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

Events Centre

Options
1…4748505253…65

Comments

  • Options
    #1472
    who_me
    Registered Users Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    On the location - its current (hah!) location is ideal in terms of foot access and economic benefit to the city.

    But I'd be extremely concerned about all the nearby streets being single-lane. Especially for emergency access. If there's (say) a breakdown or collision on Keyser's Quay - or even just heavy, everyday traffic - then cars will be backed up along Sullivan's Quay and South Main St., with no way of driving around it. And if there are events on, there will inevitably be heavier than normal traffic, with taxis/mini-buses dropping off/picking up in the area.


  • Options
    #1473
    EnzoScifo
    Registered Users Posts: 409 ✭✭EnzoScifo


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Well because it's close to the train station and bus station maybe. The location it's supposed to be built in(might never be built there) isn't set up for getting thousands of people in and out quickly. A lot of the roads are one way and narrow.

    The proposed site by the sextant is also on the main through route from North to South in the City Centre. Mixing thousands pedestrians and a National primary route isn't really sensible.

    At least South Main Street could be made pedestrian and disabled access only for events.


  • Options
    #1474
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,374 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    A reminder:

    https://twitter.com/CorkEventCentre/status/1144621557618266112


  • Options
    #1475
    ofcork
    Registered Users Posts: 5,374 ✭✭✭ofcork


    Notice on echo of revised plans being submitted


  • Options
    #1476
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,538 ✭✭✭kub


    ofcork wrote: »
    Notice on echo of revised plans being submitted


    There must be an election on the horizon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1477
    flo8s967qjh0nd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭flo8s967qjh0nd


    ofcork wrote: »
    Notice on echo of revised plans being submitted

    Great news. Any photo of the planning notice?


  • Options
    #1478
    ofcork
    Registered Users Posts: 5,374 ✭✭✭ofcork


    Phone won't take clear picture of it


  • Options
    #1479
    ofcork
    Registered Users Posts: 5,374 ✭✭✭ofcork


    That's it


  • Options
    #1480
    snotboogie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    Why is this so low key? I haven't seen anything about this online.


  • Options
    #1481
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    snotboogie wrote: »
    Why is this so low key? I haven't seen anything about this online.

    Is everyone going "looks legit - whats the catch?"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1482
    flo8s967qjh0nd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭flo8s967qjh0nd


    snotboogie wrote: »
    Why is this so low key? I haven't seen anything about this online.

    Details haven't gone up on the council website yet so impossible to know at this stage what changes have been made, if any.
    Expect detail to emerge in the next few days.


  • Options
    #1483
    flo8s967qjh0nd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭flo8s967qjh0nd


    No more detail but this Echo story confirms what we already know
    https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Bam-submits-significant-further-information-on-the-Cork-Events-Centre-30d2e133-e8fd-46e7-b4a1-2f5ea55c2f43-ds


  • Options
    #1484
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,538 ✭✭✭kub


    Nancy Unkempt Shop wrote: »
    No more detail but this Echo story confirms what we already know
    https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Bam-submits-significant-further-information-on-the-Cork-Events-Centre-30d2e133-e8fd-46e7-b4a1-2f5ea55c2f43-ds


    That is all fine and well, what concerns me more is the bit at the end of the article that says discussions are still ongoing about the extra 10 million from the tax payer.


    That discussion is going on a long long time now.


  • Options
    #1485
    flo8s967qjh0nd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭flo8s967qjh0nd


    kub wrote: »
    That is all fine and well, what concerns me more is the bit at the end of the article that says discussions are still ongoing about the extra 10 million from the tax payer.


    That discussion is going on a long long time now.
    You're right. Even if it gets through planning (and that's a big if), we've already seen that Coveney can't get government and developer to agree on funding.


  • Options
    #1486
    snotboogie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    Nancy Unkempt Shop wrote: »
    You're right. Even if it gets through planning (and that's a big if), we've already seen that Coveney can't get government and developer to agree on funding.

    Central Government has agreed though right? It’s the city council who have been reviewing this for 11 months now. Submitting the extra information cost BAM a fair chunk so I don’t see them doing that without knowing that local government would approve both the planning and the extra funding. I’ve heard that there are more reviews coming down the line though, given the lack of pomp around the submission yesterday that adds up. I’d be surprised to see this start in 2020, nevermind 2019.


  • Options
    #1487
    who_me
    Registered Users Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    Nancy Unkempt Shop wrote: »
    No more detail but this Echo story confirms what we already know
    https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Bam-submits-significant-further-information-on-the-Cork-Events-Centre-30d2e133-e8fd-46e7-b4a1-2f5ea55c2f43-ds

    Did BAM not know they were to build the foot-bridges?


  • Options
    #1488
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,538 ✭✭✭kub


    Does anyone know, but does Bam actually own the site ?

    If they do then I have to wonder how long more they can afford for thos farce to drag on before they pull the plug on an Events Centre and just build more offices and apartments in there.


  • Options
    #1489
    snotboogie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    kub wrote: »
    Does anyone know, but does Bam actually own the site ?

    If they do then I have to wonder how long more they can afford for thos farce to drag on before they pull the plug on an Events Centre and just build more offices and apartments in there.

    Never in a million years will they get planning for this


  • Options
    #1490
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,538 ✭✭✭kub


    snotboogie wrote: »
    Never in a million years will they get planning for this

    Would that just be because the city council are annoyed at them?


  • Options
    #1491
    snotboogie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    kub wrote: »
    Would that just be because the city council are annoyed at them?

    It would be an unacceptable change of use and would attract massive political backlash.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1492
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    kub wrote: »
    Does anyone know, but does Bam actually own the site ?

    Yup

    Its a pity they dont have a city centre compound for all their construction projects... oh wait....


  • Options
    #1493
    flo8s967qjh0nd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭flo8s967qjh0nd


    who_me wrote: »
    Did BAM not know they were to build the foot-bridges?

    It's part of the complicated funding setup. In the initial plans BAM were building two bridges. Now City Council has applied for funding for the bridges and outher public realm works through the government's urban renewal fund.
    It's part of the government's efforts to fund the event centte through the backdoor so they don't fall foul of the tender legalities.


  • Options
    #1494
    flo8s967qjh0nd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭flo8s967qjh0nd


    snotboogie wrote: »
    It would be an unacceptable change of use and would attract massive political backlash.

    It wouldn'tbe unacceptable to the planners. That whole site is zoned for retail/office/aprtments. If an application went in with any merit it would have no issue getting planning. It will probably be what happens.


  • Options
    #1495
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,440 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Yup

    Its a pity they dont have a city centre compound for all their construction projects... oh wait....

    Actually does city council charge them rates on that yard... They had no bother breaking the site into blocks for planning,should work the other way a bit...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #1496
    who_me
    Registered Users Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    Nancy Unkempt Shop wrote: »
    It's part of the complicated funding setup. In the initial plans BAM were building two bridges. Now City Council has applied for funding for the bridges and outher public realm works through the government's urban renewal fund.
    It's part of the government's efforts to fund the event centte through the backdoor so they don't fall foul of the tender legalities.

    If so, that's good to know, thanks!

    Odd then that - according to the article - the planners didn't/don't seem to be aware of it.


  • Options
    #1497
    snotboogie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    Nancy Unkempt Shop wrote: »
    It wouldn'tbe unacceptable to the planners. That whole site is zoned for retail/office/aprtments. If an application went in with any merit it would have no issue getting planning. It will probably be what happens.

    I thought the zoning for the event centre section had been ringfenced by the council to prevent this exact situation?


  • Options
    #1498
    flo8s967qjh0nd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭flo8s967qjh0nd


    who_me wrote: »
    If so, that's good to know, thanks!

    Odd then that - according to the article - the planners didn't/don't seem to be aware of it.

    They are aware. But it needs to be written down.


  • Options
    #1499
    flo8s967qjh0nd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭flo8s967qjh0nd


    snotboogie wrote: »
    I thought the zoning for the event centre section had been ringfenced by the council to prevent this exact situation?
    That would be far too sensible an idea 🀪


  • Options
    #1500
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    mainMediaSize=537x291_type=image_publish=true__image.jpg

    mainMediaSize=MEDIUM_type=image_x0=0_y0=0_x1=100_y1=100__image.jpg

    mainMediaSize=MEDIUM_type=image_x0=0_y0=0_x1=100_y1=100__image.jpg

    Renders of the revised plans.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1501
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    mainMediaSize=537x291_type=image_publish=true__image.jpg

    mainMediaSize=MEDIUM_type=image_x0=0_y0=0_x1=100_y1=100__image.jpg

    mainMediaSize=MEDIUM_type=image_x0=0_y0=0_x1=100_y1=100__image.jpg

    Renders of the revised plans.

    Not blown away


Advertisement