developments in cork

@Devin wrote:

And well done for going against shameless developer parade that tends to dominate some Cork threads.

There is a mentality that prescribes the word ‘developer’ as some sort of dirty word. This escapes my understanding. What is so shameful about providing an alternative angle? Is balance hearing one side of the coin at all times? Continuous critique – is that balance? Or is balance agreeing with the opinions of one side and not seeing merit in the other? I understand this forum and equally all threads to be open to all sorts – republicofcork is by no means the first who has spoken against the grain of others on this thread, nor do I suspect he will be the last. But that’s no bad thing, and I’m glad of it, because that provides a greater degree of balance. People are very quick to condemn developers for anything they disapprove of – what bemuses me is the lack of accountability bestowed by other parties. Developers are easy targets, they’re the “evil, money hugging Scrooge-types sitting in the dark castle at the top of the hill” :rolleyes: – but when people move so freely to criticise their works, they forget that a developer is the businessman, homeowner or group who have hired the services of the architectural profession to realise they’re projects. The architects and engineers that design the schemes. I don’t buy this argument that ‘developer tight purse strings ruin the potential of a scheme’ etc etc – those type of arguments – quite frankly, that insults the ability of design teams…good architecture is that which works within the constraints and utilises it’s imagination and innovation to realise something greater. Funding is no excuse for lazy architecture. Good design teams assess the challenge and are allocated the task of providing the best of their abilities – if they don’t do this, why is it automatically attributed to the developer? The developer is the person who employs these architects, engineers, surveyors, designers etc , which sustains their jobs and their profession – people are very quick under veils to knock the client and remove themselves on condemnation from their peers. Does the developer need to be standing over an architect with a stick to make sure he produces a good design? I thought part of commissioning a design team was recognising their skill and ability as fellow professionals and bestowing confidence in their capacity to produce. Otherwise, it simply insults the ability of those forwarded the responsibility to design. Remember, developers are not (in most cases) architects – that is why they employ the skills of others. The fact that many developers have taken an increasingly active interest in design (a classic example being the relationship between Edward Holdings and Douglas Wallace) is in someways a proverbial ‘bonus’ (depending on your perspective). It is so easy for us in this position to cheap whip – indeed some of it is warranted. I make no apologises on my position, my standing and position are warranted – as is the opinion of each user on this forum. Will I argue my position when challenged? Of course I will, but isn’t the basis of debate founded on this principle – and if it wasn’t, what a monotonous debate it would be. As republicofcork demonstrated, it is not a closed forum. I don’t agree with much of what he argues – but that’s what makes it so interesting. When people go to stereotype the developer and assign those dirty meanings to the word, try to remember the long list of those you are critiquing and remove the umbrella labelling. There is nothing shameful about taking a position – the same could be argued for the alternate perspective, and I don’t think the opponents of ‘developer actions’ would consider their position shameful.

@anto wrote:

touchy!:)

I don’t see it as ‘touchy’, it’s just a response. 😮

🙂 The Shipton Group/Blackpool Developments are to apply for a new block of 6-storeys over commercial and 54 space basement car-park at their Blackool Park development. The Kelly Barry O’Brien Whelan designed scheme will seek an additional residential block of 30 apartment units on a site earmarked previously for hotel use.

@lexington wrote:

. Remember, developers are not (in most cases) architects – that is why they employ the skills of others. The fact that many developers have taken an increasingly active interest in design (a classic example being the relationship between Edward Holdings and Douglas Wallace) is in someways a proverbial ‘bonus’ (depending on your perspective). It is so easy for us in this position to cheap whip – indeed some of it is warranted.

Point taken about Holdings & Wallace, but then one has to deal with the likes of Montgomary & Derek Tynan and Co. supported by CCC planning Dept.(Victoria Mills)
Are there any gamekeepers left, or is everyone in the poachers camp?

Well, just to note the Montgomery-Kenneally Partnership/Derek Tynan relationship is not exclsuive – Mr. Montgomery has employed the likes of CMG Architects for projects at Reardens and in Douglas. Other professionals have also been employed.

Though variety in architecture builds a more interesting fabric, clearly some is more favourable than others. As a personal preference, I have never been persuaded by the design philosophy of Derek Tynan & Associates. I understand Mr. Montgomery has noted a high degree of client satisfaction with the practice and given that the practice have achieved the desired results – from a client perspective, there is little reason I would assume, for him to abandon that. From a design point of view, architectural circles have found note with DTA projects like the Gate Multiplex and Victoria Mills – CCC has received an initiative award for the Gate urban renewal project and with praise stemming from the likes of Frank McDonald and Opus Architecture & Construction Awards – what’s to persuade champions otherwise??? My own feeling, beyond the construction and structural elements of projects like the Gate and Victoria Mills – the projects are lost on me. And then you have proposals like the one posted below for Crosses Green, also designed by DTA.

But enough with the critiques from me – I sometimes perhaps seemingly dig DTA too often, and that’s not the case intended. Their designs just don’t do it for me personally. 😮

With Edward Holdings/Douglas Wallace – my understanding is Hugh Wallace and Gerry Barrett, have a very good personal relationship and “challenge” each other on what they can produce – their relationship is such that they have a fair idea of what the other wants and how best to go about getting it.

😀 Long ago in the LADSOCL thread I indicated a possible redevelopment along St. Patrick’s Quay – now the owners of the Gresham Hotel Group are to apply to CCC for an extensive 25m euro redevelopment project along Saint Patrick’s Quay and at their Gresham Metropole Hotel premises, which lies between the quay and MacCurtain Street. Precinct Investments, which includes developer Bryan Cullen, builder and hotelier JJ Murphy and solicitor David Coleman, will seek to construct a new mixed-use development which will include the demolition of the much loathed St. Patrick’s Quay extension to the Metropole Hotel fronting St. Patrick’s Quay, the demolition will also include the removal of the recently added leisure centre. 61 residential units, 5 retail units, 87 basement car-parking spaces (over 4 split levels) and a 3556sq m extension to the hotel. In place of the aging extension, a 7-storey block is now proposed which will include conferencing facilities and 44 new bedrooms overhead – as part of additional developmet on the quay, 3 retail units with 34 overhead apartments divided between 2 blocks (5 & 6-storeys with 2-set back levels) including 10 x 1-bedroom units, 19 x 2-bedroom units and 5 x 3-bedroom units. The attractive red-brick building on the corner of Harley Street and St. Patrick’s Quay will be restored and converted to a live/work unit with commercial use at street-level and residential overhead. Fronting Harley Street, 2 retail units are to be provided with 15 overhead apartments in blocks of 4 & 6 storeys with 3-set back storeys – here 4 x 1-bedroom & 11 x 2-bedroom units will be provided. From Harley Street access will also be provided to a courtyard – to this, 1 block rising to 12-storeys over basement will provide an additional 11 x 2-bedroom and 1 x 3-bedroom units. The entire site encompasses 0.2732 hectares and includes the area occupied by the existing Metropole Hotel bounded by Harley Street, St. Patrick’s Quay, MacCurtain Street and the Everyman Palace. As part of the proposal extensive renovations to the existing PS at the Metropole will be included. O’Mahony Pike Architects are charged with the design. Images soon.

Metropole site outline in red.

A much needed rejuvenation of this quayside.