lexington

@Lincoln wrote:

is there public access to the waters edge or is for the residents only?

It’s open to the public – it’s a great waterfront recreational area surrounded by retail/commercial and leisure functions as well as a large landscaped central plaza for both residents, visitors and established locals. The aim is to breathe life into this long forgotten district and create a hub of activity for all concerned. Really is quality stuff. Unfortunately, the residents (despite the immense changes) have issued 2 seperate objections (each crissed-crossed with identical names on their respective petitions), an observation has been made by the Fisheries Dept (just basically requesting conditions on the development of the waterfront so as not to disrupt marine life etc etc), 1 supportive observation and 1 objection/observation from An Taisce (of course).

@keeneye wrote:

With regards to the long- awaited development at the Capitol Cinplex , the sale of the Capitol to Mr. John Costello and co. is ALL subject to planning granted to WardAnderson by CCC..I have been speaking to a senior partner in WardAnderson over the weekend and have been informed that they expect to get “MANY” objections for various reasons that will delay the whole process considerably.

Sorry, just to clarify something – are you saying that the project as presented is a result of planning negotiations by Ward Anderson with CCC via The e-Project??? Or are you saying that the site will only be sold subject to a grant of planning to Mount Kennett? Just didn’t follow that post clearly.

The latter is similar to my understanding – but not quite.

And on the subject of objections – I too expect a series of objections to the project as well. This is going to be one of those year-long planning procedures. I am aware of objections associated with design, bulk and height which will be submitted post-prevalidation.

🙂 On Frinailla’s Ladyswell Development – as suspected, it has received the go-ahead with conditions but only after the Senior Planner (Ronnie McDowell) and City Manager (Joe Gavin) intervened. The planner in question has displayed, a quite frankly, ill record in planning. After the original 2003 Frinailla application on the site issued for a development of 9-stories w/ over 200 units, the same planner refused permission on the basis of excessive height and negative impact on the sky-line – he remarked that a 3 to 4 storey reduction would have more than likely seen th application succeed with some other minor alterations. Now, in this application, after Frinailla reduced the scheme by 4 stories (the development averages from 2 to 5-storeys at its apex), the planner after recognising all the positive changes to the scheme, then decided at the very last minute to refuse planning based on excessive height and massing, as well as overshadowing of the central courtyard during Spring and Autumn Equinoxes. Boulderdash! The reason the decision wasn’t made known as scheduled yesterday was on account of last minute intervention by the City Manager, who, when reading the report blasted it for being grossly unfair. In consultation with the Senior Planner, the City Manager requested the Planner in question to draw up appropriate conditions associated with a Grant – however, the 5-storey block fronting Watercourse Road has been reduced to 4-storeys through condition (something I don’t particularly agree with – as it contradicts original planning talks and retracts negatively from the overall consistency of the project – the additional storey detracts no-more from the area than 4-storeys and is a pointless, perhaps petty bitter condition, a chance to get one final kick in).

The planner in question has a poor record for planning decisions, in my opinion, – this stems from his most unfair decisions on the Silversprings’ schemes by O’Brien & O’Flynn Ltd., Joe O’Donovan’s redevelopment of the cinema site on Watercourse Road and redevelopment plans at York Hill. I very glad at the decision made by the City Manager – Joe Gavin and Ronnie McDowell have had to do this before with a planner (a different planner) on the scheme that has now become Camden Wharf (by Hornibrook Holdings). It would seem, regardless of recognising that Frinailla’s Ladyswell site was much in need of redevelopment, The Planner in question would not have granted planning here unless it was for a series of bungalows.

– (sorry for not posting this info sooner, but had a busy busy morning!!!)

i was taking the p*** with my last text- it is April 1st after all!

I thought as much – I hadn’t heard anything about such a project at that location. Plus ‘Wrixon Advanced Management Institute’ – I very much doubt it. :p

🙂 Ann O’Donovan has applied for a development of 25 apartments, a gym and 26 space basement car-park along Cotter Street – an area subject to much development of recent times, such as Howard Holding’s Copley Hall and Corbet Bros. Copley Street/Stable Lane office and residential development (which is coming along nicely).

You say that lisam as though there was money spent on it.

Buildings like these make baby Jesus cry. 🙁

😮 Well, one of many, but after the applications, the talks, the Further Info – Frinailla’s revised development for Ladyswell (Watercourse Road, Blackpool) is due tomorrow. The project has been significantly revised and scaled down, but still remains on a very large scale with in excess of 150 residential units, basement car-parking, commercial facilities, public facilities etc etc. Fingers crossed – it’s a good project for an area much in need of one.

– on that note, I probably didn’t mention this, but Frinailla has hired Pat O’Brien Developments as private contractor for its An Caislean development in Ballincollig after the previous contractor went into liquidation mid-construction. Construction is now well under way with a tower crane having been erected a few weeks ago.

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Agreed, however in terms of city present centre activity this is probably about as exciting as it gets (can someone comfirm/deny)

I would have said 21 Lavitts Quay is a far superior building – I don’t know why, but it speaks ‘Millbank’ (i.e. MI5 HQ, London) to me at some curious level. I have a few smashing images of 21 Lavitts Quay as it nears completion (however I need a new cable link with USB extension) and I really feel it sets a precendent along the quay.

Also, competition designs for Kyrls Quay are shaping up nicely (I’ve seen 2 early drawings for 2 different entrants) and they’re interesting.

Also Rockfell’s Cornmarket Street development by Frank Ennis and Associates as well as John Mannix’s Washington Street development by Dermot Coveney & Associates are interesting designs too.

🙂 PJ Hegarty & Sons Ltd have erected a new tower crane over Blackpool Developments site for a new office and residential scheme at Blackpool Retail Park (Phase 2) – however, Blackpool Developments have recently lodged plans to convert the building to 70,000sq ft + of open plan office space with ground floor retail – this follows their success in tenants at the existing park office space and subsequent demand.

Well like I said, this image does not justify the building whatsoever – I don’t know how, but they managed to create a model and image that even made me go ‘Dear God!’, I had been bracing myself, but since the scaffolding was removed off Phase 1, I was pleasantly surprised. It’s a funny fish alright – and going by the image, I would agree with you – but that’s all I have for the time being. I may attain some first-hand photos soon, see how you feel then.

Below is an image of 1 of a number of other alternate proposals for the same site – as proposed by many other developers and previous owners. This ugly and boring design is by Reddy O’Riordan Staehli, the CG Image is quite old, given that all the surrounding buildings have been redeveloped or reconstructed.

Given the choice…well…

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Lexington, has high-rise even been an issue in Cork?
Has the solution (if it can be described as such) to the Dublin battle that’s taken place over the decades, been neatly applied to Cork just as it begins to take off?
That is, allow it in designated areas and otherwise forget it? Not that that’s exactly happening in Dublin – but it is interesting that tall buildings elsewhere in Ireland are causing little to no controversy at all.

Is everyone just fed up at this stage and are just saying ah sure let them at it, or is it an acceptance that tall buildings anywhere can be acceptable as long as they’re clumped together or are used independently as ‘landmarks’? Or is this just a passing fad and will public opinion swing back aagin in 5-10 years I wonder?

Cork’s high-rise record isn’t an enviable one – i.e. Cork County Hall, Victoria Mills etc. And generally, the local public have held a certain disdain toward the notion, however, when the original Cork City Docklands Development Plan was formulated (even as far back as 1998), Cork City Council noted (and perhaps in part recognition to the voices of many high-rise lobbyists which accused the council of being Anti High-rise) that it was not oppose to the development of high-rise buildings in locations which high-rise structures already exist – specifically, the Cork Docklands (thanks to structures like R&H Hall) was mentioned. Further to this, it was noted that this waterfont area offered a unique opportunity to develop visual and architectural landmarks to an area so long neglected.

Later, in the Cork City Development Plan 2003 (amended 2004), it was noted that further areas such as Victoria Cross (home to Cork County Hall), Tivoli, Blackpool and Eglinton Street (all designated Cork City ‘Gateways’ could stand to benefit from at least one landmark, tall building each (more in Victoria Cross’ case). This Gateway approach is in the interests of architectural and planning balance. The city centre (the current city centre) is protected with a ceiling of 9-storeys). I think the people of Cork seemed to recognise, that areas like the docklands, which possess such tall structures would be hollow without them and a few more wasn’t really going to take away from what is there. You also have to remember Cork city is actually well in breach of its so-called ‘City Limits’ – over 175,000 people live in ‘city’ areas/suburbs that are not officially recognised by Cork County Council (or maps!!!) as being part of the city. The growth is eating away at the countryside. In order to encourage continued city centre development, planners recognised that, without being able to build out, they’d have to build up.

Consequently developers jumped at the chance to take advantage of this new policy – allowing them maximise their development potential and capacity on smaller areas of land which had been previously bounded by restriction. Initially in 1999 it was CIE that investigated developing a number of tall buildings for their Horgan’s Quay Urban Masterplan in conjunction with Manor Park Homes (but this is not due til 2007), a few years later Werdna proposed Water Street, O’Callaghan Properties with Jurys, then O’Flynn Construction with Eglinton Street and there are at least 5 other high-rise plans in the pipeline. 2 for the docklands are in exc ess of 20-storeys. In planning, the biggest problems faced by these high-rises has been density (Water Street) and parking facilities (Eglinton Street). The design standards have been very high, allaying many previous held fears about ‘ugly’ buildings. The designs for the planned high-rises are also of a very high-standard. I think what is happening in Cork is also a consequence of the economic conditions and associated confidence which is part of an overall national trend. Yes there are some difficult people who remain utterly adverse to the concept, but the fact is, more and more, it will become necessary.

@jackwade wrote:

There are of course a number of buildings proposed that are taller than both Liberty Hall and Cork County Hall, and here they are.
[HTML] Building Status Floors Height Type
1. The proposed Cherry Orchard Tower proposed 40 unknown residential
2. Heuston Gate approved 32 117.7m residential, bar/restaurant
(under appeal)
3. That Barrow st. monstrosity proposed 32 unknown residential
4. Player’s Square Tower planning refused 28 86 m residential
(likely to re-apply)
5.City Quay Development proposed 28 unknown residential, bar/restuarant/niteclub
6. U2 Tower approved 25 78m office?residential? recording studio
(unlikely to go ahead as originally planned)
7. MJ Flood site, Sandyford proposed 23 unknown residential
Industrial Estate
8. Merchant’s Gate proposed 19 unknown office?
9.City Quay Development proposed 17 unknown office
10. The Park, Carrickmines approved 16 71m office, apart-hotel?
11. Monte Vetro under construction 18 unknown residential
12.Alto Vetro (formerly Quay Lodge) under construction 16 unknown residential
13. Santry Cross under construction 16 unknown residential
14. Tara st. Station approved 14?16? don’t know, office, restaurant
(Is it still going ahead?) but it was taller than Liberty Hall[/HTML]

For the record, Liberty Hall has 16 floors (including the top, maintenance floor) and is 59.4m tall. Can someone please tell me the height of Cork County Hall? I don’t know it off the top of my head.
Oops, I forgot to include the Eglington Street Tower and Water Street project proposed for Cork in the list above. The Eglington Street Tower will be 25 floors if it gets the go ahead, which I assume would be taller than County Hall. The tower element of Water Street would be a 17 floor residential which I imagine would be slightly shorter than C.C.H.
Feel free to offer your corrections to the above list. 🙂
Apologies for the extremely messy post, its late, i’m tired and I can’t figure out the damn list thing 😀

Cork Figures:
Under Construction or In Planning
Cork County Hall = 66m (67m after redevelopment) @ 16 storeys
Eglinton Street = 70m @ 17-storeys (80m including the spire)
Water Street = 58m @ 17-storeys

[There are 4 other significant high-rise buildings under consideration and/or pre-planning for Cork – 2 of which rise higher than both Eglinton Street and County Hall (I think their fate will have a lot to do with Eglinton and Water Street outcomes, which seem to have more problems with parking than height(!) ~ which in some ways is a relief!) The other 2 are planned for Clontarf Street and Blackpool respectively.]