nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Good Shepherd Convent Sunday's Well Cork

V.W.L 11

Any idea what is happening with this place???after the fire in 2012 i heard little more about it except they would need to see was the shell structurally safe,would be interesting to know do they plan to re-develop it or demolish it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

namloc1980

NIMBYism at its finest. We need urban residential development. If the residents want privacy they need to realise they're living in the middle of a city.

boardsuser1

namloc1980 wrote: »

NIMBYism at its finest. We need urban residential development. If the residents want privacy they need to realise they're living in the middle of a city.

What the residents themselves say about privacy etc i don't agree with.

How tight the streetscape is for extra traffic etc is the main thing.

I don't condone NIMBYism in any way shape or form.

I live next to Apple, that place is a building site for a number of years now, it's for the betterment of the city, on with it.

Goldmund

Tend to agree with Mire.

Also not sure how 200 units would lead to an increase of 900 people in the locality?

Couldn’t there be a new bus route?

boardsuser1

Goldmund wrote: »

Tend to agree with Mire.

Also not sure how 200 units would lead to an increase of 900 people in the locality?

Couldn’t there be a new bus route?

The number 211 bus used to go along that general area but doesn't operate any longer.

While a bus can and does turn from Sunday's well up to Convent Avenue, the only real place they can stop is outside the gaol.

Coming back down Strawberry Hill onto Shanakiel road in itself can be difficult for a car, let alone a bus, and only recently a bus crashed/had an accident there.

I assume that they don't expect all the units to be single occupancy hence the figure of 900.

However that would mean an average of over 4 per unit which seems a bit much.

Sardines in a sardine can comes to mind.

Goldmund

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

The number 211 bus used to go along that general area but doesn't operate any longer.

While a bus can and does turn from Sunday's well up to Convent Avenue, the only real place they can stop is outside the gaol.

Coming back down Strawberry Hill onto Shanakiel road in itself can be difficult for a car, let alone a bus, and only recently a bus crashed/had an accident there.

I assume that they don't expect all the units to be single occupancy hence the figure of 900.

However that would mean an average of over 4 per unit which seems a bit much.

Sardines in a sardine can comes to mind.

Scaremongering also comes to mind

mire

Goldmund wrote: »

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

The number 211 bus used to go along that general area but doesn't operate any longer.

While a bus can and does turn from Sunday's well up to Convent Avenue, the only real place they can stop is outside the gaol.

Coming back down Strawberry Hill onto Shanakiel road in itself can be difficult for a car, let alone a bus, and only recently a bus crashed/had an accident there.

I assume that they don't expect all the units to be single occupancy hence the figure of 900.

However that would mean an average of over 4 per unit which seems a bit much.

Sardines in a sardine can comes to mind.

Scaremongering also comes to mind

Average household size is about 2.2

boardsuser1

mire wrote: »

Average household size is about 2.2

The figures are well off then

Goldmund

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

The figures are well off then

From 2011 census for cork city:

29.3% of households are single person

18.2% couples with no children

23.4% couples with children

11.8% lone parent family

Average number of children per family = 1.2 (versus national average of 1.4)

snotboogie

Approved for 180 units apparently

boardsuser1

I dread the traffic congestion.

mire

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I dread the traffic congestion.

we need to get real about urban development in this city.

one way to deal with traffic congestion is to develop urban areas at medium to high densities. these developments support public transport, walking and cycling. using that site for low density development would be criminal. 180 units is probably too low imo. should be 250 plus.

namloc1980

mire wrote: »

we need to get real about urban development in this city.

one way to deal with traffic congestion is to develop urban areas at medium to high densities. these developments support public transport, walking and cycling. using that site for low density development would be criminal. 180 units is probably too low imo. should be 250 plus.

As we've seen with this and the Nemo Rangers development, the NIMBYs and local councillors don't want that and so you'll end up with a fudge.

snotboogie

snotboogie wrote: »

Approved for 180 units apparently

Media reporting it now (through the usual NIMBY prism)
PLANNING APPROVE FOR GOOD SHEPARD CONVENT DEVELOPMENT

boardsuser1

They'll need to organise a regular bus service if this goes ahead, as a local resident i hope it does despite the NIMBYism.

That land needs to be put back into active use.

while i have never been on these grounds, it is my understanding that access to the site is almost impossible, even the gates are welded shut.

whisky_galore

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

They'll need to organise a regular bus service if this goes ahead, as a local resident i hope it does despite the NIMBYism.

That land needs to be put back into active use.

while i have never been on these grounds, it is my understanding that access to the site is almost impossible, even the gates are welded shut.

There's nearly always some way in, vandals don't need to use gates.

boardsuser1

whisky_galore wrote: »

There's nearly always some way in, vandals don't need to use gates.

That's why i said 'almost impossible'

From an enthusiast point of view i wouldn't mind gaining access.

boardsuser1

Can't say i'm surprised at the objections.

I'd love to get up close to the building itself, never had the opportunity.

What do they mean by partial demolition though?

Leave the damn structure in one piece.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/0123/935259-magdalene/

rebs23

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Can't say i'm surprised at the objections.

I'd love to get up close to the building itself, never had the opportunity.

What do they mean by partial demolition though?

Leave the damn structure in one piece.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/0123/935259-magdalene/

Is the building stable enough to leave in one piece?, I doubt it after everything that has happened to it over the last few decades while it has lain empty.

boardsuser1

rebs23 wrote: »

Is the building stable enough to leave in one piece?, I doubt it after everything that has happened to it over the last few decades while it has lain empty.

The building itself is in the developers plans so i assume it must be, the partial demolition appears to relate to a small section to make an adjoining bridge to another building they are proposing to build at the back of it, from the plans i seen online that's the impression i get.

St Kevin's might end up going the same way, the report on that building is that it's safe from demolition also.

the dark phantom

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

That's why i said 'almost impossible'

From an enthusiast point of view i wouldn't mind gaining access.

Hop the gate on the left at the top of Buxton Hill.

boardsuser1

the dark phantom wrote: »

Hop the gate on the left at the top of Buxton Hill.

Hardly that easy

the dark phantom

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Hardly that easy

It was when I went in for a nose. That was years ago though. But last time I passed its no different. Homeless lads, Drinkers and Junkies were living in there before the 2003 fire, They had an old wooden ladder they would use to access the first floor of the middle building.