-Donnacha-

@phatman wrote:

I gotta say the line-up in the shopping centre is a bit of a joke, from my point of view anyway, absolutely no big names at all.
Any progression on tenants for the remainder of the units??

Who cares if there are big names or not, people just want the everyday basics in a better setting. Look at Dundrum, big names like Harvey Nicks and House of Fraiser, but it’s ok for them to have such big names because there is such a huge catchment area for Dundrum that’s why the big names can justify their presence there. Also you have got to remember what lexington said, that there are plans to extend the centre westwards over the current deck carpark, am I correct in saying that Lexington?? Or is it eastwards. Also you have got to understand that the whole complex won’t be finished for a good few years. Office complex medical centre etc and there is the possibility for bigger names to come into the development when they extend it.. The whole Dundrum complex won’t be finished until 2009 and neither will be Ballincollig so give it time. The big names are obviously waiting to see how the centre does and there are so many shopping centres after opening in the last year, Midelton, Mahon Point, the extension for Wilton that the choice for consumers and shops alike as to where to shop/locate is huge and at the end of the day, even though it has a severe lack of parking, people prefer to shop in the city. Better selection.

Anyone know if the Gardaí are going to leave their current premises and move into the Ballincollig Town Centre???

lexington, re Oyster’s Parnell Place proposal – which of those images relate to the revised proposals? i saw the original ‘tower’ proposed – and it looked nothing like these – much better in fact

re: marsh’s in dundalk – i suppose it is a bit sad really – i don’t understand the philosophy behind designing a shopping centre along these lines – i thought that themed shopping centres were so 1990’s – no? or do the punters simply just want this – personally i think it’s a horrible concept – in saying that however, the proportions are good and the space outside is attractive – however after all that effort they are quite content with white uPVC and badly placed rainwater goods.

Apologies pdll if people seem to be ganging up on you. It seems to me that you are mixing up a macro and micro scale in your argument. The problem is not with Roscommon v. Dublin, it is in one off houses outside Dublin v. houses in Dublin city, one off houses outside Cork v. houses in Cork city.

Secondly regarding Dublin, certain population densities are required to support certain facilities (Luas, Dart, Conference centres etc.), which require certain amounts of infrastructure. The provision of those facilities allows for economic growth. I suspect (but I don’t know) that spending money on infrastructure in Dublin allows for more economic growth to the State and say spreading the same money around the Midlands.

I’d suspect that if anyone has a reason to complain about the spread of money, it would be the people of Cork city (and possibly Galway and Limerick etc.) rather than people from counties with lower population densities.

Old wives tale alright – the date of the actual refusal letter being sent out is the crucial date – not the day you recieve it in the post.
I’m sure there is an overpriced 1100sq.ft. 3 bed semi nestled in an imaginatively designed scheme of 1500 “housing units”, 2 miles from a small town centre waiting for you. Apparently this is the way we must all live out the rest of our days.

The biggest problem I have with one off housing is that the individual must be subsidisied by the State to live in this form of housing.
Where certain services are provided by the state free of charge, or for a flat rate despite the fact that the costs to the state are not “flat” (because of distance etc.) then if one expects to get those services at that flat rate, one must subject oneself to society’s rules.
examples of such services are refuse collection, post, electricity, telephone lines, school buses, ambulances, garda services, road maintenance, sewers etc. Then there all the problems caused by septic tanks and contamination of other people’s water. Furthermore people living in these places have to travel further and waste more petrol etc. in their cars – adding to global warming, and on a more concrete level problems with the Kyoto Protocol. Someone has to pay for all this at some stage – someone has to deal with the contaminated water etc.
If people actually live completely “off grid” as people historically did – with no expectation of provision of services from the State, and didn’t create significant problems for others by burning more fuel than necessary etc. then from a social perspective people living in this fashion isn’t so bad.

Also, on an architectural level, modern Irish houses tend to be very ugly.

Hey Lex,

I’m afraid I agree with Frank McDonald on this one:
where I disagree with you is that it seems you are blurring two ideas: the idea of acknowledging and bringing life to the lanes of Cork (asomething which is very important and adds to the uniqueness and charm of Cork) and the relationship of the corner to both the lane and quay.

Architecturally, there is a hierarchy of spaces between the lane and the quays. By using a non-differentiating device (the circular corner stuff) as Cashman & Assoc. has done, no respect has been shown to this hierarchy: both the lane and the quay are treated equally when they are not equal.
As an example of something working: The Gate Cinema also turns a corner – but it does so much more effectively than Lavitt’s Quay project, by putting a “window” onto the quay and its entrance onto North Main St – one is wide, one is narrow etc.

However,Mr. O’Callaghan shouldn’t be held responsible for the lack of sensitivity of his architect.

@lexington wrote:

😀
🙁 And just one point, a media report today implied that a publication of a letter in it’s newspaper by the Cork/Kerry regions only serving Consultant Oncologist was the moving factor in pushing forward Cancer Treatment facility funding. Indeed the Taoiseach did reiterate the funding had been made – however funding for the new 6-storey Renal/Cardiac Unit at Cork University Hospital designed by Watkins Gray International and which will include a 30-bed oncology unit actually saw the required €47m cleared approximately 2 weeks ago (re: senior CUH management and the HSE). BreastCheck unit funding for the South Infirmary was also cleared with a €7m value in recent days.

Renal/Cardiac Unit for CUH

That’s great news for CUH. just wondering does anyone have any idea if CUH are going to reinstate the helipad? That is really one thing CUH should have. It’s been gone since the redevelopment of the A&E ward and they currently use Cork airport for landing in. u think they would use the Pres rugby grounds instead since it is so close to CUH??

I believe it’s a fly tower .
Agreed, it should not have been used to set the new datum.

Interesting thread. To be honest I think it’s a disgrace that this act wass implemented in the first place. It’s simply a method of getting private developers to do the council and corporations dirty work. Noel Dempsey at the time thought it would decrease the waiting list for social and affordable housing but it’s actually grown cos when you put it in perspective, developers have to make money and if they are getting the agricultural price for the land and not the market price for the land then guess who has to suffer-the people buying private dwellings… suprise suprise.. and what in turn does this do since the price of private dwellings goes up-more people are forced off the property ladder and onto waiting lists for social and affordable housing-talk about a vicious circle.

the government may feel that it promotes a balanced society…. ya right-a balanced society is not possible. poeple who are forking out close to a million € for a house are obviously going to be pretty annoyed when their neighbour a few houses down is getting their house for free. I know I would be.