Look at de state of Cork, like!

@Radioactiveman wrote:

With regard to Lapp’s Quay, I happened to be passing through the spot one afternoon during the weekend. Its a nice enough spot, will be even nicer when the opposite bank of the river is spruced up a little.
I happened to witness a very unpleasent incident where two managers (both women) tried to evict a guy from this public (???) area. Now, the day itself was warm so he had his shirt off and I’d say the guy wasnt as sober as he could be, but he wasnt bothering anyone.
So he was realaxing near the waters edge when he was basically told to F*** off by what I can only assume were managers from the Clarion Hotel. He was treatened with the Gardai on a number of occasions.
To cut a long story short, I didnt see how the incident ended but was pretty appalled that the Clarion Hotel can now seemingly screen people using this public (??) space and throw them out if they dont meet their exacting standards.
Perhaps we should take note before we go ahead and hand over more of our quaysides to private developers. Can they be trusted to maintain free and open access for ALL of the public?

This is becoming a common issue with ‘public spaces’. If deals (such as the one described by Lexington) are struck between public and private bodies, the publicness of the space can become diluted. The image of the space becomes an issue for the hotel (or another private body), and they therefore start to control it is a manner that is more private than public. I agree with you that it is difficult to trust private developers not to subsume the public realm into their control, and therefore make it more private.

@Radioactiveman wrote:

Anyone fancy a rally??? 🙂

Or else:

http://www.flash-mob.com/eingang.htm

😀

@lexington wrote:

*UPDATES*

I don’t think you can make assumptions about a particular incident without knowing the ins and outs. Are you sure the person in question had not been causing trouble prior to his removal? Personally, I believe that public space should be the entitlement of all members of a community – that means children, the elderly, and every other average Joe in the city – are they not entitled to enjoy that space? But if persons such as the gentleman you describe ruin it for others, what about the right of those other ‘orderlies’ to enjoy such amenities? Should he be allowed swear, spit and cause aggro on those unsuspecting individuals just out for a pleasant stroll or making their way to work?

Lexington,
you are starting to put George Lucas to shame with your ability to completely alter your posts after people have replied to them. I would not have noticed the extra information you posted if Radioactive man had not quoted you in his response! Editing is a useful tool that I use myself now and again for spelling mistakes etc, but I find it difficult to follow your discussion when you go back and alter your posts so much. I hope I don’t seem narky about this, but I felt I had to mention it.

With regards to your addition to your post in and of itself, I think you yourself make assumptions about the situation without even being there. For example you state:

“But if persons such as the gentleman you describe ruin it for others, what about the right of those other ‘orderlies’ to enjoy such amenities? Should he be allowed swear, spit and cause aggro on those unsuspecting individuals just out for a pleasant stroll or making their way to work?”

There is no mention of the person mentioned by Radioactiveman doing any of the activities you mention here. You also assume that this individual will do the activities you mention. As Radioactiveman said, it is fair for a business to protect their property, but they do not have the right to control public space.

Remaining in the same part of the city, Frank McDonald (Environment Editor of the Irish Times) wrote on friday that the Lapps Quay development below is “in my view one of the worst new buildings in Cork “.
At least, I presume that’s the development he refers to. It’s No.6 Lapps Quay designed by Coughlan DeKeyser for O’Flynn Construction.
I was in the area recently (as noted above) and I must say I like it. Like it a lot!

The journalist also brings up the important point that Cork has been without a City Architect since the legendary Neil Hegarty retired two years ago. A city developing at this rate without a city Architect- surely a mistake!

@phil wrote:

Lexington,
you are starting to put George Lucas to shame with your ability to completely alter your posts after people have replied to them. I would not have noticed the extra information you posted if Radioactive man had not quoted you in his response! Editing is a useful tool that I use myself now and again for spelling mistakes etc, but I find it difficult to follow your discussion when you go back and alter your posts so much. I hope I don’t seem narky about this, but I felt I had to mention it.

With regards to your addition to your post in and of itself, I think you yourself make assumptions about the situation without even being there. For example you state:

“But if persons such as the gentleman you describe ruin it for others, what about the right of those other ‘orderlies’ to enjoy such amenities? Should he be allowed swear, spit and cause aggro on those unsuspecting individuals just out for a pleasant stroll or making their way to work?”

There is no mention of the person mentioned by Radioactiveman doing any of the activities you mention here. You also assume that this individual will do the activities you mention. As Radioactiveman said, it is fair for a business to protect their property, but they do not have the right to control public space.

phil – I often add extra bits onto previous posts, not so much to confuse people, but so that I don’t blanket a page with my own posts for every minor detail. Sometimes its a little neater and less overwhelming to do so – but I understand how it can be difficult to follow and for that I apologise. I sometimes start to correct a spelling or grammar mistake and then end up remembering some other bit of info I forgot to mention so the post goes on and on. In this case, I had just posted the first half of the post and then saw RM ‘s reply, so rather than post a completely new one, I just added on the extra bit to the existing reply.

Regarding my making assumptions, I was in a rush typing that up (think I mentioned it whilst typing it) and thus didn’t get the opportunity to phrase my arguments in the way I perhaps intended to. What I think I was getting at is a larger argument regarding what defines public space entitlement – should it be the right of all persons irrespective – or, should it be the entitlement of those who respect it – as in, those who don’t urinate on the paving (for example, as with the examples I mentioned in the previous post like ‘swear, spit and cause aggro’.) And what defines acceptable behaviour? In a space such as City Quarter, you have a number of elements in operation – you have businesses such as the Clarion and the soon to open kiosks and offices, you have an open public element, visiting car-park patrons etc etc – each has a right to its own integrity and own well-being. But rather than City Quarter, take Fitzgerald’s Park – the security guards there quite often restrict the activities of its visitors in this supposed public amenity space. Not so long ago, a bunch of young lads were asked to leave for using a motorised model helicopter by one security staff member (they were on the green area/rose garden area of the park by the river’s edge) – they weren’t causing any hassle, they seemed like a respectable bunch of fellas just having a nice time in the rare lovely weather, and they were asked to leave this public space because the helicopter (according to security) represented a danger to children in the park. I think I was more of a danger as I had been swinging off playground equipment like an oversized child. There was the usual grunting and arguing, but eventually the boys left and head across Daly’s Bridge. I don’t think you can put such governance squarely at the feet of a private business/developer just because it was near their turf. Fitzgerald’s Park is a true-blue public space and yet it is governed. Why are the City Council telling people what to do because they don’t like it??? I think the question should be more empirical – what decides what is acceptable in public space or in an public environment whatsoever and who governs it?

@Radioactiveman wrote:

The journalist also brings up the important point that Cork has been without a City Architect since the legendary Neil Hegarty retired two years ago. A city developing at this rate without a city Architect- surely a mistake!

Cork does have a City Architect, Jack Healy.

See http://www.corkcity.ie/ourservices/architects/index.shtml for more details.

@Radioactiveman wrote:

Remaining in the same part of the city, Frank McDonald (Environment Editor of the Irish Times) wrote on friday that the Lapps Quay development below is “in my view one of the worst new buildings in Cork “.
At least, I presume that’s the development he refers to. It’s No.6 Lapps Quay designed by Coughlan DeKeyser for O’Flynn Construction.
I was in the area recently (as noted above) and I must say I like it. Like it a lot!

The journalist also brings up the important point that Cork has been without a City Architect since the legendary Neil Hegarty retired two years ago. A city developing at this rate without a city Architect- surely a mistake!

I didn’t realise that we had a City Architect back then…..if the post was reinvented now I don’t think that they would be anymore successful in preventing the somewhat arbritary approach to planning in the City Council, a little bit off here, a little bit off there, whoops, there goes a block etc…..

Ultimately, the City Architects would only become another port of call for the planners in their rush to change a scheme / hide behind someone else

Well, after the months of planning, negotiation and talks – OCP are firing ahead with their plans for the former Jurys Cork Hotel site along the Western Road. Demolition is on-going and main construction works are set to begin within the next month to month and a half with Bowen Construction as the main contractors.

Work on the hotel element will commence first, followed by approx. 80 apartments as part of Phase 1. A further 80 units will follow in Phase 2. With remaining units completing Phase 3.

Competence of OPW called into question
From:ireland.com
Tuesday, 21st June, 2005

There is an emerging lack of confidence about the ability of the Office of Public Works (OPW) to acquire, manage and dispose of property according to the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Michael Noonan.

Mr Noonan was speaking at the launch of a report into, among other issues, the effectiveness of the OPW in managing property deals.

The report says the OPW spent €19 million on five properties to house asylum seekers that were never used.

It criticises the lack of pre-planning or community consultation before purchasing the five properties which are now worth less than was paid for them. One property in Myshall, Co Carlow was purchased for €1.3 million in 2000 and is now worth just €500,000 on the open market.

The OPW was obliged to pay more than the market rate for each of the five properties because of significant local opposition to asylum seekers being housed in the area.

Mr Noonan said the committee was very concerned about the serious waste of taxpayers’ money and stressed the urgency of the OPW getting its “house in order” to avoid the same mistakes being made in the roll-out of the Government’s decentralisation process.

The OPW is charged with buying and selling property under that process.

“Skilled professionals are needed in the OPW to deal with buying and selling property. They need to review their resource base to ensure they have the expertise necessary to undertake complex property transactions. And if not, they need to acquire it quickly – on a contract basis if necessary.”

“It takes exceptional skill to have bought property in this country four years ago and to have made a loss on it,” he added.

Responding to allegations by Tom Parlon, the Minister with responsibility for the OPW, that the PAC was being “unfair” by focusing on one aspect of the its business, Mr Noonan said: “The Parlon defence that because we don’t lose money every week aren’t we great fellows doesn’t work. That isn’t the kind of defence I’d like to go to the High Court on.”

The vice-chairman of the PAC, Mr John McGuinness, said if the OPW were a private company it would be closed down.

“The OPW needs to be dragged into the modern world of property management,” he said.

The report also criticised the OPW for going €23 million over budget on the refurbishment of the new Cork courthouse. It says it failed to take costs for temporary court accommodation into account and said there was a serious loss of taxpayers’ money in the negotiation of the lease at three times the original rent

lunched in wagamama (cork) today. food is just as good as dublin, but the atmosphere isn’t the same as the great space under the stephen’s green s.c. pretty building in the flesh from the outside.