developments in cork
- This topic has 2,179 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
@daniel_7 wrote:
i recently heard again that the city council is pushing for an events centre to be built at horgans quay and i was just wondering does anyone know why they are pushing for this site when they have much better options open to them.there is mahon point where they might be holding out for payments due to them if it is not built there which is fair enough but there is also the showgrounds and curraheen which are much better sites for access purposes and for the good of the development for the city aswell.when this centre is to be built it really has to have a capacity of at least 6000 – 10000 and it doesnt look like the city councils choosen site can accomodate this so why are they still pushing it?this really has to be acted on as soon as possible as there is talk of limerick building such a centre aswell and i really think cork has to get there first and curraheen seems to be the best option for the city where the builders are offering to build the centre in exchange for the showgrounds land which they would then use to kick start the docklands regeneration and would also probably come to an agreement with the gaa for the redevelopment of pairc ui coimh which otherwise doesnt look like happening and this would also be a big benefit to the city as it is needed aswell.
My tuppence worth on the event centre is that the docklands would be the most suitable site, however, the city council seem to be allowing piecemeal applications for development in the docklands without having any masterplan in place.
This type of approach will net the city a large amount of cash in development fees but will be of little value to the city in the long term.@kite wrote:
My tuppence worth on the event centre is that the docklands would be the most suitable site, however, the city council seem to be allowing piecemeal applications for development in the docklands without having any masterplan in place.
This type of approach will net the city a large amount of cash in development fees but will be of little value to the city in the long term.the level of activity in the docklands remains below its potential. i can think of only a few schemes like water st, nat ross, centre park road and maybe eglinton st if ya consider that docklands. horgans qy is an ongoing saga so im not even counting that til i see an application in the planning office. as for the masterplan the council are long overdue on the south docks plan and published the north area plan with 3 apps already in or pending (applications which took up the bulk of the north quays). i think these plans are nice guidelines and good to have but dont think everything should be pent up while the council procrastinate on getting details together. the docklands will require thought and time but it also needs points of encouragement, the sort howard have provided with lapps qy. to think all progress should be put on ice until the council finally decide on a masterplan wont help the city.
as for the event centre, putting it on horgans qy is a bit like trying to shove brick through a keyhole. it should be in the docklands but i dont know if longterm this is the place for it.
@pier39 wrote:
the level of activity in the docklands remains below its potential. i can think of only a few schemes like water st, nat ross, centre park road and maybe eglinton st if ya consider that docklands. horgans qy is an ongoing saga so im not even counting that til i see an application in the planning office. as for the masterplan the council are long overdue on the south docks plan and published the north area plan with 3 apps already in or pending (applications which took up the bulk of the north quays). i think these plans are nice guidelines and good to have but dont think everything should be pent up while the council procrastinate on getting details together. the docklands will require thought and time but it also needs points of encouragement, the sort howard have provided with lapps qy. to think all progress should be put on ice until the council finally decide on a masterplan wont help the city.
as for the event centre, putting it on horgans qy is a bit like trying to shove brick through a keyhole. it should be in the docklands but i dont know if longterm this is the place for it.
😮 Yes, i take your point, i don’t blame the stakeholders of the docklands for pushing development, i would lay ALL the blame with CCC who should have had a plan in place in 1999, now with piecemeal development being allowed they will be scraching their heads in a few years time wondering how they are going to make “all the dots join up”??
@lexington wrote:
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.
Yes agreed, but in this case, if I am not mistaken, it is only the facade of these buildings that is being retained. It seems evident that what is colloquially referred to as the ‘dolls house’ here is being retained in its entirety along with the smaller building beside it. However, it is only the facade of the Cork Examiner offices that is to be retained. This goes against your logic as set out above.
– 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.
I think this basically sums up this development proposal, and is the aspect that worries me about it the most. I am not arguing agains the economic necessity of the development, but the way it just seems to be trying to fit it in to its surroundings by the use of retained facades, with the real structure sticking up behind is going to look quite messy in reality. It almost looks like there is some sort of monster trying to burst out of a fairly nicely decorated cage 😉
However, I think the idea of opening up a new laneway is a good one. Will it be open 24 hours a day or will it only be open during hours of retail trade? What aspect of the project where Gehl architects involved in? I am assuming they would have had something to do with this laneway?
With regard to the event centre would it not be more feasible to use City Hall for these events?
I remember 10-15 years ago it was often used for concerts, dance events etc. I am unsure of the capacity but would estimate 3-4 thousand. Why do they feel the need to build an event centre in water street when they already have this resource which needs to be marketed and promoted better to concert promoters and event organisers?
Or do the city council feel that city hall is only appropriate for “high brow” Opera and Classical concerts?@corkdood wrote:
With regard to the event centre would it not be more feasible to use City Hall for these events?
I remember 10-15 years ago it was often used for concerts, dance events etc. I am unsure of the capacity but would estimate 3-4 thousand. Why do they feel the need to build an event centre in water street when they already have this resource which needs to be marketed and promoted better to concert promoters and event organisers?
Or do the city council feel that city hall is only appropriate for “high brow” Opera and Classical concerts?City hall only holds 1100 as far as I know.
An Odyssey multi purpose flexible arena suitable for large conferences,sports,ice events,concerts etc. that would have the type of numbers accommodation that would make it feasable for these events to be held in Cork.
I am amazed that the Cork hoteliers,Vintners and business community are’nt pushing harder for this as they must be losing a fortune every year from potential customers heading to Millstreet,INEC Killarney and Dublin.Work seems finally to be beginning at Frinailla’s Grand Parade Hotel site, with contractors John Paul on site in the last few days removing exsisting scaffoldng and preparing the site.
Also, I have heard that the Huguenot Graveyard on Carey’s Lane is about to be redeveloped along the lines of a coffee shop/exhibition space along with a neighbouring building. According to a source, an application for planning permission is due to be lodged in the next few days.
more detail later
–update– Huguenot Graveyard development
According to a report in today’s Examiner, John Murphy of Table 8 restaurant is about to apply for permission to widen the existing entrance on Carey’s Lane, install a new staircase, balcony and wheelchair lift in the graveyard and to make alterations to the existing rear extension to the adjoining building. This is the third application of its type made for this site in the past 15 years. The group “Friends of the Huguenot Cemetery” have indicated that they’ll strongly oppose the plans.Permission was sought in 2001, for a four storey retail apartment development on the site by Mr. Murphy.Permission of a similar type was granted by CCC in 1998, but this was refused by An Bord Pleanala.
After an archaeological investigation in advance of the 2001 decision, both Duchas and the City Archaeolgist reccomended refusal on the basis that materials of archaeological interest would be at risk.
The City Archaeologist noted:
“The development site comprises the only surviving component of the former Huguenot burial ground. The proposed development is incompatible with the conservation of this unique and important monument. The graveyard is the only historic feature, albeit obscure and largely unrecognised, surviving from this period of our history. It is the only surviving element of a group of people who greatly contributed to the development of Cork City.”
At the time, CCC noted that: “Alternatives for the use of the site can be discussed with the applicant in view of this approach.”
There is no doubt, that the development now proposed would, on the face of it, be much less obtrusive on the archaeological fabric of the site and could allow much desired access to the site by the general public. Nevertheless, this application is sure to generate a large amount of objections.🙂 A residential scheme along Hanover Street, designed by James Leahy & Associates, is expected for a grant tomorrow adding immensely to what had become something of a worn down street-scape. The development, originally proposed with 23 apartment units (a mix of 1 and 2-bedroom accommodations) is to be realised over the 2 premises held along the street by John and Michael O’Dwyer. The design is of a pleasant, contemporary nature and peaked at 6-storeys in height as part of the original application, but has since been revised down. The O’Dwyer site adjoins another site, due soon for decision, that of Adrian Power who has proposed an office scheme designed by Coughlan de Keyser Associates which fronts the riverside next to historic Clarke’s Bridge, a stone’s throw from the city’s legal district along Washington Street. The office scheme was originally proposed as a 7-storey format back in July of 2005 and had been subject to 2 rounds of further information after concerns were raised on issues related to height and material finishes, which originally included copper cladding. These materials are understood to have since been revised – a decision on the project is scheduled for April 3rd 2006.
– another Coughlan de Keyser project, that of CentrePoint along Contraf Street (for DAT Partnerships – a Dublin/Cork operation who has activities in a number of projects including residential schemes in Kerry), remains in Further Information. A second request for information was issued following revised submissions on development plans for a 9-storey office building at the tiny triangular site bound by Deane Street, Oliver Plunkett Street Lower and Clontarf Street.
Updating ImagesJust as part of my ‘long-term’ ambition to improve the image quality in many of my posts (especially the older ones) – I am updating images associated with the following projects:
The Treasury (Saint Patrick’s Quay)
Developer:Paul Kenny
Architect:Wilson ArchitectureGrianbru (Dennehy’s Cross)
Proposed by:Richard Walsh & Dick Kiely
Architect:Kiosk ArchitectsHow many updates I get through will depend on the time I have here.
Previous Image Update included: Beasley Street/Parnell Place Hotel
@lexington wrote:
Updating Images
Just as part of my ‘long-term’ ambition to improve the image quality in many of my posts (especially the older ones) – I am updating images associated with the following projects:
This one could be improved again by removing the wires, like this:
.@Devin wrote:
This one could be improved again by removing the wires, like this:
.A marked improvement. It makes you wonder why they didn’t consider that in the first place.
Whilst on the subject of overhead wires it seems to me that Cork as a city has quite a lot. Obviously in the past this was the way wires were run but these days surely most urban streets have ample culverts in pace to take wires beneath the road surface.
Finally its always been a bug bear of mine that Cork City council used to leave the overhead wires traversing St Patrick Street in place all year round. These wires were used to support the christmas decorations.
I was delighted when the street was redeveloped and the announcement was made that there were to be new decorations. However in their wisdom the city council now leaves the christmas decorations in place all year round. What is that about???????@corkdood wrote:
Whilst on the subject of overhead wires it seems to me that Cork as a city has quite a lot. Obviously in the past this was the way wires were run but these days surely most urban streets have ample culverts in pace to take wires beneath the road surface.
Finally its always been a bug bear of mine that Cork City council used to leave the overhead wires traversing St Patrick Street in place all year round. These wires were used to support the christmas decorations.
I was delighted when the street was redeveloped and the announcement was made that there were to be new decorations. However in their wisdom the city council now leaves the christmas decorations in place all year round. What is that about???????Also the ammount of unused poles on pavements etc. all over the city is multiplying.
Fairly neglegent allright – Check out the set of lanterns on St.Patricks Bridge next time you are in the city Centre, I thoght they might have been refurbished for 2005.A refurbishment similar to Parliament Bridge might happen some day.Also whats the story with the lighting pn Oliver Plunkett Street ??? As we have those temporary steel poles there for over a year now.
@Saucy Jack wrote:
Also the ammount of unused poles on pavements etc. all over the city is multiplying.
And there is no attempt to rationalise their use. The ugliest of the lot are the CCTV poles. Is there no way these cameras could have been put up using existing poles or attached to the side of buildings?
If we’re going to get onto the subject of visual nuisances…
Does anyone make any attempt to control the amount of roadfront signage put in. It seems to be particularly bad along the Kinsale Rd. It would make you wonder why anyone pays for legitimate advertising space.
And the adverts themselves are unsightly. I’ll think particularly of the signs along Southern Rd and attached to the Southern Star. They are just too big for their location. I believe some North American cities (Vancouver from memory?) have much smaller permitted sizes than the ones we see around Cork.
@Devin wrote:
This one could be improved again by removing the wires, like this:
.Surely this wasn’t done because it would give a false representation of the development. It would be akin to omitting one storey in the development just so it looks nicer!
@Radioactiveman wrote:
Surely this wasn’t done because it would give a false representation of the development. It would be akin to omitting one storey in the development just so it looks nicer!
I agree Radioactiveman. Whilst I don’t think it is quite as bad as omitting one storey, I still think it is a false representation of the proposed structure.
@phil wrote:
I agree Radioactiveman. Whilst I don’t think it is quite as bad as omitting one storey, I still think it is a false representation of the proposed structure.
Though removing the wires looks good and probably presents the project a little better, i would agree that the reason the original montages were presented with wires was to portray a sense of accuracy. Which is no bad thing given designers are often criticised for trying to twist the reality of an area by adjusting it digitally. I think its refreshing to see a more realistic presentation. Its a pity the montages dont show this projects relation to the Frinailla Dennehys cross project across the road.
Cork City Council have refused Murrayforde Developments Ltd., permission to refurbish 37 and 38 Shandon Street and convert to 6 x i bed apartments with ground floor shop. In effect, the proposal was to remove party walls throughout the two buildings and to provide for one large retail outlet at ground floor.
No open space of any kind was proposed for the apartments, which were all under the required floor area (45 sq m).
As flagged by lexington a few days ago,
Permission has been granted to John and Michael O’Dwyer for their apartment development at No. 20 Hanover Street. The proposal was brought down one storey to 5-storey after a further information request.
The same developers also recieved permission for a five storey commercial/apartment development at 22 Hanover Quay.@Radioactiveman wrote:
Cork City Council have refused Murrayforde Developments Ltd., permission to refurbish 37 and 38 Shandon Street and convert to 6 x i bed apartments with ground floor shop. In effect, the proposal was to remove party walls throughout the two buildings and to provide for one large retail outlet at ground floor.
No open space of any kind was proposed for the apartments, which were all under the required floor area (45 sq m).Are those the two dilapidated buildings you see as you look over North Gate Bridge?
Objectors to Frinailla’s Dennehy’s Cross plan are Communities for sustainable development, E.St.Ledger, D. Kidney, and Frinailla themselves ?
Why would Frinailla go to ABP, they were only reduced by 1 floor.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
