Tuborg

@CologneMike wrote:

Thomas Street

Indeed Thomas Street looks well, but what the f**k are those ESB poles and cables still hanging on the new pedestrianised street? They probably want to be the first to rip up the slabs (before gas and water do) when they eventually remove the obsolete poles? Just look at the cowboy job they did to the new paved footpath at the entrance to the North Munster Masonic Centre opposite King John’s Castle! This temporary tarmac infill is now permanent as it is at least a year old! 😡

I cant get my head around that either!, the undergrounding of services is one of the first jobs carried out in projects like this is it not?:confused: Theres still 1 or 2 of those poles knocking around on Bedford Row aswell even though its now a year since the paving works finished up. One of them is inside the hoarding of the savoy construction site, they’re using it to hang extra lighting (not really needed anymore!) and security camera’s, it should be removed fairly shortly. Hopefully the lines on Thomas Street are no longer live and its just a matter of removing them, its just needless clutter. It really would be shambolic if the opportunity to underground the cables was missed!:mad:

@THE_Chris wrote:

Ive emailed the NRA about the Rossbrien interchange, looking at all the pictures Ive seen, the Galway – Cork movement is left out. This is farcical, and I have emailed them asking whether this is true or not and for better pictures.

If you look closely at the Galway to Childers Road slip, another slip road emerges from it and allows access south to Cork!

Technically nothing to do with the Fitzgerald report, LCC has had its own demolition programme for condemned council property in operation since the beginning of the year. Still no harm to see a start being made!

IN WITH THE NEW AS CITY CHANGES FOR THE BETTER – By DAVID HURLEY

BULLDOZERS moved into Delmege Park in Moyross last Thursday morning to knock a block of houses which will facilitate regeneration plans for the area, as recommended in the John Fitzgerald report. The five houses were the first to be knocked in Moyross as part of a demolition programme which has been under way across the city since January.

Limerick City Council say a total of 87 houses will have been knocked by the end of July. To date 45 houses have been demolished in O’Malley Park, Ballynanty, Carey’s Road and in Keyes Park.

“We have known this regeneration programme has been coming for some time and we are simply trying to prepare the way for it where there is a possibility of clearing blocks of houses and demolishing them,” said the director of housing with Limerick City Council, Kieran Lehane.

Mr Lehane added: “I’m heartily sickened at constantly seeing photographs and video footage in the national media of houses with bits missing off them. I know those things exist but there are also very nice parts in places such as Moyross and O’Malley Park.”

The newly appointed chief executive of the two Government-backed regeneration companies, Brendan Kenny, said: “If houses are burnt out or derelict then you are better off without them and I would welcome the moves being made, especially in anticipation of the work that will be done by the regeneration companies.”

Local residents in Moyross also welcomed the knocking of numbers 100 to 104 in Delmege Park. Pineview Garden’s Resident Tina O’Gorman said: “We are delighted, those houses were only burnt out anyway so it good to see them go.” Lorraine Troy, from Craeval Park, added: “It is great that they are gone, as long as they put something there and they don’t leave it as waste ground. We need a new park in Moyross because the one that’s there is not big enough for all the kids.”

Other residents said they welcomed the knocking of the five houses but added they had “doubts” it would have any effect.

Mr Lehane also confirmed that some of the houses included in the demolition programme had been privately owned. “If the opportunity presents itself to clear a block of houses we will facilitate people who wish to leave the estate by way of transfer. We did buy back some of the houses and we have had to enter negotiations with tenants as well,” he said.

It is understood no that development works will be carried out on the vacant sites until the regeneration companies are up and running and there has been consultation with the community.

Limerick Leader 02 June 2007

@THE_Chris wrote:

I like the big proposed tower in the 2nd pic. Its original.

Whatever “landmark” tower they end up building on that site isnt going to look anything like what you see in the promo, its a bit too crazy looking for our mediocre building standards in Ireland. The image was only released to get people excited about the docklands development, the reality is somewhat different though. The whole process is locked in a stalemate with the Limerick port users group at war with Shannon Foynes Port Company. Apparently seen as the SFPC are a state owned company any proposed sale or closure of the docks would need government approval. I can see this one dragging on for quite some time!

Report on future of docklands to be published– By CLODAGH O’LEARY

AN interim report from the Limerick Docklands Consultative Forum Steering Committee into the future of docks will be published next week, the Limerick Chronicle can reveal.
The committee which is chaired by Tom Kirby of the Mid-Western Regional Authority and includes Limerick City and County Councillors, Limerick City and County Managers, representatives from the Port Users, Shannon Foynes Port Company and Shannon Development have been working for the last 12 months on proposals on how best to develop the docklands.

At yesterday’s City Council meeting, Mayor Joe Leddin a member of the committee, revealed that they were “very close” to publishing an interim report.

The Chronicle can now reveal that the document will be made available on Thursday June 7 next.

But not everyone was convinced of the progress.Cllr Kiely told members he heard “signals” from bodies involved in the committee that “they want to sell off the docklands, without giving any consideration to us. That committee is a sham, if that is the case,” he claimed.

“The sooner ye scrap it, the better. Ye want the money to go to Foynes, that is plain and simple,” the irate Fine Gael Councillor said.

Mayor Joe Leddin, a member of the Steering Committee disputed Cllr Kiely’s claims.

“It is progressing well and councillors will come back to City Council to report on it. I fully accept that we must retain a working port, but there seems to be some misinformation out there and I would like to clarify that these rumours are not true.”

Cllr Kiely, jumping to his feet, referred to legal matters currently ongoing at Shannon Foynes Port Company. “We are being kept in the dark about what is going on there. It is taxpayers’ money we are dealing with,” he said.

Mayor Leddin told Cllr Kiely to sit down: “That is nothing to do with the forum” to which Cllr Kiely replied: “Of course it has.”

Acting chairman of Shannon Foynes Port Company, Cllr Kieran O’Hanlon called for the councillors to keep an open mind until the publication of the report.

“There is no inquiry going on, there are a number of legal issues. Mayor Leddin is perfectly right, it is not our policy to sell the docks, or to the close down the docks. We agreed to set up a committee who would produce a report and at the end of the day we will consider that report. We must keep our minds open until we see that report,” he said.

Mayor Leddin said that ultimately the City Council would not have a say in the future of the docklands, he said that the Shannon Foynes Port Company’s responsibility was to develop the docks how best they see fit, but he said there was no reason for panic.

“I do not think that after working with them for the last 12 months that they will turn around and put up a for sale sign over the docks. I do not see that happening,” Mayor Leddin said.

Limerick Chronicle 29 May 2007

The whole opera centre saga is quickly developing into a shambles! Of course this article is highly speculative, however if indeed a new application was submitted it would set the project back by at least a year, allowing the likes of Parkway valley and Coonagh cross to steal a march on it. At this rate the city centre will again lose out to suburban developments with the opera centre ending up with second rate retailers.:(

The quote from Dick Tobin is extremely puzzling and worrying aswell. It makes no sense and the part about the henry cecil is inaccurate, the henry cecil wasnt a georgian buiding, it was a stone warehouse! Reading between the lines here, you would have to wonder was the retention of the buildings on Ellen Street a sticking point for the previous developers? and is he suggesting that the project would be more appealing to prospective developers if this condition was removed?:mad:

Limerick Post

Opera could be rewritten, says planner

AS progress on the mammoth Opera Centre development for the city centre, remains at stalemate, there is a strong possibility that a new planning application could be submitted.

While Limerick City Council’s senior planner, Dick Tobin says that so far he has “no indication whatsoever of a new application being submitted,” he points out that it is quite possible that the new consortium that recently bought out the project from the Belfast developers, Regeneration, will not build according to the original planning permission secured.

Two weeks ago, the Limerick Post exclusively reported that local interests are confident that the 200million euro retail development will not be jeopardised by the change in ownership.

Equally confident that the new owners “have a definite interest in developing the project,” Mr Tobin said it remains to be seen whether they will do so in accordance with the original plans.

Expressing his reservations about the retention of buildings on Ellen Street (a condition of the original planning permission), he said that as these did not form part of the national inventory, An Bord Pleanala’s requirement that they be retained was a mistake.

“We have had two cases of Georgian buildings collapsing when adjacent development was progressing – one was the Henry Cecil on Lower Cecil Street, and the other was in Barrington Street, where part of the structure to the rear of the building collapsed”.

While confident that a major development for the area will proceed, the city planner said it remains to be seen if it will be to an amended set of plans.

@Tuborg wrote:

P04/601

The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the objective of high quality design in the city centre and as such would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Fairly ironic that the City Council states its objective for “high quality design” in the above case when it allows the following development to slip through.

05188

Permission for the construction of a mixed development. The development comprises of: Demolition of a five storey over basement infill building and a single storey building at 104 O’Connell Street]

This is Robert Butlers plan for part of the former brazen head complex on O Connell Street, the business went into receivership over loans owed to a bank a couple of years ago, Bentleys and the Brazen head at 101 & 102 have since re-opened. The developer had plans for the demolition of 104 o Connell Street and modifications to 103. The planning conditions stipulated however that the building should be retained.

That the front facade of the existing building be retained in their entirety, Should it prove impossible to retain the façade by reason of the physical condition of the building, the developer shall provide an appropriate elevation in modern design with sympathetic materials and punctuation which will not adversely impact on the conservation status of the area.

Reason
The applicant has failed to justify the demolition of the buildings and to adequately demonstrate that the proposed new building will enhance the special character of the area in accordance with the provisions of the City Development Plan and the Conservation Guidelines issued by the DOEHLG.

Well it seems neither developer nor planning officials made much of an effort to implement this condition. The 2 building are now gone and are to be replaced by an almost identical structure to the one you see below!

This is what was recently constructed at 59/60 O Connell Street, not the best is it? Incidentally the same architectural office is responsible for both designs, not much imagination there then!:rolleyes:
Unfortunately there’s a really lax attitude when it comes to building design in this city, how anyone can decide that this cheap, looks like it was built in a few weeks job, enhances a architecturally sensitive part of the city is beyond me!:(

Attached

1. Bentleys & the Brazen head

2. Formerly 103/4 O Connell Street

@CologneMike wrote:

Building Shell

Does this developer (01261, 04600) know what he wants? :confused: Has there been any movements on finishing this shell? When I was home last October the developer was instead building (00449) across the road on an old site surrounded by high walls embedded in the Watergate flats complex.

Not having much success as a “developer” is Gerard Madden, back in 2004 he had plans for a mixed use development across the street from that shell you refer to!

P04/601

Planning permission for mixed-use development of 5 storeys over a two level basement comprising of 4 floors of offices totalling 6430m2, 7 no. ground floor shop units totalling 1235m2, a 56 bedroom budget hotel with reception area and 163 car parking spaces and associated site development works including connection to existing public sewer will be provided.

Site Address]Ellen Street/Robert Street, Limerick

Applicant: Gerard Madden

Unfortunately for him it got slaughtered by the planners!

Planning Assessment:
The applicant’s response to the request for clarification of further information is a request for a determination of the application. As outlined in the original report the application is seriously deficient in detail and in the absence of such details it is considered that the application would not be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Recommendation:
I recommend that permission be refused

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely impact on the adjacent protected structures and as such the proposed development would materially interfere with the setting of these building and therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Having regard to the location of the proposed development adjacent to the architectural conservation area and 2 protected structures it is considered that having regard to the poor quality design and general scale and bulk of the building that it would adversely impact on the streetscape of the area and detract from the setting of the adjacent protected structures. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the objective of high quality design in the city centre and as such would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed development will adversely impact on the adjacent commercial buildings located on Little Ellen Street by reducing the level of nature light available. The proposed development would therefore depreciate the value of these properties and as a result would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.:o

The site in question is to the rear of St. Michaels church and literally across the street from the proposed opera centre, its currently used as a surface carpark. It could really do with redevelopment as that part of town has a real gloomy feel to it at the minute, of course any proposal would have to be an improvement on Mr Maddens fairly dismal effort.

The “shell” meanwhile has been idle for 2/3 years now with no sign of work restarting anytime soon, I think he should just pack it in at this stage.

Below is an image of the discussion area, unfortunately the site of the building skeleton is obscured but you can make out the site that was subject to the failed application just across the street.

There was a spectacular amount of dereliction in Limerick around the mid 60s, nowhere more so than the Aurthurs Quay area, thankfully that era seems like a million years ago now!:)

Image 1. 1960s Aerial of the Aurthurs Quay area

2. Patrick Street, long before Aurthurs Quay SC.

@demolition man wrote:

This may be a long shot,but wouldn’t it be boss if pennys were to sell up, leaving the old cannocks site to be bought and refurbished to it’s orriginal state by the city council.It could be financed by pulling the plug on this whole city munster rugby landmark crap.Sorry, at this point I feel I must proclaim my allegiance to munster rugby and indeed Limerick.:) The new streetscape would also help massively to promote it as a landmark site of its own.

I think you’re just going to have to accept it that the old Cannocks is gone forever:( . Of course things would’ve been so different if they had’nt demolished the original building in the first place. Its quite a puzzling decision really when you look at image 3 below you can see they strangely decided to replace the main building while leaving a haphazard looking single floor structure to the rear:confused: . Surely the thing to do was construct a new department store behind the original building! Penneys finally did this around the early to mid 80s, Im guessing this was when the store was reclad in red brick?

This is just a small bit I dug up from The Old Limerick Journal on the history of Cannocks, definitely something of a Limerick institution until it folded.

Cannock & Company Ltd was founded in 1850 by Scotsmen George Cannock & John Arnott(who were already operating a drapery establishment in Henry Street, Dublin at the time) and the business originally traded out of a number of buildings on the Georges Street site. In 1858 under the management of Peter Tait (who also set up the Limerick clothing company) a re-construction of the store was undertaken, incorporating all the property into 1 large building, this development gave Cannock’s its impressive and ornate façade, which was to lend character to the centre of Limerick for over a hundred years.

The upper floor was designed to cater for all apprentices and contained a large kitchen, dining and sitting rooms, a library and sleeping quarters. The entire cost of the undertaking was £9,000 and the principal architect was William Fogerty of Limerick, who was only 24 when he designed Cannocks, he later become President of the architects association of Ireland and also designed Boyd’s of William Street.

Kilmallock born Michael Clery (who set up Clerys of Dublin in 1883) succeeded Tait as director of Cannocks and exerted a strong influence over the company during his tenure. In 1888, a chemists shop adjacent to Cannock’s was bought up and renovations commenced to incorporate this building into the main store. It was during this time that the famous clock tower, which was to become a distinctive hallmark of Cannocks, was added. The clock, which was known as a Westminster chime clock, was made by Gillet & Johnston of London and contained 5 bells. It was handwound and rang every 15 minutes as well as striking the hours. The clock was also lit up at night and could be seen from a considerable distance.

In 1862 Peter Tait bought property in William Street, in later years it was occupied by Goodwins, destroyed by fire, rebuilt, occupied by Besco’s and finally by Winstons. As an odd twist of fate, Cannocks, having sold their O Connell Street store to Penneys in 1980, transferred their business to the William Street premises and traded there in the final years prior to closing down c.1984. The building has since been replaced by the Williamscourt mall.

Images

1. Original Cannocks without its clock
2. “New” Cannocks c.1964
3. Limerick city centre (mid to late 70s)

@Paris Jack wrote:

Well, I have to say guys, reading your posts has reminded me of a project I was kinda involved with about twelve months ago. I was working in Dubai with my uncle on several projects when he showed me these drawings of this HUGE development that he and some of his colleagues and associates were discussing putting together in Limerick City. It was obviously very serious at the time because as I remember they had lots of drawings made up and my uncle’s associates from France, Germany and Holland were very frequent visitors to our home (in Dubai) to discuss the fine details of this project. They appeared to me to be very excited about moving things along and they had talked in great lenghts about various locations in Limerick City that would be suitable for a development of this size. Here you had a french, german and dutch consortium looking for an area big enough to land a 747! I had a good look at these drawings for about twenty to twenty-five minutes and I must say I was extremely impressed. And it takes a lot to impress me folks let me tell ya! Basically, to get to the point, they spoke about those same wetlands you guys mentioned and that general area for their project. I can clearly remember that the drawings showed a 63-storey tower, a 43-storey tower and a 23-storey tower in a perfect triangle. In between these glass towers was a huge plaza with a huge revolving globe of the world in bronze. There were several water fountains and monuments also. I must say that those buildings did look so beautiful. There were also plans drawn up for a fifty thousand-seater concert/events arena as well within walking distance of the towers. I vividly remember that they refered to this project as “a city within a city”. I haven’t heard anything for ages about this from my uncle as we’re both very busy on other projects, but I will definitely have a word with him soon when he returns here to Paris sometime in July.

Personally, I think if this project ever gets the green light and the ground is literally cleared and prepared for it it would put Limerick City waaaaaay ahead of everything and anything in Ireland! It looks FUCKING AWESOME!!!!! Massive!!!!!! Truly world class!!!!!

Hmmmmmm, this wasnt a dream by any chance, was it?