POM
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Interesting in that picture Radioactiveman that you can see the Good Shepherd Convent in the background. I believe there is an application for a new upmarket housing project on that site soon.
@d_d_dallas wrote:
My problem with the extension is that it’s massing tends to dominate that side of city hall – which is an ominous omen considering the approved project behind is of a much greater scale.
What approved project behind City Hall is of greater scale???
I’m going to cut the Webworks a little slack until I see the finished product but taking it for what it is as is I would have to agree its utterly dull. Its hard to comprehend that looking across the river at City Quarter the 2 projects came from the same firm, the latter being much more colourful and tasteful in my opinion.
@kite wrote:
🙁 I agree, but some are saying that “doolally” was the cause of a senior member of the city planning team being removed “fired” from his job in the past few weeks…What damage will more DOOLALLY do if left unchecked?
Oh be careful there kite, we dont want the Irish Examiner accusing us of ‘prompting’ more rumours i.e. last Thursday.
@PTB wrote:
I’m actually quite surprised that anyone would bemoan the fact that green space is being created. Cork is a city without a great amount of green, open spaces. I quite appreciate the fact that the architects have decided to allocate that much parkland rather than cramming the site with buildings and making more money out of all the office space.
I quite agree. Cork is devoid of any substantial greenspace. If anything the greenspace surrounding the proposal accentuates the design and does so quite pleasantly. The architects have done a considered job.
As for the RTE programme, what a preposterous scenario. More doolally.
One practice I’d be very interested seeing tackle a large city centre office development or high rise is Magee Creedon. I’d love to see their spin on things.
MacLeinin wrote:Anto. Not harsh, just reality. A church is what it is]Do you believe a church is limited in its function as a place of ceremony? Does it not – should it not have a broader function to fill?
The extension plans for City Hall fail to excite me, they’re rather boring. Surely something more engaging was worthy of this location?
@pier39 wrote:
any truth in the rumour some limerick developer is planning a pretty big development for the city in the new year?? i dont think theyve been active in cork before and dont have a name. some suggestions were chieftain or fordmount but i honestly dont know.
oh yeah and a late happy christman/happy new year to everyone! 😀
Robert Butler group???
I agree with bunch. I don’t dislike Unity House…however this site along with Clyde House on Brian Boru street offer what are essentially gateway sites to what will be a huge renewal scheme along the northern docks. As such the sites, in signifying the entrance to this new quarter, be utilised to offer effective statements. Unity House is fine and all, heck it could have been so much worse, but no, this is not the standard we should be aiming for and if this reflects the bar to which we can expect the rest of the north docks to follow then I’ll ask for the bill a little earlier than I’d rather. Unity House does not offer the statement it should given its prominent location, however in fairness to the engineers and developers involved it does respect established heights along its adjoining block and perhaps it will offer a structure increase as the blocks to its rear lay over to redevelopment. It also does not overly impact the nearby church which is a considerable commendment.
@lexington wrote:
Its difficult to comment on the design given the picture quality but even so the basic form is conveyed and all I can say is it is a fine example of lazy architecture. There is no fixed form to the new block with numerous disproportionate layers that would seem to be trying to break up bulk but in fact simply leave a dishevled unequal and messy composition. The elevations seem bland with no distinctive attributes other than the occasional window. Finishes seem equally bland and no more is this evident than in the tower element which exhibits utterly no distinct signature about it and amounts to nothing more than a highlighted symbol of all that is wrong with the rest of the proposal. According to the above post, the architects claim the tower acts as a gateway? Its position lost behind the remaining bulk does not lend itself to such status. If this were to act as a gateway, surely its position would front the quayside facing the bridge? Of course the period structure on the street corner prevents such an objective being achieved. Furthermore the tower exhibits excessively vacant elevations with no character or distinctive form and its attempt to compliment the existing hotel’s McCurtin Street elevation with red brick finishings is a wishy washy affair. The river frontage seems underutilised. What appears to be panel glazing on the quayside elevation is insufficient in my view. The proposal will need significant redesign to convince me.
@kite wrote:
If the rumour mill is correct then one of Cork’s MOST senior planning officials has been banished to some backwater Dept. called Community and Parks or something.
Disgraceful if true. This guy was one of only a few that supported high rise buildings in Cork.
Anyone with details ??Ronnie???
@A-ha wrote:
They should leave that light feature up all year round. Every building in London and Paris is lit up like that all the time….. why can’t we do it? .
Not every building in London is decorated like a nostalgic 60s discotheque. I agree that the lighting is visually attractive but I think much of the impact it provides comes consequent of the rarity associated with such lighting techniques. Were it in place all year the impact would be lost. Maybe an equally imaginative but moderately subdued effect would be satisfactory.
@PDLL wrote:
Personally, I am just amazed that we appear to be so concerned with the aesthetic impact of our infrastructure
.
Would it be better if we werent???
@corcaighboy wrote:
can’t say the UCC IT Building floats my boat. Appears rather ordinary for what is a great site.
Underwhelming to say the least. Along with the possible Revenue Commissioner offices along the Blackpool bypass it represents another example of 2001 designs approved, yet to be realised and quite frankly would be better off not realised.
For such a fantastic riverside site you’d think STW would have put a little more heart into it.On the subject matter of trying to contact the County council’s planners…disaster! I got so fed up last Thursay I just hung up…better off heading out to the Model Farm Road and asking to see them in person. A waste of everyones time in most circumstances, phone questions would only take a few mins.
@lexington wrote:
claiming to be dead-cert in having attained Revenue Commissioner tenancy. The subject proposal attained permission in July 2003 following a lengthy planning process beginning back in 2001. Designed by Jack Coughlan & Associates, the scheme was granted with permission for 397 basement car-parking spaces over 2 decks and 13,511sq m of additional commercial space of which the bulk is open plan office space. A provision of 250sq m of retail space will be made for local services use. The new building will extend to 4-floors over the basement car-parking with the structure’s profile generally aligning with the quarry slopes.
:
I think the word ‘dire’ falls well short in describing this project but perhaps we could not have expected more from the OPW. Heavens forbid them showing a little imagination and going the extra mile for somewhere like the St. Patricks Quay bid.
Reading the report for the Frinilla Blackpool development I am curious as to how Mr. Dunne will deliberate on Water Street. Hopefully sense will prevail.
any thoughts?
@lexington wrote:
.You can get a good sense of how the area is developing from the above photo. Factor in the proposed developments, including the O’Callaghan one on Andersens Quay (it is my understanding that it will not include the Simon Community premises), Dean St, Clontarf St., Albert Quay and Eglington St and you can picture how much this area has come on – for the better in my opinion. I know its up for lease but what are the chance Catherin Neville will let you on 4 Lapps Quay and allow for a redevelopment opportunity there? I’d very much like to see the warehousing to the rear facing onto Oliver Plunkett Street Lower redeveloped as part of a larger project including 4 Lapps Quay. An extension to No.5 Lapps Quay to the rear wouldnt go astray either.
Some interesting ideas emerged out of the Library competition. The Eugene Cheah idea is very interesting and fronts out onto the middle of the revamped Grand Parade as a stand alone structure from the existing central library building. Though the idea is intriguing, much of the designs are unrealistic. Some proposals even proposed relocating the library out to the docklands as part of the new city centre. This would offer the Cork Corporation with a wonderful land sale ooportunity but I doubt they would be too willing to move from their current ringer of a location.
My favourite idea however did not make the final 3. This was the Embaixada proposal. Now that’s imagination. Could you conceive the controversy something like that would cause in Cork? Maybe it’s needed.
@lexington wrote:
😮 Today, Friday 30th September 2005, has been something of a triple bonus day for large-scale development in Cork. First came the announcement of Frinailla’s exciting Dennehy’s Cross redevelopment, then news of a €30m redevelopment of Dunnes Stores’ Patrick’s Street premises into a brand new 6-storey retail centre of some 13, 863m sq, now Blarney-based John Cleary Developments have confirmed that they are lodging plans for a new 13, 831sq m (just under 150,000sq ft) retail and office development at the former Sifco premises near Mahon Point. The development will rise 5-storeys over a dual level basement car-park for 301 spaces, with a further 68 spaces at surface level. The proposed offices will be located over 4 no. ground floor retail showrooms ranging between 700 and 704 sq m gross floor areas – this essentially leaves approx. 11015 sq m of office space available, or 118,564sq ft – more than adequate for say, a tenant such as the Revenue Commissioners? I’ll look into those details early next week. The design is by Coughlan de Keyser Architects. John Cleary Developments have also attained planning permission for a substantial motor-mall on the former Sifco site, and marketing is in full swing.
The Kenny bid is still the superior proposal in terms of design and location. Plus it has the advantage of planning. The appeal will be the next hurdle. The McCarthy proposal is a good one but do the Revenue Commissioners really want to relocate to Centre Park Road? Maybe a few years down the line but now? Mahon is too peripheral and is disadvantaged time-wise. If it is a stand alone project, then it has Mahon Point offices and NSC to contend with, but will probably successfully soak-up tenants over time.
Just as a matter of clarity, the details regarding square footage of Paul Kenny’s development on Saint Patrick’s Quay are more accurate in post #191 than in today’s Irish Examiner. Those approximations concern the square footage of only one sectiion of the development.
Interesting site, keep up the good work.
POM
Cork
