POM
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lex just on your docklands post, I am particularly impressed by the way Howard have taken such a strong position with relation to the docks. Clearly their movement has allowed them secure some pretty important sites that no doubt others will be grinding their teeth with envy over the next few years. I’m glad that Howard are involved given the generally high finish of buildings they seem to have completed around Cork over the last few years.
@kite wrote:
🙂
What I meant by direct type labor is that Tom McCarthy’ Mills development and his and Tom Kelly’s Kingsley development are been directed by their own management team.
Any snags or penalties fall back on the owners, not the builder, engineers etc. An unusual way of doing business on developments of this size I would think?Gotcha! Wasn’t too sure on what you meant.
Interesting stuff on the docklands Lex. Its nice to see some progress. The pace does seem to be heating up, I just hope this materialises with imagination and applications.
@kite wrote:
😮 I agree that Murray O Laoire Architects seem to be redundant in the redevelopment of the Jacobs Mill site.
Tom McCarthy and Tom Kelly are taking the same “direct labor†type approach to the Kingsley hotel redevelopment, again with disastrous results.
It must be embarrassing for Murray O Laoire, or any other professional company to have their names linked in any way with this type of development, (that said, wasn’t it a “professional†body that gave Victoria Mills an award last year?)I don’t think the building projects are direct labour. O’Flynn Banteer Builders are working on both sites for the developer.
Hope you’d a nice holiday Lex.
Just on the plans for the Muskerry Service Station at the Western Road. I had a little visit to view the plans for myself over the week. I saw today only 3 objections lodged on the project. Honestly I have to say of all the projects in planning at the moment this is perhaps the one that is ripe for controversy. It happens to be a rather awful dire contraption. The architects were marked as DTA Associates which I understand is Derek Tynan work again, the same team that gave us the awful Victoria Mills, the even worse extension to Victoria Mills and the equally terrible office building planned for Crosses Green. Again DTA seems on an ambitious mission to even top its other mistakes with what is essentially a half glass, half stone wall pair of blocks. From the photomontages it seems the buildings will jut close to the roadside blocking views down the Western Road of the infinitely more attractive new Jurys and create an eyesore viewing up the Western Road from the city along the river. It essentially rises up facing the road as a bare stone wall with only a few slits for windows. Awful awful stuff.
@d_d_dallas wrote:
Mr Gavin is a civil servant and it is quite normal to apply for ‘better’ jobs in the civil service without prejudicing your current position. Unlike the private sector, the recruitment process is transparent. If anything the fact that he applied and was selected for an interview should be seen as encouraging for both him and the job he is doing.
I agree. It is only natural he seek to move up the scale, I wouldnt necessarily regard that as a sign of apathy with relation to the Cork city manager job. Personally I am glad to see him stay in Cork for another few years at least. His short-listing for the Dublin job this time round will undoubtedly stand to him should he choose to go for it next time round. Now if he can just get this docklands thing moving full swing that will be a credit which will certainly boost his prospects up another few notches.
@lexington wrote:
😎 Werdna Limited has submitted an Environmental Impact Study to An Bord Pleanala regarding its much delayed Water Street project. Murray O’Laoire Architects are handling the design of the proposal which is now not formally scheduled for decision until September 2006. The revised scheme has been watered down (no pun intended here either) to a proposal half of its original conception – the project now encompasses 231 residential units, of which 12 are terraced houses. Basement parking has been cut to 399 spaces over 2 decks the 3 western finger blocks now peak at 7-storeys and the eastern section now includes a significantly reduced 9-storey block, now reoriented east-to-west. Given that originally this scheme was proposed as an attractive 500 unit (approx.) development with landmark 26-storey tower, reached planning at 19-storeys and 400 units, was revised to 304 units with 17-storey tower and has now reached a meek (by comparison) 231 units with 9-storey “tower”, it makes one think about the nature of our planning system.
There’s something very disheartening about that. An opportunity lost? I wonder if the city council think that by permitting one tall building as a novelty shows them not to be anti highrise and allows them cut everything else down to a mundane pattern of 5 and 6-storeys? In some cases they even allow a 9 storey…although both cases of that to my mind were subpar in their design (Victoria Mills and the Metropole). Even the proposal for Clontarf Street seems to be under threat from height standardization. I agree that it would be nice to keep the majority of buildings patterned within the same height along the quays in this location, but surely certain locations like the Clontarf Street site and perhaps the front head of Custom House Quay warrant an allowance for something a little more adventurous? It seems anything proposal with a little imagination gets the cut to a point where they are no longer imaginative. Of course planners will undoubtedly refute this – the public will cite the height is equal to greed equation, but I account that as a lack of understanding. Height can be used to nicely shape a city. Rather than seeing height as a threat to the character of Cork, the real imagination lies in creating new dynamic districts and quarters (in areas like the docklands) which embrace new departures in design and forms, but in a distinctly Cork way. Imagination is allowing a city and its various districts evolve sustainably and respectfully, while seeing far enough into the future to consider the accommodation of new precedents. It would be saddened to think that Cork may waste some fine opportunities when they come its way. Like one poster said recently its amazing how some projects get thrashed in the planning process while those the are the real blight/potential blight on the city sometimes pass by unnoticed.
@kite wrote:
🙁 Unfortunately you will not see much progress on this site for the next few months as the owners other development (Kingsley Hotel) has a major EU delegation booked in for the 15th September so it’s all hands on deck here to ensure completion before that date.
It was my understanding work was put to a temporary halt in light of a forthcoming application to change the site’s use to a hotel instead of apartments and restaurant. Until that application has been lodged and granted it is pointless to proceed with work.
@kite wrote:
🙁
It certainly would not be in my top ten either, neither would the building to its left with what I assume is a copper clad roof,Now do we blame the developers for asking for this type of building, or the planners for allowing them?
I disagree, I think the Camden Court scheme is actually one of the better designed projects in Cork at the moment. The use of limestone and copper materials harks back to those associated with the city many years ago offering a pleasant variation from the boring brick finishes of the projects either side of it on John Street and Camden Wharf. Its height is respectful to the Georgian terrace houses fronting the quayside, it gradually steps back and up to 6-storeys in a manner considered of its location. The forms found at roof-level are an interesting break from the standard and frankly boring precendent found across so many of the city’s developments – the flat, level roof-top. Thank your lucky stars this scheme was given the all-clear versus the previous proposal for the site.
The Jacob’s roof looks totally out of sync with the rest of the quay and looks cheap with a tin-sheeting type material. This is destined to be a luxury boutique hotel, I’ll wait to the see the finished product before commenting further. It is interesting the this and the Kingsley extensions were both designed by Murray O’Loaire Associates, both built by the same construction company and both owned by the same individual. I pass the Kingsley everyday on the way home and I still can’t get over how the aparthotel was approved without some sort of enchanced treatment. Are they planning on matching the paintwork at the Kingsley?
Dallas you also raise an interesting point, how is it that schemes like the one proposed for Water Street are knocked and hassled the whole way through planning, then brought to appeal which its been in or rather will be in for over a year and will probably come out a lesser proposal at the end of it all, while other schemes like those mentioned whizz through without the same degree of grief.
@kite wrote:
On another matter, I am delighted that the board of ABP overturned their own inspector and refused the destruction of St. Colmans in Cobh, however does anyone else get an uneasy feeling with the amount of times that this overturning of professional inspectors at ABP level and planners at City Council level is occurring in Cork? 😮
You must consider that the Board themselves are professional planning associates – an inspector report is to provide an evaluation of the scenario and offer a recommendation, not a decision. Often you will see many inspectors include a section detailling recommended conditions should the Bord wish to grant the scheme in spite of their own inclination. Quite frankly, I think the Bord have made a number of wise decisions over the years – had the inspectors rule been implemented we woulld probably be years behind. A good example is the one you cite yourself about St. Colmans, thank Heavens the inspector’s recommendation was turned down!
@lexington wrote:
Unfortunately, access to images is limited – the example posted below is of poor quality but reflects the Western Road frontage (northern elevation) of the eastern block. Protruding glazed frontages to the east can be seen facing the river.
Again apologises for the quality – piteously I don’t have available images to otherwise highlight the scheme in its entirety.
Can’t make too much of it out there. Havent been down to the planning office in a while, but must make a point next time I’m there to take a look at this. From the road at least it looks like one of those haunted mansions. That elevation is ghastly! Its like one big wall!!
kite wrote:yorktown wrote:]Why do you feel that?
On another matter, reading that write up by Frank MacDonald in the Irish Times regarding Academy Street, I’m curious as to why he is giving the scheme so much attention? He has written at least 3 articles this year to my mind on the proposal and its progress in planning. Is it because he genuinely has an interest in the project or is there something a little more questionable at hand (i.e. a little incident last year involving a to-and-fro between he and the subject developer)? Not that I’m complaining, I’m as interested in this scheme as the next man and think it will be good for the city, but even just reading the selected quotes I’m a little curious.
Great to hear a little bit of progress on the Midelton line. Now if we could just get an application in planning for Horgans Quay we’d be on a roll!
On the matter of Water Street, I am aware that everytime the decision date is put back we give out and I know the whole rather it be delayed than refused idea but all the same the numerous and continual review and delay in the decision here must be frustrating to even the most patient developer and architect. It is disappointing. I simply hope the outcome is beneficial to all those involved and to Cork.
@kite wrote:
Barry O’Connor and Robert Kennedy have been taken to ABP in relation to their Crows Nest developmnet.
I think that was probably a given in light of the extreme conditioning. It’ll be interesting to see what the Bord make of it.
On the matter of the Dunnes Stores on Patricks Street, I’ll have to agree with you on that one Lex. Not having been a fan of the previous plan, I still think the revised design is a bit of a let down. There doesnt seem to have been any address of active side-street uses along Bowling Green Street or Williams Street – and the whole scheme now seems to be a blanket shade of miserable grey. I couldnt find details on the materials, am I to assume limestone finishes? The new elevation at 102 is utterly awful, I get the argument for natural light but it looks completely out of place and scale with the protected facades and over-dominates them in a boxy and unkempt fashion. To this end, the original proposal was perhaps a little boring but it was certainly more in keeping and sympathetic to the existing frontages in the area. And for all the nattering about massing, the curved (cruise-liner bridge!) set-back brought a bit of variation to the standard roof-lines, and offered potential for interesting street views. Perhaps the only positive notes I can think of is the relocation of most plant equipment and storage areas to basement level and the more varied elevations along the side-streets. The northern (Drawbridge Sreet) elevation is boxy and bland, especially the eastern corner which towers like a sharp and rather boring line up about 20 metres. I sincerely hope the colour scheme is revised and the planners get some sense in recognising the pluses the original scheme brought in conjunction with the pluses (the few!) brought by the revised scheme – hopefully the best of both worlds is the eventual outcome. Wishful thinking?
Andother scheme brought to my attention was the plan for a 5 storey office building at Monahan Road. What a drab and boring building. Indeed the road frontage is desirable but this is achieved by a faceless wall of glazing capped by an overhang and supported by a series of narrow columns which would seem to beckon variety (though it fails). Either-side of the street frontage are wings which border exaggerated entry and exit points to the basement carpark either side. These wings are punctured with serial circular holes the height of the building. A drop-off point to the front of the building seems to exaggerate the width of the road (promoting an excess of tarmacadam over environment!) and dimishes pedestrian flow routes running east-to-west along the road. Something the council should be trying to promote. A central courtyard makes for perhaps the most interesting design aspect of the building with a variation in materials which includes limited patterned stone elevational finishes – its a pity the variety couldnt be extended to the wider exterior treatment of the building. Both east and west elevations are faceless grey walls with little distinction. Though the height and scale of the project would seem inline and respectful of its location (especially to residencies to the south), its street frontage and elevational treatments leave much to be desired.
Cornmarket Street
Reading a post earlier about the sale of the Kyrls Quay site is great and all but by the time all the other appropriate sites are acquired, who knows when development will start moving on the quay??? I drove down Cornmarket Street the other day and its nothing short of a third world street with suspension murdering paving, broken footpaths, potholes and dereliction abound. I sometimes can’t comprehend that this is suppose to be a prime city centre street? And where are all the promises the city council made regarding the realignment of Kyrls Quay or the installation of new market stalls? Or the improvement to the disgraceful street surface and pathways? I remember reading the action plan for the area and the scheduling on all these projects seems to be so far behind. It really is a disgrace. For such a prime street with potentially massive pedestrian windfalls from nearby Patricks Street, movement (development or promised realm improvements) has been insignificant. The most promising move here, besides the land sales has been the movement on the Guys site but even that seems to be lingering along.
@Pug wrote:
for the un initiated, what happens when a Vesting Order is put in place?:confused:
Generally theres a period open to submissions/objections on the order (which is like a notice of intent to compulsorily acquire a derelict site) under the Derelict Sites Act 1990. Submissions allow the case be considered and where a significant argument is found or commitment made by the owner to do something with the site – the order may be invalidated with the understanding the owner is going to do something with the site within a designated time. The same scenario happened a few years ago on the Parnell Street site which is set to become a hotel (and I still havent seen anything happening there in terms of construction which worries me a little). Presumably the council are concerned in part as to the condition of 16 Lavits Quay. It would seem to me such an order would mean O’Callaghan haven’t started preplanning on the site, otherwise intent would have been established. I assume O’Callaghan will be objecting to the order and will be under pressure to get an application in on the site soon.
Makes you wonder about the pre planning discussions. Or lack of them. Any one have an idea when plans for the site were suppose to commence?
The conditions seem a bit odd to me as well. I don’t understand the report. One minute it says an 8-storey building would be acceptable, the next it caps the height at 6-storeys. Either way, the fact that the tall element is now capped at 6-storeys and the lower block at 5-storeys, seems to me to suggest the building will run as one long monotonous block. Given that this was no princess of a design at any stage the conditions seem to have made it worse rather than enhance it. I agree with someone else’s comments earlier about if you’re going to reduce a scheme so much you may as well just refuse it. I can see this one going for appeal. Maybe they’ll ask for a better redesign and I’d rather a taller building with a bit of distinction rather than another 6-storey block like every other one in the city. Still it will be a shame to see the Crow go and those little terrace houses alongside it on the Straight Road.
I think you’re all giving these lobby groups too much credit and airtime. So much of what they say and their councillors say is such bunkum. Anyone who understands proper planning law will tell you that. They like quoting bits and bobs from select articles and legal scriptures but in the empirical context they all add up to very little. Politicians and councillors like entertaining all that sort of stuff because they think it swings votes – but at the end of the day it means little but gestures. Gestures that can’t last indefinitely given the practical contravention to sustainable development.
I would really rather see us get back on track and discuss issues like builidng stock and future projects that will benefit/not benefit the city.
I was driving home yesterday evening and decided to take a meandering route to take in some of the new building stock coming on stream around Cork.
First off Victoria Cross: the mask of scaffolding seems to be coming off the new student developments there. One by Flemings and the other being the second phase of Victoria Mills. Surprisingly the University Hall scheme by Flemings and UCC, I think Bertie Pope was the architect here, is not as bad as its renders would suggest. Now having said that, its far from inspiring and unduly boxy but its finish colouring and use of timber cladding liven it up somewhat. The big question will be how long will the timber remain so shimmering. A poor development but in light of its neighbours, a little better. The second phase of Victoria Mills however is so far an utter joke. They somehow someway seemed to have managed to design a building that actually makes the first phase of Victoria Mills seem positively delightful in comparison. This is pure muck…and the coincidentally the same colour as muck, finished with a ghastly brown brick coat. This is pure lazy, facless architecture and this is another reason which makes you wonder what goes through planners heads. Think architect was Derek Tynans…bargain basement stuff.
Despite all the giving out about the new Webworks near City Hall. On seconds looks its actually not so bad. I really like the Eglinton Street elevation and its relation to Albert House is considerate. I still don’t like the grey frame finish, but the building as a whole grows on you. I think it will look better a less prominent when the rest of the quay is redeveloped. The night time lighting along Eglinton Street is nice too.
Though its only nearing its outer frame completion I have to say I think the new Jurys on the Western Road looks well. In the context of the entire scheme it should work fine. Its nothing spectacular but it is a simple, far more subdued project than I think many thought it would be. The finish materials are bright and a nice change to many of the useful finishes around Cork.
However the project that caught my eye most was out in Blackpool. Hegratys are finishing the latest office building at Blackpool Retail Park. This prominent and large structure is a little blocky and over-bearing in parts but its so bloody bold you have to like it. Kelly O’Brien and Whelan architects have played around with shapes like the overhanging roof sections on the tower points of the building. Its exaggerant and probably shouldnt work. I’m sure many will argue it doesn’t – but I still think it represents one of the bolder office projects in Cork to be yet completed.
Also thanks for that news Thomond. CIE continue to baffle me. And still no word on Horgans Quay either.
