Down With An Taisce!!!
- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Why does tax-payers money end up being wasted on a pointless organisation?
All arguments for reason with relation to validity in the objections of An Taisce are impotent as An Taisce have objected to EVERY large-scale development in Cork for the past 2/3 years. It is a shame An Taisce can’t manage itself in a proactive rather than destructive manner. How is it that An Taisce objects to practically all new developments in Cork city? 1 or 2 is excusable where relevant but An Taisce are incessantly trying to hold development back. The sustainability of such projects is the responsibility of City Planners. Objections are acceptable from those from which a development personally affects – that’s democracy. But An Taisce claim to do it from a conservationists stand-point. Explain Water Street then? Explain Watercourse Road? Explain Mannix’s project on Wsshington Street?
If you believe An Taisce has become an increasingly irrevalant waste of tax-payers money (one the Government seems increasingly aware of) please state your voice here.
-
jeez lexington…..where you been for the last two years?
An Taisce have had the shit kicked out of them on this forum for as long as I’ve been a member.
Diaspora to his credit has stayed resolute though, throughout.:)
-
Its funny. I hear so much unjustified and unsubstantiated criticism of An Taisce that I tend to mistrust most hostile rants against the organisation (of which I am not a member).
However, Lexington, your complaint is a new one for me. Could you provide any data to back up your criticism?
How many major developments have been proposed?
How many have been objected to by an Taisce?
How often have the objections been upheld by Cork CoCo? How often by ABP?
Is your problem mainly with the delays caused or with the decisions being taken by planning authorities further to An Taisce objections?(By the way in the interests of disclosure – but not to take away from the validity of your comments – have you been involved in any project which has been stymied further to an An Taisce appeal?)
On a point of information An Taisce is not, by and large, funded by the taxpayer.
One further question – are the objections you refer to mainly submitted by the Cork branch or the national organisation?
-
Originally posted by aland
jeez lexington…..where you been for the last two years?An Taisce have had the shit kicked out of them on this forum for as long as I’ve been a member.
Diaspora to his credit has stayed resolute though, throughout.:)
Thanks Alan,
You have put a very good case for good modern architecture as long as I’ve been posting here (which isn’t very long), the type of buildings that will have retained their facades in 20 years. Not like the type of stuff the ‘New and Shiny brigade’ like Lexington enjoy to proclaim as modern and visionary.
An Taisce no longer receive any state aid other than classification as a charitable and freindly society under the companies acts.
If you have a problem with any of the above developments being refused permission I suggest that you adress all correspondence to An Bord Pleannalla 64 Marlborough St Dublin 1.
An Taisce lose some appeals because the bord in their wisdom accept that the development should procede against the ‘Opinion’ of An Taisce. Examples include the waste incinerator for Ringaskiddy no doubt a great fit with a world class office district.
What you need to do Lexington is put your money where your size 9 resides and submit an observation to Cork CC on every development you wish to see passed, then submit an observation to An Bord Pleannalla, then and only then while working voluntarily could you claim to be right.
-
First of all, I wish to stress that I am in no way making a personal attack on Diaspora – I would not sink to such levels of personal attack. I believe in the right to individual opinion and believe each is of equal value no more so than my own. This includes the opinions of An Taisce – however, my attack is on that of the organisation, that by way of opinion, has delayed and indeed influenced the negative decision of some planning applications that has led to the loss of jobs, investment, infastructure and public amenity in a manner that is not a proactive campaign for a positive outcome, but a destructive campaign leading to a negative outcome. It is an apparent maliciousness evident in their objections that seemingly affects all projects proposed. IF such objections were lodged on genuine forward-looking conservationist grounds – they would then be lodged with developments that clearly violate an environment or structure of such grounds. But these are few. And I support them (aka Grangefield Developments proposal with relation to the Georgian Arbutus Lodge Hotel – a campaign I actively engaged in before An Taisce and posted my feelings on these forums – at how a beautiful specimen of architecture was been destroyed in the face of ‘shiny and new’ Diaspora claims I advocate. If he cared to read any of my posts on the matter, as well as my posts relating to Watergold House in Douglas, he would clearly know, I’m a strong advocate for conservation and post-modern styles.).
However, not every project proposed, some of which (in response to a post by vinnyfitz) I have both personal and financial interests in, are in violation of the ideals An Taisce claims to represent. Some of these projects have gone to enormous trouble (financial and time) to make sure of this – financing excavations, restorations, conservation exercises, landscaping etc etc. Yet An Taisce, has objected to some of these projects on fecious grounds (e.g. ‘a classic example of 18th Century dockland warehousing’ – Water Street. This classic example would be fine had it not be so poorly cared for and is now in a vile state of disrepair. Another famous example of their objection was of an 19th century terraced house in Passage West that at great expense was be shelled to avoid debris injuring the pedestrian public. A case An Taisce brought to An Bord Pleanala – delaying the fact that the house was a public health risk). Is this responisbility??? Even the local press campaigned and condemned against An Taisce irresponsible actions.
The following are a list of just SOME of the recent major developments in the Cork city area – proof of the unfair and irresponsibly destructive number of objections forwarded by An Taisce. If you consider the location, nature and design of these projects, it makes the objections more non-sensical. If this is insufficient, I will provide more lists.
1. TP:0428202 – John Mannix, Washington St.
ELAINE NI MUILLEOIR AN TAISCE CORCAIGH, 23/04/2004 26/04/2004
KEVIN HURLEY AN TAISCE CORCAIGH, 23/04/2004 23/04/20042. TP:04/28448 – Werdna, Water Street
ELAINE NI MUILLEOIR AN TAISCE CORCAIGH, 30/06/2004 01/07/20043. TP:04/27987 – Rockfell Investments Ltd, Cornmarket St
MR KEVIN HURLEY AN TAISCE CORCAIGH 11/02/2004 12/02/20044. TP:02/25914 – Thomas Crosbie Holdings, Lavitts Quay
AN TAISCE KEVIN HURLEY AN TAISCE CORCAIGH 03/05/2002 09/05/20025. TP:0226661- Hilltrent Ltd (O’Callaghan Properties)Lavitts Quay
AN TAISCE THE NATIONAL TRUST OF IRELAND 10/08/2001 21/08/20016. TP:0327769 – OSB Developments, Knapps Quay
MR IAN LUMLEY AN TAISCE CORCAIGH 26/02/2004 02/03/2004
MR. IAN LUMELY AN TAISCE, 28/11/2003 04/12/20037. TP:0125222 – CIT (Cork School of Music), Union Quay
KEVIN HURLEY AN TAISCE CORCAIGH 27/06/2001 03/07/20018. TP: 0327204 – Frinailla Ltd, Grand Parade
MS. LUCY DAWE LANE AN TAISCE CORCAIGH, 11/06/2003 11/06/20039. TP:0327674 – Kenny Group, South Main Street
MR KEVIN HURLEY AN TAISCE CORCAIGH 03/11/2003 07/11/200310. TP:0428159 – Corbett Bros., Parnell Place
ELAINE NI MUILLEOIR AN TAISCE CORCAIGH, 08/04/2004 14/04/200411. TP:
…the list goes on! Is this fair objection? Notice how all these developments have been objected to by An Taisce? If they’re objections were satisfied, would that be fair to Cork? A city for quite sometime didnt get the same opportunities as Dublin or Limerick and so on. I resent them deeply for this. Personally and at a public level.
As for public financing, I will attain the appropriate figures as soon as I physically can and make them available to you on this forum.
In addition, I see it a pity, that Diaspora, an individual for whom I would never personally attack, as I often vehemently agree with the points he notably and correctly makes on these forums – would have to assume an element of my character without ever reading my posts adequately enough to pass judgement. I have always advocated conservation in light of development. Our past is a part of who we are, and as remembrents of the past are finite, they must be protected. ‘Shiny and bright’ as it is claimed I so blindly advocate are not always the way to go, yet even from the minute information I provide here, it is proof of the destructive nature of An Taisce in Cork especially. I will provide further information (like a planning application) if requested.
-
Furthermore, Ringaskiddy is in Cork Harbour, part of the Cork County Council, not City Council, and is not in the vicinity of the world class office district emerging in the docklands. It isn’t even within 15mins of the city by good road.
Additionally, I have put my money where my mouth is, and have financed many submissions in favour of various projects, to the Cork City Council. I have the receipts and the notices to prove every submission I have favourably made. This is another assumption you have poorly made. Such a pity.
I am not in the business of personal attacks. I will continue to acknowledge and respect the right of opinion on these forums. I often agree with much of what Diaspora has to say, and sometimes I don’t. My attack lies with the institution, not the people. Please remember that.
-
-
Don’t know anything about personal attacks, lexington. Just that because of Diaspora’s connection as a consultant with An Taisce he’s had to defend much critisism that’s all.
Vinnyfitz.you did ask for examples and now you have them but lexington it would help the debate I feel ,if you would declare an interest, you seem to have a lot of information at your fingertips……….are you a planner? architect? developer? council junky?
-
This is an interesting discussion notwithstanding the unusually polemical thread title.
Lexington, thanks for the list of projects but can I press you a bit more on what exactly is An Taisce’s sin in the process?
Is it because they waste time or because they tell tales outside Cork?OK I get the point about the delay in knocking the house in Passage West. But is the problem generally delays – “vexatious” appeals that hold things up for 4 months before ABP bins them?
Or, is your problem really with ABP itself – that it overrules Cork City Council decisions?
You see, I do have sympathy with Diaspora’s point. An Taisce does not make planning decisions. I sort of get the impression that you wish they would go away ‘cos if they were absent no one else would try and encourage “Dublin” (ABP) to interfere in “Our” (Cork) planning decisions.
-
The Water St project is an obvious target for an objection. Based solely on scale. There is nothing NOTHING of heritage value in this area that would be lost as a result of this going ahead – this isn’t historical city core. It’s not situated next to Finbars Cathedral. I am suspicious when I hear An T try to pathetically reason their objections with lofty “classical” descriptions. What drugs are they on? Go down there and actually look around (Fitzwilliam Sq it aint).
The Mannix “building”??? If anyone who’s ever lived in Cork or knows the story behind that – an attempt to rebuild this should be supported. Period.
By objecting to this An T Corcaigh have let the people of Cork know that they are not residents in the real world. Go down to Washington St… seriously…As for shiny and new??? Well which is better – the Cork of today? Derelict and run down?
My favourite observation which speaks volumes about the kind of people in An Taisce Corcaigh was when the hotel was planned for the Coal Quay. Apparently building a hotel on this scale in such an area would ruin the historical markets… again someone please go to the Coal Quay and look for these markets… Eastenders.
-
In response to aland, I would rather not disclose fully my interest – if you read my Interests/Hobbies information on my profile, that will give you one indication of what I do. But it isn’t my professional entirety.
And in reply to vinnyfitz, I believe the ‘sin’ An Taisce is guilty of is not being ‘A Champion for a Quality Life’ – it’s slogan – but being the complete opposite. As par the small info I have provide in my 2nd last post, An Taisce in Cork certainly hasn’t objected to one or two projects (and don’t get me wrong I acknowledge the validity of some of their arguments), but they object to EVERY project (w/ the accepted exception of No.6 Lapps Quay) in Cork over the passed 3 years. Some on spurious, inappropriate grounds that all cause trouble – for the neighbouring residents, for developers, for planners, for prospective employees and so on. In fairness to ABP, I often find myself in more agreeance with their decisions than that of CCC (eg. overturning the decision on Kenny Group’s South Main Street proposal). I don’t believe in developers free-reign. If that was the case, eye-sores and half-arsed buildings would spring up everywhere – I appreciate conditioning – but An Taisce has objected everywhere!!! This does cause untold damage to the community quite often – I know, I actively involve myself in trying to rectify these situations at a voluntary level. I resent the fact, that An Taisce causes such seemingly malicious jeporadisation of these projects. For example, Water Street and Cornmarket Street are classic examples of An Taisce struggling to make a case against a project, they really have nothing to go on, so why do they object?
Though such poor cases may or may not affect the planning outcome, they do cause delay, angst and in one incident of note, a withdraw by developers costing hundreds of jobs at a site that had NO architectural note and had been zoned by planners for its proposed use. Like I said, I’m all for conservation, I often work for it, but at the rate of behaviour by An Taisce in Cork, it must be accepted to be intolerable. I further resent the fact that all this objection comes from within Cork, but by people that aren’t Corkonian, bar 1 or 2. A Champion for Quality of Life considers the best outcome for ALL people, and the city as a whole. Some of An Taisce’s ’causes’ are dangers to public safety, beyond ANY sort of repair, and in locations that cannot be utilised for anything other that simply standing there looking rotten. I will provide examples of these upon request.
I empathised with Diaspora’s difficult position, but understand, An Taisce has often put me in such hard-wearing positions.
-
I do not find myself in a difficult position, I did a little consultative work for An Taisce and met with all the professional staff and some of the Key elected council members. I have to say that while I wouldn’t agree with all of them on everything they were a very high calibre group of people.
Regarding your assertion that it should be disbanded I couldn’t disagree more. They are in many ways the last line of defence for heritage where the IGS don’t have a presence.
Regarding your assertion that they are costing jobs, that brings to mind Patrick Gallahers 1970’s protest on Molesworth St when his construction crew were laid off until he got his way.
The developments you have supplied with the exception of Water St are not of a great architectural standard in my opinion.
Water St was a well designed proposal, but you have said that at least part of the proposed site contains 18th century buildings. I haven’t seen the buildings so I can’t assess their merit, but in general 18th century buildings should be preserved.
I also feel that you are hitting An Taisce as an ‘easy target’ when you would be better trying to influence
A. The relevant development plan
B. The Local Authorities
C. An Bord Pleannalla
I agree that Cork needs development and that the docklands provide a perfect opportunity for Cork to build a sustainable urban quarter.
But look at the development of Dublins Docklands after the Initial 3 buildings (IFSC House etc) the architectural quality went down hill and only now are proposals of real quality emerging again.
I feel that if the Cork docklands are to emerge as a real quality district you need to relase a lot of land quickly, the R&H Hall portfolio would give the scale necessary. Picking a little here and little there is only going to lead to friction as you need to add large quantums of floorspace to release significant equity.
The vision of Sean McBride, O’Dailiagh, Arthur Cox and Preagar will continue and sadly An Taisce is almost alone as a Champion for the quality of life, its remit is broader than most National trusts because the NGO sector in Ireland is weaker than is typical in a 1st world economy.
All Credit to the IGS, Coastwatch, Birdwatch, platform 11 and the others involved in promoting sustainability and protecting heritage
-
there are 18th century buildings on the water street site, but they are being retained as part of the proposal, i think An Taisce have little basis for this submission, although I have not seen it yet. i think the an taisce submission will give CCC the ammunition they need to refuse it and an taisce can take the heat, a bit sad really. its a pity that CCC and AT arent firmly supportive of this first docklands scheme – Cork City Docklands needs a catalyst badly – and it wont come from horgans quay/kent station – here we have a developer willing to be the first to put his hand in to the docklands and he’s going to get burned. cork has a reputation nationally and internationally of a city that is traditionally anti -development, and that image needs to change if the city is ever going to expand eastwards towards the city docks – this decision would confirm that belief and will be a highly symbolic decision and will send a very strong signal out to prospective developers at national and international level.
-
As I have said before I don’t know the specific site, but I would be surprised if all the period buildings are retained that it will be refused permission.
Architecturally it is a good proposal and has quite a slender profile
I hope that it doesn’t affect any important streetscapes as if it doesn’t it would send out a good impression for the City of Cork
-
With reference to the difficult position remark – I was referring to the fact that I acknowledge these forums haven’t given An Taisce much slack. But I also acknowledge that there is no smoke without fire.
-> W.R.T. Jobs – is it not true, that if stringent planning conditions endorsed by strong local objection are predominant in a city, private investment will go elsewhere? (This was for so long the case in Cork until the local planning authorities under Joe Gavin got a much needed shake-up).
-> W.R.T. Design – Local Planning have become far demanding in their expectations of architectural quality in Cork. This is evident in the design quality of the latest projects. Your indication of a distaste for architectural quality in Cork’s latest projects is a matter of opinion – I initially had distaste for Water Street in its design, but it has grown on me. Do you also refute the design quality with regards to environment for the projects at Lapps Quay, Lavitts Quay, Camden Quay, County Hall and Brookfield? Their standard is generally considered of a very high order. (I have posted some of these pictures at thread ‘Cork – New Developments’. If you wish to view more, please indicate this to me.)
-> W.R.T. 18TH Century Buildings – what’s left is practically rubble. There is nothing to preserve, as is agreed by d_d_dallas and all all aware of Water Street. This is what is the cause of such outrage (similar to Mannix’s project on Washington Street. As a point of interest I intend to post pictures of these sites in their present state, and with that of the proposed development).
-> W.R.T. R&H Hall, a point I agree with you on, I think they would be superb areas for development. However, please feel free to contact An Taisce in Cork, they have already voiced objections to any proposed demolition of the grain silos and any development proposed as a replacement – without even seeing any plans??? I haven’t even seen plans for there yet. Is…is that reasonable? You seem to already be aware of the nature of these premises.
And finally, I will lend my support to An Taisce with regard to reasonable objection, but their carry on in Cork has made them lose an awful lot of credibility and enraged many locals, even those in City Planning, ring and ask! As a democracy we are obliged to hear and acknowledge opinion, but An Taisce have breached unfairness. If they are to gain any respect from a vast quantity of the locale again, An Taisce ae going to need to address themselves and think seriously about the road they are taking – especially their Cork branch, whom I will be meeting soon enough to discuss the like with first hand.
-
Originally posted by lexington
Jobs – is it not true, that if stringent planning conditions endorsed by strong local objection are predominant in a city, private investment will go elsewhere? (This was for so long the case in Cork until the local planning authorities under Joe Gavin got a much needed shake-up).I disagree capital follows talent which UCC seems to nurture very well, talent follows quality of life, only the highest standards attract mobile talent, capital is subservient to talent. By making a mess of a city you enter a vicious circle certainly given the cost of living and poor public transport system.
Originally posted by lexington
W.R.T. Design – Local Planning have become far demanding in their expectations of architectural quality in Cork. This is evident in the design quality of the latest projects. Your indication of a distaste for architectural quality in Cork’s latest projects is a matter of opinion – I initially had distaste for Water Street in its design, but it has grown on me. Do you also refute the design quality with regards to environment for the projects at Lapps Quay, Lavitts Quay, Camden Quay, County Hall and Brookfield? Their standard is generally considered of a very high order. (I have posted some of these pictures at thread ‘Cork – New Developments’. If you wish to view more, please indicate this to me.)Nothing other than Water St has appealed to me, the School of Music is not the clearest image.
Originally posted by lexington
18TH Century Buildings – what’s left is practically rubble. There is nothing to preserve, as is agreed by d_d_dallas and all all aware of Water Street. This is what is the cause of such outrage (similar to Mannix’s project on Washington Street. As a point of interest I intend to post pictures of these sites in their present state, and with that of the proposed development).The 2000 Local Government (planning & development) Act places strong responsibilities on the owners of heritage properties.
Originally posted by lexington
R&H Hall, a point I agree with you on, I think they would be superb areas for development. However, please feel free to contact An Taisce in Cork, they have already voiced objections to any proposed demolition of the grain silos and any development proposed as a replacement – without even seeing any plans??? I haven’t even seen plans for there yet. Is…is that reasonable? You seem to already be aware of the nature of these premises.The Treasury Building completed in 1990 is an example of recycling at its best, a former silo yielding 5 floors of double height offices with a tenant roll of AAA occupiers, with modern technology anything is possible while retaining much of the existing form.
Originally posted by lexington
And finally, I will lend my support to An Taisce with regard to reasonable objection, but their carry on in Cork has made them lose an awful lot of credibility and enraged many locals, even those in City Planning, ring and ask! As a democracy we are obliged to hear and acknowledge opinion, but An Taisce have breached unfairness. If they are to gain any respect from a vast quantity of the locale again, An Taisce ae going to need to address themselves and think seriously about the road they are taking – especially their Cork branch, whom I will be meeting soon enough to discuss the like with first hand.That is entirely your own opinion, I believe that An Taisce have the respect of the majority in this country. Selected groups with differing objectives love to talk about the silent majority, I would suggest that the last major political attack on An Taisce was not benificial in fact like many forms of arrogant behaviour it backfired.
-
As Diaspora will know, I have no love for An Taisce and having met their senior representative(s) I found their attitude toward me patronising and knowledge of modern architecture limited.
However, they only provided the ammunition to scupper the project I was involved in Sligo. Local politics and agendas was more of a problem, I found.
-
The penny dropped for me on that one when the list of Councillors was put up.
I don’t think I have ever seen anything as petty in my life
There were valid arguments both ways on whether a good contemporary design should have replaced a listed the building at that spot.
But the fact that it wasn’t listed when the application was lodged or even at an advanced pre-planning was grossly unfair.
The only time to effect changes in listing are at the making of a development plan, except in the most extreme of circumstances. Which didn’t exist in the Sligo case.
If something similar happened to me away from home, I would have thought I had entered the Twilight Zone.
-
-
I do believe that An Taisce have a general respect, I am not saying that people have an affection for An Taisce but more a type of an ‘institutional respect’
They certainly are not reviled the way some would wish, many have a belief that An Taisce will protect them if something unsavoury is proposed a little close to home.
People like to see An Taisce object to something they don’t wish to see, it gives them a sense that they are right to object.
I certainly accept that particular individuals can be a little aloof at times and that knowledge of contemporary architecture can be a little limited at times.
But I must say that the Heritage officer Ian Lumely has an excellent knowledge of both historical and contemporary architecture, I have seen him compliment many a plan for something modern. He can get quite excited by some of them, he rightly says ‘why can’t we see more like that one?’
-
-
-
Originally posted by Diaspora
Water St was a well designed proposal, but you have said that at least part of the proposed site contains 18th century buildings. I haven’t seen the buildings so I can’t assess their merit, but in general 18th century buildings should be preserved.I also feel that you are hitting An Taisce as an ‘easy target’
I agree that Cork needs development and that the docklands provide a perfect opportunity for Cork to build a sustainable urban quarter.
I feel that if the Cork docklands are to emerge as a real quality district you need to relase a lot of land quickly, the R&H Hall portfolio would give the scale necessary.
I’m sorry Diaspora, and I’m not trying to specifically pinch you the whole time, but can you not acknowledge a contradiction in your arguments?
-> The Cork Docklands should emerge as quality urban quarter – but yet, almost every docklands site earmarked has been opposed to by An Taisce. I appreciate the idea of refurbishment, my own interests have assessed this potential, but only a slight handful of existing structures are capable of limited conversion – as assessed by Arup, SDA O’Flynn and CCC City Engineers Office. This is a huge limit on ability to create any sort of urban quarter, let alone a quality one.
-> Much of the land is already available, for example, the Odlums Building on Kennedy Quay (1.2 hectares), 3 sites on Centre Park Road between 1.2 and 6.4 acres, Custom House Quay, Horgan’s Quay and Water Street. ALL facing opposition from An Taisce (though I can’t say that confidently for one site on CPR).
How are we to develop when An Taisce in the majority, object to everything we do? It’s like trying to drive down a grit road to a lavish palace but with a load of people linking arms across the road, refusing to let you by.
-> As for capital investment, believe you me, the first thing ANY investor looks at when deciding upon location is ‘What can I get out of it? And how much?’ – not education. In no way is it subservient. Education becomes a factor after the investor assesses his first 2 questions and then tries to find ways to utilise the location to maximise profitability. For example, if a developer wants to construct an office building, he first looks at the market – if the market or projected market environment is favourable, the developer then assesses the likelihood of his proposal being carried through – if it is low, he will move location to the next best alternative. Then and only then, may he assess factors like education – such as UCC – if the office building does get through, occupiers may seek employees of a particular standard, the developer always has an angle then pitching the quality of available education to make the location and development more attractive. If there is no education facilities, but market demand is still strong, the developer will still invest and import education skills required.
-
Originally posted by lexington
I’m sorry Diaspora, and I’m not trying to specifically pinch you the whole time, but can you not acknowledge a contradiction in your arguments?No I am on record as being supportive of many projects mostly ones that have been completed in Dublin.
Originally posted by lexington
-> The Cork Docklands should emerge as quality urban quarter – but yet, almost every docklands site earmarked has been opposed to by An Taisce. I appreciate the idea of refurbishment, my own interests have assessed this potential, but only a slight handful of existing structures are capable of limited conversion – as assessed by Arup, SDA O’Flynn and CCC City Engineers Office. This is a huge limit on ability to create any sort of urban quarter, let alone a quality one.Thats depends on you target rate of return, the key to all sucessful development is to unlock latent value. Many suitable sites contain building land generally to the rear and side of existing buildings.
Originally posted by lexington
-> Much of the land is already available, for example, the Odlums Building on Kennedy Quay (1.2 hectares), 3 sites on Centre Park Road between 1.2 and 6.4 acres, Custom House Quay, Horgan’s Quay and Water Street. ALL facing opposition from An Taisce (though I can’t say that confidently for one site on CPR).How are we to develop when An Taisce in the majority, object to everything we do? It’s like trying to drive down a grit road to a lavish palace but with a load of people linking arms across the road, refusing to let you by.
Design better buildings most of the proposals I have seen are not particularly strong from an urban design viewpoint. They are often quite bulky and the cladding materials are difficult to assess.
Where Water St is different is that it represents a quality piece of architecture, although it would certainly have faced an easier ride if it were on a cleared site.
Originally posted by lexington
-> As for capital investment, believe you me, the first thing ANY investor looks at when deciding upon location is ‘What can I get out of it? And how much?’ – not education. In no way is it subservient. Education becomes a factor after the investor assesses his first 2 questions and then tries to find ways to utilise the location to maximise profitability.I disagree contemporary employers are primarily looking for highly skilled staff to implement existing work practices from other branches of the corporation. Buildings are about the last thing that major corporates look at. Although the Built environment is an important factor in attracting well educated foreign workers. In my opinion a lot of the proposals in question are mundane examples of ‘anywhere architecture’ and numerous examples are vacant in places like Sandyford and Bangalore.
Originally posted by lexington
For example, if a developer wants to construct an office building, he first looks at the market – if the market or projected market environment is favourable, the developer then assesses the likelihood of his proposal being carried through – if it is low, he will move location to the next best alternative. Then and only then, may he assess factors like education – such as UCC – if the office building does get through, occupiers may seek employees of a particular standard, the developer always has an angle then pitching the quality of available education to make the location and development more attractive. If there is no education facilities, but market demand is still strong, the developer will still invest and import education skills required.You have descibed the thinking behind property development quite well, if I were developing myself that is exactly the way I would think.
But I would be concious of three further things
1. No one is owed a living, development is a risky business, one sees the key players drift in and out of the market.
2. Heritage is an important aspect of culture it is protected at all levels from UN, EU, National and local. The development plans are very clear as to what you can and cannot do.
3. An Taisce and the IGS are here to stay they will continue to observe the Built Environment and their arguments are well known and often heeded.
The only way to get anything built is to be realistic in your expectations and use the highest design standards possible, only in booming market are ‘Boring Buildings’ easily rentable
-
But ya see I DO think No.5 and No.6 Lapps Quay are of a high standard of design – especially when you consider what No.5 used to be, it’s an example of clever and innovative redesign. City Quarter, I have to agree looks boring on paper, but to see it in real life – even though it is yet to be fully complete – certainly made me change my mind. It is pretty awesome. And if what you say about ‘boring buildings’ easily rentable – the aforementioned projects have SOLD almost all their office space at the stage (No.5 sold out, No.6 3 floors remaining – not even the frame is up yet on this project – and City Quarter is 70% occupied with another floor being added to meet demand) and yet office vacancy rates at a national level are just under 15%. Sure Cork is booming at the moment but I still think the demand does reflect quite a lot the quality of the product.
-
Originally posted by lexington
But ya see I DO think No.5 and No.6 Lapps Quay are of a high standard of design – especially when you consider what No.5 used to be, it’s an example of clever and innovative redesign. City Quarter, I have to agree looks boring on paper, but to see it in real life – even though it is yet to be fully complete – certainly made me change my mind. It is pretty awesome. And if what you say about ‘boring buildings’ easily rentable – the aforementioned projects have SOLD almost all their office space at the stage (No.5 sold out, No.6 3 floors remaining – not even the frame is up yet on this project – and City Quarter is 70% occupied with another floor being added to meet demand) and yet office vacancy rates at a national level are just under 15%. Sure Cork is booming at the moment but I still think the demand does reflect quite a lot the quality of the product.All the above has exactly what to do with An Taisce?
Demand for offices in Cork has everything to do with the IDA and global economic forces, it has little to do with the availabilty of buildings of questionable architectural merit.
Have a look at Liffey House on Tara St on http://www.johnpaulconstruction.com
economy and demand are everything, supply is the result of risks taken and little else.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
