SleetAndSnow wrote: » But the Elysian is already there? It won’t drastically change it? If they object to every high rise building because it will change the skyline we will never have another one built, you have to start building them and change the skyline for them to fit in.
Camilla Better Muffler wrote: » This demonisation of An Taisce because it objects to fairly average looking buildings has got to stop. It is not always the case that 'any building' is better than 'no building'.
Camilla Better Muffler wrote: » And you think the Elysian wasn't objected to at the time? Just because it's there doesn't mean every other tall building is a great idea, regardless of its design. There seems to be a view that tall buildings are great and should be approved almost without due process. Tall buildings are fine but they've got to look good.
AugustusMinimus wrote: » You say An Taisce is being demonised. Do you therefore agree with their methodology of appealing every single building in the country above 5 stories? They object literally every development going.
SleetAndSnow wrote: » I’m not saying it wasn’t objected too at the time, I’m saying that the “ruin the sky setting” or whatever can’t be used because there is another (taller) building just across the way. And from the drawings it does look good and fits in. Objecting to every building above 5 stories is exactly what got Dublin to where it is today. Flat shoeboxes. When’s the appeal decision meant to come out?
Camilla Better Muffler wrote: » Ah I see. The old "we've ruined this now, we might as well build any old tat" argument Like it or not, this building runs counter to the Cork City Development Plan and its plans for tall buildings in the city. That isn't An Taisce's fault. It's the fault of Cork City Council and those who drew up the development plan. It's not an appeal. It's a planning application and An Taisce have (or are likely to) submit an observation on that application. Decision is due on the 10th July.
marno21 wrote: » Getting back to the topic of development rather than archaic groups trying to block development, the City Council have published a tender for ground investigation for upgrades to the city centre to Docklands road network. Good to see movement here and hopefully it will help open up land soon for much needed city residential developmenthttps://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase.asp?PID=131315
snotboogie wrote: » Student : Western Road/Muskerry Service Station (190 beds) has one crane and the Beamish site (413 beds) has two tower cranes erected. Copley Street (126 beds) should be finished by 2019 and Student Hub in UCC has one tower crane up.
Evening Echo wrote: BAM has been granted planning permission for extra student apartments for the northern end of the former Beamish & Crawford brewery site. Construction work is already well underway at the location where more than 400 student bedrooms are being built on the site referred to as Zone A. The company had lodged fresh plans in February seeking permission to increase the number of apartments from 61 to 67 through the addition of a seventh floor on one of the four blocks and other changes to the existing permission.
BAM Application wrote: the proposed development comprises amendments to the previously granted planning permission reference 16/37064 on the northern area (Zone A) of the overall former brewery site as follows: increase in provision of student accommodation from 61 to 67 no. apartments through (a) provision of an extra floor (seventh floor) to Blocks A2 & A3 and (b) the extension of the floor plates on the northern end of Block A3 at fifth and sixth floor level; Addition of 2 no. student accommodation bedrooms at mezzanine level of Block A3 and an associated change to the adjacent roof level over the ground floor retail space; Provision of additional glazed openings to Lambley's Lane in the ground floor retail unit in Block A3;Reduction in the floor area of the basement and the floor area of Block A1 on all levels. The application relates to a site which contains a protected structure. The former Beamish and Crawford Brewery South Main Street Cork
AugustusMinimus wrote: » Marno, do you have any details of the realignments and a timeframe for them. I believe the beginning of the Monaghan Road will be realigned. Will this work also involve creating new streets before full developments begin?
marno21 wrote: » I believe they are starting with this: https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Entrance-to-the-Cork-Docklands-set-for-a-6m-upgrade-4a3d4145-d5e9-4bed-9d56-fc63be55c194-ds but am open to correction. The full amount of road work to be done in the Docklands is phenomenal and will likely require significant Governmental funding. The sooner it's released the better so we can get cracking on it.
blindsider wrote: » https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-city-hall-begins-talks-with-skyscraper-developers-821146.htmlPat Ledwidge, deputy chief executive of Cork City Council, said that the local authority has had conversations with the Kerry duo behind the proposals in a bid to ensure that all the requirements are met. “We have had — and are having — ongoing engagements about this plan,” he said. “They are funding this plan and the information and planning relating to it. It is something we all want to see come to fruition but it has to meet certain criteria.” Not sure where you're getting your info, but Mr Ledwidge seems to have a different idea....and this is for a 40-storey building!!!
marno21 wrote: » I believe they are starting with this: https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Entrance-to-the-Cork-Docklands-set-for-a-6m-upgrade-4a3d4145-d5e9-4bed-9d56-fc63be55c194-ds but am open to correction.
marno21 wrote: » The full amount of road work to be done in the Docklands is phenomenal and will likely require significant Governmental funding. The sooner it's released the better so we can get cracking on it.
Camilla Better Muffler wrote: » Read the Cork City Development Plan. It's all there. The 40-storey building is not in planning and won't be submitted for planning until the development plan is amended (likely to be some time near the end of the year).
Irish Times wrote: A superbly located development site just off the N40 South Ring Road and 5.5km from Cork city centre is expected to attract considerable interest in the construction industry when it goes for sale later this week.Joint agents Savills and Agar Commercial Consultants are to invite offers in excess of €6 million for the 6.43 hectares (15.9 acres) at Bishopstown, which are zoned as an “existing built-up area” and most suitable for mixed-use, office, residential or hotel development.
Apogee wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/development-site-outside-cork-city-on-sale-for-more-than-6m-1.3542905
BUNK1982 wrote: » Great - right next to SRR :rolleyes:
AugustusMinimus wrote: » Not sure of your point. The site will have no direct access to the N40.
marno21 wrote: » I believe this development ties in with a council plan to "upgrade" the N71 in that area and install a roundabout on the N71. I am surprised this has been permitted by TII if approved as the N71 is more than 3 times over capacity in that area without adding to the mess.
AugustusMinimus wrote: » A real pity. This development will block views of surrounding buildings when you are up close to this building.
snotboogie wrote: » Sullivans Quay Development gets go ahead
Irish Examiner wrote: An Taisce’s appeal claimed the BAM development was “excessive in height and scale” for the city centre location, would impact on important heritage features locally, and on several protected views. In his report, inspector Kevin Moore said a similar scheme had been permitted in 2006 and many of the concerns in the current appeals had been dealt with before. He noted the increased tower height, but said: “If anything, the increased height of the proposed tower strengthens the visual impact and better qualifies the closure of the vista from Grand Parade.” In relation to An Taisce’s concerns about the scheme’s impact on heritage and architecture, he said: “The notion that new development should ultimately genuflect to protected structures within a vibrant city centre quarter that requires to evolve cannot reasonably by accepted in this instance.”