Cork developments

jackrussel

The area in the picture is by centra on south Douglas road. Both lots are housing/residential developments.

Some trees/bushes were cleared in the blue lot over a month ago but nothing since. Heard there’s an objection gone in - no idea if true or not.

The house in the red lot has been knocked down in the past 2 weeks and rubble cleared. Track machine still there so movement soon?

jackrussel

This area is by the SuperValu on Skehard road.

I see the building in the marked area is boarded up with Lyonshall Ltd signs but I didn’t see any planning signs. Apartments maybe at some stage?

Justin Credible Darts

big housing development going on here as well in the large green area

All the land cleared and the cement towers in and foundations going in

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mayfield,+Cork/@51.9139372,-8.4225343,379m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48449a94363a8333:0xcfc0cde8f774885f!8m2!3d51.9142651!4d-8.4356118

Treehelpplease

jackrussel wrote: »

This area is by the SuperValu on Skehard road.

I see the building in the marked area is boarded up with Lyonshall Ltd signs but I didn’t see any planning signs. Apartments maybe at some stage?

https://planning.corkcity.ie/AppFileRefDetails/2140052/0

opus

UCC's Tyndall expansion has been slapped down for now - Planners advise Tyndall to 'reconsider' demolition of former Cork Distillers plant

Hibernicis

opus wrote: »

UCC's Tyndall expansion has been slapped down for now

Slapped down is putting it mildly. The mildly titled “request for further information” is the first planning document from Cork City Council that I’ve seen which borders on displaying emotion, passion and anger…….

... there are however concerns of a very serious nature in respect of the proposal to entirely demolish a structure such as the former Bottling Plant that is referenced as an example of 20th Century industrial architecture in NIHA's publication "An Introduction to the Architectural Heritage of Cork City', and designed by renowned Cork modernist architect Frank Murphy.

“Therefore the applicant is strongly advised to re-consider this element of the proposal*, and meaningfully integrate the proposed building with the existing Bottling Plant.”

* Proposed Demolition of the former Bottling Plant

I love the juxtaposition in the above of “proposed building” with “existing Bottling Plant”. Whoever wrote that has a wicked sense of humour and is skilled in inserting the knife and twisting it gently

And even more witheringly…

“It is considered to be a serious omission that the submitted documentation does not include any survey layouts of the Bottling Plant itself or a Building Appraisal, other than a submitted ‘Demolition Plan’ which is a layout of the footprint only, along with some photographic images. It is noted that EIAR ‘Chapter 12 – Cultural History’ refers to the ‘a historical building survey to be carried out’ as part of the mitigating measures to be carried out, after its demolishment. The latter is not acceptable to the Planning Authority to provide an adequate assessment of what is proposed, and in particular it further hampers the industrial heritage assessment.”

It goes on in this vein but it’s too tedious to re-type it all. It is similarly disparaging in the sections relating to Masterplan, Positioning of Tall Building, Visual Impact and Design Aesthetic, Quantum of Car Parking etc.

This is a chance to reuse and recycle a building of genuine architectural and design merit. It could be a focal point and feature of the overall re-development of the site. This is far more important in terms of architectural conservation than the nonsensical facade retention that we have seen in Navigation Square and pointless preservation of 16 Lavitt's Quay.

The only concern I’d have now is that this being Ireland, Frank Murphy’s signature building might self-combust or fall down of its own accord or jump into the path of an oncoming JCB or have some other developer inspired "unfortunate accident".

Well done Cork City Council’s Planning Department, words I don't often get to say.

Markcheese

The only concern I’d have now is that this being Ireland, Frank Murphy’s signature building might self-combust or fall down of its own accord or jump into the path of an oncoming JCB or have some other developer inspired "unfortunate accident".



The "unfortunate accident " is unlikely , because it's ucc ,not a private developer .
How ever they could just wait till it pretty much falls down - must be over 20 years of stagnation all ready ...

high horse

That was Frank Murphys signature building? Really?

What is the appeal of this building? I've been around the grounds there and to my eyes it is a completely unremarkable building. I don't get it.

the beer revolu

Regarding the conservation and incorporation of old buildings on Lavitt's Quay, I think there are excellent examples of how to do it and how not to do it.

Number 16, mentioned above (by half moon Street) is a terrible example and, I'd agree, was a pointless exercise - they may as well have demolished it.

Vibes and scribes, further down the queue, on the other hand, has a really nicely incorporated old building (the old Lavitt Gallery, iirc). This works because it has been given the space to exist and is not built over - the roof, from its peak forward, has been allowed to remain.

Done well, I really like old, existing buildings being retained and incorporated into new developments.

I'd like to have seen that done with the Sextant building - not because I had any affection for the pub but because I think it would have softened the impact of that area only having new builds.
But, hey, it's gone now and I don't lose any sleep over it.
I really fail to see why wishing to preserve some older buildings and making them an integrated part of new developments is seen by many as being "anti development" and "anti progress".
It really isn't. And, yes, I do understand that there is a financial cost to doing this.

Treehelpplease

penrose dock is a great example of good conservation and retention. The retained building still shines on its own and actually looks a lot better as it is now. The same can be said for the sheds next to the Dean. The retention of the georgian house outside the offices on the river are a bit more risky but still work to a lot of people as again, the original building can be read on its own and is complimented by the new element. Others may agree but I think Navigation House is a good example too. The front elevation was the only interesting part of the building and it now acts as a nice entry doorway. The only problem for me is it being off centre, otherwise it elevates the new building a lot and is actually what you see first. The same can be said for the Counting House.

as for the sextant site. The buildings being kept further from the river work extremely well. They lower the height of the corner, can be read as their own and again greatly enhance the new element i.e. the plaza. I personally can not see how the sextant building would have been able to be worked in. Its too small and unremarkable to be a standout corner building like penrose house. It isn't good enough to stand alone like carey house and the albert road terminus. It wasnt big enough to built over like the georgian house at horgans quay, or left as is like the sheds next to the dean. I don't see how they would have incorporated the building in such a way that would benefit the building itself and benefit the newer elements. It was tiny so it would have lowered the height of the corner awkwardly. It is likley that whatever they would have thought of, people wouldn't be happy. It likely would have ended up like Lavitts Quay. It wasn't remarkable enough to keep and I can't find any story of it being historical in anyway other than people enjoying a pint there (not a good reason at all) and it being old. Also. its gone now! So we are wasting our time still talking about it.

Justin Credible Darts

guess in the end it is how they all blend together.

For me that is why connolly Hall is one of the most hideous disgusting things I have ever seen allowed be built.
That manky looking thing between those stone buildings looks just awful

Treehelpplease

I would love to see connolly hall knocked and replaced by a park. Expose the stone at the side of the KBC Bank too. The blank wall of the cork savings bank can be remade similar to the walls JCD remade for Penrose house and the burger king building next to The Capital. Great views of city hall and make the two stone buildings nicer

Justin Credible Darts

Treehelpplease wrote: »

I would love to see connolly hall knocked and replaced by a park. Expose the stone at the side of the KBC Bank too. The blank wall of the cork savings bank can be remade similar to the walls JCD remade for Penrose house and the burger king building next to The Capital. Great views of city hall and make the two stone buildings nicer

The could put a car park there and it would still be better than what is there now.


but , yes, some park would be nice, and the back where the church is and the old motorbike place, is one dreary spot.
With the Prism going in you hope the area becomes less dreary.

Markcheese

high horse wrote: »

That was Frank Murphys signature building? Really?

What is the appeal of this building? I've been around the grounds there and to my eyes it is a completely unremarkable building. I don't get it.

I think it's the fact that it's a "building of it's time " , I've seen a few pics of it ,in it's prime , and it was kind of cool looking - admittedly now it's in need of serious work - I'm surprised they want to keep the bottling plant building itself , just looked like an unremarkable old factory building - but I don't really know - , was there something in the rebuttal ,about UCC hadn't actually offered or even done a proper survey of the existing buildings ,

daithi7

high horse wrote: »

That was Frank Murphys signature building? Really?

What is the appeal of this building? I've been around the grounds there and to my eyes it is a completely unremarkable building. I don't get it.

It's an awful looking building imho. It's being retained at great cost to further development for being an example of a particular type of industrial building... well boo fuppin hoo.

Move on Cork City Council, and let the Tyndall & the City's developers help the city modernise as best functionally, aesthetically, economically & as effectively as possible.

Retaining derelict, ugly, former bottling plants to hold up new development is totally counter productive imho.

dinneenp

Railway Gardens 17 story building, 118 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments- link

"It includes 239 bicycle spaces and just five car parking spaces — three disabled spaces and two for service vehicles." I understand trying to encourage less cars/driving but 0 car spaces besides the 2 disabled spaces seems extremely harsh. I can't imagine a group of 118 families/couple where one of them don't own a car....

TheChizler

This was one I always assumed was a get-planning-and-flip job. Is it promising that they're following up with the site or something that would need to be done to package up the site?

I cycled over the pedestrian bridge overlooking it this morning and it wasn't clear what the strip of land was. Hardly the roadside verge?

chalkitdown1

TheChizler wrote: »

This was one I always assumed was a get-planning-and-flip job. Is it promising that they're following up with the site or something that would need to be done to package up the site?

I cycled over the pedestrian bridge overlooking it this morning and it wasn't clear what the strip of land was. Hardly the roadside verge?

Yeah, I'm puzzed as to what strip of land they're referring to.

This is the plot they originally bought, right?



Unless it's the tiny bit where the trees are next to the South Link behind the gardens.

whisky_galore

dinneenp wrote: »

Railway Gardens 17 story building, 118 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments- link

"It includes 239 bicycle spaces and just five car parking spaces — three disabled spaces and two for service vehicles." I understand trying to encourage less cars/driving but 0 car spaces besides the 2 disabled spaces seems extremely harsh. I can't imagine a group of 118 families/couple where one of them don't own a car....

Ironically "Railway Gardens" not even near a functioning rail line. Way to go, public transport alternative.
Maybe people are supposed to park their cars at the park n ride out of accommodation desperation?

Justin Credible Darts

dinneenp wrote: »

Railway Gardens 17 story building, 118 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments- link

"It includes 239 bicycle spaces and just five car parking spaces — three disabled spaces and two for service vehicles." I understand trying to encourage less cars/driving but 0 car spaces besides the 2 disabled spaces seems extremely harsh. I can't imagine a group of 118 families/couple where one of them don't own a car....

of course if you mention idiotic decisions like this, or the state of the city centre due to the failings of the council, among other things, you will get cork people getting defensive

TheChizler

whisky_galore wrote: »

Ironically "Railway Gardens" not even near a functioning rail line. Way to go, public transport alternative.
Maybe people are supposed to park their cars at the park n ride out of accommodation desperation?

I think the idea is that people renting here don't own cars at all. I hope it works and it doesn't become a free-for-all on the streets.

TheChizler

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

Yeah, I'm puzzed as to what strip of land they're referring to.

This is the plot they originally bought, right?

Unless it's the tiny bit where the trees are next to the South Link behind the gardens.

I had a look on land direct and thats the only parcel of land that might be a contender. Looks way bigger than 250 sq m or so, maybe they're splitting it.

timmyjimmy

TheChizler wrote: »

I think the idea is that people renting here don't own cars at all. I hope it works and it doesn't become a free-for-all on the streets.

The owning of cars has to be policed by the letting agents and have it part of the contract. A similar situation as railway gardens but not as big is Grattan Court on Grattan Hill. I lived near here before the apartments became occupied, they were empty for a few years and then started to become occupied around this time last year. Low and behold, parking chaos, cars parked everywhere. I used to be able to find parking close to my house but after the apartments opened, I often had to park on Lower Glanmire rd. Parking warden came out every then but that wasn't going to stop the constant illegal parking, especially after 6:30 when wardens are finished.

I'm all for parking free accommodation but it needs to policed as part of the letting contract otherwise people will move in with cars. I have a friend who lives near RG and is objecting to it and I can't blame him. Cars will be abandoned everywhere if not policed properly.

the beer revolu

timmyjimmy wrote: »

The owning of cars has to be policed by the letting agents and have it part of the contract. A similar situation as railway gardens but not as big is Grattan Court on Grattan Hill. I lived near here before the apartments became occupied, they were empty for a few years and then started to become occupied around this time last year. Low and behold, parking chaos, cars parked everywhere. I used to be able to find parking close to my house but after the apartments opened, I often had to park on Lower Glanmire rd. Parking warden came out every then but that wasn't going to stop the constant illegal parking, especially after 6:30 when wardens are finished.

I'm all for parking free accommodation but it needs to policed as part of the letting contract otherwise people will move in with cars. I have a friend who lives near RG and is objecting to it and I can't blame him. Cars will be abandoned everywhere if not policed properly.

I can't think of any way to police this.
You can't stop someone from buying a car.

bingo9999

the beer revolu wrote: »

I can't think of any way to police this.
You can't stop someone from buying a car.

I think the idea is you make it a condition of getting the letting to not park in surrounding streets. I would think its largely self policing - why would you rent this place if you know there is no parkign and you'll be circling around the block trying to dump your car, putting paid parking tickets on it etc. Maybe others have parking at work in the city and that sorts them..

Shedite27

I guess the point is that people know before they rent/buy the apartment, they won't own a car. It's not like someone is going to buy a car and then bring it home and realise "ah feck, where am I going to park this".

the beer revolu

bingo9999 wrote: »

I think the idea is you make it a condition of getting the letting to not park in surrounding streets. I would think its largely self policing - why would you rent this place if you know there is no parkign and you'll be circling around the block trying to dump your car, putting paid parking tickets on it etc. Maybe others have parking at work in the city and that sorts them..

You could make it a condition but I see no way of legally enforcing it!

timmyjimmy

the beer revolu wrote: »

I can't think of any way to police this.
You can't stop someone from buying a car.

No you can't stop someone buying a car but there must be bigger penalties if they continue to park illegally or even penalties to the landlords who rent the property to a tenant who owns a car.

The idea is that people will walk/commute to the city centre from RG, I have no doubt people will move in owning a car especially if there is nothing to say that they can't own a car. The Railway gardens area will be a SS if tenants move in owning cars or buy a car while living there.

timmyjimmy

bingo9999 wrote: »

I think the idea is you make it a condition of getting the letting to not park in surrounding streets. I would think its largely self policing - why would you rent this place if you know there is no parkign and you'll be circling around the block trying to dump your car, putting paid parking tickets on it etc. Maybe others have parking at work in the city and that sorts them..

People rent places all the time in Cork knowing that there is no parking available for their apartment. We all know that it's pretty easy to abandon a car in Cork and not receive any fine, especially after daytime hours. Saying that, on street parking becomes free after 6:30. Also, there is no policing after 6:30, cars are parked all over the place on double yellow lines.

TheChizler

The executive denied a motion from the elected Council to reimplement towering on the grounds it wasn't cost effective and created a negative perception of the city. Just shows you they have no interest in tackling the issue really. Council employees are some of the worst offenders for dangerous parking.