lexington

Just a small comment:

the recent press flurry regarding the ‘failings’ of Cork2005 to raise sufficient funds and provide an effective year as city of culture have irritated me somewhat.

Yes, at 13m euros, I do not believe Government funding for such a relevant appointment was adeqaute. Yes, the 20m euro budget was sub-par. Yes the response by businesses has been somewhat disappointing, many of which, only seem now to be getting off their financial behinds – however, it’s the typical old Irish response of ‘moan and let moan’. If we spend the year complaining, then yes, the year will be a failing. It’s only 4 months on, and quite frankly, I don’t think it has been bad at all. In fact, for the culturally minded, there has been a feast of activity from Choral displays, street art, the Awakenings, Liebeskind, Art Festivals, Tournaments – and the year isn’t even halfway through.

This year, Cork businesses and the city council, should be focusing on the promoting Cork as a place to do business and to help draw continued inward investment. It is essential that, for an inclusive and superb docklands to emerge, a core, critical mass of financial and business activity is needed to sustain such development. The city has much to offer, so much – but local business will not solely promote and help assist viability of creating the docklands as envisaged. We need to look up, look out and embrace this year not only as a celebration of local and European culture, but also as a unique opportunity to go out there and bring businesses back with us.

I for one, tire of this backward ‘always find fault’ mentality – yes, let’s not deny the problems, but more importantly, look to how we can solve them – and look how we can use what we have to our advantage.

@devries wrote:

I understand the disastrously wrong message that this planning decision is sending out to developers in Cork and that this decision makes a mockery of the councils planning system. However ,speaking purely on the architectural merit of this project and tower in particular, am I the only architect that breathes a sigh of relief that this tower is not to go ahead in its present form. Comments on the architectural merits ( or lack of ) of the tower are valid .The buildings form should be much better as a landmark building, unique and identifiable with cork. A separate planning application might achieve this.

What do ye think!!!!

I suppose you have to look at it in a number of ways, first: What defines landmark? Among the official designations, it is stated that: a landmark is –

1. a prominent identifying feature of a landscape.
2 : an event or development that marks a turning point or stage
3 : a structure (as a building) of unusual historical or aesthetic interest]a.)[/B] an identifying feature (located on the Eastern Gateway approach entrance to the city centre), b.) a development that marked a turning point (the initiation of the redevelopment of the northern dockland quays), c.) a structure of aesthetic interest (weigh this up against a number of developments like Victoria Mills, County Hall, Treasury’s Barrow Street project etc – I believe the aesthetic quality far outweighs the aforementioned).

The tower acted like a gateway into the docklands from the east, as Eglinton Street does from the south, the way County Hall acts an entrance to the city from the west, and the way plans for a landmark development in Blackpool does to the North. It provided a sense of urban balance. Furthermore, the tower provided what was the pinnacle of the development and brought with it a sense of symmetry from a design perspective. An alternate design in the middle of this project would have looked grossly out of place and negatively impact on the visual amenity of the area – now I do know that is design pending, however, would you not concede that a glass tower 17 storeys high would look out of character with the remaining development? I suppose thats an issue to complex to answer given, a design would have to be seen first.

A sad side of the council’s decision however is the way in which the developers were clearly mislead throughout the planning process; the negative impact on possible investment – the message sent to prospective investment, and the nature of the conditions imposed by way of reducing viability full-stop. Are we going to have a docklands full of landmark 5-storey apartment and office blocks???

🙁 Well its official now, Aer Lingus have ruled out any operations for Cork – USA transatlantic flights – despite the promises made of former CEO Willie Walsh and even though existing regulations permit it to do so.

The airline said that it wishes now to focus on developing its Cork – Continental Europe flights, which this summer will see a 50% capacity increase afforded these operations w/ new routes to Munich, Rome, Milan, Nice, Barcelona among others. Increased capacities will also be available on existing routes such as Paris, Amesterdam, Alicante and Malaga.

Aer Arann say they’re talks with investors regarding a Cork – New York JFK route are still ongoing, as well as discussions with the ILFSC (aircraft leasing company) for what is believed to be a number of Airbus A330-200 aircraft with a 232-seat configuration. The company says they need an estimated 30m euros in additional investment to finance the service – one which is not expected to begin within the next 18 months.

However, a perhaps, thin sheet of light is coming from US-side, with an established US airline looking to commence flights between Cork – New York (possibly Newark), however talks have yet to be set officially between Irish-based directors of the airline and the CAA.

🙂 Atlas Developments are to apply for permission to develop a 20-unit, 3-storey 25,000sq ft over basement car-park light-industrial/technology and business centre along the Old Mallow Road near Blackpool. It is hoped that the project could create up to 100 new jobs in the area.

After almost 28 months on site, PJ Hegarty & Son Ltd removed their tower crane from over Hornibrook Holdings’ (John Hornibook) Camden Wharf development of 58 apartments, 56 basement car-parking spaces and 9 commercial units incl. restaurant. The project was one of the first redevelopment projects on this side of the Lee to get moving – in that time, numerous other projects have started and completed, including Hanranka’s large 90-unit development along Lower John Street and Phase 1 of Sean Mhuileann (also designed by J.E. Keating & Associates) by Joe Carey and Frank Sheahan. Units at Camden Wharf have sold out in the first phase of sales, with prices starting from 295,000euros for the smaller of the 3, 2-bedroom apartment types. Phase 2 sales have begun with Frank V. Murphy Auctioneers and Adriana Hegarty Real Estate handling enquiries. Parking spaces are sold out a 50,000euros a go.

Across the road, OSB Group’s Camden Court development has seen strong sales for Phase 1 of its development, with John F. Supple Contractors beginning preliminary work on Phase 2 – this will see the addition of 55 further apartments, a new Cork Arts Theatre and new Pa Johnsons Bar. The development, designed by James Leahy & Associates, will also house extensive roof-top gardens and amenity facilities.

🙂 The 2nd largest global coffee chain, UK-based Costa Coffee, is to open its first 2 Irish stores in Cork over the coming weeks. The stores will be based at Blackpool S.C. and Douglas Court S.C. with plans on a city centre store pending on performance. The stores will be opened by Tuli Holdings, the Scottish-registered holdings group, already owners of the master-franchises in Ireland for Pizza Hut, KFC and fashion-stores, The Jean Scene. Starbucks, the world’s largest coffee brand operator, which is scheduled to open its flagship store in Dublin’s College Green over the coming weeks, have also been assessing a possible city centre store in Cork. Though I can’t indicate the location as of yet for privacy reasons, 2 locations on 😉 /in/around Patrick’s Street have already been discussed. I have it on good word that Starbucks will most likely open a store based on performances of its 3 prospective Dublin units – and their market research in Cork has been generally for approximations, with a possible opening come Autumn/Winter 2005 – pending. Stores are also planned by Starbucks for Galway, Limerick and Waterford later this year. The Cork market is already well served by coffee chains Gloria Jeans, BB’s, Cafe Gusto (opening a further unit along the boardwalk at City Quarter on Lapps Quay soon) and now Costa, among others.

This news will be formally announced tomorrow morning.

@rodger wrote:

Has any got details on the development on Copley St.under contruction by Coffey looks interesting?

The Copley Street project is being developed by Corbett Bros (Michael & Kevin), designed by PRC Architects, Structural Engineers are Niall Fitzsimons and constructed by Coffey Construction. It’s a actually quite a nice development with 60,000sq ft of offices over 5 floors, ground floor commercial units (restaurant, gym and retail), 8 student apartments, 38 residential apartments and 90 basement car-parking and 50 bicycle parking spaces. I quite like the circular link between the building sections on the Copley Street elevation. I hope the recently applied for and granted ‘elevational treatments’ don’t mess up the original design by tarting it with cheap finishes.

🙂 The final tower crane by Cleary Doyle was erected over the site to the rear of Cork City Hall. The site will take a new form over the next 18 months in the shape of a new 90,000sq ft extension, housing all Cork City Council departments, designed by ABK Architects.

Although it is well known that I support the Water Street development – even from a non-bias perspective, I would have to agree that the report is, when compared to many other reports, a tad unfair and nit-picks. When a developer spends so much time in preplanning talks, as with Water Street, and when pointers have been taken and noted so extensively, planners thereafter should be disallowed from initiating a refusal – save for a completely altered agreement on preplanning consultations.

@Water Street Planner wrote:

…it is critical that the site is developed to a high standard in all aspects particularly as it will serve as a benchmark for other potential schemes in the Docklands…

the basic building blocks are oriented on a north-south basis as identified in the Docklands Strategy so as to enable visibility through the site from higher land to the rear

In my opinion the maximum heights for the north-south spine blocks should be 5 storeys with up to
2 storeys more set back

An academic argument can be made advocating a high building on this site so as to act as a gateway upon arrival into the City at the start of the Docklands, to give legibility to the townscape and to act as a visual counterbalance to the 30 metre high ESB generating station on the opposite side of the River. The Docklands Strategy identified the Water Street site as a suitable location for a landmark building on the eastern side of the slipway

the design of the tall building requires to be assessed in its own right given the City Plan Objective to create a landmark building in this area and its wide visual prominence. It is submitted that the design of the tower building is not acceptable for the following reasons:-

• it is an unduly bulky building.
• it is not a distinctive, stand alone building and takes on the articulation of the general buildings being proposed adjacent rather than having a unique, “landmark” treatment.

fundamental reconsideration requires to be given to the architectural form if a tall building is to work successfully anywhere on this site.

The spine which ranges from 6 storeys at the rear to 9 storeys at the front and which is at a higher ground level is located some 24 metres from the back walls of 1-3 Castleview Terrace and would visually dominate, overshadow and seriously overlook same

– might I add untrue.

• the tower is relocated to the east of the Plaza reducing the impact on evening sunshine available to the public space.

leaving aside issues of impact on sunlight/daylight the design of the tower is unacceptable in its own right and does not satisfy the requirements for a landmark building. In addition further consideration is required as to its impact on the views of the Montenotte Ridge.

Obviously I can’t give the full report – but the above are some of the highlights.

You decide.

@bunch wrote:

i reckon that an appeal of the water street decision could be a wise choice – very strong planning + development basis for appeal i think – does anyone know the size of the site – out of interest??

4 acres on the button.

The case for appeal is very strong. A previous application for high-rise on the eastern front (this time at Silversprings) was lodged 2 years ago by O’Brien & O’Flynn Ltd for a 15-storey residential tower, designed by Dennehy + Dennehy, and which was pitched on top of the slope in Tivoli not far from the Moran Silversprings Hotel. Though the tower was removed by CCC condition, on appeal, ABP inspector Bernard Dee stated that Cork needed some skyline distinction on the eastern front – providing a nice urban balance with consideration to County Hall in the west. The board over-ruled the planning inspector’s recommendation of grant stating that although they agreed Cork needed some aerial distinction in this regard, the tower was located in an unsuitable area and would be better located closer to the city centre (i.e. north-east docklands). This gives Water Street a very strong position in that sense as it provides for a tower in a location noted by ABP themselves.

The loss of privacy issue is farsical considering that most Lower Glanmire Road residencies are sheltered by the warehousing to the north of the Water Street site and that the tower was relocated east (at the planner’s request!) minimising disruption, which it most certainly does. Further, the profile of the tower is compliant with CCC Development Plan regulations – slender on the north-south axis – and is thus not a valid source of refusal.

A positive decision for Eglinton St. seems unlikely now!

I’m a little more optimistic – but it will depend on the details of the Further Info submitted and how CCC react to that. OFC say they are close to getting this together soon now.

😡 In actuality, CCC have only granted permission for under half of the 304 residential units proposed by Werdna’s Water Street project.

The 17-storey, 58m tower had been specifically shift east at the request of planners in the extensive pre-planning dialogue between the developer, Murray O’Laoire and CCC – but in the final decision, has been entirely ruled out. The remaining apartment blocks – which averaged 9 stories were cut back to 5 stories. Jim O’Donovan (Director of Planning) said, contrary to the words of Mark McMahon (developer) and Sean Kearns (architect), that ‘height was always a factor in discussions’. Planning consultant John Crean of Cunnan Stratton Reynolds has vehemently argued this.

Sean Kearns has said that this sends all the wrong signals for the quality development of Cork’s Docklands. By granting permission for 150 apartments, it’s almost mocking Werdna’s intentions – almost saying, we want the public plazas etc, but move off with the development. Werdna were hardly ever going to proceed w/ such a half-realised format of their project. It stands that Cork has possibly lost one of the best examples of quayside and docklands development anywhere in Ireland (in my opinion). As said by John Crean, “We have never had an experience like this anywhere in Ireland.”

I would like to see the development vindicated on appeal.

Yes, it’s true… Senior Planner Ronnie McDowell is likely to recommend ‘refusal’ for the Water Street tower element come decision day. Even considering the extensive pre-planning talks between developer Mark McMahon’s Werdna Ltd, architects Murray O’Laoire and city planners on the revised plan for Water Street – which saw considerable 25% reductions in residential unit numbers, reductions in height, increased commercial provision etc etc – issues regarding height, density, overshadowing, traffic management, among others – have prompted CCC not to find favour with the entire project – rather, imposing excessively restrictive conditions that will likely feature a removal of the tower element. In my opinion, this represents a mistake. I am told from the inner realms that Werdna will seek to appeal this case should such a final decision be made.

This is a blow to the Cork Docklands development flow and to Werdna. I can only hope that ABP have a better sense about the project on appeal.

Clearer details will be made as time progresses.

I really can’t sum up my disappointment at this decision. The 2 genetlemen I attained this info from earlier this week were equally angered and saddened. The news was confirmed again today by a further source.

In my view it’s not a very positive step in Cork’s regeneration.