Cork could turn into 'Mini Manhattan' according to the Indo

elefant · 23-07-2019 12:20pm

As much as I think Ireland could certainly do with some high-rise buildings in cities, 35 stories seems very extreme to start off with. That's absolutely huge!

topper75 · 23-07-2019 12:54pm

elefant wrote: »

As much as I think Ireland could certainly do with some high-rise buildings in cities, 35 stories seems very extreme to start off with. That's absolutely huge!

That you Pat Plank?

elefant · 23-07-2019 1:06pm

topper75 wrote: »

That you Pat Plank?

I don't get the reference?

23-07-2019 1:27pm

circadian wrote: »

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Look at Paris - it's a low rise city of 8 million people. For years 36 meters was the height limit bar some exceptions.

And it's an absolute pain in the ass to deal with if you can't afford to live near metro stations. Living in the suburbs usually means a lengthy enough commute and suburban property prices are inflated as people are priced further out due to a lack of central property.

Yeah Manhattan is super cheap place to live lolol

conorhal · 23-07-2019 2:32pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Irish people seem to be reflexively against tall buildings for some reason. I mean, they're looking for an underground to be built in Dublin but is the density there for it?

Are you kidding? Dart underground was needed a decade ago, but it seems we'd rather spend the cost of building it on 20yrs worth of taking about it.

I'm kind of sick of this 'height is right' argument. It comes with a qualifier.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD UP, FIRST YOU NEED TO BUILD DOWN.

Sorry for shouting! But I can't emphasise that enough becuase Ireland as a nation seems to be addicted to half solutions.
Just trying dropping Manhattan on a medieval and narrow street layout and fail to build a sufficient public transport infrastructure to support it and see what happens.

cgcsb · 23-07-2019 2:39pm

elefant wrote: »

As much as I think Ireland could certainly do with some high-rise buildings in cities, 35 stories seems very extreme to start off with. That's absolutely huge!

Have you ever been outside of Ireland?

Rhys Essien · 23-07-2019 3:11pm

super_furry wrote: »

I really hope so because that might be the thing that finally gets the Dublin City planners to cop the fcuk on and start doing likewise.

Maybe Dublin would be better left like Amsterdam and for Cork to become the skyscraper city of Ireland like Rotterdam is to Holland.

Also I would think it would be far dearer to build skyscrapers in Dublin than in Cork.

And lo and behold, Rotterdam is often referred to the Manhattan at the Meuse for its tall buildings next to the Meuse river.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Rotterdam

Gbear · 23-07-2019 3:14pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

No city in Ireland needs a single so called skyscraper - if the average flat/apartment building height was raised by no more than two stories everywhere that would more than fix the capacity problem.

Particularly in a small, green country like we have, we should very much be looking to go upwards in a big way.

It's fine if people want to live in the suburbs and the countryside, but if we could house large proportions of the population on a relatively small footprint in the cities, it would leave a huge amount of lattitude, even if the population grows to 10-15m, to have large expanses of the country left green and either kept for low intensity agriculture or left to nature entirely.

And that'll be true even within cities.

We don't want to end up with the depressing sprawling concrete ****holes they've made of cities in the UK.

Berserker wrote: »

It won't help ease the housing. Those apartments will be well beyond the reach of the average punter.

All housing stock contributes to the problem.

We've no shortage of money in the grand scheme of things. Even relatively expensive housing will ease the burden on the middle, because there'll be fewer fighting over the same stock.

It's not like they're going to be 20,000 sq ft mansions.

And it's not like building those will preclude others from building elsewhere. There's thousands of houses being built all over Cork County.

Igotadose · 23-07-2019 3:21pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Miami, London, NYC, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, New Orleans are prone to flooding yet billions is spent on infrastructure in those cities. Even the costly flood defenses will be of little use when the ice-caps melt

And billions on flood prevention and recovery, too. And Miami is kind of warning that really, you should think carefully about where you live there due to potential for flooding, i.e., it might be beyond them to help.

Mini-manhattan is such clickbait. What does it mean? A 35 story 'skyscraper?' Or cramming around 8 million people per day into a smallish area via inadequate mass transit, super-high-density office buildings and vastly overtaxed infrastructure. The power went out for 'some reason' not all that long ago. The subways failed for a few hours just a couple days back. You don't want that.

I lived there from 2014-2015 and was grateful to escape to Ireland. I grew up in NYC and spent plenty of time in Manhattan. It's a hole, nice for a vacation if you're not from the area but that's about it.

That said, Cork could, if well managed, build upwards as long as the infrastructure is there. And don't build where it's going to flood. Because it will flood.

cgcsb · 23-07-2019 3:33pm

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Maybe Dublin would be better left like Amsterdam and for Cork to become the skyscraper city of Ireland like Rotterdam is to Holland.

Also I would think it would be far dearer to build skyscrapers in Dublin than in Cork.

And lo and behold, Rotterdam is often referred to the Manhattan at the Meuse for its tall buildings next to the Meuse river.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Rotterdam

Getting slightly ahead of yourself there. There are 3 mid rise proposals for Cork City Centre and one in the burbs.

Dublin's under construction and proposed schemes of the same height are WAY more numerous. The Poolbeg west scheme includes provision for 11 buildings over 12 floors, with the heighest being 20 floors, all residential. The 3 Bolands mills building will be finished this year, 13-15 foors. The Exo will finish next year, 18 floors. Tara St will be 22 floors and the proposed hanging gardens is to be 44 floors.

bear1 · 23-07-2019 3:58pm

I have to admire cork for daring to push higher.
If they would all be approved you'd have a nice little cluster of tall buildings.
The prism et al would make a really nice skyline.
If they all look like capital dock then maybe no.

elefant · 23-07-2019 5:48pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Have you ever been outside of Ireland?

I live in Amsterdam. Hope that's worldly enough for you.

This building would be up there with the tallest in Amsterdam too. It'd be quite a sight if the Rembrandttoren was smack in the middle of the city and 10 times taller than everything else.

Junkyard Tom · 23-07-2019 5:50pm

Berserker wrote: »

It won't help ease the housing. Those apartments will be well beyond the reach of the average punter.

So punters who would have bought in the suburbs and then would have had to have two cars, adding to sprawl, congestion, pollution etc?

fonecrusher1 · 23-07-2019 8:55pm

super_furry wrote: »

I really hope so because that might be the thing that finally gets the Dublin City planners to cop the fcuk on and start doing likewise.

I thought there were plans to build a number of tall buildings in Dublin city? What's the story have they been stalled due to opposition?

Personally I think that looks really nice. ^

Capt'n Midnight · 24-07-2019 12:10am

circadian wrote: »

Busan has some cracking skylines around the city.

https://i1.wp.com/www.dametraveler.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/busan-night-marine-city.jpg?ssl=1

https://english.busan.go.kr/ImagePrint.do?dir=smartEditor&savename=14-01-17-001.jpg

Commuting is a bitch though.

Check out Train to Busan sometime

bear1 · 24-07-2019 9:05am

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I thought there were plans to build a number of tall buildings in Dublin city? What's the story have they been stalled due to opposition?

Personally I think that looks really nice. ^

That was only proposed a few weeks ago.. there would hardly be a decision already.

Rowley Birkin QC · 24-07-2019 9:15am

As long as this gets the go ahead I'm happy.

24-07-2019 9:25am

Who really wants to live in an apartment? People generally don't. It shows in lower home ownership rates that apartments have. Few want to raise kids somewhere without a backyard. you shouldn't have big dogs that need exercise in an apartment so why would you put people in them

Stark · 24-07-2019 9:34am

Apartments would be fine if they had better facilities. Most apartments in other countries have secure bike space, bulk storage space in basement, communal facilities for drying clothes etc. In Ireland you have to leave your bike on the balcony (or leave it as a gift for the local scumbags by leaving it in the unsecured bike park area the management company has grudgingly provided), forget about any hobbies such as surfing, mountain biking etc. that would require you to store large items, get told off from management company for drying clothes on balcony in sight of the neighbours and the like.

Most people under the age of 30 would be happier to live in high density accommodation near the city centre rather than a house in the suburbs.

26-07-2019 4:47am

Residential Preferences versus Sustainable Cities: Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence from a Survey of Relocating Owner-Occupiers on JSTOR
The findings suggest that most relocating households prefer, and actively seek to move to, less sustainable detached or semi-detached housing with private gardens, often in suburban locations. Apartment living and city centre and dockland locations are rarely preferred

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40112612?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

In many studies concerning building energy, the unit of analysis is energy consumption per m2. This kind of comparison gives an additional perspective for our study. In theory, apartment buildings with a lower external wall area/living space ratio should appear as the most energy efficient. Here, the results do not fully support the theory-based hypothesis. Apartment buildings in urban areas seem to have the highest per m2 energy consumption: 266 kWh/m2/a. In rural areas, row-/terraced houses have the highest levels of energy consumption when using this metric: they average 251 kWh/m2/a. When taking into account both area types, clearly the most energy efficient homes seem to be detached houses; they use 182 kWh/m2/a in urban areas and 180 kWh/m2/a in rural areas
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778814002163

So people prefer houses, apartments aren't as efficient as at first glance. Unless you are you ok with cramming in it's not a good option

ILoveYourVibes · 26-07-2019 4:57am

It will probably end up more like Staten island.

fonecrusher1 · 26-07-2019 11:48am

Deleted User wrote: »

Residential Preferences versus Sustainable Cities: Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence from a Survey of Relocating Owner-Occupiers on JSTOR
The findings suggest that most relocating households prefer, and actively seek to move to, less sustainable detached or semi-detached housing with private gardens, often in suburban locations. Apartment living and city centre and dockland locations are rarely preferred

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40112612?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

In many studies concerning building energy, the unit of analysis is energy consumption per m2. This kind of comparison gives an additional perspective for our study. In theory, apartment buildings with a lower external wall area/living space ratio should appear as the most energy efficient. Here, the results do not fully support the theory-based hypothesis. Apartment buildings in urban areas seem to have the highest per m2 energy consumption: 266 kWh/m2/a. In rural areas, row-/terraced houses have the highest levels of energy consumption when using this metric: they average 251 kWh/m2/a. When taking into account both area types, clearly the most energy efficient homes seem to be detached houses; they use 182 kWh/m2/a in urban areas and 180 kWh/m2/a in rural areas
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778814002163

So people prefer houses, apartments aren't as efficient as at first glance. Unless you are you ok with cramming in it's not a good option

Not sure how relevant this is to be honest. The survey was conducted 15 yrs ago in the Cardiff region of South Wales. This isn't Wales. Its also referring to less sustainable detached or semi-detached housing. And finally the whole thing seems rather obvious and predictable. Of course people are going to prefer a house with a private garden over an apartment unless its being compared to a premium luxury apartment with a huge balcony. Its like saying do you want this small efficient budget car or would you prefer this large comfortable executive car.

Whats the conclusion of the article? Continued urban sprawl via private housing is the way to go because people want more space and private gardens?

Rhys Essien · 02-08-2019 12:15pm

Planning permission gone in yesterday for this 25 storey. Because it’s residential and critical infrastructure it will be fast tracked so a decision will be made by the end of September.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Planning-documents-lodged-for-200-apartment-block--361146a3-f589-487d-9bdd-90313fd446bf-ds

The planning for the 34 storey in the OP also went in the other day.

bear1 · 02-08-2019 12:35pm

Wonder if it will be appealed..

Thelonious Monk · 02-08-2019 12:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Who really wants to live in an apartment? People generally don't. It shows in lower home ownership rates that apartments have. Few want to raise kids somewhere without a backyard. you shouldn't have big dogs that need exercise in an apartment so why would you put people in them

Lots of people would live in apartments. I have to live in the suburbs in a house because it's all I could afford. I'd much rather live in the centre or around the centre in a flat but that's not affordable unless you're loaded, or on social welfare.
It is simply not feasible for everyone to live in semi-ds with front and back gardens, and less feasible as time goes on and population expands. People don't seem to grasp that idea. We need to live more densely going forward for many different reasons.