Look at de state of Cork, like!
- This topic has 1,897 replies, 111 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Check out this site again, some great updates of aerial shots of the city
http://www.irelandphotography.com/aerial/i003.htmlI’m not greatly surprised Aer Lingus aren’t looking at transatlantic out of Cork. There would be some overhead for them in using an A330 out of Cork as they currently do not have any planes of that type based here.
If you look at the UK, BA only have long-haul planes operating out of London and Manchester despite the obvious demand for service in places like Birmingham and Glasgow, they leave these to the US carriers because it’s not worth their while basing planes in these locations.
Personally, I’m hoping that we see a US airline operating the route offering interlining at whatever destination they fly to in the US. As I understand it, Aer Arann are proposing a charter service, Also, given my experiences flying to Dublin with Aer Arann (hours of delays), I’m not sure I’d want to go transatlantic with them.
i heard continental airlines were lookin at using a 757 outta cork to newark – 3 times a week, but wanted to see how these ireland/us talks went first so they could get out of the whole shannon stopover thing and just have dublin and cork routes. it makes more economic sense i suppose. but dont think shannon will be too happy bout that considering their awful financial results there yesterday. only cork and dublin seem to be making any money.
my preference is to fly bmi to the uk and get a transatlantic service from Manchester… always alot cheaper than aer cunny 🙂
@jungle wrote:
I’m not greatly surprised Aer Lingus aren’t looking at transatlantic out of Cork. There would be some overhead for them in using an A330 out of Cork as they currently do not have any planes of that type based here.
If you look at the UK, BA only have long-haul planes operating out of London and Manchester despite the obvious demand for service in places like Birmingham and Glasgow, they leave these to the US carriers because it’s not worth their while basing planes in these locations.
Personally, I’m hoping that we see a US airline operating the route offering interlining at whatever destination they fly to in the US. As I understand it, Aer Arann are proposing a charter service, Also, given my experiences flying to Dublin with Aer Arann (hours of delays), I’m not sure I’d want to go transatlantic with them.
Does anyone know whats going on at the Glucksman Gallery, UCC these days? Two floors have been closed for the past while for “construction”.
Radioactiveman wrote:The refusal of the Water Street development is nothing short of criminal. That’s for sure. However, it raises the question: what is a landmark building?
It seems to me the tower was refused bcause it looked too much like the rest of the development to be considered ‘landmark’, i’d kind of agree with this definition- i mean, whats the point in having a landmark building if it just looks the same as the rest of it- just bigger. i.e. bigger does not make it ‘landmark’.
That being said, landmark or not, this was an excellent development which has been pissed away by some backward planners in CCC.
Fingers crossed for some sort of intervention.
I understand the disastrously wrong message that this planning decision is sending out to developers in Cork and that this decision makes a mockery of the councils planning system. However ,speaking purely on the architectural merit of this project and tower in particular, am I the only architect that breathes a sigh of relief that this tower is not to go ahead in its present form. Comments on the architectural merits ( or lack of ) of the tower are valid .The buildings form should be much better as a landmark building, unique and identifiable with cork. A separate planning application might achieve this.What do ye think!!!!
devries,
i would certainly agree that the proposal at Water Street could have been better – and in particular, the way the tower element was articulated as a ‘landmark’ left a lot to be desired – it did seem somewhat lost on the ground plane…amongst the other elements.
however, i think the council have a lot to answer in terms of how this application was handled – the tower element should have been a fundamental point of discussion through pre-planning and further information – its design, articulation and form should have generally been agreed before it got to a decision stage – i believe the applicant is right to be upset at the way the proposal was handled – if there were serious and principled objections to the scheme’s fundamental designs on the council’s behalf, it should have been clearly represented from the outset.
i think that ther decision is not the most disappointing thing here – it is the reluctance on behalf of ccc to move beyond the traditional confrontationalist style of planning and a fear of engaging on a level with developers. i just fear that the city’s anti-development reputation will continue to hold the city back and sends all the wrong signals to prospective docklands’ developers. if pre-planning and the whole application process had been handled correctly, we could have had a decision 6 months ago – one which both Werdna and CCC would have been entirely satisfied with.
also – incredibly – the decision appears to suggest that 5 storeys (and 2 ‘set back’) should be the limit on prominent docklands’ sites! that’s the most worrying aspect in my opinion.
@devries wrote:
I understand the disastrously wrong message that this planning decision is sending out to developers in Cork and that this decision makes a mockery of the councils planning system. However ,speaking purely on the architectural merit of this project and tower in particular, am I the only architect that breathes a sigh of relief that this tower is not to go ahead in its present form. Comments on the architectural merits ( or lack of ) of the tower are valid .The buildings form should be much better as a landmark building, unique and identifiable with cork. A separate planning application might achieve this.
What do ye think!!!!
I suppose you have to look at it in a number of ways, first: What defines landmark? Among the official designations, it is stated that: a landmark is –
1. a prominent identifying feature of a landscape.
2 : an event or development that marks a turning point or stage
3 : a structure (as a building) of unusual historical or aesthetic interest]a.)[/B] an identifying feature (located on the Eastern Gateway approach entrance to the city centre), b.) a development that marked a turning point (the initiation of the redevelopment of the northern dockland quays), c.) a structure of aesthetic interest (weigh this up against a number of developments like Victoria Mills, County Hall, Treasury’s Barrow Street project etc – I believe the aesthetic quality far outweighs the aforementioned).The tower acted like a gateway into the docklands from the east, as Eglinton Street does from the south, the way County Hall acts an entrance to the city from the west, and the way plans for a landmark development in Blackpool does to the North. It provided a sense of urban balance. Furthermore, the tower provided what was the pinnacle of the development and brought with it a sense of symmetry from a design perspective. An alternate design in the middle of this project would have looked grossly out of place and negatively impact on the visual amenity of the area – now I do know that is design pending, however, would you not concede that a glass tower 17 storeys high would look out of character with the remaining development? I suppose thats an issue to complex to answer given, a design would have to be seen first.
A sad side of the council’s decision however is the way in which the developers were clearly mislead throughout the planning process; the negative impact on possible investment – the message sent to prospective investment, and the nature of the conditions imposed by way of reducing viability full-stop. Are we going to have a docklands full of landmark 5-storey apartment and office blocks???
sw101 – why are you losing it?@bunch wrote:
devries,
however, i think the council have a lot to answer in terms of how this application was handled – the tower element should have been a fundamental point of discussion through pre-planning and further information – its design, articulation and form should have generally been agreed before it got to a decision stage – i believe the applicant is right to be upset at the way the proposal was handled – if there were serious and principled objections to the scheme’s fundamental designs on the council’s behalf, it should have been clearly represented from the outset.
i think that ther decision is not the most disappointing thing here – it is the reluctance on behalf of ccc to move beyond the traditional confrontationalist style of planning and a fear of engaging on a level with developers. i just fear that the city’s anti-development reputation will continue to hold the city back and sends all the wrong signals to prospective docklands’ developers. if pre-planning and the whole application process had been handled correctly, we could have had a decision 6 months ago – one which both Werdna and CCC would have been entirely satisfied with.
also – incredibly – the decision appears to suggest that 5 storeys (and 2 ‘set back’) should be the limit on prominent docklands’ sites! that’s the most worrying aspect in my opinion.
Totally agreed.
Any word on an appeal to ABP by the developers of Water Street? Seems like with all the wasted time and effort they spent jumping through the hoops Cork Corporation put up for them, and since the project was always likely to go to ABP whatever happened they might as well try their luck with an appeal. They have a decent enough case and I’m confident they’d get a better outcome.
As for the Eglinton Street project, I get the bad feeling that the Corporation will give it the go ahead but with the tower element dropped and a floor or two removed from the rest just for the sake of it. Seems to be a lack of ambition on the part of the powers that be in Cork at the moment. Judging from what they were prepared to allow at Water Street they have about as much ambition as their equivalents in the Dublin docklands. And thats definitely not a good thing.
Hi guys,
i’ve been a long time visitor at this website but decided to register to post some news. I attended a presentation today in UCC with Frank O’mahony of Wilson architects talking about the new library extension. Really interesting stuff. I got to grab a word with him after the presentation, building on the library will begin in 28 of May and builders have not been chosen yet he says. I also asked him about the OFlynn building on the old Post site and he said it looked pretty good so far, so good news I guess.
By the way lexington he’s asking who you are!!!! 😀 By the way lex – interesting contributions. keep up the good work.
Thanks
@Pana01 wrote:
Hi all,
any updates from last night’s meeting at City Hall where the contentious issue of the portakabin on Patrick Street was being discussed?I was surprised to see it feature on the Sunday Independent, along with full colour photo. Maybe they’ll sit up and listen now.
that boz is rotten. totally destroys the street. anyone know when their sending back to the flames of hell whence it came???!
also wotz the news ur talkin on eg st lex??? is it headed water st way>
Lexington,
Whats your news on Eglington Street?
Im glad I might have started a bit of a debate on the issue of LANDMARK buildings. In my view, although Water Street was good and handled very badly by the planning authority, the ‘landmark’ tower was simple not landmark. I take your point that something alien to the overall design would have looked out of place but the tower itself simple gets lost in the overall development.Lex, u mentioned “and the way plans for a landmark development in Blackpool does to the North.” are you talking about an existing, planned or aspirational development?
@Radioactiveman wrote:
Lexington,
Im glad I might have started a bit of a debate on the issue of LANDMARK buildings. In my view, although Water Street was good and handled very badly by the planning authority, the ‘landmark’ tower was simple not landmark. I take your point that something alien to the overall design would have looked out of place but the tower itself simple gets lost in the overall development.Lex, u mentioned “and the way plans for a landmark development in Blackpool does to the North.” are you talking about an existing, planned or aspirational development?
An aspirational development RM. It has been looked at by some developers, including a plan for a 14-storey residential tower (I think!) planned for a site along the Commons Road on the approach to Blackpool (haven’t seen any plans, just talk) – but I can’t see that progressing anytime soon. The area for a start is zoned light industrial/commercial usage. But who knows?!
As for Eglinton Street , still awaiting certain details on that. But if ewankennedy was talking to the Chief Architect behind it, and he says its good – well, that’s a nice sign. My info is pretty much the same really and I’ll get back to you when I know more.
@ewankennedy wrote:
By the way lexington he’s asking who you are!!!!
I take that as a compliment. 😉
@lexington wrote:
An aspirational development RM. It has been looked at by some developers, including a plan for a 14-storey residential tower (I think!) planned for a site along the Commons Road on the approach to Blackpool (haven’t seen any plans, just talk) – but I can’t see that progressing anytime soon. The area for a start is zoned light industrial/commercial usage. But who knows?!
Are we talking about the ICI site? Go on you can tell me…. 😎
@lexington wrote:
sw101 – why are you losing it?
alcohol-induced brain shrinkage probably.
i thought i saw a big post but when i returned to the page to read it twas all gone. i’m either mad or you’re messing with my head. well? well?
Regarding Eglinton Street –
though I’m still awaiting further details (which I may have to keep quiet for a little while longer it would now seem); the word from OFC is that the Eglinton Street project is looking very positive – both with the developer, the planners and from what ewankennedy posted earlier, the architects it would seem. A few changes are set to be implemented in the Further Information lodgement, but these in the most will not affect issues such as the tower element, commercial or office elements. The FI is scheduled to reach Navigation House within the next 2 to 3 weeks according to OFC.
Like I said, the info is coming late and I still have to await more details, but so far, so good. I’ll let you know more when I can.
@sw101 wrote:alcohol-induced brain shrinkage probably.
i thought i saw a big post but when i returned to the page to read it twas all gone. i’m either mad or you’re messing with my head. well? well?
A little from column A, and a little from column B. 😀
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
