d_d_dallas
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Thanks.
I suppose what I’m really after is the process of removal if a tree is on under a preservation order. The tree in question was removed under dubious circumstances, so it’s too late to save it but for future reference…What does it look like when viewed from Patrick St at Academy St junction? The OCP development has had a large impact on the view down that street.
I think the scattered tall building syndrome is here and an unfortunate side effect of the DDDA’s utter failing in planning the north docklands. The logical places for them have already been gobbled up. Any further tall buildings in the docklands will be a matter of tokenism – highlighted by Treasury’s recent failure to get DDDA to agree a proper tall building in the new and improved spencer dock.
WTF?!?
Amazed to see this clear planning.
Interestingly enough second time AnBP overrode their own inspectors recommendations for development in this area.
Devin, isn’t that a little harsh? You’re lauding the “unique” architecture in Cork, yet to many people alot of the more unique unchanged aspects are depressingly derelict. That shop front on Castle St has it charms, but the shop itself is not great. Give me a well appointed and stocked clean Centra please.
I think when people get excited about development in these areas they see it as a chance to change some of the downward spiral that Cork seemed to be on despite the economic upturn. That said I do agree that there’s an element that champions anything that is proposed in some of the threads which is wrong. For every bit of preserved heritage there’s lots that ain’t so great. The challenge is to recognise the distinction.“Bertie Ahern said that in a democracy different viewpoints were considered before a decision was made and that is what had happened in this case”
so is that the Vintner’s Association’s viewpoint that was considered?
Lex, Regarding your MP comments… like Liffey Valley it would not exist if it were not for the tax payer funded infrastrucuture put in place before. It is unrealistic to imagine anyone other than car owner making their way to MP/Liffey Valley. In terms of activity there – do they not chime with similar comments made about Dundrum recently? Are prospective retailers getting overhyped reports on the state of suburban retailing in this country?
It may not be a “tower” when viewed from Smithfield, but from the top of Stoneybatter/Prussia St it dominates. The development as a whole screams high quality and money, but in a corporate “good taste” kind of way. Certainly far worse has gone into far more affluent areas.
I love that pink bridge in Glanmire – when arriving into Cork by road it’s the “almost there” landmark.
Nano Nagle and Trinity (as referred to in above post) are prob the worst on offer.
Any images of Hop Island bridge?
Found better image of new Shandon Bridge:
The developer needs to spend ALOT more money on this project considering it’s vital location. At the same time, other architects have done more with smaller budgets. I am glad to see CCC taking a tough stance on this one. Probably the worst thing I’ve seen since Trinity Court or Camden Wharf.
Lex,
should this not be constricted to *completed* project only? From what I know about e.g. Wilson’s projects they deserve some recognition, but neither project has even cleared the planning process let alone begun construction. Sometimes things don’t impress in the flesh quite the way they do in photmontages.Yeah having a new amenity space is great and all – but as the project wasn’t designed to have that in the first place (i.e. a nine storey block in it’s place)… I wonder how effective the appeal process as it stands is. This type of arbitrary mass removal does nothing for a project and it seems AnBP always take the path of least resistance. Remove the most incendiary (i.e. tallest) element to placate the objectors, while actually allowing the whole project through – minus it’s integrity. Example: St John’s Rd near Heuston Station. The whole project wasn’t exactly um… great, but was waved through minus a 12 storey block, which originally gave the overall project some degree of status. In it’s place a gaping hole.
The ole AnBP gem – omit the biggest part and grant the rest. Is this really the best way to grant planning? How does the project compare having this omitted?
Was one of the main items behind this competition to screen the hideous multi-storey car park? Yet I get the feeling that it will be as visible as ever from Popes Qy no matter the winning entry (which the developers have no obligation to follow anyway).
The approved scheme, and what is currently up for sale is not the “tall building” phase of the development. That part is on land owned exclusively by the state and is currently with ABP. I imagine subject to a separate sale due to it’s different ownership and planning status.
