lexington
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
It would seem Minister Cullen has come through earlier than I anticipated with plans I outlined in post #1568 (p63) to redevelop Kent Station. You may also recall I outlined some of the plans in scheme by Manor Park Homes for Horgan’s Quay, as the selected developer. Well I can now tell you that MPH are coming to a settlement on their design plans for the quays redevelopment – which will have its final tweaking resultant of a land study recently concluded by CIE. MPH will hope to lodge a part application for their scheme within the coming months. The plan will include a variety of commercial and residential uses and will be worked to compliment the project at Kent.
The Kent redevelopment is valued at 20m euros and was cleared by the board of CIE with a planning application to follow within the next 2 weeks thereafter. The Board will also be reviewing the MPH scheme in full.
As I indicated in the aforementioned post – the MPH/CIE decision has come on the back of the announcement that the 90m euro allocated for the Midelton/Cork rail line has been alloted.
For more details see (some you may note are currently being adjusted – I will update you on these when I get further info) -> https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2134&page=63&pp=25
@snoopdog wrote:
While I am in no means appeased on this issue I will, ahhh, soften my words. I will admit that my main concern was for the future residents, for which I will take your word lexington, will not be a problem. I cannot debate the design of the building because to my knowledge the residents have not been given a design, only a diagram of where the buildings will be. The countryside view I mentioned refers to the two- storey houses that can see the hills and “country” beyond the other houses. In the past some areas were not allowed to build two-storey houses because they would block this view.
You have made reference to arguments that defy logic and call them farcical. I would very much like to hear one of these “farcical” points. It is obvious to me that you are a businessman because you cannot see why people do not want these buildings in their town. You seem astonished that people do not like the thought of tall buildings(even if they are only 3-4 storeys high)
Until more detail becomes available to me I will rest my case. I would however ask that you try to see this from the residents’ point of view. A number of apartments have come into this area very recently and still more forces people to wonder how many houses will be left in Bishopstown when this apartment explosion finishes
Believe you me, I am most sympathetic to this concern. Fear does come attached with the advent of the new – especially in established neighbourhoods. Most often, these neighbourhoods are rippled with horror stories regarding developments in other areas – but quite often, many of these are not warranted. Take the example of some of the residents along the Airport Road who contested the development of Cork Airport Business Park. Omnistone (the park’s primary developer) had been blasted with the condemnations of residents who feared that their small residential area would be destroyed by the impending construction of such a large business facility in their vicinity. Traffic generation, loss of privacy, decreased property values, noise pollution – all of the aforementioned, plus many more, were among the concerns highlighted. After extensive negotiations, Omnistone ultimately offered many of these residents with appeasements such as landscaped gardens, new pavings etc etc. This lowered some of the objectionist voices – but now, years on since the construction of the park – the same residents, when questioned, will reluctantly admit that they have not suffered the disamenities envisioned.
My own lodging has been threatened by impending developments too in the past – and at the present – but it is a matter of looking at the project in a neutral manner (quite often a difficult task when emotionally involved). You have to step back and say – “Right, there’s this development planned. My best position is a knowledgable one” – so you research the proposals, research related or like developments in similar areas, compare, contrast – and if there are genuinely more downs than ups – you utilise your knowledge gained to lodge a strong objection – supported by the facts and figures. Good, balanced research means a good case against the proposal. Planners pay more attention to these kind of arguments. Re: the Westend development – many of the objections were utterly lost (by the way, I have quoted some of these in previous posts if you’re interested) – others were quite valid. In my own circumstance, in the past – successful objections were made against at least 2 proposals which were quite inappropriate and in one case in legal violation. A more recent proposal made, I will not be objecting to (although many many others nearby will be and are). I have made this decision by weighing up and researching the situation. Some lodging the objections are quite frankly basing their positions solely on the word of mouth and the fear attached to the development – others are valid in their circumstance.
I suppose labelling businessmen as not understanding ‘human’ concerns is like labelling all Catholics in N.I. as Republicans – it simply isn’t accurate. Businessmen have homes too. They have families; concerns and beliefs.
I empthatise with your concerns – but don’t be taken in with the tide of fears and assumptions either. Stand up, research and decide for yourself a position on the development. Scare-mongering is a powerful method of persuasion. As you said yourself, you haven’t actually seen the designs in detail. I suggest you take a trip to Navigation House, sit-down and read through the application – it’s free to do so and your entitlement. Assess the drawings – even take a friend or an architect with you – and see whether or not this project genuinely endangers your living and your community in a purely negative way. You may surprise yourself – as I suspect many of the objectors to this case would be if they had done so.
I don’t believe in the whole apartment trend either – well, not in all cases – but remember that Mr. Kelleher’s proposal consists of a large proportion of traditional housing as well. Now with Block C axed – a near majority of housing. 🙂
@snoopdog wrote:
😡 Did you ever wonder what residents would think of this, or were all those complaints and challenges not enough to tip you off? Of course adding so many people to a relitivly quiet area will make traffic volumes soar. Not to mention the eye sore all those buildings will be.Residants who now have view of the countryside will have the inspiring view of a grey wall.How nice. Also, I don’t care about four-storey buildings in the city but this is the suburbs! A place where people live to get away from traffic and huge ugly buildings!
Of course, I cannot conclude my arguement without mentioning that putting so many apartments and townhouses in that small area will send the property value plummeting.I wonder, will mr. kelleher care what type of people come here? Or will he only care about getting paid?
I know someone else agreed that this was a good idea but honestly I cant see why anyone could think this is a good idea!Unless of course they are the annoying business people who want to turn the Emerald Isles into the Grey Isles!
I’m glad you brought this point to mention – its good to have an alternative perspective, however, I would ask you to address the issues concerning this site (sites!): First of all, the development is predominantly 2-storeys with Block C rising to 3-storeys (w/ mansard roof). This is generally in line with the heights of surrounding buildings and does not constitute ‘high-rise’ as was highlighted by so many of the lodged objections. You may note, that I recognised the validity of many of the objections in earlier posts but believed that they could be addressed through conditions, which they indeed were (such as the balcony issue of overlooking in Block D – now since removed). Consequentially, Block C (the highest element at 3-storeys) was ultimately omitted – reducing unit numbers substantially. If height was an issue – and density – well this condition has certainly reduced the suspect of such concerns. The remaining development falls very much in line with surrounding buildings. My point is this – if 2-storeys is not acceptable in this area, does that mean none of the surrounding housing is valid either? Because that is the logic implied in many of the submissions.
Even before the block omission, the revised application was deemed well inside the acceptable levels outlined by The Residential Density Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment in September 1999. Quantitative and qualitative public and private open space requirements for residential developments are contained in Paragraphs 11.19 – 25 of the Cork City Development Plan, 2004. The public and private open space standards have been modified in the revised application to reflect the standards set by the aforementioned guidelines. Open space for the scheme is provided in a mix of private, semi private and public open space – the contributive amenity value attributed to the revised scheme is in fact greater than, or equal to, any equivalent amenity space currently provided for by the existing site (were it to be utilised for such), this was a point also noted by senior planner Evelyn Mitchell. In relation to public/semi-private open space is provided at ground level to the rear of the site in excess of 10% of the site area and had also been provided for in a roof terrace within Block C. A condition was passed, in line with developer intentions, so that communal access was to be made available to this open space area.
As for the argument of the ‘countryside view’ – the site is located within an urban framework with existing structures on most fronts. This is simply an in-fill site and does not represent ‘countryside’ – in fact, the site in its current form is neither safe nor enjoyable as an amenity for any individual to venture, this admittedly, is the responsibility of the land-owner to secure, however, as it remains private property – those who venture through the site for amenity purposes should consider the consequences of their actions. If by countryside views, you mean views facing toward that south of Bishopstown Court – then I should ask you to look at this perspective again and tell me how much of that countryside is truly visible? Then ask, what exactly is visible? Then consider that this perspective is only ‘enjoyed’ from one site elevation and the area in view is subject to a new medical/hospice development by Beacon Court and St. Patrick’s Hospice for the terminally ill.
I admittedly have not read through all 124 submissions, but have read a great proportion of them – many of the arguments defy logic, I don’t accept farsical arguments that do not apply to the project at heart. It is more than evident, that many submissions were made without any knowledge of the revised scheme – nor had any of the drawings been assessed at the planning offices.
CCC have responded in part to some of the relevant objections to the scheme but have also filtered out some of the more spurious arguments. As for design and finishings, please indicate to me the concrete ‘grey walls’ areas of the project? The scheme has been very tastefully designed by Frank Ennis & Associates to not only add but build on the quality environment of this suburban location. Frank Ennis & Associates have generally positive track record in Cork – and indeed, Bishopstown (please refer to the scheme by Myraoak Ltd [David Corr and Joe McCarthy et al] at the former Tennis Village – a scheme noted by one member of CAHRA, surprisingly as being of a good aesthetic design – but of course, too high!!! [4 storeys] Frank Ennis also have another Bishopstown design evident in the refurbished Bishopstown Bar – formerly owned by Mr. Kelleher’s family). Have you seen the designs first hand? Associated guide prices on the sale of the development units are pitched at a particular clientele to reflect the existing resident mix. I reject the argument you make about tenants on the grounds that you cannot cherry-pick occupants in the way you seem to prescribe – the house next-door to you could just as easily be purchased by a resident or residents who may not conform to the standards you pitch for your community. A development, such as Mr. Kelleher’s, regardless of a units guide price cannot guarantee the type of occupant – income does not represent integrity – and even without the development, there is no way to guarantee your neighbour. I am all for maintaining a community’s values and traditions – but that doesn’t mean the neighbourhood must close itself from the rest of the world. This is however a protracted social argument.
As for traffic generation, both the Roads Department and NRA felt no objection was warranted given that Mr. Kelleher and the design team had worked in conjunction with nearby site owners to allow for adjustments to routings that would inhibit any on street back-logging. As a residential development – the majority of traffic will be either based in workplaces or in the underground car-park for the majority of the day. This would be contrary to the proposal made by Bishopstown GAA for example – that in fact, encourages traffic movements in an enclosed residential area.
Furthermore, historically and evidently, property prices do not generally decline in light of such development – must often the opposite occurs. For example, the development of the Lapps Quay area sent neighbouring property values soaring. The same too for Victoria Cross – residential and site.
I whole-heartedly agree that we must maintain a standard of development from preventing the formation of this ‘Grey Isle’ you speak of. There have been and unfortunately continue to be a number of unacceptable design standards placed upon the city – Victoria Mills, Crosses Green Hotel, 16 Lavitts Quay and the redevelopment of the Capitol Cineplex are all poor standards of design and ideally should have or will be redesigned. For all the beluga thrown at Victoria Mills – its funny that the residents didn’t bring Phase 1 to ABP, nor did councillor Jerry Buttimer – for all his hugging of resident votes – when, as one poster mentioned, his local GAA clubs biggest supporter went to lodge the development in question, his voice was silent.
I will support and endorse any objectors where a development is clearly unacceptable, but I think Mr. Kelleher’s development has a lot more to do with petty ideology than genuine cause (with the exception of one or two of the objections).
Nonetheless snoopdog – your input is welcomed and it is good to hear the otherside of the spectrum. I would however, only ask you to consider some of the facts in place. 🙂
🙂 Paul Montgomery is to apply to CorkCoCo to develop 169 houses and a childcare facility at Ballyleary in Cobh. The project adds to the list of developments currently associated with Mr. Montgomery, including Victoria Mills Phase 2, the Boreenmanna Road project, his Douglas development in association with Tom McCarthy and delvings in an Event Centre plan.
🙂 Fleming Construction will erect a tower crane on site within the next week over their site at Victoria Cross for which they will develop 45-student apartments over a number of 4 to 5 storey blocks on behalf of UCC. Already progress on the site is steaming ahead. Directly next-door, Ridge Developments are working away at the Victoria Mills Phase 2 site for which 31 further student apartments are to be constructed over a basement car-park and commercial unit. Pity about the design for such a pretty location.
😉 And I can confirm that IAWS have been conducting a number of studies on their R&H Hall Weybridge premises along Kennedy Quay. Engineers have recently been on site assessing details regarding silo structures. Hmmm. More details when I get them.@Thomond Park wrote:
In regard to the Lennon project how do they propose to get landowners consent for the river that they most likely don’t own? as the Dublin Port Tunnel has bourne out ownership is the land below and the sky above.
I don’t fully understand the rights issues of the situation – I believe it is subject to negotiation between CCC and Mr. Lennon. It’s funny how the Dublin Port Tunnel brought about numerous new lines of legislation to support its development. Under new guidelines, a land-owner is only subject to ownership no more than 30-feet below their land holding. The same principle is being applied to land/home-owners whose properties stand in the way of the new Cork Northern Ring Road proposal and there is fury over it. Certain parts of the road have proposed tunnel sections to it in order to facilitate various contours. From a surveyance and engineering perspective it is most interesting.
– by the way, for anyone interested in the Ring Road proposal, route selection is at an advanced stage and I may have some info on the final 2 routings soon.
@Thomond Park wrote:
What I didn’t like about the renderings was the angle it was taken from, it would have made it nigh on impossible to assess the effect of the setbacks. The Eden Quay project had a German name and a Dungarvan Address of that I am sure
Both the Capitol and Eden Quay projects seem to suffer from the same horrid set backs – and are both former cinema sites. However, as far as I know, Tritschler Tritschler & Associates were involved with Eden Quay. Sabine Wittman is the MD with The e-Project. Clearly, both parties have no accountancy for taste.
With regards the Lennon ‘Ponte Vecchio’ project, the whole project is really a crazed fantasy. Its impractical, locational, visual and disruptional. CCC have plans to erect a pedestrian bridge at this location in the future (although its further up along Merchants Quay) with the intention of opening up Patrick’s Quay for inclusion in an extended CCRA (Core Commercial Retail Area). It’s a bit altogether, but Mr. Lennon has a history for these types of projects.@Thomond Park wrote:
I would be very surprised if that proposal will clear planning it is dreadful, in my experience retailers like buildings in the right locations with a high proportion of glazing, they do not like signing leases heads of terms and then not being able to sign a lease.
Are e-project or a connected party]https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3631&page=2&highlight=eden+quay[/url]
I was actually looking at the Eden Quay project when I was up in Dublin there last Thursday – the last time I had seen it, Rohcon were still on site. I don’t think The e-Project were involved in its design but I’m open to correction. You can see what the designers were going for, but they missed…horribly. It looks so awkward, blocky and just unsightly. As with the plans for the Capitol Cineplex in Cork, its position is much more prominent given the context. Both developers and architects will need to make MAJOR revisions if the development is to be made even semi-acceptable – w.r.t. to its current design. A truly awful effort – and comfortably joins the leagues of Derek Tynan & Associates’ projects throughout Cork.
:rolleyes: Yes, engineer (among other things), John Paul Lennon is to again lodge a new application, under his wife’s name, Maria, with CCC to develop a new ‘Ponte Vecchio’-style bridge spanning St. Patrick’s Quay to Anderson’s Quay. Mr. Lennon had previously attempted to develop a similar bridge at the same location back in 1998, but was refused on the grounds that it would disrupt the excellent vista enjoyed by Leesiders along the Northern Channel – among other reasons. Last year, Mr. Lennon – through Sean Meehan – withdrew an O.P.P. application to develop a 3-deck multi-storey car-park with commercial units and link bridge at Grenville Place following a prompt by CCC that they would not permit such a development at the location.
Now, with the help of architect Sam Stephenson, Mr. Lennon is at it again – his application will enter planning in O.P.P. form and request permission for a bridge with a 5-storey structure constructed along its span. The structure will contain a shopping arcade, public pedestrian crossings, 8-apartments on 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors w/ 6 penthouses on the fourth floor.
Novel as the idea may be, it is unsuited to the location and completely impractical. The massing would be a disruptive hinderance to the river vista and city overall. The project is valued at just under 30m euros.
🙂 Cork Airport’s new terminal development, which now has 2 air-bridges secured, is expected to receive the remaining 2 air-bridges – to bring the total to the original planned 4 as part of the 1st Phase. The first 2 airbridges will be installed on completion of the terminal, with the other 2 being installed at an unspecified future date – subject to funding. This comes after speculative enquiries. The 4 airbridge links are being constructed as is – anyone who has passed by the new development will see this – however, only 2 actual airbridges themselves have been secured in a ridiculous fiasco concerning cost savings by the DAA (the airbridges by the way are under 475,000euro in value each, versus the 140m euro bill on the terminal).
😉 Anyone who has passed the OFC Eglinton Street site recently will have noted the erection of 2 faceless ‘billboards’ facing Albert Road and the South City Link. A move of confidence by OFC? Advertising billboards erected in advance of a decision (July 7th 2005)? Frankly, I don’t know what the billboards are being erected for – but what I do know, is that so far, the revised submission for Eglinton Street seems to be meeting planning approval, with a certain Senior Planner hinting that the development will be greenlit. We wait in anticipation!
🙁 Aldi Stores Developments are to withdraw their multimillion euro development application for the Heiton Buckley site on Tory Top Road, following extensive talks with CCC. A number of objections were lodged against the development by local residents and businesses. The application consisted of the development of 48 duplex apartments over 6, 4-storey blocks, an Aldi Discount Store, a creche and 7 additional retail units. The pleasantly designed development is to be replaced with, what I personally view as a lesser project, in the form of a revised and scaled-down proposal. The new application, to be lodged by next week, will see a reduced floor-space Aldi store (1,560sq m), 2 retail units (one at basement level), a medical centre, creche and 41 residential units consisting of 5 2-bedroom duplex apartments as part of a 3-storey block, 18 2-bedroom terraced dwelling houses as well as 9 1-bedroom apartments and 9 2-bedroom duplexes in a further 3-storey block. Design is again by Carew Kelly Architects.
Previous incarnation of the development – now to be withdrawn.
@Pana01 wrote:Back to the architecture – anyone know what will be built in the Beasly Street car park site, backing onto Parnell Place, and when it will commence?
Pitwood Ltd and Michael & Kevin Corbett are currently compiling Further Information on their application to develop a luxury 5-storey, 80,000sq ft 121-bedroom hotel with dual-basement car-park and basement spa. Niall Fitzsimons are the engineers. The original Parnell Place facades are set to be refurbished and incorporated. There has however been some rustling in the bushes about the project – I’ll let you know more soon.
I managed this morning to take my first proper look around Castlethorn Construction’s Dundrum Town Centre since it opened. I had previously been offered a ‘tour’ of the site by a good sir with Sisks – when I last saw it, the site was nothing more than an immense, gaping hollow in the ground, so it was interesting to see the end (almost end) product.
The large shopping centre is designed by Burke Kennedy Doyle (BKD) and built by Sisk Construction with a development value of 360m euros. It provides almost 150,000sq m of shopping centre space and parking for 3,600 cars. Some of the figures run by me today were most interesting. Joe O’Reilly and crew have managed to provide an interesting structure in a rather ‘confined’ space. Amazingly, the former factory site was bought for approx. 10m euros.
The interior finish seems of a relatively quality standard. The exterior is pleasant, but by no means extravagant in my opinion. What I do like is the small provision of a square to the north elevation – the use of a timber-decking is a positive contribute in terms of public amenity. The maze of levels perhaps acts as a deception to the projects size, but makes for an interesting walk! However, as I toured the facility, all I could keep thinking was “I’ve seen it all before”. Even the mix of stores, though perhaps interesting in brand-value, seemed to run one into the other. House of Fraser is just another Debenhams/Brown Thomas, – etc etc etc. Dundrum Town Centre is perhaps a better standard of shopping centre, but is that really the best that can be done for a 360m euro price tag? Maybe I’m just growing tired and cranky, plus the prospect of a day full of meetings isn’t helping, but what was new is new no more – a cutting edge retail ‘experience’ should not be conforming to the norms – it should be seeking out new and innovative forms and ideas. Dundrum does not accomplish this – although it does developed more considerately on the existing ideology. I can see the public becoming gradually tiresome of this kind of shopping centre. For future retail developments to be successful, they’re going to have to think ahead of the posse. Congratulations to Castlethorn and all, but I won’t be in a rush back.
Scotch Hall runs along the same precedent, as does Whitewater in Newbridge. After that, what can we expect? Academy Street and possibly a revitalised Wilton – both in Cork. It’ll be interesting to see if they take note. Although having viewed some early ideas behind Academy Street, I’ll be anxious to see what’s changed in the lodged result.
🙂 Blackpool Developments (The Shipton Group) have withdrawn their appeal regarding the conditions imposed by CCC on their plans to make changes to their original office and retail building at Blackpool Park, permitted under 03/27555.
😎 Meanwhile Frinailla have withdrawn their appeal applications on to commence subsurface investigations on their Ladyswell sites – this follows the lodgement made pursuant of a CCC refusal. The Ladyswell development applications are still in appeal.
Too many forms – indeed a welcome to OMP, it would seem they could have their hands full over the coming years from some of the rumours persistent!
@ CITY BOY wrote:Word on the street today that the deal with Tom Scriven a.k.a rebel bars and redzs
is in deep trouble.Contracts where sighned but no funds transfered for over 3 months.
Has Mr Scrivens buying spree come to a dramatic end?That compunded with a bad planning run; he seems to have/had a plenty few ideas on some of his existing properties too. Curious. Hmmm. :confused: Is there a possibility of a number of licensed premises coming for sale on the city market soon do you think? Lips must be licking.
@jungle wrote:
There are a couple of pedestrian bridges withing the grounds of UCC too – one at the Western Road gates and the other linking between Aras na Laoi and Castlewhite. Neither bridge is particularly inspiring. I found a picture of the Western Rd Gate bridge on the web. No luck with a search for Castlewhite.
Indeed, the College Gates Bridge is a fabulous piece – definitely up on my top list. I love the ornate detail. Oddly, Cork once homed many such bridges – the former North Gate Bridge was a magnificent structure with copper edging, lamp-posts, ornate engravings – the works! It’s a pity its predecessor didn’t even make an attempt at resembling the former…or even to attempt resembling a bridge!!!
I personally think Shandon Bridge is over-hyped – I admire the timber walkway, and some of the lighting is most pleasant, but it gets a lot of talk. The Wain Morehead design was far more unusual.
As for the ‘Pink Link’ – its a love/hate kind of structure. You can look at it from an economists perspective and get a heart-attack, or an architectural perspective – and well, make of it what you will. It’s an open debate.
And yes, there are plans for a Merchants Quay/Patrick’s Quay pedestrian bridge – but its a few years off yet, at least.
😎 Tesco Ireland have been refused permission on appeal for the development of a discount petrol station at a site adjoining their Wilton S.C. 24-hour Tesco facility and adjacent to the Sarsfield Dual-Carriageway. Originally CCC had granted planning following a number of appeals incl. that of the Glasheen Road Maxol Petrol Station. It would indeed have been nice to see a little more competition in the area – competition should not be a solely valid excuse for a planning refusal I believe – however, I do agree with the board that the traffic management consequences would have been unsustainable at this location. Tesco have said they intend to revise and reassess their options.
More updates coming soon.
🙂 Frinailla have purchased the Goat Broke Loose Bar on Grand Parade for an undisclosed sum. The premises neighbours their Grand Parade Plaza [GPP] development (designed by Richard Rainey & Associates, building contractors are John Paul Construction) which will finally see a move on primary construction works within the coming weeks. The additional 500sq metres of plot space will allow Frinailla seek a extended frontage to the GPP development and allow for additional provision of retail space. Agents Atis Harrington Bannon (since split – with Bannon Commercial acting agents) had been enlisted to secure a retail tenant for the commercial section of the development – this would now seem to have borne fruit with a notable retailler now signed up.Further future prospects for the development are also currently under assessment, according to a source, and will – all proceeding well – potentially allow for a complete revitalisation of this quarter of the city in the coming years.
The prospects for acquisition of Paul Kenny’s site next door now seems more speculatively tantilising than ever – this is despite indications that Mr. Kenny had been recently assessing other options on the Citi Car-Park grounds. The site may provide for an extended retail quarter, with possible riverside amenities, and further residential provision overhead. CCC’s plans to redevelop Cork City Library in the coming years may also be an aspect Frinailla could consider assessing in its plans for the area
:confused: Interesting to see that Mr. Montgomery has chosen Ridge Developments over Bowen Construction to complete Phase 2 of his Victoria Mills Student Development at Victoria Cross. Bowen, who originally completed the 16m euro contract attached to Phase 1, had been expected to begin work on Phase 2, a dis-assembled tower crane lay on a nearby site in waiting over the months since Phase 1 had been completed – but this has now since been removed and Ridge are set to commence construction imminently, following works by Cain White. The appointment of Ridge perhaps indicates the growing influence in the partnership between Mr. Montgomery and Mr. McCarthy. As you may know, McCarthy Developments have a strong relationship with Ridge (i.e. Harty’s Quay and Jabob’s Island) and Mr. Montgomery has embarked on a number of projects with Mr. McCarthy regarding Douglas and a possible quayside venture.
😀 Following incalcuable trials and tribulations, 2 designs later, Mark Kelleher (of the Kelleher family, former owners of the Bishopstown Bar [which recently was sold to Mr. Horgan for 8m euros!] among other properties), has been given the greenlight by CCC planner Evelyn Mitchell for 53 of the 73 residential units planned for a collective of adjoining sites off Curraheen Road at Westend near Bishopstown. The project, pleasantly designed by Frank Ennis & Associates, received over 124 seperate objections for residents, groups (like CAHRA) and local councillors – and will be granted subject to the removal of an entire section, the 20-units of Block C.
I’m very glad that CCC saw through the substantial cock-and-bull in the logic of many of these objections (too often over-lapping – and many more referring to the details of the previous incarnation of the development!) – which objection often on the grounds of the developments ‘high-rise’ nature (of 3/4-storeys – depending on how you see the mansard roof). :rolleyes: This is a positive move. Unfortunately, Jerry Buttimer and posse have informed me that an appeal will be sought, one individual stated that ”high-rise is suitable in other cities, but not Cork”. I take it we should tear down every house and building 4-storeys and over then, right?
A constructive move by CCC.
Images sought, and hoping to have some soon.
Thanks to “himself” up in Dublin and the northern sir for info in light of my absence. You’re help is kindly appreciated.
P.S. What a ridiculous headline in the IE article today stating ‘High-rise Development Granted’ then continuing to discuss the 3-storey development! :rolleyes:
Just on a side-note, I find it rich to see councillor Jerry Buttimer object and publicly defame Mr. Kelleher’s project on grounds such as traffic increases and height among other things given that a project, recently lodged by his GAA Club, which he also chairs, represents a far greater threat to the community than that at Westend.Bishopstown GAA’s plans for CUH usage of its car-park will cause increased volumes of traffic in an area of dense family housing, throughout which many children – who play in the park’s green areas – may be at risk (God forbid!) to incidents consequent of the increased movements. I’m all for sports clubs trying to rail in the revenue when able to do so – sport is an integral and important part of our society and culture – but this project, given its location, poses a far greater threat to the community than Mr. Kelleher’s proposal ever could. Anyone who knows this area well, will be aware of how one must constantly keep their eyes peeled for children speeding across the road in their tricycles without warning or chasing a ball onto the road from a green. Of course this is the case anywhere, but especially here given that this is essentially a large, maze-like housing estate with strong population of young families. Feel free to object. :rolleyes:
I think the biggest upset about the Capitol redevelopment is that the location promises the prospect of something really awe-inspiring, and instead, has delivered a dud. Here stood the opportunity for a developer to grab architecture by the nuts and say ‘Make me beautiful!’ But instead we got a second-rate cell-block. I saw 2 other proposals on this site – one involved The Robert Butler Group (at an undisclosed date) and the other by a Cork developer. Both designs they presented were far superior and one at least was deserving of the location, the other wasn’t bad but needed some tweaking. If CCC do grant this, I would be disappointed if it were consequent of anything less than substantially revised drawings that evoke the prestige of the location. Oyster Developments/Mount Kennett Investments have really let Cork down on this one.
Big news, however, is due this week – early next week!
Boyler – I suppose it depends on what era you’re looking for! St. Patrick’s Bridge and Parliament Bridge have an antiquated charm about them. However Shadon Bridge (perhaps a little over-hypred) and the new Mardyke Walk Bridge (“Roy Keane”) Bridge is quite the eye-catcher! But what about Daly’s “Shaky” Bridge – fun for all ages! 😉😮 Planner Michael Lynch has requested Significant Further Information with respect to the redevelopment of the Capitol Cineplex site on Grand Parade. The proposal by Mount Kennett Investments and John Costello of Limerick, and designed by Dr. Sabine Wittman of The e-Project, has had a request placed for a number of further information dimensions. CCC is unhappy about issues concerning massing, finishes and other related issues. I’ll will have more details on that soon.
@mickeydocs wrote:Blarney will be a suburb when they build the 5,000 houses in Monard…
what’s the word on Manor Homes, are they still plannins a 25 storey building?
MPH never had plans for a 25-storey building at Horgan’s Quay (that had been part of an earlier conceptual plan devised to show what could be done with the site. A few of these plans were devised for CIE, but these were more ‘inspirational’). However, it is understood that they do plan high-rise elements to any development they initiate though I’m not sure if they’ll rise as high as 25-storeys. A more realistic number would range between 15 and 19-storeys.
Officially decisions are due today on the developments planned by:
A.) Mount Kennett Investments and John Costello – the Limerick-based developers – and their intentions for the Capitol Cineplex on Grand Parade. The proposal is to seek demolition of the Capitol Cineplex and construction of a 7-level development with 18 apartments over a multi-level department store. The design is by Dungarvan-based The e-Project. Planner is Michael Lynch. 5 submissions were lodged w.r.t. the development including An Taisce, Noelle Moriarty (of the next door Post Office), The Vineyard Bar and Vision Cork. Further Info or a decision extension is expected, although it may indeed see a decision made! Hmmmm.
B.) Mark Kelleher’s plans for a site at Westend near Bishopstown of 73-residential units, designed by Frank Ennis. This revised development and its predecessor is now infamous, having received over 124 objections from local residentss objecting to the ‘highrise’ nature of the 4-STOREY development. 4-storeys not 24!!! :rolleyes:
😮 Though plans were put in motion as far back as 1998, it now seems, following extensive re-engaged talks between CCC, CIE and, as I mentioned many moons ago on this thread, Manor Park Homes (the preferred developer) – an outcome is within reach. CIE’s plans for the redevelopment of Kent Station, which were noted by CIE Chairman Dr. John Lynch as being in the region of €20m (and which were originally due for completion in 2007) will now likely proceed as part of a new plan which has been devised by Manor Park Homes (MPH – whose CEO, Michael O’Driscoll is a UCC graduate and who has been a driving force in the talks) in conjunction with the State-owned transport provider. An application is expected before the year end (but remains subject to the physical initiation of the Midelton/Cork commuter link) and will consist of a full refurbishment of Kent Station (internal and external), the addition of a multi-storey car park, extended platforms to cater for additional Midelton commuter rail traffic and a link to connect with a new bus and rail facility. The new linked-facility will be jointly provided by CIE and MPH (it is believed MPH will construct it and then lease it back to CIE over a number of years). The link facility will also serve new office and residential plans proposed for the quayside by MPH. The facility will open out facing the quayside and hub between it and the newly refurbished bus station at Parnell Place. A new internal road network is expected to serve these plans. In its entirety, a full hub-facility will be provided between the 2 developments allowing a well-integrated bus/rail and pedestrian service. (I am guessing CIE will need DoT authorisation on funding – unless they have it already, which I doubt – but who knows, I could be wrong!) CIE are currently conducting additional studies on their 17-acre Horgan’s Quay lands, with a prominent consulting engineers group and planning consultants, regarding the amount of available space they can officially afford to sign over whilst making considerations for any future expansion of its rail operations.
-> MPH are believed to be currently drawing up new and revised plans for the site, which will be amended accordingly resultant of CIE studies. The plans are believed to be loosely based on ideas proposed by O’Mahony Pike Architects who were enacted by CIE a few years ago to draw up a masterplan for the lands. I have only heard names on the design-team enacted, one of which was OMP again, but no confirmation is available yet – so I’ll hold off from my own assumptions until I get a confirmation. However, the details of the plans are set to include a number of high-density residential units (many water facing), a new plaza area, numerous commercial facilities (offices and retail) and [I[possibly[/I] some cultural facilities (not confirmed). CIE are expected to retain an equity stake – which had been a major negotiations factor between they and MPH. The redevelopment is being planned by MPH over 3 phases, the first which is set to include the link with Kent Station’s redevelopment.
-> Also on the Horgan’s Quay, the plans for a 5,000 to 6,000 seater Event Centre (as I promised I would inform you a few posts back), which had been the long-favoured location for such a facility by City Manager Joe Gavin, have (I can confirm) seen a design visualised on a part 3-acre plot of Horgan’s Quay lands and apparently a recently purchased number of plots along Alfred/Railway Street, among which included a former 18,000sq ft warehouse sold last year by Dominic Daly Auctioneers for an est’d €4m. Developer Paul Montgomery has long expressed his ambitions for developing such a centre at this location, given that plans for a site near Black Ash, didn’t trump with CCC (so I’m told!). It is widely speculated that Mr. Montgomery, in conjunction with another prominent city-based developer, has had some involvement with this Horgan’s Quay plot. CIE had been most reluctant to allow the development of such a facility on its lands historically, it was felt that land provision (requested by CCC) would eat into the potential it sought to gain from its preferred development options – as envisioned with MPH. However, a resolution is assumed to be in the air, following the latest rounds of 3-way talks.
:p As for OCP plans for Academy Street, as reported a long-time back, an application will be lodged later this summer for the development of a 6-storey over dual-basement building in a .6 acre block encompassing the former Irish Examiner/Evening Echo printing press and office facilities, Johnson & Perrott (J&P), the Grand Circle lounge, Taboo/The Jean Scene, Ryans Pharmacy premises etc etc.J&P will relocate to new €7m purpose built showrooms at Mahon Point (currently under construction) by December of this year (2005) – in which 3 of the dealerships [incl. Volvo & Honda] will be housed. The Irish Examiner are expected to relocate to new office facilities (approx. 27,000sq ft) at City Quarter on Lapps Quay by mid-to-late 2006. Construction will be facilitated by Bowen Construction, who aim to be on site by December 2006 (planning pending).
Niall Fitzsimons are the project’s consulting engineers. When complete, the building is expected to hold 3-levels of fashion retail over 200,000sq ft + of accommodation (40+ units) at (upper basement, ground, 1st levels). The Lower Basement is proposed to accommodate car-parking and loading/deliveries etc. The upper 4-floors will home up to circa. 80+ residential units (subject to finalised plans). The project value is believed to be in and around €150m. The design will retain much of the history of the area and is set to be built to a high-standard, which MD Owen O’Callaghan cited as being worthy of its location. A tenant list is already being accumulated.
🙂 OFC’s Ballincollig Town Centre (BTC) SC is set to provide tenancy for Dunnes Stores (w/ over 60,000sq ft of supermarket and apparel space over 2 units), Easons (who will occupy units 10 & 11 near an entrance to the facility – they were recently permitted conversion of the units to include a cafe by CorkCoCo), Sasha, Hallmark, New Look – and talks are believed to have been enacted between Golden Discs and even HMV (who backed out of Mahon Point) and Virgin about a music store concession, though none have yet been confirmed. Other tenants will be announced soon, subject to legal advice. The centre is planned to open for 18th October 2005.
:confused: Also, it is believed at least 1 of the Kyrl’s Quay Architectural Competition entrants have been approached by a developer regarding their design for the site. The planned outcome is not yet known, but one may speculate. I am not aware as to whether any landowners have yet been approached. How interesting that could be! I’ll keep an eye on it, but know, that for now – its all just air! 😉
😉 Possible news soon on Howard Holdings’ and Joe O’Donovan’s plans for Wilton S.C.
