Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Corrib Great southern on fire.

  • 10-08-2014 11:57pm
    #1
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭


    The former CGS hotel is on fire again, 2nd time this week,there does not appear to be any security on the premises and the building is open to all sorts who are usually up to no good.


«134

Comments

  • #2
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,666 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Ahh, I heard some very determined-sounding fire engines leaving town 1/2 an hour or so ago, that explains it.

    Let's hope there was no one caught inside.


  • #3
    paconnors
    Registered Users Posts: 1,635 ✭✭✭paconnors


    Seems the fire is out

    Latest Pic from Twitter

    fphN4DdwkU


  • #4
    zarquon
    Registered Users Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭zarquon


    That place needs to be knocked to the ground. Far too many local trouble makers partying there and squatters using the place.


  • #5
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    The owners have been made aware of the problem for quite some time but there still appears to be no improvements to security, would not take alot to make the place secure, at the moment its wide open,broken ground floor windows and doors have not been replaced or fixed,don't understand this:confused:it's not like the owners are broke.


  • #6
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Is this owned by developers or NAMA? Is it possible their lack of security is more deliberate than enforced by cost - it would be a terrible shame if it was burned down and an insurance company had to pay out ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,666 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Is this owned by developers or NAMA? Is it possible their lack of security is more deliberate than enforced by cost - it would be a terrible shame if it was burned down and an insurance company had to pay out ;)

    Now owned by developers with a local connection: http://connachttribune.ie/uk-developers-poised-to-join-buying-spree-in-galway-c/


  • #8
    Diabhal Beag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,238 ✭✭✭✭Diabhal Beag


    GMIT secret agents really going to crazy lengths to get new parking spaces.


  • #9
    fago
    Registered Users Posts: 318 ✭✭fago


    Comer brothers have listened to the internet (or the cops got onto them)

    Security there this morning and a couple of vans in what looks like an effort to secure the site properly.


  • #10
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    fago wrote: »
    Comer brothers have listened to the internet (or the cops got onto them)

    I wonder how long before the council have issued one of their derelict building orders to them. Surely there's some NIMBY in the area that hates the look of it.


  • #11
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I wonder how long before the council have issued one of their derelict building orders to them. Surely there's some NIMBY in the area that hates the look of it.
    It's on the east side, no-one cares :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Diabhal Beag wrote: »
    GMIT secret agents really going to crazy lengths to get new parking spaces.

    It's not the parking they want, they want to run it as a training hotel.


  • #13
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    antoobrien wrote: »
    It's not the parking they want, they want to run it as a training hotel.

    Absolutely untrue. GMIT would knock it. They don't have any interest whatsoever in that building.


  • #14
    dilallio
    Registered Users Posts: 2,728 ✭✭✭dilallio


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    Absolutely untrue. GMIT would knock it. They don't have any interest whatsoever in that building.

    +1
    Recent Article in the Connacht Triubune

    http://connachttribune.ie/gmit-interested-derelict-hotel-asking-price-high/


  • #15
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I wonder how long before the council have issued one of their derelict building orders to them. Surely there's some NIMBY in the area that hates the look of it.


    :confused:Hardly Nimbyism, residents don't like malicious fires in a building in their area and report it as anybody would,wheres the problem. New article here http://www.galwayindependent.com/topics/news.html , keep up to speed before you comment.


  • #16
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kabakuyu wrote: »
    :confused:Hardly Nimbyism, residents don't like malicious fires in a building in their area and report it as anybody would,wheres the problem.

    The look of it being the hotel, which is clearly derelict. So yeah NIMBYism does apply.


  • #17
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,865 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    I thought Race Week and the rest of the Summer alone could keep hotels like that place running in Galway, it must have been ran into the ground, must go in for a look around someday if the security is only temporary.


  • #18
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The look of it being the hotel, which is clearly derelict. So yeah NIMBYism does apply.


    Bit of a stretch there IMO.I did not know that nimby has now become a catch all phrase for all people who express a concern about anything that happens in their area:eek:, always thought it had to do with people having unreasonable objections to new developments in their area therefore depriving the wider community of necessary developments.

    So, like I said,to equate a resident complaining of a derelict building/and malicious fires to a nimby is inaccurate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY


  • #19
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kabakuyu wrote: »
    So, like I said,to equate a resident complaining of a derelict building/and malicious fires to a nimby is inaccurate.

    If one doesn't want something locally but don't mind it being anywhere else, then one is a NIMBY.

    In this case, everyone should be a NIMBY, as nobody should really want a derelict building in their neighbourhood.


  • #20
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    antoobrien wrote: »
    If one doesn't want something locally but don't mind it being anywhere else, then one is a NIMBY.

    In this case, everyone should be a NIMBY, as nobody should really want a derelict building in their neighbourhood.


    Sorry, did not know you were the final arbiter as to who constitutes a Nimby or not.But this thread is about the current state of the CGSH and I am glad to see that some of the issues are being addressed/rectified, a good result all around.
    In the interim I shall endeavour to remain unperturbed by your incorrect(in this instance) use of the term Nimby(IMO).Have a good day:).


  • #21
    Doom
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,381 ✭✭✭Doom


    Passed it today, shocked at the state of it.
    Owners probably leaving it go this way to force the council or similar to buy it.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Long Gone
    Registered Users Posts: 771 ✭✭✭Long Gone


    kabakuyu wrote: »
    Sorry, did not know you were the final arbiter as to who constitutes a Nimby or not.But this thread is about the current state of the CGSH and I am glad to see that some of the issues are being addressed/rectified, a good result all around.
    In the interim I shall endeavour to remain unperturbed by your incorrect(in this instance) use of the term Nimby. Have a good day:).

    Don't be sorry - You are right and he is very obviously wrong ! .:)


  • #23
    fago
    Registered Users Posts: 318 ✭✭fago


    Noticed the hotel was broken into again at the same place, so expect the night sky to be lit up again this weekend!


  • #24
    Lapin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Lapin


    Just passed it by and it looks like there was another fire there over the weekend on the floor below the last one.

    Shame to see a building with such potential left to rot.


  • #25
    -Vega-
    Registered Users Posts: 662 ✭✭✭-Vega-


    zarquon wrote: »
    That place needs to be knocked to the ground. Far too many local trouble makers partying there and squatters using the place.


    Yeah such trouble makers, having a party. Yeah knock a place that nobody cares about but some poor homeless soul has a roof over his head in.


  • #26
    zarquon
    Registered Users Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭zarquon


    -Vega- wrote: »
    Yeah such trouble makers, having a party. Yeah knock a place that nobody cares about but some poor homeless soul has a roof over his head in.

    There's a health and safety risk. Considering that neither group can available of it without regularly starting fires there i think it's about time it get knocked down before someone is seriously injured or burnt alive within the place. I've no issue with a homeless person squatting there but i do have an issue with the thought that homeless people could be asleep whilst the place goes ablaze again for the umpteenth time!


  • #27
    gordongekko
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    Same story as the old laundry site down the west. Can't understand why the council don't slap an order on them forcing the owners to secure the sites


  • #28
    Squeeonline
    Registered Users Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭Squeeonline


    gordongekko wrote: »
    Same story as the old laundry site down the west. Can't understand why the council don't slap an order on them forcing the owners to secure the sites

    When a building has been recovered by a bank/receiver then who is the "owner"? There needs to be clear rules on who is responsible on the site.


  • #29
    gordongekko
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    Squeeonline wrote: »
    When a building has been recovered by a bank/receiver then who is the "owner"? There needs to be clear rules on who is responsible on the site.

    The comers own the southern the McHale s own the laundry so not sure what issue you are talking about?


  • #30
    Squeeonline
    Registered Users Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭Squeeonline


    gordongekko wrote: »
    The comers own the southern the McHale s own the laundry so not sure what issue you are talking about?

    I'm just talking about in general. If safety issues are being neglected, someone should be held responsible.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    On fire again tonight.


Advertisement