lexington

@hutton wrote:

Oooh who ever said anything about Cork people, chips, and shoulders?

I think that is indeed the stereotypical depiction of Corkonians, and no doubt there is some truth in it – though I feel it has to do with a lot of ‘playing up’ to the expectations as well. That said, the same can be said for Dublin – I think it is particularly evident to anyone travelling to the Capital, not a resident. The difference is the historic or cultural association of such mentality is not as well promoted regarding Dubliners. But I suppose that’s straying from the point at hand and is a discussion for another day and thread..

…I am glad to see that someone, who has received brunt criticism has defended their position. Its easy, as this website well knows, for the media to spread whatever opinion they wish and in some cases without recompense. The reply I think breathes new dimensions into the perception of developers in Ireland – who are so usually generalised into a misconception (though that’s not to say it isn’t applicable to some). 🙂

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Speaking of chips and shoulders… I think FMcD would also qualify. I am impressed by the article. It’s so easy to think of developers as faceless money-hungry types devoid of architectural awareness. It’s good to see a developer responding to his detractors in a robust fashion. It gives hope for future OCP projects in the Cork region (I suppose noone wishes to sh1t in their own back garden!).

I have to say I read the reply with a smile. The article is very short-sighted and a little pompous – but then again, I and other residents of the Cork area have a knowledge of the structures in question. Opinion is one thing, but as Mr. O’Callaghan notes ‘ pontificating ‘ is another.

@madisona wrote:

Lexington, you mention a multitude of future developments in your posts but do you know whether Part V agreements have been concluded for any of them? Has development begun on any of them? Is there a completion date on any of them? Are any of them proposed government sustaining progress projects on state land?
phrases such as “under evaluation” “talks are on-going” “Discussions are on-going”etc have been used for years.

I agree with you on the suburban height cap. However I was under the impression that this provision was non binding and could be ignored by the Council.

If there is anything in my posts that is factually incorrect please let me know

The developments I’m referring to are predominantly private initiatives in co-operation with Cork City Council to provide S/A housing supply. These developments are progressing Cogan’s Field (along the Boreenmanna Road) is under construction with John F. Supple Ltd on site, a tower crane was erected over the development not so long ago. 50 units are to be provided for Social Use.

Approx. 404 units are scheduled for construction early in the New Year by Fleming Construction and Coleman Brothers Developments, over half of these will be allocated for S/A uses.

Proposals at Gurranabraher and ChapelField are awaiting Council approval. A further private project at Togher sought combined S/A provision but was refused by Councillors when put to them – the reasons behind this are for another post.

It is widely believed that of the 975 or so new homes to be provided by Manor Park Homebuilders as part of the Horgan’s Quay redevelopment, Part V actions will be implemented providing something in the region of 200 new S/A homes of very high quality.

As for payments subject to Section 96 discussions, policy calls for land or monetary substitution – discussions are on-going with parties, but I can’t give you the precise status on those discussions as frankly I don’t know day-to-day.

CCC strategy has been to provide greater numbers of units beyond Part V provision – they have done this in co-operation with the Private Sector and substantial progress has been made as evident by such exampled projects. As I said earlier, S/A provisions are substantially higher than what could be achieved through Part V. As for comparisons between Fingal County and Cork City Council – one must remember development progressions between these regions. Fingal County as part of the greater Dublin region has been subject to large-scale development opportunities over a longer period and at a larger, more frequent scale than Cork City Council. Since the original incarnation of the Act in 2000, it’s implementation into law and the subsequent amendments in 2002, Fingal has been exposed to development progressions allowing the region attain a critical mass at a sooner date and quicker implementation of Part V policy. Cork, it may be said is in the throws of such development expansion now – but it really only kicked in big time since (arguably the foundations for its boom were laid earlier) – LA policy has been to encourage the right investment (and this type of investment has to appeal to the right market – certain policy implementation tarnishes this), to do this, a degree of leeway has to be afforded for the ‘break’ point to be achieved (that is, a noted quantity of sustainable development which promotes further investment) – we are reaching that now. Once this ‘break’ has been achieved, CCC are in a more comfortable position to enact further policy in addition to its existing ones – this includes Part V. I think you will see greater levels of enactment in this area over the coming future – however I also believe we will see greater private participation. There is a growing demand for such housing, and where an opportunity exists, you can be sure business will follow – and trust me, it is.

Make no mistake, I believe in terms of sustainability, Part V is not a bad policy – but it has to be applied on the right terms and with balance considering a view to structured urban growth.

You have to also consider, why are the lists growing??? The fact is S/A lists are a blend of socio-economic backgrounds, each as valid as the other – furthermore, those on the list today weren’t necessarily on the list last year. This is consequent of rising market values outpacing some wage growth – as a result, the young couple who were looking at buying a 3-bedroom semi last year are no longer looking at the same house as it has now become beyond their means. These a respectable, moderate income individuals who are now left with little option but to apply themselves to the list. Consider this with respect to the following…

…ctesiphon with relation to the purpose behind Part V, indeed, the policy is formulated with the view to aiding the prevention of ‘ghetto’ formulation. I support it on this level. With application to developments I mentioned earlier – like Cogan’s Field for example, I think you’ll agree that 32% provided for social use is still a pretty acceptable level, and is undoubtedly better than the 20% under Part V. Over 100 other units are dedicated to private marketing, the balance should still be sufficient. The same percentages, give or take, are proposed for Chapelfield and the other nearby venture. As for Shanakiel, I think what’s important here is the setting context – it exists within a ‘buffer’ region, generally the immediate surrounds are of a middle-to-high income bracket with lower variations further north. Irrespective, I don’t believe you can judge the character of a person based on income (don’t worry I’m not saying that was implied, just noting it! 😮 ). The large proportion of S/A provision as part of this development is broken between social and affordable, the precise division doesn’t hit the noggin’ now but I have the figures elsewhere and if I can remember (which would be a feat) I’ll get back to you on this – needless to say the balance is pretty balanced. The affordable bracket will undoubtedly pitch to those, as mentioned above, who may not necessarily have been on the S/A lists last year, but are now giving price rises. As I say, they are respectable income holders living in a market beyond their immediate means – their occupancy of such housing don’t, in my opinion, generally fall into the stereotypical representation of ‘ghetto’ inhabitants. If there are other concerns regarding such formations, consider the wider context of the setting which generally compensates for any fall off in private/middle-to-high income occupancies. As an integrated part of this broader environment, the balance is pretty in-line – and I don’t believe the development is subject to the imbalance associated with ‘ghetto-isation’. How the actual dispersion of uses across the development is arranged is a different matter – I don’t frankly know – but I would believe planners have assessed such elements.

That said – is there a problem? Yes. It needs to be addressed, and there’s no point in hiding behind ‘we’ve done this and thats’ to blanket the situation – it’s an interesting discussion and one I have a great penchant for.

🙂

@madisona wrote:

During the last few years Cork City Council has steadfastly refused to implement a government provision which allows local authorities to acquire 20% of housing in new developments for resale as affordable housing. Instead the City Manager and his officials have used an opt out clause in the legislation to give exemptions to developers in exchange for small payments. This policy has saved the developers tens of millions and led to Cork having the largest affordable housing waiting lists in the country.

It has now emerged that a company called “Cork 2005 events” has received millions of euro in donations from the same developers that have benifited from the decision to exempt them for the affordable housing provision. The City Manager who sits on the board of this company has admitted that he has personally approached developers for donations.

So how have our elected officials reacted to this clear conflict of interest. During last Mondays Council meeting Cllr Máirín Quill tabled a motion calling for the creation of a “roll of honour” to thank the developers for their selfless donations.

This subject matter has been raised and answered before –

however I wish to note a number of issues herein…

First off, Councillor Barry’s suggestion, whether intended or not, was out of line. His implication posited a correaltion between the contributions of development/construction companies to Cork2005 and outcomes in planning or prospective planning decisions by CCC – by and large. This not only insults the character of City Manager Joe Gavin (whose signature ultimately signs the dotted line on a grant or refusal), but indeed that of the broader City Management team. Of private sector donations, indeed, a large proportion of contributions to Cork2005 did arise from development/construction firms – and I agree with Councillor Quill that such businesses are deserved of thanks. These firms stepped up to the plate and provided vital funds and services in the provision of Cork2005 – whether that was O’Flynn Construction’s sponsorship of the Short Story Competition, Bowen Constructions backing of 2 prominent exhibitions at the Crawford Art Gallery, Frinailla’s sponsorship of the Inferno event at the MAS, O’Callaghan Properties year-long hosting of a series of art exhibitions at 21 Lavitts Quay, John F. Supple Ltd’s support for the Architecture Seminars and Exhibition…the list goes on. Is it that Councillor Barry believes such sponsorship and financial should have been refused from specifically development/construction sectors? I would be interested to hear how he believes Cork2005 should have beeen organised financially and also how the year would have progressed w/o the participation of such aforementioned businesses.

Secondly, your post seems to imply Cork City Council are not interested in aiding S/A lists? Nor that they have made any efforts in its rectification?

It should be noted that Part V of the Planning & Development Act 2000 has been tackled in the Cork region – should you argue this, I suggest you take a stroll over to O’Brien & O’Flynn Limited for example and argue the case, I believe they would beg to differ. Furthermore, developers have made efforts in S/A provisions – for example the Montgomery/Kenneally Partnership in conjunction with CCC and Barry Supple are actively engaged in 2 large schemes which provide substantially for S/A uses – at Cogan’s Field and Chapelfield. Fleming Construction and Coleman Brothers Developments in co-operation with CCC are embarking on plans for 400 new homes off Shanakiel of which the vast majority is being allocated to S/A uses. CCC have embarked on their own initiatives such as that at the Glen, utilising vital funding in part provided through finance raised from Development Contribution fees. Also, it is worth noting that many S/A schemes have been jeporadised by some of our own elected representatives such as they at Churchfield and Togher – schemes Joe Gavin actively campaigned to see realised. The actions of some councillors such at the imposition of a suburban height cap – of which Councillor Barry was among them – do not help in stabilising market values and adding more people onto S/A lists.

Furthermore, the private sector are actively engaged in solutions to S/A lists. I recognise it is an issue and yes it has to be addressed. Private schemes for housing 100K or less for a 2-bedroom 850sq ft unit for example are under evaluation and will come on stream within the foreseeable future.

The only way is up for high density

– 9th November 2005

The SCS annual conference in Dublin was told that it is time to look in new directions to find housing solutions for Dublin, CON POWER reports

DUBLIN cannot be allowed to continue to sprawl and colonise adjoining counties, the President of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Derry Scully told the SCS annual conference in Dublin. Instead we must turn to high densities through well-designed high rise developments.

“We must look at increasing development densities generally and look to high rise development in appropriate locations as one means of achieving higher densities,” Mr Scully said.

“Dublin suffers from serious problems of congestion with associated costs arising from delays in people getting to work and goods getting to market – these problems are set to escalate as the population increases.”

Referring to the CSO’s projections of the population of the Greater Dublin area growing to almost 2.1 million – as much as 41% of Ireland’s total – by the year 2021 he declared that “clearly, the city and its surrounding areas must plan to accommodate such an increase”.

‘Dublin the Next Phase – High Density, High Risk, High Rise?’ was the title of this year’s conference.

“In following a path of higher density development we must ensure that we provide attractive, well-designed and well-maintained developments that attract a mix of occupiers that fit in with existing communities”.

“It is essential to look for ‘Density by Design’, rather than ‘Density for Density’s Sake'”, he told his audience of over 250 delegates at the conference.

He added that “we cannot have landmark towers everywhere, but sited appropriately they can enhance the urban landscapes and skyline”.

The SCS Annual Conference was officially opened by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage & Local Government Mr Roche. The Minister spoke of the importance of Dublin and the Greater Dublin Area as a driver of national development and its pivotal role in the ongoing implementation of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS).

The Minister said: “We must support and enhance the competitiveness of the Greater Dublin Area so that it continues to perform at national and international levels as a driver of national development.” The SCS conference dealt with future options, the sort of high risks there may be in high rise and high density development, how city housing and transport will be affected in an already congested city, and how high rise design has developed.

Speakers included Dublin City Manager John Fitzgerald who spoke on ‘New Homes for a Growing Dublin – Problems and Potentials’ and chartered surveyor Dr. Brendan Williams, lecturer at the Department of Planning & Environmental Economics, UCD, who dealt with ‘The Emerging Greater Dublin Area: Urban Development Trends & Implications’.

From the UK were architect John Worthington, co-founder of the international workplace design consultancy DEGW and chairman of Dublin Corporation’s Architectural Advisory Panel, London architect Sir Richard MacCormac, chairman of MacCormac Jamieson Prichard and Liam Bailey, head of residential research at Knight Frank.