kite

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Successful airports spend most of their lives under construction. You’d imagine that a requirement when building an airport would be to design it in an extensible fashion. Dublin Airport looks like a bunch of misfit buildings dropped at random from a height .

:confused: Flying into Nice, Cote d’ Azur at anytime of year is like landing in the lobby of a five star hotel yet the airport is always under redevelopment (although you would never realize it, 8-12 million passengers pa), the ONLY hassle one would encounter is if you need to go to the car rental bays (a two min walk) where you may get approached by guy’s in Armani suits looking to borrow 20-50 euros until tomorrow!!
No tents, no hassle, no dirt, no rip offs (at least not from the Airport Authority),…what is going wrong in Dublin, or Cork and Shannon for that matter??

🙂 Lex, you referred to an upcoming aviation story some posts back, any updates on this?

@POM wrote:

It was my understanding work was put to a temporary halt in light of a forthcoming application to change the site’s use to a hotel instead of apartments and restaurant. Until that application has been lodged and granted it is pointless to proceed with work.

Maybe a bit of both POM?, at all costs Tom McCarthy and Tom Kelly want the Kingsley ready for the EU delegations visit on 15th Sept.

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Not a fan of camden wharf, what do people think?

🙁
It certainly would not be in my top ten either, neither would the building to its left with what I assume is a copper clad roof, looking at this from the angle of your photograph it looks like the roof line was bent to shape as required with lumps and bumps everywhere.
Micko makes a very good point on the “developments in cork” thread in relation to the Jacobs Mill building, he states;
“There’s far too much focus on building height and not enough focus on the materials and looks of the building. The roof on that is a complete disgrace. And let I add that it took them at least 12 months just to get to the stage where they are at now”.

Now do we blame the developers for asking for this type of building, or the planners for allowing them?

@lexington wrote:

kite – 550 basement car-parking spaces are provided at basement level, this capacity is designed to allocate at least 1 space per unit (up over 200) in line with City Development plan guidelines. Furthermore, capacity is provided for the office and retail elements (among which bulk/comparison goods are included) – these had been agreed in principle as par pre-planning discussions of up to 18 months in the making. Parking space is also accounted for accommodation associated with O’Flynn Construction’s No.6 Lapps Quay office scheme nearby (which currently has no parking provision of its own). All-in-all 550 is quite a reasonable and understandable provision given the extent and nature of uses linked to the development. Without the accommodation potential exists for undesirable and dangerous curb-side parking in an already heavily trafficked area. The parking provision is therefore designed to attract park vehicles away from congesting the street – thus, the provision is now subdivided in related sections, a point clarified with Cork City Council who had been assessing the proposal initially without particular consideration for the impacts linked to ancillary project elements. In the initial assessment, it was proposed to reduce parking numbers more in line with the volume of residential units – failing to consider the impacts the ancillary elements on congestion (elements which were and are to be provided in line with Cork City Council’s own planning guidelines for ground-floor uses).

Furthermore, the nature of the debacle relates not simply to this development – but has also been applied to other developments across the city such as the one I previously mentioned by Precinct Investments at St. Patrick’s Quay where 61 apartments were to provided in line with 40 + new hotel beds. Basement car-parking here amount to just over 80-spaces across 4 split basement levels – a similar levy was imposed. Its not so much a case of parking numbers being taxed, but more so the function.

The requested DCL (Development Contribution Levy) in the Eglinton Street case amounted to €4,316,208 and was calculated by the inclusion of both basement parking levels as well as covered parking areas in the Gross Floor Area. The term “gross floor space” is defined in Article 3 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 as “The area ascertained by the internal measurement of the floor space on each floor of a building (including internal walls and partitions), disregarding any floor space provided for the parking of vehicles by persons occupying or using the building or buildings where such floor space is incidental to the primary purpose of the building”.

The project’s reckonable gross floor area is 34,956 m sq (36,406 less 1450 m sq.) instead of the inclusion of parking areas which amounts to 61,215 m sq., (62,665 less 1450 m sq.) – therefore the appropriate contribution amount should be correctly summed to € 2,385,74.00.

😎 Don’t get me wrong Lex, I am not batting for either side on this issue.
I fully support the provision of adequate car parking for any development because as you say on street parking is neither feasible nor appropriate in most parts of Cork.
The City Manager imposes different criteria for different developments (depending I suppose on who is doing the asking) i.e. little or no car parking in developments such as the student blocks (students don’t drive cars according to City Hall management!!)
When (if) Mr. Gavin moves to Dublin to a less stressful life (until the posse catches up again) some developers will hang out the bunting… some others may be hanging something quite different??

@POM wrote:

You must consider that the Board themselves are professional planning associates – an inspector report is to provide an evaluation of the scenario and offer a recommendation, not a decision. Often you will see many inspectors include a section detailling recommended conditions should the Bord wish to grant the scheme in spite of their own inclination. Quite frankly, I think the Bord have made a number of wise decisions over the years – had the inspectors rule been implemented we woulld probably be years behind. A good example is the one you cite yourself about St. Colmans, thank Heavens the inspector’s recommendation was turned down!

😮 I agree 99% POM, my concern is that the Inspector is the person that looks at the files / submissions , visits the site etc. where as the Board sit in an office in Dublin and feel free to overturn weeks of work on the inspectors behalf.. I feel a high profile case such as St. Colmans is one thing, but day in, day out decisions are quite another??

@lexington wrote:

As for the Kino, again I can’t give you a definite here, but I believe delays may be related to issues of funding. Of course I am open to correction on all points mentioned here.

Images of the Kino redevelopment proposal designed by Dennehy + Dennehy Design.

🙂 Issues of funding and also I believe that one of the owners of Eden hall / Tennis village project owns some adjoining property that may be delaying progress.
I agree THE_chris, a fire escape surrounded by glass is not an appealing design