’Brien and John Costello on their plans for a redevelopment of the…
…Capitol Cineplex. Plans lodged earlier in 2005 sought permission for a new retail building of some 30,000sq ft + with 18 overhead apartments in a scheme designed by The e-Project. Significant Further Information requests have yet to be met, fuelling talk that a possible link may be in line with the larger scheme mentioned above. Revised Plans may yet be issued, with a subsequent application for linkage provided later. But for now, purely, speculative.
Grand Parade Plaza, a residential and retail scheme by Frinailla Developments had received full planning for 50 units, now fully sold according to sources at Global Properties. Excavation works are now complete. Approx. 3,000sq m of retail space is planned, with a high-profile tenant understood to be earmarked. The acquistion of the Goat Broke Loose Bar for €4m offers a potential expansion of additional retail and residential space for the project, and an improved street frontage. Further opportunities in the area exist.
Manor Park Homebuilders are likely to seek a healthy presence of retail provision at their redevelopment of Horgan’s Quay. Although no planning date is yet earmarked, and quibbles regarding retail provision on the quayside do exist, it is likely MPH will include enough retail to act as an attractive community based provision, as well as an attraction for persons farther afield. Proposals are cited to be of the highest architectural quality and designed by O’Mahony Pike Architects.
And now for the speculation, some well grounded, some rumour based…
– Merchant’s Quay S.C. may seek an enhancement in the near future to steadfast its position as a city centre retail draw. Plans may indeed see a vertical extension to the eastern end of the centre increasing floorspace, retail accommodation and continuity. Some adjustments may encroach on the open car-parking area at the 4th level of the multi-storey car-park. External upgrades will likely feature as part of the task. Speculation type: Unconfirmed
– Roches Stores may look to expand and redevelop part of their St. Patrick’s Street Department Store – and ‘birth’ store. Not long after completion of an extensive IR£20m expansion designed by NMA, work may include underground parking – recouping any losses following work to their multi-storey car-parking and indeed adding to space. Access would consist of a rearranged access point from Parnell Place and development works may indeed impact on their current loading area off Maylor Street. Speculation type: informed by 3 sources, not confirmed.
– Howard Holdings are assessing expansion and redevelopment opportunities to their very valuable Wilton S.C. acquired late last year from Tesco with investor Joe O’Donovan for a figure at around €120m. Making it one of the largest investment acquisitions of 2004. Following consistent speculation (and matched by consistent denial stating that the property was for mere investment purposes), it is understood that a large-scale redevelopment of the centre is being assessed. Options on the scheme include vertical adjustments and expansion over existing car-park areas which will see additional retail space facilitated over basement car-parking. Roches Stores may also seek to expand their department store at the centre by bringing it in-line with their new store image. This will likely include additional levels. The site location is unrivalled – however concerns regarding traffic management and impact on city centre retail will undoubtedly be raised. Also, how would such a scheme affect Mr. O’Donovan’s other plans in the city centre???
(Some details have been purposely removed – apologises)
@Radioactiveman wrote:
Sorry for the rant- but I do feel there is a part of this thread which would prefer if the city was carved up between CCC and developers and residents should have no input at all.
Too right that residents are entitled to input – I would never argue otherwise. I think where the bulk of the resentment comes in is where you have consistent, blanket objections to everything proposed by certain groups which do not seek constructive co-operation but rather outright imposition – and often arguments are ill-founded and imbalanced. This style of activity dampens the causes of many others and I suppose unfairly promotes an attitude of resentment. I would always ask the objectors educate themselves at what excatly is being proposed. A nice example is an objection lodged against the Victoria Cross development on the Plumbing Store – with a respresentative of the objection later stating they didn’t have a problem with student apartments, but just felt there was enough. Interestingly that particular development is not specifically aimed at student occupancy. It’s little things like that – or blanket objections to anything 2 storeys or higher.
One objection lodged against the Westend proposal stated they based their argument on the fact that Block D balconies overlooked their home – right into the garden in fact – a totally valid point. The proposal was concurrently amended to consider this. Objections are a democratic right – but like all rights, they must not be abused. As for public representative arguments – there’s no issue. And if Kathleen Lynch was objecting to a proposal as a representative of her constitutents, the entitlement is 100%. I was simply curious as to how you attributed the resultant scheme at CitySquare – my belief is that the input of objectors was assessed and planning directors determined the best outcome with respect to their understanding of the strategic development of the area. A big problem I feel suffered by resident objectors is the hinderance in asymmetric information (having said that, some architects/planners have been very considered with local residents including them in progress reports from a very early stage – such as that at Water Street). I have always believed this forum is a useful tool for persons to see the alternative perspective on designs and maybe, as a result, they could formulate a more rounded argument…perhaps??? 😮
@lexington wrote:
I was simply curious as to how you attributed the resultant scheme at CitySquare – my belief is that the input of objectors was assessed and planning directors determined the best outcome with respect to their understanding of the strategic development of the area.
I agree with you 100 % Lexington. It is the planners who will determine the validity or otherwise of a particular submission and make decisions accordingly with the development of the area as a whole in mind. My point being that for this to happen, submissions must be made by locals and local representatives. I think (I hope at least) that planners know enough about CSD etc. to make informed decisions about their objections.
People might rightly argue that these objections and appeals are slowing down development. But they are entitled to their say and is it up to ABP and CCC to ensure that all submissions are dealt with in a timely manner.Have you seen the portocabin lex?
PS was on Oliver Plunkett Street today. The “pedestrianisation” is a total joke- cars everywhere. Joe Gavin was on the paper today saying that they will start enforcing it next week!! Thats ridiculous since it has bee pedestrianised since monday!! Have they never heard of bollards in CIty Hall??? :confused:
RM.It is everybodies right to firstly object and then appeal a local authority descision.This should be done in an enlightened manner.You are right local polticians should represent the views of their constituents.
Why then have Kathleen lynch TD Labour party ,and Cllr.Catherine Clancy Labour objected to the Development by that company at Dennehys Cross.Makes very little sense.All they are doing is stalling jobs, financial contributions,s & a housing,and the revitalisation of our city.
Eight months ago these units would have cost about 275,000 euro now the average price in the area is up to 375,000 euro,thats an increase of 12,000,000 euros which joe public the voter has to pick up.Does anyone know if these are the only developments that they have objected to?
One other thing is if people are so up in arms about some of the proposed projects in our City how come so few appeal?Any opinions RM?
I appreciate your comments rodger, but…
@rodger wrote:
RM.It is everybodies right to firstly object and then appeal a local authority descision.This should be done in an enlightened manner.You are right local polticians should represent the views of their constituents.
Agreed.
@rodger wrote:
Why then have Kathleen lynch TD Labour party ,and Cllr.Catherine Clancy Labour objected to the Development by that company at Dennehys Cross.Makes very little sense.
Thay have NOT objected to this development. Nobody has ever suggested they did. I think you may be confusing this with another Frinailla development, i.e. Lady’s Well at Watercourse Road. Not only are the above two people public representatives for that area, they are also local residents.
@rodger wrote:
All they are doing is stalling jobs, financial contributions,s & a housing,and the revitalisation of our city.
Whether you agree with ANY objector or not, I’m certain that nobody goes out with the intention of doing the above. To suggest so is ridiculous.
@rodger wrote:
Eight months ago these units would have cost about 275,000 euro now the average price in the area is up to 375,000 euro,thats an increase of 12,000,000 euros which joe public the voter has to pick up.
I’d love to see the statistics behind these claims, but nevertheless, it is not “joe public the voter” who picks up these supposed cost increases. It is the buyer who does so. If your reasoning is correct, then developers must be delighted when they see an objection coming..more money for them.
@rodger wrote:
Does anyone know if these are the only developments that they have objected to?
One other thing is if people are so up in arms about some of the proposed projects in our City how come so few appeal?Because they rely on their local representatives to do the job the tax-payers pay them to do, and represent them in these matters. I presume politicians would not make such submissions unless it was popular to do so. Of course, popularity does not make it right. 🙂
@Radioactiveman wrote:
My point being that for this to happen, submissions must be made by locals and local representatives. I think (I hope at least) that planners know enough about CSD etc. to make informed decisions about their objections.
People might rightly argue that these objections and appeals are slowing down development. But they are entitled to their say and is it up to ABP and CCC to ensure that all submissions are dealt with in a timely manner.The offer insight indeed – and don’t worry, I see where you’re coming from. ]Have you seen the portocabin lex?[/QUOTE]
Yes – maybe I’m just naive, but I was hoping for something with a little more flair. Still an improvement.
And just as a matter of clarity…@Radioactiveman wrote:
Thay have NOT objected to this development. Nobody has ever suggested they did. I think you may be confusing this with another Frinailla development, i.e. Lady’s Well at Watercourse Road. Not only are the above two people public representatives for that area, they are also local residents.
Labour Councillor Catherine Clancy did lodge an objection against Dennehy’s Cross – Cllr. Clancy resides in Blackpool. Another Labour Cllr., Michael Ahern also lodged objections to the said proposal.
@Radioactiveman wrote:
Whether you agree with ANY objector or not, I’m certain that nobody goes out with the intention of doing the above. To suggest so is ridiculous.
It is costing the city of S/A housing – Councillor objections to a proposal in Togher for part S/A housing was refused following resident objection. Mostly due to the fact it contained elements over 2-storeys. The fact is proudly touted on a lobby group website (as below).
The Manager wanted Councillors to give the “OK†to a developer to knock a house and replace it with a block of Flats with little car parking in Grenville,Togher Road, against the wishes of residents.
However due to the intervention of Councillors Ciaran Lynch, Fergal Dennehy, and Jerry Buttimer who backed the residents and called for a debate and vote on the issue the democratically elected members of Cork City Council over ruled the unelected Manager on this occasion and changed the proposal to suit the residents of the area despite Joe Gavin’s warning that the developer may pull out of the deal.
Hopefully this is a sign that Councillors will in future support the people that elected them and let the City Manager know just who is (or should be) running our City.
@Radioactiveman wrote:
I’d love to see the statistics behind these claims, but nevertheless, it is not “joe public the voter” who picks up these supposed cost increases. It is the buyer who does so. If your reasoning is correct, then developers must be delighted when they see an objection coming..more money for them.
Some areas of the city have seen value increases of up to 15% within the 8 month period dated Jan 2005 to Aug 2005 – taking a house value of €275,000 in January 2005, that unit would now value at somewhere in and around €316,250 – not €375,000 on the dot (but of course exceptions do exist) and considering 4 months in LA planning plus another 4 months in appeal – in some cases, time is one of the biggest impediments to buyer ability. Unfortunate but true. 🙁
All the same, your points are taken RM – thanks. 🙂
@lexington wrote:
Yes – maybe I’m just naive, but I was hoping for something with a little more flair. Still an improvement.
Labour Councillor Catherine Clancy did lodge an objection against Dennehy’s Cross – Cllr. Clancy resides in Blackpool. Another Labour Cllr., Michael Ahern also lodged objections to the said proposal.I take your point about the porto-cabin, but i suppose it was a compromise between flair and function.
You’re right about Cllr Clancy’s submission re. Dennehy’s Cross. Apologies to rodger. 🙂
Hi Rm.Catherine Clancy did object to Dennehys Cross and the objection is counter signed by Labour TD.Kathleen Lynch,
Just as a matter of interest is this there constituency?How do you feel about this?
I have to admit I know nothing of the planning & appeal procedure; but surely it should be possible to have a preliminary stage where a summary judgement could be made, to prevent frivolous objections. And shouldn’t that be the only thing that matters – whether the reasons for the objection are reasonable, not the name on the form?
@rodger wrote:
Hi Rm.Catherine Clancy did object to Dennehys Cross and the objection is counter signed by Labour TD.Kathleen Lynch,
Just as a matter of interest is this there constituency?How do you feel about this?
See post above rodger… try not to get too smart about it ]Rear[/B] of new Pharmacy building during construction.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
