Cork developments

AugustusMinimus

CHealy wrote: »

Not disputing that Belfast is a bigger city than Cork, it clearly is, but having spent lots of time there I can tell you its no where near x3 times the size of Cork. It has that same 'can be anywhere in 15 mins' feel that Cork has and the city center itself wouldnt be much bigger than ours. Its more dense, lots and lots of terraced housing and it extends on into Lisburn/Dunmurry/Dundonald which are big towns in themselves (same as Ballincollig).



See above. Id put Cork and Belfast on a level playing field if we were under the same umbrella nationally.

Dublin
Cork/Belfast
Limerick/Galway/Derry
The rest

Having Belfast in the ROI may actually elevate Cork above regional city status to something like Belfast.

daithi7

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Having Belfast in the ROI may actually elevate Cork above regional city status to something like Belfast.

Dream on, Cork (& all ROI) people would have to pay even higher taxes and see these extra funds spent north of the border. Other things like IDA, dev agency and executive (government) resources would also be more focused on the North IMO. Not Good!!

Markcheese

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Having Belfast in the ROI may actually elevate Cork above regional city status to something like Belfast.

I wouldn't worry too much,
We'll have a decent, integrated public transport system in Cork decades before a united Ireland (for better or worse).

Markcheese

Markcheese wrote: »

I wouldn't worry too much,
We'll have a decent, integrated public transport system in Cork decades before a united Ireland (for better or worse).

Maybe, maybe not but they would be fools to not consider it in long term planning.

Get these big builds up and running, blow through an Taisce, promote high density. More that they do now the better.


I would love that tower to be built there. It is a perfect place for it. Key view of the city from the river, lower road and the heart of the city will move to the docks sooner rather than later

Markcheese

SleetAndSnow wrote: »

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=156574204&postcount=146

Gotta hand it to Cork City Council, at least they are trying to get the Prism built and remove the fear of tall buildings, unlike Dublin.

I like the port of Cork Tower idea, (although I have trouble visualising that height in that location), but because of the river it doesn't really have close neighbours... (except the brick bonded stores, which can't rise beyond its 2 storeys),
The prisim is a bit different, it's completely filling its site (and more) , it has close neighbours, its a seriously tall building for its location..Its a serious change in development style for cork...
I'm not saying it shouldn't be built as currently planned, but it deserves serious thought as to Wether it fits corks vision for the future... And ABP, will rule on that soon enough, (if cork city council have to have a think about their plans for the Eastern city, and change things to suit then fine.)

Markcheese

Markcheese wrote: »

I like the port of Cork Tower idea, (although I have trouble visualising that height in that location), but because of the river it doesn't really have close neighbours... (except the brick bonded stores, which can't rise beyond its 2 storeys),
The prisim is a bit different, it's completely filling its site (and more) , it has close neighbours, its a seriously tall building for its location..Its a serious change in development style for cork...
I'm not saying it shouldn't be built as currently planned, but it deserves serious thought as to Wether it fits corks vision for the future... And ABP, will rule on that soon enough, (if cork city council have to have a think about their plans for the Eastern city, and change things to suit then fine.)

A lot of landmark towers have plazas and lower buildings next to them specifically for isolating the building and making it somewhat imposing. No issue with that.

Cork's issue is that it would be first really. If there were 30+ floor towers across the river, there would be no problem with having a landmark tower at that site

Markcheese

"Get these big builds up and running, blow through an Taisce, promote high density. More that they do now the better."

And that's exactly why an taisce are there, to counter the "progress for progress sake", and to promote debate... The big builds are up and running in Cork (look at Penrose wharf, and hogan's Quay, as well as tivoli and the South docks, and an taisce didn't say boo...)


To me, the alternative to an Taisce is some crank serial objectors taking every devopment to the supreme Court (like apple in athlone)..
The prisim is a test case for cork, its pushing boundaries and deserves consideration..

Markcheese

Markcheese wrote: »

"Get these big builds up and running, blow through an Taisce, promote high density. More that they do now the better."

And that's exactly why an taisce are there, to counter the "progress for progress sake", and to promote debate... The big builds are up and running in Cork (look at Penrose wharf, and hogan's Quay, as well as tivoli and the South docks, and an taisce didn't say boo...)


To me, the alternative to an Taisce is some crank serial objectors taking every devopment to the supreme Court (like apple in athlone)..
The prisim is a test case for cork, its pushing boundaries and deserves consideration..

May deserve consideration if it was for a real objection not some "vista" from a random street corner thrown in.
Objections based on road suitability, effect on neighbouring business, public transport options, location (no way should there be highrise in Glanmire) are all good options but An Taisce go beyond their remit and throw objections to things on spurious grounds.

I, for one, would prefer to see street widening and straightening as part of any development plan and not stick with middle-age river channel pathways as the road layout.
No one is calling for development for development's sake, but Cork needs to counter the sprawl which has crippled Dublin.
High density living and employment buildings (mixed or single use) are what is needed to allow the city centre to come back to life. Especially without commitments to build new road infrastructure (north ring) or massive public transport options.

Height is not being proposed for the sake of it, it is a real necessity.


And as for serial objectors, there needs to be a faster and formal state mechanism dedicated to planning (with a final say) and not clogging up the courts system.
Serial objectors (like An Taisce to be honest) know that, often, they do not even need to have a case and that the time/cost in defending an application can cause a project to fail or not even be considered

Mefistofelino

There’s something very "off" about the proposed tower. Leaving aside the fact that it would be an absolute pig to construct – water on three sides so everything has to be built via the Western face, no on-site contractor areas or laydown areas, a massive amount of piling. Forgetting too that the only vehicular access for an operating 40 story building including a hotel will be along Andersons Quay and there would be no provision for on-site parking (at least in any of the architectural sketches).

All the images show that the building has a ground floor footprint defined by the current edges of the quay walls and then steps in considerably by the 4th floor. Problem is, that site is already very small – less than 40m wide at it’s widest so the main section of the tower would probably be 25-30m wide – about the width of three standard semi-ds. 40 stories of, say, 25m x 50m give a floor area than is, at best, only slightly larger than Navigation Square. All the “visualisations” show a building considerable wider than that.

It looks like a very expensive build that could be achieved a hundred metres away on Kennedy Quay for far less. Current New York building costs (where they actually have a proven track record of delivering tall buildings) for a 40 storey tower would put the project at around €275 million (developer is currently saying €250 million so that roughly tallies). Given the issues with site access and a lack of experience in tall builds here, that figure could easily breach €300 million. For comparison, Navigation House and One Albert Quay are working out about half of the cost per sq meter. Are tenants going to pay twice the rate just so they can sit higher in the sky?

I wonder if this is just some sort of distraction. The developers probably want to build something smaller and will ultimately be able to sell their actual intent as a “compromise” to a 40 storey tower.

Mefistofelino

Mefistofelino wrote: »

I wonder if this is just some sort of distraction. The developers probably want to build something smaller and will ultimately be able to sell their actual intent as a “compromise” to a 40 storey tower.

It is the way of things, ask for the impossible and "accept" the smaller project.
I still would not see it as being an impossible build, however. It's not like the proposers are new to the big build game.

Mefistofelino

Deleted User wrote: »

It is the way of things, ask for the impossible and "accept" the smaller project.
I still would not see it as being an impossible build, however. It's not like the proposers are new to the big build game.

No, but the contractors who have to deliver it are. Not many would have done work over ten storeys or currently have the plant to support it.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Markcheese wrote: »

To me, the alternative to an Taisce is some crank serial objectors taking every devopment to the supreme Court (like apple in athlone)..

That sounds like what an Taisce are to be honest.

We have a planning process, where there should be the correct professionals to counter/debate as required. A private lobbyist body with far too much influence like an Taisce shouldn't be required, esp when they hinder development on bogus grounds.

woohoo!!!

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

To me, the alternative to an Taisce is some crank serial objectors taking every devopment to the supreme Court (like apple in athlone)..

That sounds like what an Taisce are to be honest.

We have a planning process, where there should be the correct professionals to counter/debate as required. A private lobbyist body with far too much influence like an Taisce shouldn't be required, esp when they hinder development on bogus grounds.

I agree with them on some things, disagree on others. There's no doubt though that if we listened far more to the likes of An Taisce than the cowboys in the past, not just limited to the boom, then our we'd have much better towns and cities and have our roads as clogged up with traffic from one offs.

cgcsb

Mefistofelino wrote: »

There’s something very "off" about the proposed tower. Leaving aside the fact that it would be an absolute pig to construct – water on three sides so everything has to be built via the Western face, no on-site contractor areas or laydown areas, a massive amount of piling.

having water on 3 sides is a god send for contractors, the risk assesment and on construction impact assessment gets very easy when you have no neighbours.

Mefistofelino wrote: »

Forgetting too that the only vehicular access for an operating 40 story building including a hotel will be along Andersons Quay and there would be no provision for on-site parking (at least in any of the architectural sketches).

Modern developments have little/no parking, same of every current office development, about 1 space per hundred staff. Access is by sustainable modes

Mefistofelino wrote: »

It looks like a very expensive build that could be achieved a hundred metres away on Kennedy Quay for far less. Current New York building costs (where they actually have a proven track record of delivering tall buildings) for a 40 storey tower would put the project at around €275 million (developer is currently saying €250 million so that roughly tallies). Given the issues with site access and a lack of experience in tall builds here, that figure could easily breach €300 million. For comparison, Navigation House and One Albert Quay are working out about half of the cost per sq meter. Are tenants going to pay twice the rate just so they can sit higher in the sky?

Pretty much every large engineering/construction firm in the state is part of an international chain now, experience will be part of the criteria for appointing a contractor.

Mefistofelino wrote: »

I wonder if this is just some sort of distraction. The developers probably want to build something smaller and will ultimately be able to sell their actual intent as a “compromise” to a 40 storey tower.

probably

j8wk2feszrnpao

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I agree with them on some things, disagree on others. There's no doubt though that if we listened far more to the likes of An Taisce than the cowboys in the past, not just limited to the boom, then our we'd have much better towns and cities and have our roads as clogged up with traffic from one offs.

The cowboys and An Taisce are the two polar extremes; neither should have a strong say.

opus

Apogee wrote: »

https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Former-Cork-Coca-Cola-plant-is-acquired-by-UK-student-apartment-developer-062afe81-d738-43bf-bace-865e44bd89d1-ds

75 extra student apartments sought for the former Coca Cola bottling plant

marno21

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gardens-under-threat-from-cork-bus-lane-proposal-904885.html

Looks like another part BusConnects will be widening the Wilton Road between Dennehy's Cross and the Wilton Roundabout to include an outbound bus lane

EdgeCase

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

Ruin the view for whom? The birds?

Surely it would enhance the split since it'd be sitting right in the middle of it?

Cork's got a very naturally high skyline anyway due to the hills. A few high towers aren't going to block anything.

Frostybrew

EdgeCase wrote: »

Cork's got a very naturally high skyline anyway due to the hills. A few high towers aren't going to block anything.

Yes, the docklands are ideal for high rise. The opportunity is there to build a sustainable urban area that could transform the city.

Curb Your Enthusiasm

I'm really looking forward to the future of Cork. All these developments are very exciting. Fingers crossed everything gets built according to plan, and of course the upcoming transport strategy will compliment the city nicely.

questionmark?

Frostybrew wrote: »

EdgeCase wrote: »

Cork's got a very naturally high skyline anyway due to the hills. A few high towers aren't going to block anything.

Yes, the docklands are ideal for high rise. The opportunity is there to build a sustainable urban area that could transform the city.

Absolutely perfect for high rise the whole way down the docklands on both sides. Lets hope we see it happen and not get bogged down in objections because some don't like change.

EnzoScifo

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gardens-under-threat-from-cork-bus-lane-proposal-904885.html

Looks like another part BusConnects will be widening the Wilton Road between Dennehy's Cross and the Wilton Roundabout to include an outbound bus lane

I think Eoin English is a decent journalist, but the angle of some of his articles are quite infuriating sometimes.

marno21

EnzoScifo wrote: »

I think Eoin English is a decent journalist, but the angle of some of his articles are quite infuriating sometimes.

Frank Crowley has already taken it up with him on Twitter if you want to take a look

j8wk2feszrnpao

marno21 wrote: »

Frank Crowley has already taken it up with him on Twitter if you want to take a look

Frank has his own angles.

It’ll suck for those who lose garden/parking space on their property, but the road does need widening to have a proper bus system.

namloc1980

Curb Your Enthusiasm wrote: »

I'm really looking forward to the future of Cork. All these developments are very exciting. Fingers crossed everything gets built according to plan, and of course the upcoming transport strategy will compliment the city nicely.

If the tone of Eoin English's article is anything to go by, transport improvements in this city are going to take a long time and be subject to all sorts of complaints and objections.

EnzoScifo

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Frank has his own angles.

It’ll suck for those who lose garden/parking space on their property, but the road does need widening to have a proper bus system.

The main issue is that these houses on Wilton Road are no longer suburban. As the City grows Wilton Road will become an even more important arterial route from the developed new suburbs in Curraheen and Waterfall.

Property owners now living/owning in inner districts of the enlarged City simply can't expect to hold on their overly generous front gardens. Hopefully the solution (payoff) will be sorted quickly.

Media comment like English's above certainly doesnt help though. Putting the transport needs of thousands of residents in a negative light compared to some gardens and driveways on one the busiest roads in the region is pretty poor.

j8wk2feszrnpao

EnzoScifo wrote: »

The main issue is that these houses on Wilton Road are no longer suburban. As the City grows Wilton Road will become an even more important arterial route from the developed new suburbs in Curraheen and Waterfall.

Property owners now living/owning in inner districts of the enlarged City simply can't expect to hold on their overly generous front gardens. Hopefully the solution (payoff) will be sorted quickly.

Media comment like English's above certainly doesnt help though. Putting the transport needs of thousands of residents in a negative light compared to some gardens and driveways on one the busiest roads in the region is pretty poor.

They haven’t been suburban for years. Not that it matters, it’s still their property and they will be affected. But I do hope they get it sorted; I was stuff on the No8 plenty of times to know the benefit it would provide.

You’re blowing up English’s article like biased Frank did. The headline is biased towards the owners, but they are the losers in this scenario. The article itself is perfectly fine, just stating the changes with some figures used in Dublin as a guide.

EdgeCase

The way I see it with density and height is that Cork's got an option of either repeating all of Dublin's mistakes or benchmarking itself against serious midsized European cities and making a real go at being a very attractive and sustainable place to live.

The paranoia about anything over a few floors in Dublin has absolutely wrecked the city's skyline to the point that it literally doesn't have one. It'd actually argue that a lot of the docklands stuff in Dublin's disproportionately low rise and looks stubby.

marno21

The gardens along that part of the Wilton Road are enormous. If you CPO'd the whole gardens on both sides you could probably triple the width of the road.

j8wk2feszrnpao

EdgeCase wrote: »

The way I see it with density and height is that Cork's got an option of either repeating all of Dublin's mistakes or benchmarking itself against serious midsized European cities and making a real go at being a very attractive and sustainable place to live.

We def need to grow within the city center itself, and that means going upwards. Real opportunity exists to get it right, unlike what’s happened in Dublin.