developments in cork

@mickeydocs wrote:

I’ve got a question in relation to the height of Academy street… does anyone know if the proposed height is higher than the Savoy Centre?

The height of the taller apexes on the western block peak at 34 metres – which is actually 2 metres higher than the recently permitted “tower” element which formed part of the Metropole redevelopment on St. Patrick’s Quay.

The Savoy arches back to a peak of about 26 or 28 metres as far as I know. While the peak of the near-by Dunnes Stores redevelopment along Patrick’s Street reaches 30.8 metres.

@ewankennedy wrote:

Dont know what I think of the Emmett place section either. Youve been quiet on your opinion lex, well??

I think no matter what proposal is offered someone isn’t going to be happy, but its a matter of minimising the number of such people through good design. I think the Academy Street project has a number of interesting features – it is clear that thought and time has been put into the project. Whether everyone will agree that its the right thought and sufficient amount of time is another issue.

When considering the proposal, people who complain about the impact of such a development on its immediate environment have to remember a number of things: First, Cork City Council earmarked this area for higher order retail development long ago with a view to it contributing to the projected demand of 300,000sq ft + in required city centre retail space. In considering the optional outcomes, undoubtedly there was an understanding that development options would be large scale. Second, as much as good design is so so important, from a perspective of its realisation, one has to consider the economics as well; the site was expensively acquired given a.) its prime location b.) current market values and c.) the necessary proportion of required space to make a significant contribution to the provision of required retail space and to make the scheme economically viable. Third, it is an exceptionally difficult site to work with given its environment – it is flanked by protected structures – essentially the site consists of space between protected structures and it would always be a challenge providing a viable proposal in a confined site and which respects the individual characters of all the adjoining important structures. The proposals current form is very much a result of attempts to consider its surrounding environment – hence the variance in massing and materials – which some people will always label as ‘cluttered’.

As a stand-alone project – it offers some interesting features, most notably the redevelopment of Faulkner’s Lane as an active laneway and linkage – and also the Armadillo-like shell structures which rise behind the Queen Anne building (“Doll House”) on Emmet Place. I feel the photomontages do not serve justice to much of the development. Some of the architectural drawings actually highlight the nature of the scheme far more effectively – especially the relation of the new build to Emmet Place/the Queen Anne building. In fact, one of my concerns regarding the project was the impact it would have on the aforementioned structure. The shell-cascades, in my view, actually offer a rather sympathetic and smooth incline to the higher elements of the western block section. What you don’t see in the photomontages is a rather attractively designed amenity section for scheme occupants – with extensive tree planting, decking, communal areas and even a barbeque area all provided at roof level. This should, provide for a unique amenity feature to residents in an unrivalled city centre location. The use of copper cladding over the ‘arch-like’ retentions of 1 – 6 Academy Street – I think offer a.) a historical recognition and b.) a pleasant transition between old and new. The retention of facades at 8 Academy Street was a pre-requisite. The actual street frontage along Academy Street is actually pretty attractive in my own view – perhaps a little more of the 1 – 6 Academy Street facade could have been retained and incorporated but in any event I believe the extent of this would be limited either way.

What is not viewable in the montages is a glass extension on the eastern wall of the Queen Anne building, which offers a continuation of proposed frontages along Faulkner’s Lane – although I didn’t view the architectural drawings of this in any detail, I would hope that its provision is such that it inflicts no permanancy on the PS long-term. I wouldn’t think it does – I’ll be interested to see how planners judge it.

The Western Block of ‘The Saint Patrick’s Street project’ as it is formally called – is, in my view, the more striking of the 2, not least thanks to its 34m twin apexes. It is of my opinion that their height could actually form an attractive visual reference point in the city centre – however, were it my decision, I would like to see the apexes adopt a similar stylisation to that of the ‘tower’ element at Smithfield Market in Dublin – its overhangs could be finished with copper trimmings (which would compliment the materials used on lower levels) and exaggerated to emphasise their standing. The Saint Patrick’s Street frontage, in line with many of your comments, seems a little underwhelming – one would think this is perhaps to minimise impact and blend with the established street frontage, however the accentuation of a flat-headed ‘anvil’ apex and a parapet that stands above established building lines would seem to contradict this assumption. It is a tricky frontage given that it does not link into the main development at ground-floor but needs to “bridge” over the back-section of a non-constituent premises. I would still like to see a greater retention of the existing facades at this frontage as I think it will enhance the overall scheme’s relation to St. Patrick’s Street. The glazed elevation to replace 98 St. Patrick’s Street is welcomed and offers and introduction/gateway to the revamped Faulkner’s Lane.

The Eastern Block peaks lower than that of the western element – and falls more in-line with heights set by the redeveloped Dunnes Stores block and arched roofline at the Savoy centre. The main queries here relate to the scheme’s relationship to Bowling Green Street and Emmet Place. As for Bowling Green Street, there is some active usage of the street – including vehicular access – which in any event is an improvement to the existing state of affairs. I will be anxiously to see whether Dunnes incorporate active use along the street as part of their redevelopment when they submit Further Information. Ideally, I would like to see CCC redeveloped the street with a more pedestrian friendly emphasis and linkage to Drawbridge Street (a street in need of a life-prompting boost too – potential exists for an ideal little boutique street, widen pathways and better active uses all round here). As for Emmet Place, the Eastern Block could perhaps benefit from a smoother incline off the square area. Its relationship to the Queen Anne building is less sympathetic – perhaps a replicated frontage, not unlike the junction of Academy Street and Emmet Place, with copper frontage and cascading zinc shells marking the gradual block ascendency. The panned glass elevation here offers some visual draw when considered in active use form, but I think a stronger statement is needed here and a more sympathetic incline with the removal of railings and promotion of curve-linear lines rather than hard edges which step back up to the upper storeys.

I am without and would like to be able to present some of the architetural drawings/additional montages to you to demonstrate some key points – and perhaps clarify some of the concerns expressed by some individuals. Perhaps the images posted do not afford appropriate justice to the scheme. Despite what may be thought of, the project actually has a very limited impact on the quayside and long-range perspectives for such a large scheme – some of you expecting to see this project peaking out dominantly over surrounding views may be actually quite surprised.

I think OCP, Project and Gehl have actually done a good job given the challenges presented – showing a willingness to embrace a variation of forms and utilisation of curved-lines rather than the standard horizontal and vertical aspects too often engaged by such scale projects. Arguments for restraint may be noted, and indeed some areas of the project exhibit this – the challenge was always going to finding a balance. Your individual opinions of this are your entitlement.

A decision date (subject to further information and/or extension) is set for 2nd May 2006.

– the project I’m looking forward to now, is what OCP have in store for 16 Lavitts Quay. An application is expected this year on the former Thomas Crosbie Holdings print storage site and other assembled elements, which include the R. Arthur premises at the corner of Lavitts Quay and Half Moon Street. OCP have recently erected fresh hoardings around the periphery of the site where a mixed-scheme is earmarked – which will embrace established heights set by 21 Lavitts Quay (another OCP project) and a possible prospective extension to Cork Opera House. The proposal will include retail and residential elements – with the retail element likely to consist of 4 large units capable of accommodating large comparison or bulky goods uses.

@phil wrote:

I am not a big fan of facade retention. I think it is almost more instulting to the heritage of a building than complete destruction.

I would like to have seen what the facade you have shown would have looked like with its original windows. That window in the centre of your photo seems to have been a doorway at somestage, was it?

I think the Patrick’s Street elevations looks very strange, particularly if that is the doorway to the present structure that is retained?

Whether facade or whole building incorporation, my attitude towards retention is, often but not strictly, many of the designated structures for retention are earmarked due to their architectural or historical importance. Generally, such structures have been around a respectable period of time and offer a linkage to a particular period in time – when a large-scale development is proposed, it is usually my feeling that in incorporating/retaining these structures, it should be done with a view that in 30 or 40 years down the road, when the development is up for renewal, possibly facing demolition (“sunrise/sunset”) – it relationship to the retained/protected structures should be such that any demolition will not impact on the subject elements. In a sense, the relationship to a scale development should be designed as a ‘temporary’ or ‘detachable’ one – so that the structures will be presentable to future generations in an uninfringed state.

– that is of course, however, unless the new development is of such architectural/historical significance as to warrant its own protected status sometime in the future…however, I don’t think that’s the ambition of the Academy Street project. I would feel its goal is to provide an economic service encapsulated within an inoffensive and pleasantly-designed confine which demostrates some architectural awareness.