Corrib Great southern on fire.

kabakuyu

The former CGS hotel is on fire again, 2nd time this week,there does not appear to be any security on the premises and the building is open to all sorts who are usually up to no good.

Mrs OBumble

Ahh, I heard some very determined-sounding fire engines leaving town 1/2 an hour or so ago, that explains it.

Let's hope there was no one caught inside.

paconnors

Seems the fire is out

Latest Pic from Twitter

zarquon

That place needs to be knocked to the ground. Far too many local trouble makers partying there and squatters using the place.

kabakuyu

The owners have been made aware of the problem for quite some time but there still appears to be no improvements to security, would not take alot to make the place secure, at the moment its wide open,broken ground floor windows and doors have not been replaced or fixed,don't understand thisit's not like the owners are broke.

Zzippy

Is this owned by developers or NAMA? Is it possible their lack of security is more deliberate than enforced by cost - it would be a terrible shame if it was burned down and an insurance company had to pay out

Mrs OBumble

Zzippy wrote: »

Is this owned by developers or NAMA? Is it possible their lack of security is more deliberate than enforced by cost - it would be a terrible shame if it was burned down and an insurance company had to pay out

Now owned by developers with a local connection: http://connachttribune.ie/uk-developers-poised-to-join-buying-spree-in-galway-c/

Diabhal Beag

GMIT secret agents really going to crazy lengths to get new parking spaces.

fago

Comer brothers have listened to the internet (or the cops got onto them)

Security there this morning and a couple of vans in what looks like an effort to secure the site properly.

antoobrien

fago wrote: »

Comer brothers have listened to the internet (or the cops got onto them)

I wonder how long before the council have issued one of their derelict building orders to them. Surely there's some NIMBY in the area that hates the look of it.

snubbleste

antoobrien wrote: »

I wonder how long before the council have issued one of their derelict building orders to them. Surely there's some NIMBY in the area that hates the look of it.

It's on the east side, no-one cares :cool:

antoobrien

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

GMIT secret agents really going to crazy lengths to get new parking spaces.

It's not the parking they want, they want to run it as a training hotel.

TerrorFirmer

antoobrien wrote: »

It's not the parking they want, they want to run it as a training hotel.

Absolutely untrue. GMIT would knock it. They don't have any interest whatsoever in that building.

dilallio

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Absolutely untrue. GMIT would knock it. They don't have any interest whatsoever in that building.

+1
Recent Article in the Connacht Triubune

http://connachttribune.ie/gmit-interested-derelict-hotel-asking-price-high/

kabakuyu

antoobrien wrote: »

I wonder how long before the council have issued one of their derelict building orders to them. Surely there's some NIMBY in the area that hates the look of it.

Hardly Nimbyism, residents don't like malicious fires in a building in their area and report it as anybody would,wheres the problem. New article here http://www.galwayindependent.com/topics/news.html , keep up to speed before you comment.

antoobrien

kabakuyu wrote: »

Hardly Nimbyism, residents don't like malicious fires in a building in their area and report it as anybody would,wheres the problem.

The look of it being the hotel, which is clearly derelict. So yeah NIMBYism does apply.

Thargor

I thought Race Week and the rest of the Summer alone could keep hotels like that place running in Galway, it must have been ran into the ground, must go in for a look around someday if the security is only temporary.

kabakuyu

antoobrien wrote: »

The look of it being the hotel, which is clearly derelict. So yeah NIMBYism does apply.

Bit of a stretch there IMO.I did not know that nimby has now become a catch all phrase for all people who express a concern about anything that happens in their area:eek:, always thought it had to do with people having unreasonable objections to new developments in their area therefore depriving the wider community of necessary developments.

So, like I said,to equate a resident complaining of a derelict building/and malicious fires to a nimby is inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

antoobrien

kabakuyu wrote: »

So, like I said,to equate a resident complaining of a derelict building/and malicious fires to a nimby is inaccurate.

If one doesn't want something locally but don't mind it being anywhere else, then one is a NIMBY.

In this case, everyone should be a NIMBY, as nobody should really want a derelict building in their neighbourhood.

kabakuyu

antoobrien wrote: »

If one doesn't want something locally but don't mind it being anywhere else, then one is a NIMBY.

In this case, everyone should be a NIMBY, as nobody should really want a derelict building in their neighbourhood.

Sorry, did not know you were the final arbiter as to who constitutes a Nimby or not.But this thread is about the current state of the CGSH and I am glad to see that some of the issues are being addressed/rectified, a good result all around.
In the interim I shall endeavour to remain unperturbed by your incorrect(in this instance) use of the term Nimby(IMO).Have a good day:).

Doom

Passed it today, shocked at the state of it.
Owners probably leaving it go this way to force the council or similar to buy it.

Long Gone

kabakuyu wrote: »

Sorry, did not know you were the final arbiter as to who constitutes a Nimby or not.But this thread is about the current state of the CGSH and I am glad to see that some of the issues are being addressed/rectified, a good result all around.
In the interim I shall endeavour to remain unperturbed by your incorrect(in this instance) use of the term Nimby. Have a good day:).

Don't be sorry - You are right and he is very obviously wrong ! .:)

fago

Noticed the hotel was broken into again at the same place, so expect the night sky to be lit up again this weekend!

Lapin

Just passed it by and it looks like there was another fire there over the weekend on the floor below the last one.

Shame to see a building with such potential left to rot.

-Vega-

zarquon wrote: »

That place needs to be knocked to the ground. Far too many local trouble makers partying there and squatters using the place.

Yeah such trouble makers, having a party. Yeah knock a place that nobody cares about but some poor homeless soul has a roof over his head in.

zarquon

-Vega- wrote: »

Yeah such trouble makers, having a party. Yeah knock a place that nobody cares about but some poor homeless soul has a roof over his head in.

There's a health and safety risk. Considering that neither group can available of it without regularly starting fires there i think it's about time it get knocked down before someone is seriously injured or burnt alive within the place. I've no issue with a homeless person squatting there but i do have an issue with the thought that homeless people could be asleep whilst the place goes ablaze again for the umpteenth time!

gordongekko

Same story as the old laundry site down the west. Can't understand why the council don't slap an order on them forcing the owners to secure the sites

Squeeonline

gordongekko wrote: »

Same story as the old laundry site down the west. Can't understand why the council don't slap an order on them forcing the owners to secure the sites

When a building has been recovered by a bank/receiver then who is the "owner"? There needs to be clear rules on who is responsible on the site.

gordongekko

Squeeonline wrote: »

When a building has been recovered by a bank/receiver then who is the "owner"? There needs to be clear rules on who is responsible on the site.

The comers own the southern the McHale s own the laundry so not sure what issue you are talking about?

Squeeonline

gordongekko wrote: »

The comers own the southern the McHale s own the laundry so not sure what issue you are talking about?

I'm just talking about in general. If safety issues are being neglected, someone should be held responsible.

kabakuyu

On fire again tonight.

MyNameIsMethos

Every time I see this post re-emerge I have to laugh: country lad&I'm not used to having an inferno in my back garden!

Guaranteed that the lads setting these fires are quite probably scumbags but it's better that their scumbagginess is concentrated in one place; bit of security/a sly IR camera & whoever-the-hell is in charge of the place would surely catch 'em.

Mrs OBumble

MyNameIsMethos wrote: »

Every time I see this post re-emerge I have to laugh: country lad&I'm not used to having an inferno in my back garden!

Guaranteed that the lads setting these fires are quite probably scumbags but it's better that their scumbagginess is concentrated in one place; bit of security/a sly IR camera & whoever-the-hell is in charge of the place would surely catch 'em.

I hear you re don't scatter the pigeons. But there might be other scummers in a different part of the building at the time, and people tend to get upset if their kids get roasted. To stop that happening, firefighters (who generally aren't scummers) have to put themselves in danger to go in and put it out.

maniac2003

it looks worse by the day

3fullback

maniac2003 wrote: »

it looks worse by the day

It's a prime example of the broken windows theory !

Wompa1

This was going on when I was back a few weeks ago. I don't understand how there's so much anger and politicking being aimed at the owners and very little is being said about the little a-holes that seem to think it's ok to set fire to other peoples property and knowingly endanger the lives of the firefighters. The people involved need to be put in prison.

And of course, the owners could do with just tearing the building down. At this stage, I don't think a few more hoardings around it will stop them

thesandeman

You're right Wompa. But they did buy it for a tenth of what it was worth a few years ago and they seem intent in holding on to it for a while so they should have some sort of security set up in there.
All the need is somebody in a secure room, cameras and a phone. I'd nearly do it myself.

Wompa1

thesandeman wrote: »

You're right Wompa. But they did buy it for a tenth of what it was worth a few years ago and they seem intent in holding on to it for a while so they should have some sort of security set up in there.
All the need is somebody in a secure room, cameras and a phone. I'd nearly do it myself.

I don't get it. If you buy a building. Do you have an obligation to do something with it? When they bought it, it was just a building sitting idle.

It's not their fault a bunch of sh1theads have decided they can easily get away with setting fire to it and breaking out the windows. Will they need a security guard down at the ArtHouse Cinema too? That's just been sitting there for a while now too? Ditto Crown Square. It's madness. Tackle those committing the actual crime and it will stop

thesandeman

Yes and no. Those lads are buying property all over the place at the moment at a fraction of the Tiger prices (I've no problem with that at the moment... at least they are local) but the Corrib seems to be the only place they seem to be neglecting totally.
You can't really have a Garda sitting outside all the time waiting for the next dickhead who tries to burn it down.
They have been made an offer for the place but turned it down. It's not like they are stuck with it. If they are holding on for more money then they should be prepared to keep an eye on it. If anything really bad happens it won't do their currently good reputation (or insurance policy) any favours.

Wompa1

thesandeman wrote: »

Yes and no. Those lads are buying property all over the place at the moment at a fraction of the Tiger prices (I've no problem with that at the moment... at least they are local) but the Corrib seems to be the only place they seem to be neglecting totally.
You can't really have a Garda sitting outside all the time waiting for the next dickhead who tries to burn it down.
They have been made an offer for the place but turned it down. It's not like they are stuck with it. If they are holding on for more money then they should be prepared to keep an eye on it. If anything really bad happens it won't do their currently good reputation (or insurance policy) any favours.

But what does what they paid for the place have to do with? Or that they turned down an offer for it. If it was my building, I'd like to think the Gardai would do more about it then just telling me I have to fix it and to prevent further attacks I need to get security. What law even states they have to do something about it? The building was perfectly save the way it was. It's being destroyed by a bunch of wannabe thugs. If they get hurt then, f**k 'em, they are trespassing

thesandeman

If it was your building would you just abandon it while taking care of everything else you own? That's the bit I find really strange. It's not the way those lads operate. It's like whoever is managing that part of their portfolio is making a total liathróidí of it.
Some of the 'trespassers' there seem to be people who just need somewhere to sleep while others are just vandals. Like yourself I couldn't care less about the latter.

listermint

Wompa1 wrote: »

I don't get it. If you buy a building. Do you have an obligation to do something with it? When they bought it, it was just a building sitting idle.

It's not their fault a bunch of sh1theads have decided they can easily get away with setting fire to it and breaking out the windows. Will they need a security guard down at the ArtHouse Cinema too? That's just been sitting there for a while now too? Ditto Crown Square. It's madness. Tackle those committing the actual crime and it will stop

If you buy a building of scale that is centrally located yes you have a moral obligation not to let the building fall into disrepair. This would also entail provision of security in the property to prevent this occurring. Like it or not empty large buildings are a target and it is not the Gardai job to provide security for private enterprise in this manner.

Even nama paid for security on the buildings in its portfolio. The former anglo bank head quarters on the quays in Dublin is a prime example and that was merely a concrete shell.

Just buying a building and owning it doesn't remove the obligation to look after it its a duty of care to the locality not just some property to sit on.

dilallio

Article in the City Tribune

http://connachttribune.ie/arson-hotel-to-be-added-to-citys-list-of-derelict-sites-166/

Partial quote from article:

The City Council has served notice on the owners of the former Corrib Great Southern Hotel that the building is to be added to the Register of Derelict Sites.
Ultimately, that could lead to fines and up to six months in prison – alternatively, the Council can get a current valuation of the site and impose a levy of 3% per annum on the owner.
...
...
...
...

Mrs OBumble

listermint wrote: »

If you buy a building of scale that is centrally located yes you have a moral obligation not to let the building fall into disrepair.

I don't think that the central location makes a bit of difference.

And I believe that the obligation is legal, not moral. That's why the council can serve various orders on derelict buildings. Trouble is, there's quite a long process associated with this. Longer than is desirable here, methinks.

Greaney

I'm under the impression that the owners might have been approached by folk who offered 'security service' and when they declined fires may have started. Could be just gossip, but its been known to happen.


In some parts of the UK, public buildings like small hospital buildings and unused fire stations are rented to groups of individual artists etc. for small rent, on unsecure tenancy agreements because it's cheaper than hiring security. My cousin has an entire ward/studio in one project. It's the only way he can afford to live in central London... I think it's a smart option, to house folk who are willing to live a little alternitivly and don't need the security of tenure as much as say, a family.

kabakuyu

Greaney wrote: »

I'm under the impression that the owners might have been approached by folk who offered 'security service' and when they declined fires may have started. Could be just gossip, but its been known to happen.


In some parts of the UK, public buildings like small hospital buildings and unused fire stations are rented to groups of individual artists etc. for small rent, on unsecure tenancy agreements because it's cheaper than hiring security. My cousin has an entire ward/studio in one project. It's the only way he can afford to live in central London... I think it's a smart option, to house folk who are willing to live a little alternitivly and don't need the security of tenure as much as say, a family.

Ah the rumours,:rolleyes: the fact is that the building has not been secured, ground floor windows and doors were wide open for weeks and nothing was done about it,are you also aware that there is no security on the premises whatsoever.

Earl Turner

Drove past it yesterday, what a depressing scene. Needs to be knocked down.

dloob

There was permission granted to demolish it a few years ago, but nothing happened.
That was in its pre-NAMA days.

irisheddie85

It's on fire again

RHJ

This post has been deleted.

irisheddie85

RHJ wrote: »

Would it really be that much of a loss if the place completely burnt to the ground.

It will be completely flattened before any development takes place. Just a pity the council can't seem to put actual pressure on the owners to do something with the site