kite
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@corkdood wrote:
From what I’ve read the apartment prices at the Elysian won’t be any cheaper than that Angry Rebel.
i truly believe that by the end of the year/early 2008 buy to let investors will be trying to offload their investments on the market left right and centre. So yes in my view there could be thousands of apartments on the market.by the time Eglinton street goes for sale.Many people that I have spoken to over the past six months that would have been in the market for apartments are now thinking of going that extra bit to buy a stand alone house.
The main reasons are;
Management Company’s rip offs.
😮 30-45,000 euro per car parking space.
😮 Management fees going up from 1000pa euro in 2004, 2000pa euro in 2005, 3000pa euro in 2006 (2007 ??, June 25th will tell!!)
😮 No City Council parking permits to be issued to apartment dwellers whose apartments were built since 2004.
😡 Owner occupiers been unable to control management company’s until the entire complex is sold out (developers are holding onto 2-3 apartments to hold control of management Company’s)
In my opinion the proposed Government reform of the Management sector will come too late to save the market.@who_me wrote:
The principal problem is the initial risk.
An apartment in the docklands might be very attractive, but would you want to buy (even a luxury) apartment on Centre Park Rd. as it currently stands? Driving through an industrial area to and from work. Heavy trucks rolling by day in, day out (I assume). No shops or any kind of residential facilities nearby. I’ve no idea what the air quality is like but I can’t imagine it’s the best.
If potential residents are thinking that, you can bet the developer who’s sitting on a site in the Docklands is going to keep sitting on it until they can maximise the return on their investment.
Given the current discussion on this thread is mentioning the Cork Docklands I decides to copy and paste this from the Cork Docklands thread;
That is the problem jungle, the draft report hints at hiding the contamination instead of dealing with the issue, a shortsighted answer that will as you mention, “come back to bite usâ€
The same problem albeit on a much smaller scale exists on the site of the former landfill site on the Carrigrohane Road. However if litigation were to raise its ugly head there it would not be much of a problem to move a few pitches and our traveler cousins to a safer site.
No easy solution if we turn a blind eye to the dangers in the Billion Euro Docklands redevelopment.Anyway I think it may be a little academic to speak of Docklands redevelopment at this point as after 7 years of junkets, millions spent on report after report, Port of Cork holding the city to ransom, the latest Brady Shipman Martin draft / report states that;
“Some existing land-uses, e.g. the oil storage facilities and the electricity generating station, may be expected to remain in the area for a considerable time to come and this may place a constraint on the scale, form, location and type of future developmentâ€
This statement along with the fact that designation as a Seveso site, means that some restrictions apply to proposed land uses in the surrounding area, as identified by the HSA. While each site will incur differing restrictions, generally, the closer a proposed development is located to a Seveso site, the more land use occupation and density restrictions will apply. New developments will be referred to the HSA within the following distances from a Seveso site:
• Topaz Energy Ltd Site 400m referral boundary
• NORA Slte:300m referral boundary
• Gouldings Fertiliser Site:700m referral boundary and HSA land use zones
High-density residential development is normally not permitted in areas immediately adjoining Seveso sites.As these sites themselves are considerable in size, particularly the Gouldings and ESB sites any development is likely to be piecemeal.
The only way around this problem again entails a long drawn out process of dealing with redevelopment on a “mini site†by “mini site†basis, where very limited amounts of contaminated soil can be removed from site without licence@jungle wrote:
The docklands can be cleaned up though and it’s better to deal with it now than have the problem come back and bite us later.
In theory, a high density brownfield site should be exactly the type of development the Greens like, although I can’t help but notice that most greens I know live in rural areas and drive gas-guzzlers.
Regardless, it looks like they won’t be in government anyway.
I wonder if we have the same problem out at the pitches on the Carrigrohane Straight?
That is the problem jungle, the draft report hints at hiding the contamination instead of dealing with the issue, a shortsighted answer that will as you mention, “come back to bite us”
The same problem albeit on a much smaller scale exists on the site of the former landfill site on the Carrigrohane Road. However if litigation were to raise its ugly head there it would not be much of a problem to move a few pitches and our traveler cousins to a safer site.
No easy solution if we turn a blind eye to the dangers in the Billion Euro Docklands redevelopment.Anyway I think it may be a little academic to speak of Docklands redevelopment at this point as after 7 years of junkets, millions spent on report after report, Port of Cork holding the city to ransom, the latest Brady Shipman Martin draft / report states that;
“Some existing land-uses, e.g. the oil storage facilities and the electricity generating station, may be expected to remain in the area for a considerable time to come and this may place a constraint on the scale, form, location and type of future development”
This statement along with the fact that designation as a Seveso site, means that some restrictions apply to proposed land uses in the surrounding area, as identified by the HSA. While each site will incur differing restrictions, generally, the closer a proposed development is located to a Seveso site, the more land use occupation and density restrictions will apply. New developments will be referred to the HSA within the following distances from a Seveso site:
• Topaz Energy Ltd Site 400m referral boundary
• NORA Slte:300m referral boundary
• Gouldings Fertiliser Site:700m referral boundary and HSA land use zones
High-density residential development is normally not permitted in areas immediately adjoining Seveso sites.As these sites themselves are considerable in size, particularly the Gouldings and ESB sites any development is likely to be piecemeal.
The only way around this problem again entails a long drawn out process of dealing with redevelopment on a “mini site” by “mini site” basis, where very limited amounts of contaminated soil can be removed from site without licenceHere is my prediction for what its worth.
If FF and the Greens go into Government together then it will be RIP to the Cork Docklands redevelopment.
The FF attitude of “the developer knows best†will not wash with the Greens. They will not / cannot allow any form of development (especially residential) on contaminated grounds by hiding the heavy metals etc. under a 1 metre layer of moss peat.Remember Southpark in Galway?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0605/primetime_av.html?2255962,null,230Cork docks could be a hundred times worse.
@Pug wrote:
ok – so CCC could surely hint strongly that no planning to be granted to the landowners on any other sites they own in the docklands until they lodge a satisfactory application to start moving the sites? I mean, the CCC arent going to grant planning for anything other than clean up to those sites anyway so why should they affect the landowners around them?
A clay layer forms the upper natural layer in the South Docks. The area has been raised since the 19th century, first with sludge/dredging material from the River Lee and also with waste and rubble after industrialization in the beginning of the 19th century.
In general the strata in the South Docks are as follows:
• Pavement 0.2 m;
• Fill, a mixture of rubble and clay, 0.5 up to 4 m;
• Clay until 3-5 mbgl, in the Showgrounds until 6.5 mbgl;
• Gravel aquifer, with a depth of more than 25 m in the central part of the South Docks.Tidal fluctuations in the aquifer result in a 1.5 m difference in groundwater level between high and low tide. Average groundwater flow is perpendicular on the River Lee, dropping around 0.5 m from the southern border down to the River. A hydrogeological model has been prepared which may serve as a basis or tool for several activities including remedial action design, urban water management plans and abstraction calculations for construction works.
The fill layer throughout the South Docks was found to contain contaminants in varying concentrations, often above DIV This is partly due to the use of contaminated materials for level raising and the industrial history of the area (car and tyre manufacturing, electricity production, fuel storage and transshipment). Contaminants that have been detected above DIV include lead, copper, zinc, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, polcyclic aromatics (PAH), and mineral oil. Lead and high PAH concentrations may involve health risks where humans have direct contact with the fill (e.g. gardens).
The most cost-effective method to treat this contamination is to cover the soil with 1 m clean soil, as full cleaning of the fill will be expensive due to its mixed structure. Removal of the fill down to 1m and its replacement with clean material is also acceptable.
Seven zones (in total 8 hectares) in the South Docks are considerably contaminated with oil, mainly in the fill layer. The total polluted volume is estimated to be 105,000m3. The contamination in these zones is generally related to (bulk) fuel storage and transshipment activities. Although oil polluted groundwater was found locally, the aquifer is not significantly affected, as it is isolated from the pollution by a (generally) thick clay layer.
Where this clay layer is thin or absent, adequate measures should be taken. Excavation of the entire fill layer in this instance and its replacement by clean clay of at least 1m is recommended. The clay layer must be repaired where it has been perforated.
Four spots with elevated concentrations (>Dutch Intervention Value DIV) of dichloroethene and/or vinyl chloride have been identified: in the Marina, at the border of Shell/Free Foam, at NORA and at the Ford Vehicle Distribution Centre (Ford VDC). Generally concentrations of these substances above DIV involve health risks in buildings with ground floors, unless ground membranes are introduced in the floor slabs. Likely significant contaminant sources are present in the soil (fill and clay).
Biodegradation assessment and groundwater modeling indicate that where no action is taken, vinyl chloride concentrations in the aquifer would drop below DIV within 21 years. In the clay layer vinal chloride would still exceed DIV after 30 years. Excavation of the pollution source would accelerate sufficient breakdown in the aquifer to 8 years (combined with biological stimulation, breakdown may be reduced to 1 year). A cost efficient method to reduce breakdown time is to ‘pump and treat (in combination with excavation of the source), which would lead to a drop below DIV within 2 years.
VCH contamination is identified as the most hazardous element, demanding further investigation. Attention should be paid to possible VCH contamination below existing buildings and below vulnerable parts in the sewerage system. It may not be necessary or cost effective to remediate all contamination. The preparation of a land management plan is recommended to ensure optimum remediation solutions are identified and implemented.
South Docks Local Area Plan (Draft, June 2007)
5.3 With regard to ground contamination, landowners are responsible for remediation of their own sites. The above study was only an overview of the situation, to present a scale of the problem and potential solutions. It does not exonerate developers from detailed ground contamination of each site. It will be necessary for each landowner to undertake further detailed studies of their sites, assisted by the findings of the Ground Contamination Report. Remediation will likely take place on a site-by-site basis and collaboration between developers would provide benefits of scale, but will be for each developer to decide.
The detailed study of each site, setting out solutions to ground contamination, will need to be submitted with planning submissions and approval received from Cork City Council.
A potential solution identified in many cases is for filling the site, which also facilitates flood protection and surface water drainage through the raising of ground levels, as identified in Section 4 of this Strategy. Given the potential volumes of fill combined with the possible remediation process which may require licensing by the EPA, it is the view of the EPA that filling and / or excavation and disposal, or on site treatment be controlled and licensed by Cork City Council.The estimated overall cost of remediation of contaminated ground in the South Docks area is €50 million.
The full report on ground contamination is fairly long, I can post it, or any other section if anybody is interested?
Cork South Docks LAP Infrastructure Strategy. (Draft, June 2007)
3.2.3 Public Transport
The provision of quality public transport services for the South Docks is essential for the implementation of the Traffic and Transport Management Plan, where services will compliment the provision of private car-based infrastructure.
Public transport stops will be located in each of the urban nodes identified for the South Docks.A quality bus service is required for the South Docks, to promote sustainable modes of transport and to reduce the level of car traffic in the area, therefore the City Council will seek to provide a new bus service within the area. The route, as identified in Figure 7, will create a South Docks Public Transport Hub at the Centre Park Road. A possible future variation of this route can run over the Mill Road Bridge to the Kent Station interchange and then on to the Parnell Place Bus Station (subject to further study).
A separate report entitled ‘Light Rail Transit for Cork Docks – Feasibility Discussion Paper’ has proposed that the scale and density of development in the South Docks would strongly support the provision of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system in the context of a larger system being justified for the city and its environs as a whole. The report also , highlighted the potential cost savings and benefits of the early delivery of an LRT to the area. An indicative route is identified in Figure 8.
However the LRT system must be compared with other alternatives such as Rapid Bus Transit ■ (RBT) in terms of demand analysis, modal shift, and cost benefit.It is proposed to reserve a corridor for dedicated segregated public transport along the Centre Park Road and Mill Road, to ‘future proof it from significant retrofitting costs, that would be incurred if the route was not reserved, free from development at this stage.
It is essential that further study be completed for a high quality public transport system and on the potential of an LRT / RBT system for the Cork Metropolitan Area. Where appropriate, it is also critical that this system be introduced to the South Docks at an early stage, as this will significantly reduce the cost of construction and installation and ensure that the high levels of public transport required to sustain the levels of development anticipated are realized.
A LRT/RBT system can also provide a visual icon and symbol for the South Docks. The opportunity for the creation of a Multi-Modal Transportation Interchange at Kent Station, to which the LRT/BRT may provide a link, is desirable not only for the South Docks but for the entirety of Cork City in promoting sustainable commuting and travel. The provision of a system and other public transport initiatives will be essential to control demand for extensive provision of car parking which is not sustainable even the short to medium term.(see Section 3.2.5).
Pending the completion of this study and procurement of an LRT/RBT, it will be necessary to introduce a public bus system to link the South Docks to the City centre and other key demand locations. This service can be provided in conjunction with Bus Eireann or by the City Council operating under licence (similar to the existing Black Ash Park and Ride scheme).
:rolleyes: Any one else get the feeling that the buses with covered wheels are going to be the Cork Luas?
corcaighboy wrote:Report in today’s Examiner regarding the Docklands. It might be a good idea if the journalist actually went to Manhattan to check out their skyline before making the somewhat pretentious claim that Cork is about to replicate it. Really, where do they get these notions :rolleyes::rolleyes: “Lankmark”…”Iconic”…etc, are words used over the past 7 years by city management and juncket loving councillors to fool us into thinking that Docklands regeneration is around the corner. Unfortunatly this particurar street (Docklands Street!!!) has more corners than Cllr. Brimingham’s Lombard Street proposal for Patrick’s Hill, and has fooled most of us for years.
I hope there will be progress before the patience and the money of stakeholders runs out, BUT……..
Anyway, i would not blame Eoin English, the mafia want this “talked up” as much as possible so the wheels won’t come off the gravy train.@Pug wrote:
I imagine if they bring this in the light rail will go out the window.
Rearrange these words; hit you the nail head on the…;)
@MrX wrote:
I noticed someone has ripped up some of the new paving on Carey’s Lane or French Church street (can never remember which one’s which). Seems the paving’s been replaced by red cement!
Can’t the city council go after people for this ? It’s vandalism in my books.
Seems it’s a gas connection into one of the buildings along the street.
Surely red-brick paving isn’t THAT hard to replace!That type of shoddy work is a disgrace.
The trouble is that nobody in City Hall gives a damm. The City Manager himself allowed the destruction of the historic paving outside City Hall; this was replaced by cheap Chinese “granite substituteâ€
Local Councillors turn a blind eye to such vandalism as there are only a handful of votes to be got in the city centre.@browser wrote:
Ciaran Lynch of Labour proposed a Motion last January calling for a study into the feasability of a municipal stadium. I know Ciaran has moved onto bigger and better things but this Motion needs to be followed up. Anyone any idea where it is at? I’ve e-mailed Ciaran Lynch already asking him to see that his co-opted successor doesn’t lose sight of this issue.
“
Ciaran’s Motion 13.19; “That Council will undertake a study to explore the feasibility of building a Municipal Stadium in Cork City which would accommodate various sporting bodies & organisations” (07/032) has gone to the Recreation Amenity and Culture Committee.
@Radioactiveman wrote:
Yes, that’s the building I’m referring to. Although, I’m not up to date with all the details. I believe, the original architects were dispensed with once the building work started and what was going up was in breach of the planning application.
I don’t know if that’s a fair reflection as to what happened, but I’ve heard it from a number of (normally reliable) sources. Perhaps kite may have more information on same?The Jacobs Mill building was the subject of a letter from CCC to the owner Mr. Tom McCarthy regarding the development.
The reason work has stopped may have more to do with a major disagreement between the owner and the contractors who were also involved in the redevelopment of Mr. McCarthy’s other “landmark” warehouse looking building, the ? star Kingsley Hotel.
I agree that what was there prior to development was better than the tin roofed, white plastic window effort now in place, but the with this saga likely to end up in a building on Washington Street where people wear funny wigs I will say no more on the matter.Regarding the spectacular planning application Radioactiveman, I think you will be proved right on that. Plans should include the removal of the street running behind the old Phillips store and the Fruit & Veg warehouse with it being covered and incorporated into the proposed development now that Joe Gavin got his wish to remove the old warehouse (next to the Bridewell Garda Station) from the proposed Record of Protected Structures allowing it to be demolished.
@jungle wrote:
I can understand the reason for it. The response to a bye-election for a local authority seat is likely to be a very low turnout.
However, I think the system should be like the European elections in that your replacement should be nominated at the time you run. At least that way they have some kind of mandate.
😮 Councillors “hand picked†so they would not be a threat to mammy or daddy’s seat in the Dail. Any wonder the Cork Docklands etc is going nowhere fast with that caliber of local representation?
jungle wrote:I’m also concerned that allowing densities to develop in the suburbs disencourages investment in the docklands, where taller builings are appropriate.QUOTE]
🙂 An excellent point.
One of the following statements is true;
(a) At a “behind closed doors†meeting of Cork City Council (28th may 2007), City Manager, Joe Gavin “strongly recommended†that a building that was on the proposed addition to the protected building list be removed from same as a property developer had paid a considerable sum for the site, and it would be unreasonable to expect him to retain the building. The gateway to the site is to be dismantled and moved to another location. This was passed by a 15-8 vote.
(b) At a behind closed doors meeting of Paris City Council it was decided that the Eiffel Tower be dismantled and moved to another area so as to allow a property developer build on the adjacent lands.😉 The fact that Guillotines are not back on the streets of Paris should hint as to which of the above is true!!
@tomk wrote:
Read in yesterday’s Sunday Business Post that the Cornmarket development is scheduled to be completed in October. Does anyone know what tenants will be occupying the units? I heard H&M and Zara being mentioned in the past.
Also in yesterday’s Sunday Business Post was a half page article on the ongoing dispute between the Community for Sustainable Development group and the Cork City Manager, Joe Gavin regarding the 3 storey height cap in the suburbs.
Following on from that article, Joe Gavin gave a written assurance at tonight’s Council meeting that following the CSD and Councillors demands on the issue;
“City Council does not now support developments over three storeys in the suburbs where the predominant form is two storeys”
“When this issue was last discussed I indicated the approach which was been taken and which was generally in line with the motion passed by Council”
“It was also agreed that any amendments required to the City Development will be made following the adoption of the Wilton LAP”
:rolleyes: Further bungalow bliss in Cork?
At the 96fm candidates debate for the Cork North Central constituency tonight in the Ambassador Hotel both Fine Gael (Allen and Kelly) and Labour (Lynch) refused to commit to a dept free Cork airport.
😮 The horse (us public) may get a new jockey next week, but the whip will remain under FG and Labour!!@PVC King wrote:
It looks like something from the Early Learning Centre 😮
:rolleyes: Just Joe Gavin going off on a solo run AGAIN, Councillors have told him that we do not want access to the city restricted. Will he listen?
Do any of the proposals / suggestions for light rail in Cork include a link to Glanmire?
If not, why not? Would it be feasible terrain / population wise?
Please point me to any past posts on the subject that I may have missed, thanks in advance.
