major interest wrote: » Provision of housing is certainly welcome. The question is whether the proposals make the best use of the site given its location and proximity to the rail line. At a high level, the housing equates to less than 30 units per hectare. If you allow for the fact a portion of the land will be allocated to non residential, the density will be slightly higher. However, it would still fall well short of the kind of density they should be aiming for in my opinion. In Dublin, they are finally starting to realise this with more recent developments along the proposed rail lines (e.g. proposed dart+ line) having significantly higher densities with the realisation that such land is a finite resource. This is after decades of poor integrated land use/transport planning in Dublin which resulted in significant, car dependant sprawl. It is also an approach that is being given a stronger footing in national regulations and local area plans (the aim for more efficient use of land adjacent to current/potential transport corridors). There is definitely potential for a future commuter rail station in the area which would make the site more suited again for increased density.
macraignil wrote: » You have been saying that less than a tenth of an acre per housing unit is too low density which to me is allowing for fairly small gardens so I hope you can understand where I am getting the impression that you are against people near transport lines being allowed have significant garden space. My post is nothing to do with bad faith and just responding to your post about what you think is appropriate density. If you are insisting people should live on this site in higher density then I don't understand what other options there are besides apartments which to repeat myself again I think would be more in demand and more appropriate in more city centre locations. I just think to have a high density development in this area would lead to more short term residential use and lower quality social development in the area which has a lot of old industrial units nearby and serious potential for it to become something like a Ballymun for Cork. I never said a 3 bed semi is very rare in this country but those for sale in Cork city are priced for much higher than they need to be to be affordable to people on an average industrial wage. That is why I am saying we need more supply of this type of housing. I specifically said already that high density should be an option and yet you are asking me about high density being so terrible as if I am campaigning for everyone needing to live in a semi-d. You already accused me of posting with strawman arguments yet each reply to me posting my opinion is taking this strategy to discredit what I have actually said. I think the suggested density from the council is appropriate for this suburban location and your insistence that it needs to be higher density makes no sense with the availability of sites much closer to the city centre that would be better suited to high density housing.
namloc1980 wrote: » do you not accept this is very poor from the Council as a long term sustainable planning objective?
timmyjimmy wrote: » You know what makes housing more affordable in the city? Not having to pay for a car. No train station at that site is a joke.
namloc1980 wrote: » It's 3km from Patrick Street, we're not talking about Carrigaline or Ballincollig here. Can you point out these numerous sites of similar size that are close to the city centre and are on an existing high capacity transport link such as this one? Also as pointed out there are no plans to have a a train station there, do you not accept this is very poor from the Council as a long term sustainable planning objective?
macraignil wrote: » As the Beer revolution pointed out I have already said I do not accept this as very poor from the council in light of the current housing need in the city.
macraignil wrote: » What has this site got to do with Carrigaline or Ballincollig? I never mentioned either of these places and I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I never said the sites I can think of closer to the city centre are a similar size and I think higher density housing could be developed successfully on sites smaller than this and would be most beneficial for the development of Cork if they were being renovated from old industrial or other urban use or on what are called brown field sites. As the Beer revolution pointed out I have already said I do not accept this as very poor from the council in light of the current housing need in the city.
AugustusMinimus wrote: » Never understood why we don’t see extensive ribbon development along the Dublin rail line. At the moment it is completely under utilised. Quite baffling. Not have a station which could be used for Mallow commuter services is shocking call.
hans aus dtschl wrote: » I think we can all accept there's a severe housing shortage, and I suspect everyone on here agrees that this site should be built on. But we should also all accept that there's a severe issue related to bad planning, historically. Building low density on a rail line within walking distance of the city centre is very much in the realm of "bad planning" unfortunately. If you don't accept that much, then we're all going to go around in circles forever. The "having a garden" / "not wanting to live in an apartment" / etc is absolutely fine. But you must also accept that it's every person's dream to live on a large plot, in a quiet neighbourhood, with perfect public transport links, within walking distance of the city centre, with no traffic. This is not reality though, it's just a dream world. In reality you must accept that you'll be a little bit further from the urban area if you want that bigger plot. And you must accept worse transport links to the urban area. So using what is highly connected land for low density development.... It would be lovely for the developer and the few rich people who would get to live there, but it would be a net negative for the city. The transport links would need more subvention and the people who would have been more than happy to live in high density there will be left without homes.
marno21 wrote: » Apple taking the top 3 floors of Horgan’s Quay 1https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40240229.html
questionmark? wrote: » Excellent news. A shot of confidence into commercial construction in the city which is vital for the city to thrive. You'd wonder will this help the decision making for other planned buildings to go ahead.
Oafley Jones wrote: » Will they be paying rent for this one?
Rhys Essien wrote: » A city manager (who trained as a nurse) on almost 150k a year gets to extend her 7 year contract by 3 more years. Only in Cork. IMO she’s been a disaster for the city.https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1369328375408455680?s=21
cantalach wrote: » We voted against the proposal to directly elect our city’s chief executive, and we elected the councillors who have now reappointed her. So we really only have ourselves to blame.
TheChizler wrote: » I don't think councillors have anything to do with it, do they?
Hibernicis wrote: » Is it in order to ask your objective rational for declaring her to be a disaster, nursing qualification aside ?
Rhys Essien wrote: » Nothing against her personally but after 7 years she has shown to be miles out of her depth and incapable of running a city. She should do the honorable thing and quit. We need to be getting in a person capable of running a city.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9a4b6f81bcce70b1d15bba9354ad9550.svg)