Cork developments

CorkRed93

Nothing will change until these building owners are taxed to the hilt for buildings either being in a state of disrepair and/or vacant. Council voted to increase property taxes a few months back, fair enough. Go after the hoarders in the city centre with an added 20% tax on value of the building/land. Most wont be long trying to get rid of or find some use for them when it hurts their pockets. A complete disgrace.

whisky_galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Someone was killed, did nothing to prompt continuous inspection/repair

It's stuff worthy of a developing country/failed state.

fonecrusher1

Its funny how the bleeding heart 'new buildings are evil' crowd aren't at all as passionate about getting these issues flagged with local authorities. I mean the cohort who automatically and vehemently object to anything new because its eroding the character of Cork. Is the maintenance / restoration of such "historically important" buildings not as whinge worthy? :pac:

Dermo123

Here it is, the latest building proped up with iron girders.

the beer revolu

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Its funny how the bleeding heart 'new buildings are evil' crowd aren't at all as passionate about getting these issues flagged with local authorities. I mean the cohort who automatically and vehemently object to anything new because its eroding the character of Cork. Is the maintenance / restoration of such "historically important" buildings not as whinge worthy? :pac:

That's some leap you've made there!

whisky_galore

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Its funny how the bleeding heart 'new buildings are evil' crowd aren't at all as passionate about getting these issues flagged with local authorities. I mean the cohort who automatically and vehemently object to anything new because its eroding the character of Cork. Is the maintenance / restoration of such "historically important" buildings not as whinge worthy? :pac:

Lol.

You can have old buildings that aren't falling down. Something called maintenance?
A new building will fall apart too if you do fcuk all with it.

questionmark?

Dermo123 wrote: »

Here it is, the latest building proped up with iron girders.

Ah jasus! That is disgraceful to see in the middle of what's meant to be a modern and rich city!

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Lol.

You can have old buildings that aren't falling down. Something called maintenance?
A new building will fall apart too if you do fcuk all with it.

He's right though. If they put half as much effort into complaining about the lack of maintenance, as they do development, we'd be better off

the beer revolu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He's right though. If they put half as much effort into complaining about the lack of maintenance, as they do development, we'd be better off

Who exactly are "they"?
Who exactly is "we"?

People have different opinions on stuff. Don't try and make people who have different opinions to you responsible for bad stuff that they have, literally, nothing to do with.

It's pretty worrying double think.

Blame people you don't like for everything?

blindsider

Without getting in to an argument, I think it's fair to say that organisations such as An Taisce are regular objectors to new developments, but do nothing to progress/promote the maintenance of old buildings.

That's not double think, (or 'newspeak', or anything else Orwellian either) and I'm not blaming anybody.

I also think the building owners (followed by local government) must bear most of the responsibility here.

smurgen

If a building that looks structurally damaged and left to rot for years collapses and kills a pedestrian the owners should be charged with manslaughter.

whisky_galore

smurgen wrote: »

If a building that looks structurally damaged and left to rot for years collapses and kills a pedestrian the owners should be charged with manslaughter.

Until it falls down on top of a judge's wife and kids that probably won't happen.

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

Who exactly are "they"?
Who exactly is "we"?

People have different opinions on stuff. Don't try and make people who have different opinions to you responsible for bad stuff that they have, literally, nothing to do with.

It's pretty worrying double think.

Blame people you don't like for everything?

They: An Taisce et al
We: Society in general, not having buildings falling down

the beer revolu

blindsider wrote: »

I also think the building owners (followed by local government) must bear most of the responsibility here.

I can certainly agree with the above.

I don't believe that enforcement on maintenance of old buildings is within the scope of An taisce.
Perhaps it should be. Or perhaps it is already someone else's job.

But trying to blame anyone other than those tasked with the job of enforcement and the property owners is, imo, just fueling division in development and conservation discussions.

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

I can certainly agree with the above.

I don't believe that enforcement on maintenance of old buildings is within the scope of An taisce.
Perhaps it should be. Or perhaps it is already someone else's job.

But trying to blame anyone other than those tasked with the job of enforcement and the property owners is, imo, just fueling division in development and conservation discussions.

But that's the thing. They'll block and hamper any development of these derelict buildings, while using none of their vocal clout to push government to enforce maintenance

Markcheese

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But that's the thing. They'll block and hamper any development of these derelict buildings, while using none of their vocal clout to push government to enforce maintenance

Will they ?
Ive never heard of an taisce trying to block the maintenance or restoration of a building ..
I've heard of many buildings being deliberately left go derelict, and then claim that they have to be knocked because they're derelict ..

Markcheese

Markcheese wrote: »

Will they ?
Ive never heard of an taisce trying to block the maintenance or restoration of a building ..
I've heard of many buildings being deliberately left go derelict, and then claim that they have to be knocked because they're derelict ..

I think they meant 'block development' rather than 'block maintenance'.

Not sure is Taisce the body we need, for this.

Should be the local authority IMO, with powers of entry and inspection, and orders to make good property at risk. Derelict register should become more a work programme than list.

blindsider

I don't want to side-track too much, however, according to An Taisce's own web-site:


https://www.antaisce.org/our-mission
"Over the past few years, we have been widening the organisation's original mission from ‘the protection of built and natural heritage’ to a more encompassing vision including a focus on ecosystem resilience and biodiversity enhancement as essential to sustain human community and wellbeing." (My highlights etc)

Maintenance of older buildings, especially those with historical significance and value seem to be targeted here. I also note that they have widened their mission, but not replacing it - therefore the original mission still stands.

It's worth noting that An Taisce are a charity, not a statutory body.

Yeah they position themselves as a state body and people (journalists) rarely challenge them on this.
As such it is fine to call out the fact that they scream blue murder during a development phase, slowing everything down, but don't use their voice to enact change around building maintenance (which would actually protect heritage)

Markcheese

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah they position themselves as a state body and people (journalists) rarely challenge them on this.
As such it is fine to call out the fact that they scream blue murder during a development phase, slowing everything down, but don't use their voice to enact change around building maintenance (which would actually protect heritage)

So it's an taisces fault that the local authority don't do anything about land hoarding and building maintenance.. ??

I'd be reluctant to see a non statutory body having enforcement powers over private property - especially the likes of Taisce.

This is a failing of the local authority, either through lack of power or an unwillingness to use what power may be available to them.

blindsider

My last post on this topic....

Trying to start arguments about whose fault this is is meaningless bickering IMO.

Lots of organisations are stakeholders here and they all need to assume some responsibility. 3 important ones have been highlighted several times:

Building owners
Local authority
An Taisce (see my post above for their Mission statement)

It would be great if someone could move this on to the next stage - identifying how to address the issue.

the beer revolu

blindsider wrote: »

My last post on this topic....

Trying to start arguments about whose fault this is is meaningless bickering IMO.
.

Says the guy blaming a heritage charity for not enforcing the law!

Markcheese

Markcheese wrote: »

So it's an taisces fault that the local authority don't do anything about land hoarding and building maintenance.. ??

Oh FFS, talk about looking for the flippant argument.



An Taisce position themselves as the self appointed guardians of the country's "heritage" yet are conspicuously quiet in preventing degradation

TheChizler

Cork City Council have a section on their website for reporting dangerous buildings, worth doing if anyone spots anything, no chance of them becoming proactive any time soon but they can't ignore it completely then.

https://www.corkcity.ie/en/council-services/public-info/customer-service-requests/dangerous-structures/

blindsider

the beer revolu wrote: »

Says the guy blaming a heritage charity for not enforcing the law!

Monty Python's argument sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

might keep you happy for a bit! :rolleyes:

Apogee

Examiner article on Ford site development:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-40198110.html

snotboogie

Planning appealed for the proposed leasureplex hotel on MacCurtain Street. Decision due in April. Seems to be a mixed response to this proposal and no way this was starting construction before April anyway so may not be a bad thing for ABP to have a second look at this.

questionmark?

snotboogie wrote: »

Planning appealed for the proposed leasureplex hotel on MacCurtain Street. Decision due in April. Seems to be a mixed response to this proposal and no way this was starting construction before April anyway so may not be a bad thing for ABP to have a second look at this.

Any details on what the objection(s) is out of interest?

marno21

questionmark? wrote: »

Any details on what the objection(s) is out of interest?

It’s from the residents association of Bridge House which is the protected building of apartments on the quay side of Brian Boru Street.

Not sure of the ins and outs of the objection but you can put 2 and 2 together based on that information alone.