Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sullivan's Quay development

Options
«1345

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    calnand
    Registered Users Posts: 717 ✭✭✭calnand


    That got planning permission years ago, ascon developments was behind it. I doubt much will happen with it in the near future. It's also not the nicest looking for what will be a very prominent building location in Cork.


  • Options
    #3
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,800 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    I like the building that's there now. Sure, it needs a clean up but I like the structure and lines of the building.
    It is also, currently, the home of Sample Studios, 4th Floor Studios and Crawford College of Art and Design (amongst others, I believe). Literally hundreds of artists and art students use the building daily, bringing some life into the city. I'd hate to see all that go.
    Currently BAM own the building so hopefully they will be too busy with the events centre to bother developing the Sullivan's quay building for a while.


  • Options
    #4
    opus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭opus


    BAM have it at the moment I believe. Know one of the people who's working in one of the groups in the building & they have it on a month-to-month lease so imagine BAM will do something with it eventually. Maybe the new events centre down the road will help it along.


  • Options
    #5
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    I like the building that's there now. Sure, it needs a clean up but I like the structure and lines of the building.
    It is also, currently, the home of Sample Studios, 4th Floor Studios and Crawford College of Art and Design (amongst others, I believe). Literally hundreds of artists and art students use the building daily, bringing some life into the city. I'd hate to see all that go.
    Currently BAM own the building so hopefully they will be too busy with the events centre to bother developing the Sullivan's quay building for a while.

    You'd think that the Brewery Quarter development would be the perfect place for these artists to be resettled.


  • Options
    #6
    Lambofdave
    Registered Users Posts: 282 ✭✭Lambofdave


    http://www.bamcontractors.ie/public/userfiles/Files/TheQuayCorkBrochure.pdf

    Looking the the plan and if i have read it right the hotel will be at the back of the site.

    Just another site in the bamafaction of Ireland


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Rhys Essien
    Registered Users Posts: 3,029 ✭✭✭Rhys Essien


    This job was also mentioned by Bam at the business leaders meeting last night.
    Mr Cullinane said the firm also has planning permission for an 11,150 sq m office block and a 180-bed hotel on the site of the former Revenue building on Sullivans Quay.

    CBC56BmXEAA-P2f.jpg


  • Options
    #8
    Going Strong
    Registered Users Posts: 837 ✭✭✭Going Strong


    I'd heard that the Reveue building had been deemed "A building of architectural interest" or words to that effect so must remain (mostly) as is.


  • Options
    #9
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,800 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Going Strong wrote: »
    I'd heard that the Reveue building had been deemed "A building of architectural interest" or words to that effect so must remain (mostly) as is.

    I really hope this is true and it gets a face lift.
    Fantastic piece of architecture with strong, bold lines.


  • Options
    #10
    byronbay2
    Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭byronbay2


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    I really hope this is true and it gets a face lift.
    Fantastic piece of architecture with strong, bold lines.

    Have to disagree with you there. It's an absolute eyesore, similar to the Boole library in UCC. The proposed new building looks like a huge improvement.


  • Options
    #11
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,800 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    byronbay2 wrote: »
    Have to disagree with you there. It's an absolute eyesore, similar to the Boole library in UCC. The proposed new building looks like a huge improvement.

    Thankfully these things aren't decided by popular vote.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    CHealy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭CHealy


    Each to their own but the current building looks like something out of soviet Russia, anything would be an improvement as long as its razed.


  • Options
    #13
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,800 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    If popular opinion had it's way, the future would hold no examples of architecture built between around 1950 and 1980 (except for private houses). It's crazy that buildings less than 50 years old are routinely demolished because they are seen as "out of fashion" and neither "classical" or "modern".


  • Options
    #14
    mire
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭mire


    byronbay2 wrote: »
    Have to disagree with you there. It's an absolute eyesore, similar to the Boole library in UCC. The proposed new building looks like a huge improvement.

    The Boole library in UCC is one of the most important pieces of architecture in the city - it's an excellent example of a modern building and a very good case study of how modernism can contribute to a good architectural landscape.


  • Options
    #15
    Outkast_IRE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭Outkast_IRE


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    If popular opinion had it's way, the future would hold no examples of architecture built between around 1950 and 1980 (except for private houses). It's crazy that buildings less than 50 years old are routinely demolished because they are seen as "out of fashion" and neither "classical" or "modern".
    There is more to it than that. They were also built during the era of cheap oil/energy. Alot of these buildings builit between the 50s and 80s would actually be more energy intensive than some of the older buildings. They have very high heating and lighting costs compared to some a new building built using best practice guidelines. They can be prone to mould and damp .


  • Options
    #16
    KCAccidental
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭KCAccidental


    just nothing with glass frontage... for the love of god.


  • Options
    #17
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,800 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Outkast_IRE wrote: »
    There is more to it than that. They were also built during the era of cheap oil/energy. Alot of these buildings builit between the 50s and 80s would actually be more energy intensive than some of the older buildings. They have very high heating and lighting costs compared to some a new building built using best practice guidelines. They can be prone to mould and damp .

    So we should just destroy all of them?
    I've been in some pretty damp and cold castles.
    Shall we knock them too?

    Surely buildings can be retro-insulated and heating and lighting systems upgraded.


  • Options
    #18
    Outkast_IRE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭Outkast_IRE


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    So we should just destroy all of them?
    I've been in some pretty damp and cold castles.
    Shall we knock them too?

    Surely buildings can be retro-insulated and heating and lighting systems upgraded.

    Unless they are of very particular architectural/historical merit, then yes it usually does make sense to knock them.

    Castles quite obviously are of considerable architectural/historical merit so no we dont knock them. But a funny thing is that some castles would actually be easier to heat than some of these buildings built in the 50s to 80s. The incredibly thick walls of the castles can actually act as a buffer between the outside air temperature and the inside all you need to do is reduce the air infiltration.

    Yes buildings can be retro fitted with insulations and fancy new lighting systems but these solutions are usually expensive and are difficult to achieve an acceptable improvement to warrant the cost.

    For example the glass facades on many new modern buildings isnt just for looks, it can be to help more daylight reach the internal spaces and ensure that artificial lighting is rarely needed. You cant retrofit that. Simply put the most energy efficient buildings are designed from scratch with regards to orientation, form and layout to minimise energy usage, you cant retrofit that.


  • Options
    #19
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,800 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    The argument being made, though, is that the old Revenue building is of architectural importance.
    I'm not suggesting that every building of that era should be preserved - just that they aren't all destroyed because popular opinion deems them "ugly" or dated.


  • Options
    #20
    Outkast_IRE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭Outkast_IRE


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    The argument being made, though, is that the old Revenue building is of architectural importance.
    I'm not suggesting that every building of that era should be preserved - just that they aren't all destroyed because popular opinion deems them "ugly" or dated.
    Its not a bad looking building, but unfortunately they have let the exterior get incredibly poor on it. I suppose its up to the council to decide on whats building is classed as having architectural importance and subsequently giving them protected listed status, you would need to fight your battle there if you feel strongly that the building should be retained.

    Personally, i wouldnt be sad to see it go.


  • Options
    #21
    54kroc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,376 ✭✭✭54kroc


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    The argument being made, though, is that the old Revenue building is of architectural importance.
    I'm not suggesting that every building of that era should be preserved - just that they aren't all destroyed because popular opinion deems them "ugly" or dated.

    Who else is making the argument that the revenue building is of architectural importance? Besides yourself obviously.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,800 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    54kroc wrote: »
    Who else is making the argument that the revenue building is of architectural importance? Besides yourself obviously.

    I can't verify what is said below but....
    Going Strong wrote: »
    I'd heard that the Reveue building had been deemed "A building of architectural interest" or words to that effect so must remain (mostly) as is.

    and clearly, I am not alone in my love of this building

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94882535&postcount=17

    I also personally know people who have an appreciation for it, along with the R&H Hall building, the Boole library and the bus station. The Turner's cross church was extremely unpopular when it was built and is now an internationally recognised architectural classic. What people now consider ugly, may well be much lamented if it's gone in the future - "The Fools, how could they not have appreciated that!!"


  • Options
    #23
    evilivor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,613 ✭✭✭evilivor


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    The argument being made, though, is that the old Revenue building is of architectural importance.
    I'm not suggesting that every building of that era should be preserved - just that they aren't all destroyed because popular opinion deems them "ugly" or dated.

    It of architectural importance, it's a fine example of Brutalism (French béton brut, or "raw concrete).

    Jonathan Meades had a terrific documentary about the movement on BBC last year.

    https://vimeo.com/93963469

    Concrete was the wonder material - The Church of Christ the King in Turner's Cross is another building from the style.


  • Options
    #24
    SomeFool
    Registered Users Posts: 2,452 ✭✭✭SomeFool


    54kroc wrote: »
    Who else is making the argument that the revenue building is of architectural importance? Besides yourself obviously.

    I actually like it too, a little bit of Le Corbusier in Cork! All our architectural heritage is important, not just the postcard stuff, it would be a shame to completely wipe it out. ;)


  • Options
    #25
    Going Strong
    Registered Users Posts: 837 ✭✭✭Going Strong


    54kroc wrote: »
    Who else is making the argument that the revenue building is of architectural importance? Besides yourself obviously.

    I heard it from my brother, who's in the construction business. However, looking at the list of protected buildings in Cork doesn't show the Revenue Building at all.

    http://www.corkcity.ie/newdevelopmentplan/VOLUME%203%20INTERACTIVE/VOL%203%20PART%202.pdf


  • Options
    #26
    moyners
    Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭moyners


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    I also personally know people who have an appreciation for it, along with the R&H Hall building, the Boole library and the bus station. The Turner's cross church was extremely unpopular when it was built and is now an internationally recognised architectural classic. What people now consider ugly, may well be much lamented if it's gone in the future - "The Fools, how could they not have appreciated that!!"

    I like the R&H Hall building, the Boole library and the bus station, even Turner's cross church.
    The problem with the revenue building IMHO is it completely dominates its surroundings and not in a good way. It's like a massive concrete gorilla hunched down, glowering over Grand Parade and up towards St. Finbarr's. I won't be sorry to see it go if it does go, though I'm not a huge fan of the new design either.


  • Options
    #27
    CB19Kevo
    Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭CB19Kevo


    Surely the building could be gutted inside and windows replaced/spruced up on the outside.
    I find the pavements and streets surrounding the building as a big problem as well,It all needs to be resurfaced/re lined and pavements widened.
    Cant say i like the new design at all.


  • Options
    #28
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users Posts: 847 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    I really don't like the design of the new building. I'm am getting sick of these rectangle buildings with a small tower next to them. Like the Elysian it already looks out of date to me. If rumours are true and this is going ahead I hope the plans have been revised somewhat.


  • Options
    #29
    Pablo Escobar
    Registered Users Posts: 636 ✭✭✭Pablo Escobar


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    I really don't like the design of the new building. I'm am getting sick of these rectangle buildings with a small tower next to them. Like the Elysian it already looks out of date to me. If rumours are true and this is going ahead I hope the plans have been revised somewhat.

    As opposed to the KGB style one that's there at the moment? That thing genuinely looks depressing.


  • Options
    #30
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    **** photo but pretty building.

    16774863186_ddc67d9b3c_c.jpg
    Benches-4 by Niamh O'Donovan, on Flickr


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    AwaitYourReply
    Registered Users Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭AwaitYourReply


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    If popular opinion had it's way, the future would hold no examples of architecture built between around 1950 and 1980 (except for private houses). It's crazy that buildings less than 50 years old are routinely demolished because they are seen as "out of fashion" and neither "classical" or "modern".

    I think it was around 1984/1985 that the building in question which was then known locally as Government Buildings first opened with the Revenue Commissioners and FÁS being among the state agencies taking up residency there. FÁS was still relatively new as a training agency at the time having been rebranded after ANCO. I still recall the black+white painted timber walls erected around the whole square site and I think it was a ground surface car park off Sullivan's Quay for a number of years prior to the construction of Government Buildings.

    I knew someone in the mid 80's who was converting the top attic floor of a building on Grand Parade (a building close to Deep South) and they had to ensure that the attic/roof windows should have a traditional appearance in keeping with the streetscape while at the same time, the completely ugly out of character Government Buildings was allowed to pollute the view of Sullivan's Quay when looking from Grand Parade. Nothing about Government Buildings ever fitted in with the old Cork City Fire Station now part of the Quay Co-Op (formerly Instinct/Elroy's/Westimers ) or former Sullivan's Quay CBS National School. The former Government Buildings on Sullivan's Quay has always looked disgusting even when it was new and fresh. Some say the site would be perfect for a major hotel/apartments/offices especially if the entire Cork Convention Centre/Brewery Quarter site is developed to it's full potential including conference centre, cinema, offices, bars etc;

    The same nonsense with planning would happen when the South County Pub in Douglas West Village would go to extend their premises a few years ago - you can't do this or that as it would NOT be in keeping with the traditional look of the street/area while the revamp of the TESCO-Douglas Village Shopping Centre would be allowed destroy the character but it seems to be one rule for the smaller business while another rule or special exception for bigger interests. The big fish like Local Authorities/Councils/Big Developments can call it the modern contemporary fitting in nicely with the traditional character but the smaller business owner is never allowed advance such a concept or so it would seem going by previous experiences down through the years.


Advertisement