marno21 wrote: » Signage up on Horgan's Quay hoarding "302 modern riverfront apartments.. coming soon" Interesting.
rounders wrote: » They're talking about the claims Fb were looking for a office in Cork. FB denied the claimhttps://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/facebook-says-no-plans-to-add-office-in-cork-1.4570575
who_me wrote: » Regarding Navigation Square 1 being purchased? Have any links? Did a search but all the coverage seems the same.
Treehelpplease wrote: » That news ended up not being what was reported
marno21 wrote: » https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40294724.html NSQ1 sold to Corum Asset Management for ~€60m NSQ3 to commence construction later this year. Commercial side of things really driving along the past few weeks.
TheChizler wrote: » And a field that hosts regular dog baiting
Mefistofelino wrote: » It was (and still may be) a JCD site. I think they parked it while they were working on Albert Quay and moving on to the Sextant as they only seem to deal with one large project at a time. With the Sextant on the long finger, maybe they are turning their attention back to this. The original plan was for three office blocks, IIRC and JCD went back to the Council for permission to change one block to apartments, which was rejected.
Mefistofelino wrote: » If it goes ahead, I wonder if the selling agents will mention the Cork Main Drainage header tank is the nearest neighbour?
marno21 wrote: » https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/developmentconstruction/arid-40294844.html Planning filed for 204 apartments in the vacant site beside Voxpro/Telus on the Mahon Link Rd. Not an SHD, direct to the Council. Land is zoned industrial.
hans aus dtschl wrote: » Are the event centre offices opening? I thought it was accommodation only, until the rest of the infrastructure works were completed?
snotboogie wrote: » https://twitter.com/AlanHealy/status/1394957618242805762?s=19 Interesting to see where they end up. Would be great if they took the Event Centre offices and Amazon take the remaining Navigation Square space. You would imagine that would allow Horgans Quay and Navigation Square to complete their office space then.
the beer revolu wrote: » You've read an awful lot into my small observation. Please don't presume to know what I think and please don't assume that I am justifying anything. Perhaps my observation (which you agreed was true before then telling me I am wrong) is not relevant but it was no more than an observation. I'd appreciate if you could retract all those thoughts and words that you have attributed to me without any justification.
hans aus dtschl wrote: » Yes and that is certainly what the TII use as justification, when allowing the design of below-minimum-standard cycle infrastructure. And in their defence, cyclists are of course "entitled" to cycle on the road, so why wouldn't they be on the road. But I can counter all of that with an extremely simple riposte: If you follow the design standards, you end up with cycle infrastructure that is direct, has priority, has no conflicts, and confers an advantage on cyclists over the main traffic lane, then you will find nobody cycling on the main traffic lane. Ever. Because there will be no attraction. Where both you (and TII) may be going wrong is by thinking that existing Irish cycle infrastructure is "as good as it gets". The reality is we allow really poor designs in the best cases (like this new Glounthaune one) that a sizeable portion of cyclists will always avoid. With regards joggers, it's my understanding that their concerns relate to surface type. Some of them avoid running on concrete. I'm not one of them. So to recap: by saying "some cyclists will always stay on the road" we allow the design of unsegregated unprioritised infrastructure which some cyclists avoid by....staying on the road. There is another way, and it would have been extremely easy and cheap to implement. The logic provided in your post was used as the justification against doing so.
the beer revolu wrote: » There's a certain type of cyclist who will just never use a cycle lane. It's a similar type who insists on jogging on the road.
hans aus dtschl wrote: » Exactly this. Every existing cyclist I know personally says that this infrastructure is not for them. "It's for small children cycling with parents walking". Exactly what you describe. It is a leisure amenity, and will be valuable to some people, even including some leisure cyclists. I do not begrudge it. But why design cycle infrastructure that some cyclists will avoid? This is not what's done in the Netherlands, for example. Cycle infrastructure there is intended for all cyclists. I am confident that some motorists will be irritated by cyclists remaining on the road beside the new infrastructure. "Punishment passes" are a significant possibility, given that they already occurred pretty regularly on this stretch. All for the price of designing it properly.
namloc1980 wrote: » Have not seen any cars driving on it or parked on it for that matter and absolutely plenty of cyclists using it. Obviously some cyclists will continue to use the road, that's obvious, but to suggest little or no cyclists use it is just plain wrong.
conjalu wrote: » I only passed it once and saw 4 or 5 kids cycling down it on their followed by their parents walking behind them. Thats the reason these things are built, not for cycle clubs to train on...thats why you'll still see plenty of cyclists on the road...which is fine too.
conjalu wrote: » Are there really cars driving on it? From the pictures ive seen there is clearly segragation between the path and the road. you'd want to be fairly stupid or ignorant to drive along it.
hans aus dtschl wrote: » I live near you and cycle pretty much daily. I disagree, and have also had plenty people come to me telling me that they won't use the new infrastructure again due to near-misses on it. Cars driving on it, and parked on it, frequent lack of priority. The vast majority of cyclists I have seen have been cycling beside it. But it will be interesting to see when it's completed. It's a shame because it would have been extremely easy to design segregation.
