On Monday the 24th October 2005, Cork City Council will be asked to vote on a motion proposed by local Fianna Fail Councillor Dave McCarthy. The motion proposes that Cork City Council, adopt as policy, a ban on development within the city suburbs which reach in excess of 3 storeys. The motion is backed by the anti-development organisation Communities for Sustainable Development (CSD) which predominantly consists of residents from the western suburbs of the city.Councillor McCarthy has been twice awarded Councillor of the Year by CSD.

Anti-development/anti-'highrise' campaigners have, in the past, made clear their willingness to confront those that oppose their views – in both the public and in the press, however any balanced debate deserves a flip-side. The following is neither a knock, nor an attack on these campaigners and the local representative champions – but it is a critique and honest assessment of what often appears as a very one-side campaign. At the very least, the other side of the coin is warranted a view.

Councillor McCarthy may claim his motion is representative of the interests of Cork's suburban residents. His proposition, he would claim, represents the most sustainable and balanced progression for Cork's continued development – especially within suburban settings, but how realistic, and by extension, how beneficial is a cap of 3-storeys genuinely to Cork's citizens? To be straight, it's not very beneficial at all and is certainly not in the long term interests of the greater public. Why?

Well, first off, consider the motion – it terms the word 'suburbs', a very broad one – encompassing areas such as Bishopstown, Mahon, Blackpool and so on. Therefore, the implication of such a policy would affect all these very areas. Take Bishopstown as a starting example, a suburb at the heart of the 'unrest'.

In Bishopstown, a recently constructed maternity wing to Cork University Hospital (CUH) has been erected on the southern grounds of the fast expanding hospital. This wing rises to a height of 6-storeys over-ground. A new Renal/Cardiac wing is proposed to the western elevation of the existing main hospital building - this too rises to 6 storeys. Further projects are in the wings - but why are these projects such height? A number of factors - the first, obvious factor is that these structures provide a sense of continuity to the existing facilities - from an aesthetic and architectural standpoint, this is a highly desirable aspect. Second, on a practical level, it provides accessible linkage between the varying hospital structures and floor levels. This is for the convenience of all including patients, visitors and workers alike but also from a services and engineering perspective. Third, CUH is finite in the space of its own grounds. To accommodate the necessary capacity of such buildings (regarding their viability, requirement, convenience and practicality) over a reduced height - say 3-storeys - means the required floor-space is displaced over a wider area thus consuming a higher proportion of the remaining grounds. By result, the institution is limiting its own service provision and expansion capabilities. Why don't they build undergound? Well consider the cost factors - it is not strictly feasible in all cases to build undergound, costs vary from project to project; is the exchequer comfortable in funding an increasingly expensive facility when an equal quality facility can be built at a third of the price above ground? That's not sustainable development. Fire and safety issues may also be accounted for. However, under Councillor McCarthy's motion, projects like the vitally needed Cardiac/Renal facility, the Maternity wing etc would not be permitted as they are structures in excess of 3-storeys. Is that in the interests of Corkonians at large? Or the residents of Cork's suburbs?

But let's put that aside - let's forget about public development, let's say somehow that they are exempt. Take private development. Take Blackpool. The Polefield in Blackpool encompasses an area of approx. 11-acres; purchased by the Love family with intentions for redevelopment – it is generally accepted and hard to argue that its redevelopment was among the primary economic catalysts for the Blackpool region at large. A beautiful and characteristic area though Blackpool may be – it, for too long suffered at the hands of a downward economic slope, impacted by the decline of many industrial based activities within the region. Nowadays, City Manager Joe Gavin proudly touts that he expects Blackpool to become one of the city's more fashionable addresses! How come there's been such a turnaround?

Well for one, the Love-family (Shipton Group) constructed Blackpool Shopping Centre on the southern tip of the Polefield - this created hundreds of direct jobs and hundreds more indirect jobs for the people of Blackpool and the northern areas of the city. It brought high quality names in a constructive environment and restored Blackpool as an important commercial area once again. This was a vital part catalyst for the Blackpool area - and look what has followed since...an improved infastructure, a revitalised 'old' centre for Blackpool village, hundreds of new homes, the removal of established eye-sores (like the Blackpool flats) and the redevelopment of such premises, in some instances, into vitally needed social provision facilities like the new accommodations developed by RESPOND! and Cork City Council (CCC). The old suburb's heart was revitalised with money (in part) from development contribution fees afforded CCC - allowing it to continue enhancing the Blackpool environment at large, and fair play to them - they continue to do so. Nowadays Blackpool Park, the second phase of the Polefield redevelopment, is providing facilities in which hundreds of further new jobs and services stand to be created on a permanent basis; whether through the new offices under construction (which are filling up progressively with established Cork firms and new tenants to the Cork area), new multiplex, restaurants, a superb retail park (arguably Cork's best), a new public park, new road systems, multistorey car-parking and so on. The whole area has become a premier retail, service and entertainment destination. Without such development, there is little doubt this economically revitalised area would not be seeing the opening of a new leisure, health and entertainment complex nearby at the Old Mallow Road. However, under Mr. McCarthy's motion - development such as Blackpool Park (with elements raising to a height of between 7 and 9-storeys) would not have been able to proceed - depriving an area with the same standard and level of jobs, consumers and infrastructural provision. Furthermore, the RESPOND! social and elderly-care housing would not have been cleared - given that it ranges to 5/6 storeys. Is that really in the interests of Cork's citizens?

But let's take a look at the hard like-it-or-not economic reality associated with land values, construction costs and planning fees. We can go into a huge empirical debate on the reasons for rising property values - it's easy to point the finger at developers and blame them for being greedy (and in some cases, I don't doubt that) but it's not as simple as that. The fact is, values are rising and in order to be able to make a project sustainable - a developer will always seek to maximise his return from a site. Each and every one of us – architects, IT consultants, Joe Public, CSD members, developers – are all equally guilty of the same 'crime' - the natural human trait for us to maximise our utility. The very reason CSD members lodge objections against various projects is all concerned with maximising their own utility. However it must be considered in a broader perspective - from which action does society at large benefit the most?In some, but not all cases, height is a product of this wish to maximise utility - it can also be for reasons of practicality, requirement, design and statement. It's not simply a greed product - though easy to assume so. Portraying developers as villains is an easy and romantic political depiction. Councillor Mary Shields claims that height is a product of a developers out and out 'greed' - a nice word to fire up the masses, but a shallow statement all the same. If the market, fuelled by Joe Public and the like, pushes a land value to say €20m for 3 acres - a developer has to first, cover the costs of the land, then construction, marketing, consultancy, development contribution, condition requirements, studies, design etc before he/she can even consider to think about profit – but that is the bed a developer lays and generally accepts when wishing to embark on any project.

CSD recently proposed that CCC should purchase Dennehy's Cross garage and convert it to a more 'community friendly' use (i.e. park, few local services) - but is itreasonable to ask (ultimately) the exchequer to fund €20m plus demolition and construction costs to provide a broader population of 20,000 with a rarely utilised park and a local community of perhaps 1,000 to 2,000 with a post office and few shops – which, as natural human behaviour dictates, they will not utilise themselves 100% of the time? When in Wilton S.C. getting the groceries - they'll likely pick up the roast while they're there rather than make a special trip all the way back to Dennehy's Cross just to make the purchase. And what if they don't like the butchers in Dennehy's Cross???

With a title such as Communities for Sustainable Development, the group should first consider the words in their organisation title. What is truly 'sustainable'?

They should perhaps ask their public representatives to consider the same. Is sustainable calling every development of 3 storeys (and in some cases, such as Mark Kelleher's proposals for Westend, calling 3-storeys alone) high-rise? The correct definition of high-rise is a "tower consisting of a multi-storeyed building of offices or apartments with elevators". Please note the word 'tower'. Is sustainable denying the development of vitally need services and provisions such as the Renal/Cardiac facility at CUH? A service denied or restricted by a sweeping, ill considered and populist motion such as banning 'all development over 3 storeys in height'. Is sustainable development denying investment into an area by restricting the style of development proposed? No. Is paying €20 million of public money for the provision of a public park (which may also open up the opportunity for 'antisocial behaviour' in the area) and a few local services sustainable? No. Is sustainability restricting the growth of a suburban area? No. Is it riding a populist wave on the promise of political support for the purposes of short-term gain? No. Mac the Knife was no popular bunny as Minister for Finance - but undoubtedly, his economic policy ensured the starting stone for what would ultimately help create the Celtic Tiger. Charlie McCreevy was not a popular individual after he introduced the policy of tax individualisation, but it was this policy that ensured the continuation of economic growth in the face of a severe labour shortage. Perhaps some of the local councillors, when considering the well-being of their constituents should consider the longer-term implications of their actions. Indeed many do and will posses that longer term vision.

It's easy to scare monger - CSD claim that the developments of the western suburbs are the foundation stones for the slums of tomorrow. They claim the social fabric is being eaten alive. A little pre-emptive considering only 5 out of the 15 or so proposed developments have actually materialised - and most of those that have materialised are student based.

Student accommodation is a vital instrument in helping to reclaim the so-called social fabric of the community, which CSD claim is lost. The fact is, lack of sufficient student accommodation provision has led investors to buy up more and more private housing for use as student accommodation - therefore reducing the numbers of families in owner-occupancy; this investment drive has led to massive increases in housing prices within college areas - further pushing the affordability of such accommodation beyond the means of most families - families who have to consider costs such as food, school, transport and so on. Student accommodation provisions are nearing completion as Section 50 (S50) breaks tie up in 2006. Their existence does not mean the complete removal of students from private housing - no, a proportion will always remain, so S50 accommodation is not the cure - but it is an aid to alternating demand and allowing for such actions to take place.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not an out and out supporter of all development in the Western suburbs. I do think mistakes have been made – for example the UCC accommodation currently under construction at Victoria Cross is indeed lacking in imaginative design; while the planned redevelopment of the Crow's Nest bar warrants design revision. But the unilateral outlook of the so-called 'anti high-rise/sustainable' lobby is short-sighted. I understand many of its members are critical of the economic and political conditions that have allowed for such development (which they claim is 'bad') in their area - but their outlook seems very closed in its strategy.

Generally architects and developers alike are responding to the demands of an increasingly design conscious planning authority. But the logic of many lobby groups such as the CSD fail to consider the individual merits or any one particular project, phasing a uniform blanket of denial based on a project's height or usage. Credit is rarely afforded how an project can contribute, rather that detract from a community. Arguments which condemn development for the loss of local services seem all too hollow. A classic example may be cited where residents of Dennehy's Cross pitched blame of development for the loss of their local services; however it is markets which are to blame for such loss - and it's not necessarily a bad thing, it is the continuation of a cycle. Since then, proposals have been made to bring such local services back into the community - as part of a larger proposal that can make such provisions viable given the increased market (in terms of residents) back into the community. This local population growth makes for greater viability of such services - and this is to be welcomed. I know CSD have welcomed the commercial elements of some proposals - but the attached, greater proposals are often needed to sustain these commercial elements. The current market clearly does not facilitate such provision - otherwise the services would have continued and/or be provided. Where there is opportunity, investment will usually follow not far behind. Many of these developments will help create this opportunity to the benefit of all residents.

On a more sympathetic level, I firmly agree with residents of areas such as the Model Farm Road who vehemently argue for the retention of the area's character; yet the current bulk of controversial development stems at Victoria Cross up within a corridor designated suitable for such scale development given its plot nature. Much of which exists is unsightly warehousing, industrial or automotive related premises.

To conclude, if Councillor McCarthy is so steadfast in his proposed motion - then why does it conflict with a development - considered by CSD to be a positive example of how development in their area should be? I note the 4-storey apartment blocks at The Orchard near Victoria Cross.Or what about another cited example of between 5 and 6-storeys along the Mardyke (the Tyndall National Microelectronics Research Centre)? Both these proposals breach Mr. McCarthy's proposed cap.

And why do public representatives such as Councillor Jerry Buttimer (and Chairman of the Bishopstown GAA) come out so often in favour of the anti-development residents – and so often states his fears on the nature of 'high-rise' development now as a councillor – yet when one of the Bishopstown GAA's main benefactors forwarded with plans to develop a 9-storey student accommodation block – Mr. Buttimer was silent?

But maybe we can't blame these councillors for wanting to maintain support in their constituencies – that is forgivable. What is not forgivable is when the endorse proposals which jeopardise the long-term sustainability of their community's development for short-term gain.Meeting with these representatives, I can't argue them as individuals – I respect them on such levels, as I do the members of CSD. They possess a democratic right to express their opinion – it is why the submission system exists. They have a right to voice their concerns, but when they do so, they should do so with consideration to the wider consequences and a little more breadth of mind. In the conduct of their organisation, they should perhaps also consider how it is they intend to progressively address the development of their area and others. They should perhaps consider how it is they target those persons involved in helping shape the broader context of their environment – that includes public attacks on persons such as City Manager Joe Gavin. Though I may not always agree with Mr. Gavin, I do not deny how he has perhaps done more for the progression of Cork city since his inauguration in office than many other persons in his position. To move progress forward for all concerned in a progressive manner, attacks such as that posted on the CSD website, concerning a social/affordable development in the suburb of Togher, which targeted Mr. Gavin – as follows:

"...due to the intervention of Councillors Ciaran Lynch, Fergal Dennehy, and Jerry Buttimer who backed the residents and called for a debate and vote on the issue the democratically elected members of Cork City Council over ruled the unelected Manager on this occasion and changed the proposal to suit the residents of the area despite Joe Gavin's warning that the developer may pull out of the deal.

Hopefully this is a sign that Councillors will in future support the people that elected them and let the City Manager know just who is (or should be) running our City."

It should be kept in mind that not everyone can afford homes for their families in the affluent western suburbs, or along the Model Farm Road<.