Look at de state of Cork, like!

Anybody got any info on the Community for Sustainable Development spokesperson that spoke at the Green Party annual meeting in Cork on 13-5-05 ?

@lexington wrote:

😀 Proper order too! Howard Holdings have seen ABP grant permission for the 12m sculpture proposed outside their recently completed City Quarter development on Lapps Quay. Howard Holding’s were brought to appeal by An Taisce member Tomas O’Scannlain, a serial objector to numerous development projects around Cork. His objection was related to a personal preference to see a ‘water feature’ instead of the quill-like sculpture proposed. The Bord unequivocally decided that the sculpture proposed would ” enhance the visual amenities of the area”.

Damn right too! Talk about a waste of time and energy!! 😡
__________________________________________________________________________________

Whats the news on Jury’s, Western Road ?

*UPDATES*

🙁 Charles & Helen McCarthy are to be granted permission to develop a hotel at their Mill Business Centre site at Crosses Green. Planner Michael Lynch has recommended that permission be granted subject to the revised drawings. The Derek Tynan & Associates designed proposal is now to be reduced by 2-floors so that it rises to a new 5-storey (4-storey over ground) and 2-storey over-ground height. Still ugly though! Sorry!

I’m most disappointed by the Conroy Architecture entry. How bland and boring. I reminds me of the Government Buildings on Sullivans Quay.

I’ll post the Lafferty Architecture entry later on. The design by the Building Design Partnership and Marie Pierre Avgeri, Theophilus Kizos, Irene Stolidou and Maria Kechrinioti were far more interesting and made better public domain provisions. The Greek entry proposes a fabulous boardwalk and timber plaza which wraps around the Bridewell Garda Station – it was one of my preferred entries. Pity – but I’m not surprised I have to say with Urban Initiatives had a say in the result.

@theblimp wrote:

re the Kyrls Quay competition, eeeuuuccch – let’s crumple some pieces of cardboard and drop them randomly … see how it looks. I guess it would help to see some more detail, but from the image above it’s nothing near what I had been hoping for. A great opportunity squandered – sadly it’s not like that phrase hasn’t been used here before. What happens with the winning project? Are developers invited to build according to the winning design, or does the competition gather dust somewhere? :confused:

I’ll put up an image, maybe 2 (having trouble with the lighting on the 2nd image) later tonight of 2 of the more ‘imaginative’ proposals (in my opinion) not to have passed the so-called ‘test’. The competition is merely to show what can be done. It means nothing really, but if a developer comes along and decides to roll with one of the entries, it will simply give it an easier ride through planning (theoretically!)

The winner didn’t really appeal to me either, but anything’s a huge improvement on what’s there at the moment! The second place entry sounds intriguing, would love to find out more. Some more detail is available here.

Interestingly, in the winner’s design, they talk about a raised riverside walkway – sounds quite unusual.

@Radioactiveman wrote:

Kyrl’s Quay Design Competition Winners

First Place:
Conroy Architecture, Scottish based Bobby Conroy, originally from Bantry, and Patrick Little

Dont like it. Dont like it at all

Hola. I went today to see the designs of the competition of Kyrls quay. I think the design picked by the judges is very very terrible. this is not good for Cork but it is not for sure. I prefer the designs of lafferty and bdp and of the Greek entry (no Italian entry though! 🙁 ). I would like if developers chose one of the other designs and will make this quay very much more attractive. it needs colour and life! sempre viva!

press release re kyrls quay here
http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2005/000097.html

also

Cork city manager Joe Gavin said winning the competition did not necessarily mean Conroy Architecture’s design would be implemented but it did provide some interesting ideas.

Hard to tell much from the images that I’ve seen – but ideas competitions by their very nature tend to be vague anyway.

I hope that there is some purpose to the extent to some people went to in producing the amount of work that was displayed last night and something promising becomes of it and congrats to Conroy Architecture. Cutting to the chase – having attended the exhibition last night, I was hoping to come out satisfied in the knowledge that the winners were deserved, and I’d have seen a scheme that picked up on something which I did’nt …..

Scheme 1.

………where this scheme is plausible, pragmatic,ordered, intelligible, it would have appealed to the urban designer and city architect and there is enough for the Goff and the pomme to get their teeth into….. This was an ideas competition and I would have liked to have seen something more in the spirit and ambition of the competition – I guess I would have settled for something a little more novel for the top spot…….I can see the panel stood in front of the presentation thinking….”yeah this ones a safe bet”……I have no problem with the scheme and it seems to reference some elements unique to Cork to good effect, but I’m more in admiration of its successful engagement of the different backgrounds of the jury than the architecture, which is essentially the case for most competition……

Scheme 2;

The shopping park…..I think that the diagram of the “shop+park= that amalgm of whatever” did it for me. When you are limited to 200 words there is a lot that goes unexplained and you can get away with quite a lot & maybe, if your lucky, hit the big time…… and when this is judged on its merit of architectural content and integrity and there is an evident development or thought process, I can accept ……..big graphic, random scattering unrelated mis-shaped urban forms and no explanation of strategy, relationships to itself or its surroundings …….and of course the object in the river (this can be forgiven if it was left over piece and it didn’t fit on the site in which case it was right to put it in the river-I would have put it in the bin)…….. all the trappings of…. “let the year out student have a pop at it”

Scheme 3

“The assessors considered the urban strategy to be deft, which is facilitated by the removal of the Garda Station. By breaking the rules in this way this architect came up with the interesting scheme.” …………… This is a mockery and I ask myself did the assessors understand the conditions and why even bother making these rules if your going to disgard them so readily….. I would like to hear how the assessors legitimize this decision….On reflection, I have vague recollection of reading the constraints on the brief, which lead entrants to believe the Garda Station was to be kept……..Where is the skill in taking out part of the inherent challenge in creating a scheme that incorporates this building type…By removing the Garda station Donaghy and Diamond produced a strategy was deft, but it failed to address the same conditions as all the other entrants. Had there been the option of removing it, I’m sure a lot more entrants would have played the market sweeping into the building card………I don’t want to be harking on but from the model image the urban strategy is not explained…..THIS IS AN UNFINISHED MODEL IN ISOLATION & WITHOUT CONTEXT …… HOW CAN ANYBODY CITE ITS STRATEGY AS DEFT OR CREDIT THE URBAN SRATEGY WHEN ITS NOT THERE TO BE DECIPHERED……… how does the elevation respond to the urban conditions that it encounters along the extent of the river, ……this was one of a number of entries that broke the building down into3/4 blocks but this was weak and unremarkable considering the advantage of not having to bring the Garda station into play

Scheme 4:

Same kind of approach as above but seems to acknowledge the context somewhat….. “The assessors commended the concept of a simple series of layers based on the historic form of the city and praised the quality of the sketches and the presentation.” …… ………….. “simple series of layers based on the historic form of the city” ….contrived, convoluted nonsense….seems the assessors …….this development looks like a generic office development with a weak pedestrian move splitting the building in 2 at which point I ask why….etc……

Ah what could have been………………………………………………………………………………………………