-Donnacha-
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
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.
i reckon that an appeal of the water street decision could be a wise choice – very strong planning + development basis for appeal i think – does anyone know the size of the site – out of interest??
seems like a very bizarre decision – no acknowledgement from CCC of their own Development Objectives for the Docklands in terms of scale, density and the strategic nature of the site- the site was specifically identified in the Docklands Strategy for a landmark/gateway development – density + traffic should not have been reasons for refusal – they are issues that pre-planning should have addressed and if CCC did not inform Werdna at an early stage of the serious obstacles that these presented it is grossly unfair
it seems that some people are keen to ensure that Cork’s less than desirable reputation as the anti-development centre of ireland will continue and be sure of one thing – others are watching – and taking note
I generally agree with you CorcaighBoy but if you think Croker is the best stadium in Europe it is clear that you haven’t experienced the Millennium Studium in Cardiff. A truely magnificent stadium. All seater with flodlights and retractable pitch and roof, right in the heart of the city. A complete stadium in every sense of the word.
Not to take away from the achievement that is the building of Croker (something for the GAA are rightly proud of). But it is U-Shaped, not all seater, has no floodlights. You also get damn soaked in much of the stadium when it rains.
The Millenium stadium really is far superior.
i really don’t understand people’s reactions to this building – is it because it is contemporary, striking, slightly different to nearby buildings – some comments have been a bit hysterical in my opinion – and when we have far worse new buildings being built everywhere in the city no-one seems to care for eg does anyone know the Bridgeholm (or something like that) apartment scheme being built above Commons Road – now thats bad – cheap looking early 1990’s tax incentive effect to the utmost.
Devin,
The link you posted does not work.
I am just making observations from what I read and hear from various sources. I am by no means a subscriber to the commonly held view that An Taisce object blindly to any form of rural development, compliments to reading material and articles on this site and others. The neatly tailored (I would imagine) PR contained on the An Taisce website was not one of those sources. This posting on this very thread was.@Thomond Park wrote:
……..The An Taisce argument as given from various media reports centres on Four Strands:
1. Sustainability which through the absolute ban on ribbon development eliminates most one-off developments that are car dependent as any applicant would require a regularly shaped site of at least 10 acres to not constitute ribbon development.
2. Preservation of scenic locations where permissions are to be granted only in very exceptional cases, so that point in the AT submission was taken on board although an outright ban would have been better, particularly in sensitive coastal and upland areas.
3. Efficiency of local government, this point is one that is not just made by AT but was very well quantified by Eamon Gilmore when he displayed that local charges have increased by 16 times the rate of inflation since 2000. If the ESB is ever privatised I can see rural dwellers requiring insurance on the last mile of cable.
4. Water quality, I don’t think the fact that 28% of wells in Ireland being contaminated by the run-off from septic tanks can be ignored, would this be tolerated anywhere else? Roche was nailed here and his evasive style cannot get him away from the fact that this is a major problem as experienced not just by rural dwellers but also by many residents in Carlow Town who are currently boiling water to make it safe.
Devin wrote:This is where the pro-Bungalow groups fail]This is where An Taisce fail Public Relations 101. They flip flop and say they are pro good quality rural design, and hum and haw about water quality – when in fact they simply want an end put to development in rural areas.
@A-ha wrote:
Does anyone know if the existing building of the airport will be kept or will it be demolished when the new terminal opens? If it is kept, what use will it be put to, offices??
Ya they are planning to keep the building alright. It will be used for offices primarily but it may be used to facilitate peak airport traffic in case the new terminal won’t be able to cope with passanger numbers in the future. But that’s unlikely to happen for a good while. Lets just hope the Airport Authority build the four airbridges, and that it is compulsory for the airlines to use them. Forget about shorter turn around times, this is the year 2005, they should concentrate on passenger well being. And air bridges, from a security perspective, are a lot safer.
@DaM wrote:
……..I do agree however that people at the moment will want to build in the countryside and should not be ‘forced’ into towns and cities ….at the moment there are no real alternatives……….If proper neighbourhoods are built in these towns rather than developer estates then they should have the power to attract people. ……..
This is where the anti Rural development groups fail. From a rural dwellers viewpoint, the only available alternative to living in the country is a 1000sq.ft. “Townhouse” amongst a jungle of 400 identical “townhouses”.
To encourage people into villages & towns something more than the current model of the housing estate is required – and until a working model is in place the pro rural development people will remain just that.Hi Thomond Park,
Off the point, but I’d just like to correct you about “perpetuity”.
What you are referring to is called the “Rule against Perpetuities”, a rule which applies to gifts in wills to prevent them from being handed out at ridiculously far away times in the future – e.g. I give it to the first man to fly to the other side of the galaxy. Originally it was designed so a man who didn’t like his son giving his property to his grandson – even if that grandson wasn’t born. Thus one had to specify that the gift was being given to someone born within 21 years (the age of majority) of the death of someone – (i.e. the son) plus 9 months for the gestation. The idea being that a grandson is going to become 21 at a maximum time of 21 years and 9 months after the death of the son. Lawyers started to get clever with all that and decided that it need not be the son whose lifespan was measured against – but they did need someone famous, so that people would actually know who. In England it became “the death of the last currently living issue of the King”. If one didn’t use such rules, then the gift is void and goes back to the will, to follow rules on intestacy/remainder etc.I challenge you to stand anywhere in Belgium apart from the first world war battlefields and not see a building.
Leaving aside Flanders, there are plenty of places right across the south of Belgium that are characterised by villages and wide open fields. The area south of Mons, Namur and around Huy are cases in point.
WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH HOUSES IN THIS COUNTRY!
Is THAT not the main problem
No, its not the problem. The problem is that we don’t have enough houses where we need them. The population is growing dramatically in and around our larger cities (because thats where the jobs are), its falling out side of those areas. We’ve built almost 80,000 new units last year in this country, and will do the same this year. Thats at or slightly above what the market requires. The rates of price increase are coming down accordingly. All of these things are welcome. Its not about being ‘anti-development’.
‘Just building houses’ is only part of the issue, the real problem with this measure is that it will contribute to unsustainable patterns of development. I don’t mean that in an environmental sense, rather that it will be all but impossible to service a new raft of widely dispersed houses. Getting public transport, telecomms (incl broadband) sewage (Roche has to know that the Commission are getting hot n’heavy over septic tanks), health care, policing etc to a newly dispersed rural population is just compounding existing problems. The transport issues alone merit the scrapping of this proposal; its a classic case of unlearning lessons.
Its already fairly straighforward to build in the country, this just facilitates rural property development as a form of social welfare. Future generations will pay the price of it, just as we pay the price of the 70s madness.
There are also doubts as to its constituitionality.
And Belgium has properly planned rural areas; despite being far more densely populated than Ireland (10 million people living in 30k km sq, as opposed to 4 mill living in 70k km sq) they don’t have this continuous suburbanisation of the landscape. They have sustainable villages, well preserved and well served by public services. We could learn a lot from those ‘meddling beaurocrats’.
And quant little Ireland does put food on the table, in the form of tourism revenue. Which, particularly if you take transfer payments out, is the single biggest industry we have.
Hi all,
Fascinating thread, especially for someone in exile. Fantastic work by Lexington and others in keeping everyone up to date.I have no background in architecture etc. However, would it not be hugely beneficial to a city like Cork if there were more buildings like the Crawford Gallery extension. It would be great if the powers-that-be were more controversial than conservative. Build a whole tourism industry around the architecture of the city. This would draw in huge numbers of toursits and investors. Instead, every scheme seems to be reigned back by mediocrity. Anybody familiar with the Ray Stata building in MIT in Boston?
http://web.mit.edu/buildings/statacenter/
Imagine something like that on one of the quays in Cork, or as the new school of music.The madder the better, I reckon. If it was up to me, there wouldnt be a square building in the city.I know that narrow mided residents’ objections are to blame for alot of the mediocrity we see. But how big a factor is cost in all of these things?
Sounds a bit excessive to me – your architect should be able to take the advice of a structural engineer and incorporate any of his/her comments into his working drawings.
Are you a lawyer? You seem to have issues with trust.Only 2 contenders seem to be left for the National Conference Centre (NCC) proposal, both in the north docks. See below from Ireland.com on the 19th March:
The Michael McNamara group has withdrawn from the competition to build the National Conference Centre, leaving just two contenders in the race for the huge development project.
The deadline for tenders was yesterday, but following consultation with the two remaining interested parties, the Spencer Dock consortium and the Anna Livia consortium, the deadline has been extended to April 22nd.
The Office of Public Works (OPW), which is handling procurement up to the tendering stage, received a letter from the McNamara group stating it was withdrawing
The final decision on the huge project will be made by the OPW in conjunction with the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism. The Government is likely to sign off on whoever is awarded the contract.
While the conference centre itself is expected to be a loss-making venture, the lands surrounding the centre will become hugely attractive in terms of retail and office development.
In December 2004, the Government sought tenders from the three consortiums that had been shortlisted by the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism.
The group, led by construction firm Michael McNamara and the Leopardstown Club Consortium, wanted to build the centre on land owned by Horse Racing Ireland, adjacent to the Carrickmines end of the Leopardstown Racecourse.
The McNamara construction group is one of the largest such groups in the State. It is run by Bernard McNamara, one of the investors behind the recent purchase of the Superquinn group.
The Anna Livia Consortium, led by Bennett Construction, is proposing to build the centre on a site close to the Point Depot and the Port Tunnel, in the Dublin docklands. The site is owned by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.
The Spencer Dock International Conference Centre Consortium is led by Treasury Holdings and proposes building the centre on Spencer Dock.
Under the latest version of the plan, the 2,000-seat centre is to be built by 2007. The Irish Hotels Federation has said the centre could attract up to 50,000 extra visitors and generate business worth €60 million annually.
It is 15 years since the proposal for such a centre was first made and 10 years since an attempt to build one through public/private partnership ended in failure. Five years ago plans for a centre were abandoned when An Bord Pleanála rejected a scheme involving associated high-rise developments.
The Hotels’ Federation believes the lack of such a centre puts Ireland at a serious disadvantage. The Dublin City Centre Business Association said the delay in building the centre was hurting Dublin’s economy “day by day”.
I noticed a lot of use of interior PVC glazing behind old sash windows in London. It seemed to work quite nicely and doesn’t look very obtrusive if it’s done with the right stuff.
uPVC could be a very useful material if the manufacturers came up with some more tasteful products. People are simply installing the wrong windows into the wrong buildings. There’s nothing fundementally wrong with uPVC products and they do provide quite a lot of advantages in terms of insulation and maintenence they just need to be used appropriately. Most manufactures simply make over-standardised mass-produced ugly products.
in relation to earlier posts about the An Taisce objection on the Lapp’s Quay Sculpture – according to an bord pleanala’s website, the objection is invalid – no copy of the acknowledgement of planning submission! very surprising methinks.
