namloc1980 wrote: » Don't know who owns it but it could be lovely little micro park facing onto the river. It's been derelict for as long as I can remember.
Markcheese wrote: » Bottom of cornmarket Street ? It was suggested as a "pocket park " to city councils planning department , when they were feicing up the coal quay ,(12 / 15 years ago ? ) . That idea was shot down straight away ... Parts of the site can't be built on,because there's a main sewer access point there ...
titan18 wrote: » It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if the lack of parks was so the council wouldn't have to clean/close/maintain them. Without them though, city centre is dead/dying. Look at everything closing on Patricks Street like. I don't see why a store would go into the city centre over a shopping centre. There's zero amenities to attract people into the city and for them to spend time there. It's get in and get out really.
namloc1980 wrote: » The Council have been quite open for a long time that their vision for the city was as a giant retail space and to complete directly with shopping centres. They've no interest in amenities or making it an experience. They want people to drive in, park up, buy a few bits and get out. The city is dying as a result of utter mishandling.
AwaitYourReply wrote: » In latter years, Cork City Council has been discouraging "the private car" by introducing other measures such as: Ban on private cars entering certain zones/streets such as: Patrick Street, Oliver Plunkett Street etc; during certain times of day. Loss of traffic lanes originally designed for shared use in favour of: (i) Cycle lanes and (ii) Bus Lanes Increases to disc parking price and shorter time zones etc; I think the council needs to actively engage with all interested parties such as residents, customers, landlords, businesses still trading in the city centre before they go away to formulate their plans. Council then needs to bring people along with them before they unveil/activate new measures as this way it may have better buy-in from a majority of those living and working in the surrounding community.
SleetAndSnow wrote: » https://www.reddit.com/r/cork/comments/hhywrz/long_overdue_and_hopefully_it_stays_this_way/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x Nice to see some music etc playing on the street
AwaitYourReply wrote: » I think the council needs to actively engage with all interested parties such as residents, customers, landlords, businesses still trading in the city centre before they go away to formulate their plans. Council then needs to bring people along with them before they unveil/activate new measures as this way it may have better buy-in from a majority of those living and working in the surrounding community.
titan18 wrote: » This is where I slightly disagree. It should be open to a lot more than that. A lot of the traders were campaigning for the patrick street ban to be overturned for example, or for increased parking in the city centre. Atm in particular, a lot of businesses will be thinking short term and how to survive this year and next year. We shouldn't put the long term development and strategy for the city on pause though to do things that might be short term beneficial but long term detrimental. Long term, the city needs better public transport and more green areas imo. With the amount of offices going up, it's going to be even more of a nightmare if we don't sort out transport. You can't have everyone driving in to all the planned offices going up in the quays. It would be impossible. City centre needs to be designed as well so that people want to spend time in there, rather than get in and get out. Then as people are sitting around, they might go, oh I needed to buy a pair of shoes, or some stationery etc they'll go visit the shops. Is there anywhere anyone wants to relax in there atm? It's basically walk to UCC or Fitzgeralds park. Someone mentioned the old FAS site there earlier which I think was earmarked for a hotel and office block. Do we really need more office blocks atm (especially in this WFH climate potentially changing how we work longer term), and whilst I do think we need more hotels, would we be better served by a park there. Opening out on to the quays and with a lot of businesses around there that could take advantage of the increased people there, would that not help revitalise that part of the city centre more than a hotel would. Even look at Debenhams and Merchant's Quay atm, atm past Brown Thomas is dead. Are we better served by another store going in there (if there's one looking to take that space) or a proper reimagining of it. Likewise the North Main Street shopping centre and Paul Streets ones. There's very little there bar some supermarkets and some smaller shops. We'd be better off reimagining what we want instead of just more shops.
namloc1980 wrote: » I wouldn't at all agree that in recent years the Council have been discouraging car use. If anything it is the opposite. Examples: - they regularly use their social media channels to promote free and reduced cost parking in the city (this is even before Covid) whereas public and active transport rarely if ever get mentioned. Check out the council official account today - first tweet of the day is about free parking in the city centre:. - Patrick Street bus lane is de facto not enforced, - cycle lanes are not enforced leading to numerous issues with cars being dumped in cycle lanes all over the city with no enforcement (too many examples of this but check Twitter daily for examples), - even recent pedestrianisation efforts at Paul Street and Tucket Street are not managed or enforced - cars continue to drive down these streets at will, - OPS was depedestrianised to facilitate cars during the Covid lockdown (fair enough you might say) with no consultation period but pedestrianisation and cycling improvements go through a quasi planning process that has taken weeks/months to get going with very little output. - There's a total of 14km of bus lanes in the City Council area. 14km is not even worth talking about and there's not much more cycling lane length in the city so I wouldn't at all agree with your point saying that there has been: Loss of traffic lanes originally designed for shared use in favour of: (i) Cycle lanes and (ii) Bus Lanes. Can you point out all these traffic lanes lost to cycling lanes for instance? The Council is very much pro-car, there can be no doubt about that. Another example includes refusing to use the variable message system signs around the city for public and active transport updates - they are used exclusively to tell motorists about car parking spaces, the temperature and road closures aimed at motorists. In any case the new City Development Plan is currently in pre-plan consultation until the 21st August and would encourage everyone to make a submission. https://consult.corkcity.ie/
AwaitYourReply wrote: » IMHO I have found that our City Council has been sending mixed signals on the whole issue of private cars in the city centre for many years. I say this because they adopted almost two contradictory strategies whereby; they started building Multi-Storey Car Parks and later permitted other commercial providers to do likewise including one by city hall itself. Then they decided to organise a Park & Ride service which is not orbital or of much advantage for those residents/commuters in key areas of the city such as the north-side of the city.
AwaitYourReply wrote: » To appease all of this they imposed a ban on private cars entering Patrick Street and Oliver Plunkett Street during certain hours which was unsuccessful so; they had to be pull back after a backlash and was only re-introduced some time later along with a suite of inducements in the form of Free Parking at certain multi-storey car parks. It's like they are talking out of both sides of their mouth which does not display a coherent approach to an ongoing issue. They announced they would be extending disc parking hours in residential areas of the city like Grattan Street (in the Marsh area) as a result of additional traffic being re-routed away from Patrick Street when the ban hours are in effect.
AwaitYourReply wrote: » Yes, the whole issue of enforcement is always a concern when Bye-Laws apply whether it is traffic rules enforcement such as the Pana Ban, parking in cycle lanes, public litter, dog fouling etc;
AwaitYourReply wrote: » Patrick Street lost traffic lanes due to much wider pavements installed in early 2000's although; I do not think any cycle lane was installed despite all the space to do so! (Perhaps this was subsequently changed as I've not walked the street for a while).
AwaitYourReply wrote: » Examples where Cycle Lanes replaced shared traffic lane include but not limited to: * Sullivan's Quay had a cycle lane installed - one traffic lane was lost to facilitate it - fact * French's Quay same applies * Proby's Quay same applies * South Main Street same applies and so on
AwaitYourReply wrote: » At the end of the day, the City Council cannot change to completely car-free environment in a relatively short period of time as the funds are just not there to provide a LUAS light rail, more extensive bus lane corridor on all roads etc as soon as desirable. Meanwhile the city council also have an obligation to inform all those who need to drive into the city centre where they can park in order to facilitate a more flowing city centre rather than create additional gridlock within the current system as imperfect as it is. Electronic signage displays can assist with this communication. Council have to strike the right balance and are unlikely to keep everyone satisfied especially; when they go to make changes that effect people's daily lives.
who_me wrote: » Yeah a park would be great there. Right by the pedestrian bridge which leads up to Shandon (IMO, an area that's crying out for more attention), and could get more foot traffic along the Coal Quay / Cornmarket St. to and from the park too. There were plans for a small but tall-ish building there (6 floors or so?) previously, though I thought it stood out like a sore thumb in that location.
AwaitYourReply wrote: » . You are not going to see the current Debenhams unit become a green space anytime soon. The Roche family still own it and as landlords will probably hope to earn rent from another anchor tenant or multiple tenants if it is to be subdivided into smaller units.
Curb Your Enthusiasm wrote: » Cork City Council's pedestrianisation plans for Paul Street in response to COVID19 haven't been going very well, with motorists pulling back the crappy signs and driving down the street anyway, allowing little space for social distancing. No enforcement whatsoever. Taken yesterday afternoon: Really not good enough at all.
namloc1980 wrote: » Not surprising really. The Council are just useless. And why the hell does anyone need to drive their monster BMW SUV down narrow streets like that. Ridiculous.
opus wrote: » This sight greets me every time I walk into town, has anyone come any plans to do something about the eyesore in front of the Bridewell Garda station?
WhoElse wrote: » This is 100% accurate. Friends moved away years ago and considered coming back to Cork. They couldn't believe how poor the parks/playgrounds are around the city. In Waterford even tiny towns maintain green spaces better and usually have decent playgrounds in range. To be fair, Fitzgerald's park is lovely. But it gets the investment as a form of tokenism, "see we have a lovely park". One maintained park, for the whole city.
namloc1980 wrote: » Looks great in fairness. About a million times better than cars parked on the street. Unbelievably though there's a number of people moaning about this on social media.
bingo9999 wrote: » That reminds me of a question I have wanted to ask in the past - when you get planning permission are you obliged to build it all? Or is it up to that limit? i.e. if they dont build the bridges are they in violation of the planning?
whisky_galore wrote: » A lot of hoo hah and overspend on a grounded "sky garden" you'd swear Michaelangelo designed it.
