Pairc Ui Chaoimh re-development

Urbex

I was in there yesterday. Found a massive box of chewing gum and soup lol

Subpopulus

http://www.eveningecho.ie/cork-news/demolition-of-stand-wont-delay-pairc-ui-chaoimh-plan/

News about this in the Echo. According to the GAA the north stand is being demolished so that they can rebuild an exact replica in order to support the covered roof. Doesn't affect the planning apparently. Piling for the main stand has begun, and the stand is expected to be under construction by September.

This is all a bit weird.

CHealy

Very very strange.

But the way I see it, and this is without taking into account public money, land grabbing etc, the more of the Pairc that is demolished the better for everyone in the long run, at least then the dangerous kip that it was is nearly gone and they'll be forced to build a safer more modern stadium.

D'Agger

Odd that wouldn't affect planning but if it means this isn't against the planning and we're not looking at pulling of funding etc. then I'm happy - let the development continue on track

KCAccidental

that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Rebuilding an almost exact replica to widen the steps. If they were going to demolish it they might as well have designed a new stand altogether.

D'Agger

KCAccidental wrote: »

that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Rebuilding an almost exact replica to widen the steps. If they were going to demolish it they might as well have designed a new stand altogether.

Cutting down on architect costs I'd say

Pete_Cavan

KCAccidental wrote: »

that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Rebuilding an almost exact replica to widen the steps. If they were going to demolish it they might as well have designed a new stand altogether.

Building an exact replica (of the altered stand) is the reason they don’t have to reapply for planning permission. This way they still end up with the same stadium which was approved, albeit the way they arrive there is different. A new design means new planning application which adds time and cost. And they aren’t rebuilding it to widen the steps, they are rebuilding it so that it is structurally sound, which the original stand with the additional concrete and new roof would not have been.

KCAccidental

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Building an exact replica (of the altered stand) is the reason they don’t have to reapply for planning permission. This way they still end up with the same stadium which was approved, albeit the way they arrive there is different. A new design means new planning application which adds time and cost. And they aren’t rebuilding it to widen the steps, they are rebuilding it so that it is structurally sound, which the original stand with the additional concrete and new roof would not have been.

The County Board insisted the new stand would be the same size as that originally proposed and will not require any planning changes or delay the project.
“The uncovered North Stand is at present being removed,” County Board chairman Ger Lane told the Evening Echo. “The stadium design provided for all stand steps being wider than those which originally existed to ensure the desired seating space,”
County Board chairman Ger Lane told the Evening Echo. “This was being achieved by placing concrete on top of the existing steps and carrying out significant upgrading works to the soffit of the stand,” he said.
“We will now achieve the stand layout as planned by removing the existing steps and casting the new stand to the same size, profile and capacity as that planned at the outset.”

nothing about it not being structurally sound there to be fair. Just that stairs were to be widened. In any case, it's the GAA, published plans are just loose designs according to them.

Pete_Cavan

KCAccidental wrote: »

nothing about it not being structurally sound there to be fair. Just that stairs were to be widened.

Not in that article but there were unofficial reports of structural issues being the reason for demolishing the stand.

In any case, it's the GAA, published plans are just loose designs according to them.

Not sure what you are saying here. They have planning permission for a stand of specific size and dimensions. When all works are finished, the stand will be of this size and dimensions (albeit of new construction rather than alterations and additions to an existing structure). To me, it seems logical to rebuild that stand rather than waste time and money on a new planning application for a different stand.

case885

Definitely a good idea to demolish the existing north stand even if it is being constructed the exact same, it wouldn't have lasted long anyway and would of had to of been done down the road.
It will significantly add to costs I'd imagine though.

KCAccidental

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Not sure what you are saying here. They have planning permission for a stand of specific size and dimensions. When all works are finished, the stand will be of this size and dimensions (albeit of new construction rather than alterations and additions to an existing structure). To me, it seems logical to rebuild that stand rather than waste time and money on a new planning application for a different stand.

See Cases' post. Costs have overrun already and it's barely started! The lack of foresight is incredibly unprofessional. The GAA do have previous for this.

mire

Interesting. They do not need planning permission to demolish the north stand. however, they do need planning permission to re-build it, even if they match it to the exact dimensions. They do not have planning permission for what they are about to do. This is not a gray area.

think of it this way, could someone demolish The Clarion hotel tomorrow and rebuild it exactly as it was, without permission?

In saying all of that, they coudl simply submit a new planning application with revised details in relation to the north stand, as construction/demolition is going on elsewhere. I assume this will be granted.

Jimmy Bottles

I doubt it will be an exact replica. More like it will occupy the same foot print.

Obviously it's capacity will be lower due to the steps being bigger for more space with the seats. In addition, the tunnel under the stand will have to be bigger. It was too small and dangerous previously.. Toilets / facilities will be different too.

Finally, I doubt we will get a roof similar to the previous covered stand. Hopefully something like a cantilever. The likelihood is that the old stands concrete wasn't strong enough to support a cantilever roof.

KCAccidental

mire wrote: »

Interesting. They do not need planning permission to demolish the north stand. however, they do need planning permission to re-build it, even if they match it to the exact dimensions. They do not have planning permission for what they are about to do. This is not a gray area.

It's a weird one, what they are doing is allowed technically within planning laws, but by my reading they are exploiting this to rebuild the stand. Doesn't look like they ever had a serious thought of retaining the structure.

160.—(1) Where an unauthorised development has been, is being or is likely to be carried out or continued, the High Court or the Circuit Court may, on the application of a planning authority or any other person, whether or not the person has an interest in the land, by order require any person to do or not to do, or to cease to do, as the case may be, anything that the Court considers necessary and specifies in the order to ensure, as appropriate, the following:

(a) that the unauthorised development is not carried out or continued;

(b) in so far as is practicable, that any land is restored to its condition prior to the commencement of any unauthorised development;

(c) that any development is carried out in conformity with the permission pertaining to that development or any condition to which the permission is subject.

Pete_Cavan

mire wrote: »

Interesting. They do not need planning permission to demolish the north stand. however, they do need planning permission to re-build it, even if they match it to the exact dimensions. They do not have planning permission for what they are about to do. This is not a gray area.

think of it this way, could someone demolish The Clarion hotel tomorrow and rebuild it exactly as it was, without permission?

In saying all of that, they coudl simply submit a new planning application with revised details in relation to the north stand, as construction/demolition is going on elsewhere. I assume this will be granted.

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.

Jimmy Bottles

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

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.

It won't. That plan was scrapped months ago. I believe that they are knocking the stand on the basis that they are going with a completely new roof which will be a cantilever design (no poles holding it up)

namloc1980

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

It won't. That plan was scrapped months ago. I believe that they are knocking the stand on the basis that they are going with a completely new roof which will be a cantilever design (no poles holding it up)

Not according to the application and drawings submitted and approved as part of the planning permission.



It even says in the drawings "old south stand roof moved to North stand". You can clearly see the support columns in the drawing. Not a cantilever.

Jimmy Bottles

namloc1980 wrote: »

Not according to the application and drawings submitted and approved as part of the planning permission.



It even says in the drawings "old south stand roof moved to North stand". You can clearly see the support columns in the drawing. Not a cantilever.

During demolition it was decided that the roof was unusable.

namloc1980

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

During demolition it was decided that the roof was unusable.

Maybe so but they don't have planning for any other type of roof. And no application submitted to change the design. And who is going to pay all these additional costs if a new cantilever is being sought?

SpaceTime

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You made the above statement and were asked to provide examples. And yet you cower away.

Perhaps you are correct in your assertions, but when you take flight as soon as you're asked specifics, you look silly. I mean, you were only asked to expand on your statement, nothing else.

Some of us have other stuff to do besides reply to a thread! I'm not a public representative, I don't set policy.

I made a simple comment on a thread as a resident in Cork with an interest in having decent facilities and compared it to other cities I've lived in.

Go take a look at the location of new facilities in Bordeaux for example - there on the ring road and the tramway.

Anyway, I'm entitled to reply or not reply to a thread. I didn't even notice the question!

namloc1980

SpaceTime wrote: »

Some of us have other stuff to do besides reply to a thread! I'm not a public representative, I don't set policy.

I made a simple comment on a thread as a resident in Cork with an interest in having decent facilities and compared it to other cities I've lived in.

Go take a look at the location of new facilities in Bordeaux for example - there on the ring road and the tramway.

Anyway, I'm entitled to reply or not reply to a thread. I didn't even notice the question!

How can you compare a new stadium for FC Girondins Bordeaux who are a big professional club in one of the biggest leagues in Europe versus Cork with no pro sports team (Munster Rugby are here part time at best)? Bordeaux is also a much larger city than Cork and their stadium cost €170m. Comparing apples and oranges I think.

lbj666

If they are building a brand new stand from scratch and it has stanchions instead of a cantilever roof that's absolutely inexcusable. No stadium anywhere in this day and age should have stanchions plain and simple

SpaceTime

namloc1980 wrote: »

How can you compare a new stadium for FC Girondins Bordeaux who are a big professional club in one of the biggest leagues in Europe versus Cork with no pro sports team (Munster Rugby are here part time at best)? Bordeaux is also a much larger city than Cork and their stadium cost €170m. Comparing apples and oranges I think.

I'm not comparing, debating or anything else anymore!

Clearly there's a passionate interest in keeping tiny stadia all separated out by sport in Cork.

SpaceTime

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm not comparing, debating or anything else anymore!

Clearly there's a passionate interest in keeping tiny stadia all separated out by sport in Cork.

Take the location of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Sadar_Stadium

For example on Pamplona's ring road. That's very comparable. 20.000 seater.

My point was that new stadia are not being built in city centre locations as was stated further back up this thread.

It's pretty common to site decent, large venues on ring roads and public transport links like trams and railway lines.

There are umpteen examples of this in France that are more appropriately sized to Cork but, I neither have the time not the interest to go looking for them and posting coords.

Anyway good luck.
This is already looking like it'll be a poorly funded mess.

namloc1980

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm not comparing, debating or anything else anymore!

Clearly there's a passionate interest in keeping tiny stadia all separated out by sport in Cork.

Makes more sense than having a crowd of 3,000 people at a LoI game in a 40,000 stadium. Now that would be crazy.

namloc1980

SpaceTime wrote: »

Take the location of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Sadar_Stadium

For example on Pamplona's ring road. That's very comparable. 20.000 seater.

Osasuna are a professional soccer team who are in the second tier of arguably the biggest league in Europe. Again we don't have that in Cork. We have a small semi pro soccer club in one of the smaller European leagues, a part time pro rugby team who already have a home stadium in Limerick and a bunch of amateur GAA teams. Totally different circumstances.

BTW that stadium in Pamplona was built in 1967, not a new stadium by any measure

SpaceTime

Grand!

Jimmy Bottles

namloc1980 wrote: »

Maybe so but they don't have planning for any other type of roof. And no application submitted to change the design. And who is going to pay all these additional costs if a new cantilever is being sought?

True, but lack of planning doesn't change facts on the ground. The original structure clearly couldn't support a cantilever roof.

The origin as l plan to pour more concrete over the steps also sounded crazy.

KCAccidental

Jimmy Bottles wrote: »

True, but lack of planning doesn't change facts on the ground. The original structure clearly couldn't support a cantilever roof.

The origin as l plan to pour more concrete over the steps also sounded crazy.

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

SpaceTime

I've a horrible feeling this will be sitting for years half built if/when the government doesn't cough up the funds.

If it goes past the general election, it won't be done and we'll have lost a venue in the medium term.