Deleted User wrote: » The ONLY thing, which I would have against such development, is that they still focus on office space in the city without the apartments needed to populate such office space. No point having a 44 floor tower with people unable to live nearby (or afford the houses on the public transport routes)
marno21 wrote: » As per Limerick74 in Infrastructure, CMATS breakfast in the Cork International Hotel on May 24thhttps://chamber.corkchamber.ie/events/details/may-business-breakfast-2019-featuring-anne-graham-ceo-national-transport-authority-20822 About time.
Anteayer wrote: » If I were looking at that part of the docklands from a green point of view, the key concerns I would have would be cleaning up the former industrial wasteland that is all around the Marina. The power plant is shut down and the regulator (CRU) has basically delisted as a generator, so it's not coming back. That site should be vacated and remediated. Also getting rid of that huge ugly pylon that crosses the port would be a massive improvement form a visual point of view. (BTW: I don't buy the nonsense about EM fields, I just think the structure's hideous.) I would be concerned someone will try to list that building as somehow significant. The old 50s brick structure might be usable as something else, but the stacks and the gas turbine and all of that gear should be demolished and restored to landscaping.
snotboogie wrote: » In the last press statement in the Examiner, Tower Holdings only mentioned hotel space in the tower. There seems to be a slowdown in the demand for office space in the city center so I wouldn't be surprised to see no office space in the tower. I also heard something about a precedent being set by The Prism that would help the Docklands Tower in planning, so I would imagine ABP's extensive 6 month+ processing time is the major hold up.
Deleted User wrote: » I was going by this old thing which mentioned that they would consider apartmentshttps://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/skys-no-limit-for-new-cork-as-40-storey-towerproposed-for-port-site-448208.html Fully accept that it is 2 years old, it was just the one that was stuck in my head. But I was not referring to that development, in particular. Just that there is not home building in the city, in general. CMATS is a joke; FG delaying it until the local elections show what they really think of the city. They are willing to risk growth/investment to buy a couple of council seats. If that had been released on time we would already see planning for several apartment complexes (IMHO), once the developers know where the population points will be.
fonecrusher1 wrote: » Never heard of CMATS. Is it the deciding body for developments in Cork or something? Would more news on the Port of Cork tower be forthcoming?
Deleted User wrote: » Here ya go: Cork Metro Area Transport Strategyhttps://www.google.com/search?q=cork+metropolitan+area+transport+strategy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE827IE827&oq=cork+metropolitian+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.7080j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 It lays out the transport options and plans for the city, allowing developers to focus apartment/office building in areas catered to by public transport
fonecrusher1 wrote: » So basically a lot of the big developers (including Port of cork tower) would be waiting on this before progressing?
cgcsb wrote: » CMATS has actually been completed for a long time. The delay is because Cork based politicians want the North Ring Road to be included, and it will be, if only in an aspirational sense.
Deleted User wrote: » Yeah, but it's release date has been timed to coincide with elections (as snotboogie highlights, to prevent criticism)
cgcsb wrote: » Possibly. Local finegaelers wanted the CNRR project included, because they're culchies and they like bypasses, people vote for bypasses etc. The NTA resisted this, hence the long delay. The exact date is probably due to elections but the delay thus far is due to culchie-itus.
Deleted User wrote: » CNRR is wanted by much more than rural politicians. Having THAT much traffic cutting off at Watergrasshill, across Sarsfield, Upper Glanmire, to Dublin hill is a nightmare. Also loads westbound traffic to the Tunnel and causes huge problems for traffic going to Mallow/Limerick, pushing them to Mayfield ring road
cgcsb wrote: » The vast bulk of trips start and end within the urban area and the vast bulk of those are journeys are under 10km long, CMATS will push the most of those journeys onto trams buses and bicycles. Demand management and closing junctions on the N40 will restore it to it's original function as a national road for long distance trips. Overall CMATS will reduce car journeys rather than add more roads. Expect there to be some lip service to CNRR but until the M20 has some shovels in the ground, there won't be any need.
marno21 wrote: » This is the core issue. If the M40 NRR is delayed til post M20, you will have years of "why the **** did we wait until after the M20 opens to start the North Ring?" The North Ring should be part of the M20 scheme. Anything else is a **** up.
cgcsb wrote: » Yes CMATS will do lots for truck movements, by removing a lot of the cars out of their way. CMATS will be quite forceful in it's push for modal shift. Expect a massive reduction in car journeys.
cgcsb wrote: » Agreed it should be in place at the same time as the M20, but most likely won't be. It's not central to CMATS though, a different project altogether.
marno21 wrote: » Agreed there. It shouldn't even need CMATS, the need is obvious without it requiring part of a broader transport strategy. Funny how the need was obvious 10-20 years ago but not so much now
snotboogie wrote: » There is work being done on the mound of rubble on Sullivan's Quay. While it is an eyesore and possible health risk it may be bad news for the Events Centre as it was planned for use on site there.
kub wrote: » Bam may need another car park in the city centre now. Just curious, how would a mound of stones pose a health risk? Is it in case some thugs throw them at people?