fonecrusher1 wrote: » Its pure bloody greed is what it is. And a complete failure by our pretend government to actually set out regulatory boundaries to prevent it. I don't blame JCD for scrapping it. Why would they build something that was never even going to get anywhere near full occupancy. I just don't understand why they are considering revising it back to 16 floors as an office only development. Why not just keep the 25 floor design but obviously redesign the interior for office space.
snotboogie wrote: » The reaction on twitter seems a tad over the top. I've seen one lad compare the destruction of the sextant to the demolition of Penn Station as a watershed moment for Ireland! It was an auld pub with a nice paint job, the Docklands were a derelict ****hole before developers moved in. A bit of perspective is needed.
Meursault wrote: » Twitter isn't exactly renowned as a place of reasoned debate. I'd pay no attention to most of the stuff posted there. I agree on the sextant. the building had its charm, but it wasn't exactly the Taj Mahal.
whisky_galore wrote: » Most buildings in cork aren't. Should we level all that aren't Taj spec and have glass boxes instead because we need 'de chobs'
Nerdlingr wrote: » Not everyone likes big glass boxes . Practically every single new development build or proposed build is a big square full of glass. And us poor lay people are some kind of dummies for not seeing the fantastic architectural design in these ugly buildings. Fair enough the sextant might have been full of "hipsters , didn't have a regular crowd or people enjoyed their Friday pig on a spit" inside there...so what? The building had a bit of character/history about it. It was different. People don't like to see old buildings demolished in the dead of night to be replaced by... absolutely nothing.
snotboogie wrote: » https://tripeanddrisheen.substack.com/p/a-city-risingtowards-what This is the exact sort of article that captures the tone of the response to the sextant. In one sentence its complaining about the out of scale docklands developments and in the next demanding that the ridiculously out of scale R&H Hall needs to be preserved. No reason given as to why either, just because its been there for a long time one would assume.
macraignil wrote: » Thanks for the link to the article which I think well sums up the current state of the docklands development with modern high rise not fitting well with the remaining older buildings and providing little hope to the groups of people in the city for whom high rise living is not the best option. I think your summary of what the article says is a bit inaccurate. I fail to see why increasingly dense living is such a good idea and a recent report from the Irish society of chartered surveyors highlighted how building up is not going to improve affordability for housing. "Our research shows the higher you go the greater the costs. This is due to the fact that these buildings have a more complex structure and require a wider range of mechanical and electrical services, sophisticated facades, basement parking and much more.” I'm not saying there should be no high rise apartments but the collapse of the Sextant site apartment plan shows that other types of accommodation will have to make up the bulk of future housing stock as high rise apartments are simply too expensive. The report linked above puts the average cost in euros of a low rise apartment in Dublin at 293,000 where even for medium rise apartment blocks this rises to between 470,000 and 578,000. To say Cork is in trouble if we can't put people in high rise apartment blocks makes little sense to me. The greater Cork area has plenty of space for people to live non high rise lives which I think could for many be much nicer than struggling to pay for one of these high rise units.
snotboogie wrote: » The benefits are well documented. Below is one example of an article detailing them: One study found that living in more compact, dense areas versus more sprawling areas makes a difference of about two-and-a-half years in life expectancy. Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated cities on earth has the world's highest life expectancy. This is largely thought to be due to lifestyle choices. "People who are living in dense areas are significantly more likely to have physical activity," says Hamidi. "Density gives us the option to be physically active; walking, biking, running and less likely to drive. Chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease – all of these are linked to more sprawling types of development and living in more sprawling areas."Dense metropolitan areas also tend to have better access to healthcare, higher-grade facilities, more specialised levels of services, as well as faster emergency response times. In fact, one study found that people living in more sprawling areas are three times more likely to be in a fatal crash than their counterparts in more dense areas. You are also significantly less likely to be obese living in dense areas. A study by Oxford University and the University of Hong Kong showed that in 22 British cities people living in more dense areas had lower levels of obesity and exercised more than residents in scattered, suburban homes. Again it comes down to a greater amount of movement and less reliance on cars to get around. “Higher density areas are more likely to be well served by public transport and public transport travel always involves a walking component," says Chris Webster, a professor of urban planning and development economics at the University of Hong Kong. It's not just our physical health that benefits. According to Layla McCay, director for the Centre of Urban Design and Mental Health, “facilitating walking and [a] more vibrant street life can provide opportunities for positive social interactions and ultimately lessen isolation."https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201201-the-surprising-upsides-to-living-in-cities
macraignil wrote: » That is a very pro urban lifestyle media article alright full of quotes from people who are in favour of dense urban living and some who are employed in planing these. I particularly find it amusing that the piece ends with the quotation ending .....Small-town life is small town life for a reason." like it is supposed to be nearly self explanatory that living in a small urban development is inferior after listing the factors some may appreciate about urban life and ignoring the benefits of less dense residential alternatives. There are advantages to life expectancy of being close to a hospital. I agree that there may be a place for some dense residential development in Cork as I already said but some of the benefits from urban living that you point out may not be as significant as this one sided article seems to suggest. The levels of obesity and life expectancy of those found in dense urban areas may be due to factors like the population there being over represented by younger high earning professionals compared to the wider population. Someone who has chronic illness or obesity may be more likely to live in a more suburban area due to the economics of simply not being able to afford the cost of having a place to live in a more dense urban area. People can choose to be physically active in urban and in rural areas and I agree with the article you linked to that these results are likely to be very much linked to lifestyle choices. For balance here is a link to an article from a scientific study in the UK that showed rural life expectancy is higher there than in urban areas.
snotboogie wrote: » This is largely thought to be due to lifestyle choices. "People who are living in dense areas are significantly more likely to have physical activity," says Hamidi. "Density gives us the option to be physically active; walking, biking, running and less likely to drive. Chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease – all of these are linked to more sprawling types of development and living in more sprawling areas.
Justin Credible Darts wrote: » I agree, surely if high rise building cost far more to build, its hardly a surprise the cost of the apartments will also be large to recoup the money, so it wont be "affordable". That said, from an aesthetic viewpoint they might make for an impressive skyline, make the city more modern looking but I would rather live outside the city in a house with a garden and my car parked outside the door than live in some box in the city. But each to their own
Justin Credible Darts wrote: » I refuse to believe that. For example, i and guess most people that did live in an apartment before might never have had a dog, where would you walk a dog, around the city center ? As for going for a walk, try that late at night in the city center, with all the junkies, beggars, pissheads, and other scum and try it outside the city, I know which one i would prefer. Living in a house in the suburbs or in the country I would imagine you get far more exercise, if its only gardening, cutting the grass, walking the dog, walking further to work, hanging around at bus stops if you use public transport, That report makes no mention of other such things like diet, ethnicity etc where asians have far better eating habits and seem to have less obesity.
Justin Credible Darts wrote: » you are making the presumption that first...everyone works in a job in the city centre secondly presuming living in the city is cheaper than living outside the city and commuting. I can only speak for myself, I could not live in an apartment again. I can understand some people have no problem, and that is fine as said each to their own, and these new high rise might make a good view, but rather look at them than live in them
