Forum Replies Created
October 7, 2009 at 8:42 pm in reply to: cork docklands #778964
I hope to see the docklands redeveloped in my lifetime.
How old are you?October 30, 2008 at 10:38 pm in reply to: Eglinton Street Tower, Cork #780467
I think the Elysian is a good big real honest-to-god development, unlike many of the bitty Mickey Mouse yokes around the city. It is substantial and stands up on its own two feet and is a proper city development. I think that they have been unfortunate with the timing, with the arse falling out of the market right now and for the next two years probably.
I heard that there are 20 units reserved out of approx 235 (this is just a rumour, can’t vouch for veracity).If true, quite a challenge to offload the remaining units. But I definitely back their vision and idea and execution.October 16, 2008 at 8:41 pm in reply to: cork docklands #778898
remains to be seen whats in the Finance Bill i suppose but the Seveso should have been done ages ago (Health & safety will be delighted, they wont have to keep sending pointless letters every time there is an application within a seveso zone) and if there is nothing for the rest of the docklands in the bill, well, thats just an out and out disgrace. Its bad enough we got landed with the airport debt and they still havent appointed a chairman to the airport authority. Remember, local elections next year. Dont hide from the councillor at the door, ask him what are they doing about the docklands. (Answer: Nothing, as they have no power).
I am in favour of well-planned development of the Docklands. With suitable infrastructure etc etc. It could be a nice place to live.
But how much money should the taxpayers of Ireland (or Germany) have to chip in to make it “viable”? After all (and I don’t have a problem with this), developers want to develop down there to make a profit.
Not to “improve the city”.
Or to “enhance the public realm”
Or to “create a new gateway to the city”.
It is for money the developers do their thing, and fair play to them. But why should the taxpayers of Europe pay for the removal of the Seveso sites so that the developers can do their thing? Maybe it’s all academic now anyway, with the credit crunch.
The airport is a bit different, becasue it is a strategic piece of economic infrastructure which all of the citizens of Munster (or farther afield) can use, and may need.
But the Docklands is all about the money to be made by Developers, and more power to their elbows if they can squeeze a few hundred million out of “Europe”. Obviously if the Docklands goes ahead, it will benefit many of us who work in the industry, which is what we want too, financially.October 15, 2008 at 10:05 pm in reply to: architecture of cork city #757117
I see the Parnell Place houses are finally being repaired. But should those top storeys really have been allowed to be cut down with the loss of the original fabric?
That project (Hotel on Beasley Street) seems to have been mothballed for now, or at least I cannot see any recent activity. I think the limestone cladding which faces south at high level looks very good from the City Hall direction.July 5, 2008 at 8:35 pm in reply to: Cork Transport #780046
05 July 2008 from the Irish Examiner
Land row puts key rail station in jeopardy
By Sean Oâ€™Riordan
A ROW over who owns a plot of land has put the future of a new multi-million euro railway station in jeopardy.
IarnrÃ³d Ã‰ireannâ€™s plans to build a new station and 360-space park and ride facility on the outskirts of Cork have run into trouble, after the National Roads Authority (NRA) claimed it owned the land and needed it for one of its own projects.
The station at Dunkettle is one of three to be created along the Cork-Midleton railway line, which is due to be reopened early next year.
Cork County Council has approved planning permission for the station.
But the NRA has objected to An Bord PleanÃ¡la and is adamant that it has to use the land for a key upgrade of the Dunkettle interchange, which is the busiest junction in Cork.
â€œThe NRA supports improvements in public transport, but we are disappointed that we werenâ€™t formally consulted on the plans by IarnrÃ³d Ã‰ireann,â€ said the NRA spokesman.
He said the land was earmarked for large NRA improvements at the Dunkettle interchange, which will have to be undertaken in the future to prevent it from becoming gridlocked.
In addition, the NRA claimed there were several other more suitable locations IarnrÃ³d Ã‰ireann could use for the facility.
However, the war of words intensified last night after the rail company claimed that the NRA didnâ€™t actually own the disputed land.
â€œThe fact of the matter is it is not their land. It is registered to Cork County Council for transport needs and the park and ride facility comes within this ambit,â€ said an IarnrÃ³d Ã‰ireann spokesman. He claimed the rail company did consult the NRA before applying for planning permission.
However, the spokesman admitted that the appeal to An Bord PleanÃ¡la had â€œthe potential to impactâ€ on the railway companyâ€™s plans at Dunkettle. â€œWe will try and work constructively with Cork County Council and the NRA to see if we can resolve this issue,â€ he said.
What does this story say about the maturity, willingness to co-ordinate, ability to co-operate, desire to serve the public good, intelligence and communication skills of the local management of Iarnrod Eireann and the NRA in Cork?July 3, 2008 at 7:25 pm in reply to: cork docklands #778873
Will the acid spill in the Docklands area today, and the evacuation of large sections of the area, the closure of Centre Park Road, Manahan’s Road and the Marina, complicate matters in relation to recent planning applications in the Docklands, especially since the HSA have already advised against granting planning in one case due to presence of Seveso sites? If the entire road network in and out of the area can be closed by such an incident, and large-scale evacuations can arise, will this affect the planners’ thoughts?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0703/breaking43.htmMay 12, 2008 at 9:19 pm in reply to: cork docklands #778857
In relation to the Cork Docklands, and the HH planning application, the HSA have advised against the granting of planning based on the information in the current application. It is a point blank advice against, with no provisos, suggested improvements or any mitigating measures. They do not suggest any conditions or changes which would change their advice.
In my opinion (and I am in favour of the development with the associated necessary infrastructure and public transport systems), this puts the planners in a tight corner, with no wriggle-room. How can they “overrule” or “override” the clear unambiguous advice of the HSA? Will the planners independantly take the responsibility for the possibility of a Seveso-type accident when the HSA (the specialists in the field) have advised against? It would be a brave (foolhardy?) planner who is going to go on that solo run. Would it even be legal?
It would surprise me if the application is not refused, because the advice of the HSA does not allow for any conditioning-out of the risks. I can’t see how they can technically reconcile the contradictions present. Hopefully I will be mistaken.April 22, 2008 at 10:36 pm in reply to: cork docklands #778830
Does the HSA submission on the HH application mean it will not be possible for the planners to grant permission?