Pairc Ui Chaoimh re-development

KCAccidental wrote: »

which makes me think that the GAA never had an intention of keeping the stand.

I also get the impression that 70m budget included this. People at the time couldn't reconcile 70m with the original plans.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But they are not rebuilding the stand as it was, they are rebuilding it as per the aproved plans (i.e. with wider steps, fewer seats and with a roof). They have permission to carry out demolition works and reconstruction works to create a certain stand with a certain capacity, they are still doing that but with more demolition and more reconstruction. The difference with your Clarion hotel example is that Cork GAA have planning permission for this carrying out major works to achieve this end product, they are not just demolishing and rebuilding without getting approval for that end product.

The approved plans have new layouts for tunnel, toilets, koisks, etc. under the north stand. The roof structure from the old south stand will be used to create the new roof for the north stand.

I suspect that is precisely what the Cork County Board will argue, and it is a very strong argument. However, they have permission for something very specific (partial demolition and reconstruction) and they are apparently altering the development in a way that is materially significant; that in law constitutes 'development' for which they do not have permission. It means that they do not have planning permission to do what they are doing - regardless of the end product.

mire wrote: »

I suspect that is precisely what the Cork County Board will argue, and it is a very strong argument. However, they have permission for something very specific (partial demolition and reconstruction) and they are apparently altering the development in a way that is materially significant; that in law constitutes 'development' for which they do not have permission. It means that they do not have planning permission to do what they are doing - regardless of the end product.

According to the PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000;

Exempted development
4.—(1) The following shall be exempted developments for the purposes of this Act—

(h) development consisting of the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any structure, being works which affect only the interior of the structure or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures;

The external appearance or end product is more important than the internal structure. They already have planning permission for the final stand so I guess replacing the internal structure wouldnt be a problem once the final stand has the same external appearance, heights, dimensions, capacity, etc. as that which was approved, regardless of the internal structure. They also have permission for major demolition works which probably has conditions relating to noise, traffic routes, etc. which would remain relevant.

Johnnyjump wrote:

With all of the delays i can foresee, will Pairc Ui Chaoimh be opened for years to come? It isn't looking too hopeful. Looks like Cork GAA teams will be playing all of their big games outside of Cork for the foreseeable future.

What delays? Construction of the new stand wasn't going to start until September anyway so they're using this time to demolish the north stand, council have said they're allowing the demolition of this. Cork gaa have said it should still be finished for may 2017 for the Munster final. Funding may still be a problem though with this extra construction.

There is the potential, if they proceed as is, for either an high court injunction or for the need for an application for retention to City Council where the decision is appealed to an bord pleanala.

Why build a new old stand and why build one stand (southern side) so high now that both stands have come down. There's still time for a redesign, scrap the current plans. Build both stands the same height. It'll set them back time wise but at least they'd finally get it right. The could even consider moving the stadium away from the embankment and into the centre of the showgrounds improving circulation on all sides.

As this is publicly funded and will require double what was previously anticipated the County Board should be removed from the design team as they have proven themselves to be inept.

Sounds Dreamy wrote: »

There is the potential, if they proceed as is, for either an high court injunction or for the need for an application for retention to City Council where the decision is appealed to an bord pleanala.

Why build a new old stand and why build one stand (southern side) so high now that both stands have come down. There's still time for a redesign, scrap the current plans. Build both stands the same height. It'll set them back time wise but at least they'd finally get it right. The could even consider moving the stadium away from the embankment and into the centre of the showgrounds improving circulation on all sides.

As this is publicly funded and will require double what was previously anticipated the County Board should be removed from the design team as they have proven themselves to be inept.

I would say the chance of someone taking a high court injunction is pretty low. The case would be weak considering the awarding authority does not see any breach of the planning, it would be very costly for the individual/group to take the case and the project is generally favoured and having a demolished stadium in the city with no games benefits nobody.

The new southern stand will house County Board offices, conference facilities, shop, cafe and museum, splitting these between two stands will only add to the day to day running costs. Better to have one stand which is used on a daily basis, the other only opened on match days.

It is possible that the €70m budget is based on demolishing and rebuilding the north stand as the worst case scenario. It may be the case that they will simply use the full budget now instead of having the project come in under budget had they been able to reuse the existing south stand structure. We don’t have the full facts so probably best not to jump to conclusions. And CCB are not part of the design team, they employ a design team (architects, engineers, etc.) to design the project.

l'm absolutely delighted the 2nd stand was knocked. It was a kip.

By rights the whole thing should be leveled but having the two stands knocked is a massive improvement over one !!!!

l couldn't care less what is going on because God knows it has happened but the stadium might have some chance of looking decent now. Although how you can build a state of the art stand and have two 1970's soviet style terraces beside it is beyond me.

But as for the 2nd stand, l'm delighted.

Espanyol built a brand new 40,000 capacity all-seater stadium for €60 million in 2009;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estadi_Cornell%C3%A0-El_Prat
I know that was six years ago but still it shows how overpriced PUC is.

case885 wrote: »

Are some of the terraces being demolished now too? Looks like it in recent photos.

You mean the city and blackrock ends ?

case885 wrote: »

Yes, it looks like the middle of the terrace has been demolished?

it's getting better and better.

clerk wrote: »

Just went down to take a look. Seems to me that the lower tier of both terraces are knocked.

That was always the plan.

case885 wrote: »

Really the whole place should have been levelled from the start, unroofed terraces couldn't add that much more and would save them having to do it in 10 years time.

It might happen yet.

Aiken requested they cut into the city end terrace so that you can swap out false seating with a stage for concerts.

lbj666 wrote: »

Nah theres ways around that and theres no seating planned for the blackrock city ends anyway.

But ya , knocking the lower section of the terraces was always the plan, i am just wondering if they knock the whole uncovered stand for because of "poor structurual condition" the condition of the terraces can't be much better.

False standing then. There's definitely a removable structure going into the middle section of the city end.

lbj666 wrote: »

Nah theres ways around that and theres no seating planned for the blackrock city ends anyway.

But ya , knocking the lower section of the terraces was always the plan, i am just wondering if they knock the whole uncovered stand for because of "poor structurual condition" the condition of the terraces can't be much better.

I'll sign a affidavit to that effect no problem.

I cannot for the life me understand how the terraces can pass modern health and safety standards. There is no way those steps are even. there are cracks in the structure in several places in the actual structure and knocking the 2 stands which were up against it hardly did it any favours structurally. On top of all that it's built on a bog.

Looking at it yesterday the outside of the structure looks absolutely dire. What are they going to do to the outside, give it a lick of paint ?

Also, it was built in 1973/4, when asbestos was commonly used in buildings, which in itself could be a huge problem.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The facade of the terraces will have a wall at the bottom and slatted timber cladding above as can be seen in the renders;

If the structure of the terraces is good, the condition of the steps could be easily improved and levelled with a concrete screed.

Ok - thanks for that post.

The thing about timber is it looks fab when it goes up but then 10/15 Years later it looks ****e. If they put timber on the outside of the structure on the terraces in P Ui C it will all rot in time. It's right beside a river and a large pond as well. I'm not an expert in that area but I would imagine there is a lot of dampness down there.

You only have to look at the timber 'facade' on the various Celtic tiger apartments all around the City to see what sexy timber turns to. A modern steel structure in a similar design might look nice and might actually last for more than a few decades.

Again thanks for the post but I wouldn't say there will be anything easy at all about having the steps " levelled with a concrete screed", the steps are all over the gaff. I reckon they were designed a young engineer who in his later Years designed the original magic roundabout before reaching his piccacle when he got his hands on Douglas village. The steps are bizarrely uneven, way off equal heights, there are cracks all over the gaff, it would take a genius to sort them out.

We had a engineer/builder in work for 2/3 Days trying to fix a stairs with about 20 steps, so it would pass Health & Safety, and trust me those steps in their original state were a lot better then the steps in P Ui C.