The Cosy Nook Cafe Port Erin

[Rhumsaa]

3 minutes ago, finlo said:

Loads of the new (newer) ones had lots of the render hacked off for whatever reason a few years ago.

I think longer than 5 years ago?

It's not something that leaps to my mind about the Pondy - I know Yew Tree Apartments had render issues

[Driver2020]

Something to do with the blocks they got from Ireland. 

[GreyWolf]

Now that the Chilly Nook is protected, how many years is that going to lay there empty, or are all those against any change maybe form a cooperative or crowdfund and buy it if they love it that much and get a dividend out of it if it ever turned a profit???????  Personally I’d like to see some positive movement done either way and not become another rundown crap building blighting this island.

[Uhtred]

The registering of the Cosy Nook is the act of imbeciles. An unremarkable, shagged-out Manx cottage, which seems to be exceptional simply due to being old. What a load of utter codswallop. The registration process no longer has any credibility. Pandering to the nonsense spouted by a few local dinosaurs in election year. Pathetic.

[Apple]

36 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

The registering of the Cosy Nook is the act of imbeciles. An unremarkable, shagged-out Manx cottage, which seems to be exceptional simply due to being old.

We all know they will have to sell it eventually. Should fetch a tidy sum. I think that was the plan all along.

As a cafe now it has reached the same stage as the old one at the Sound and Manxonia in PSM. And look where they are now. 

[Non-Believer]

Somebody should suggest building a sewage treatment plant on the Cosy Nook site. Then it would get dropped in short order. Probably while the paperwork is still in the form of a tree.

[Andy Onchan]

I can see both points of view.

However, the proposed replacement is/was, I think, not in keeping with other buildings at that level and was designed to be all-things-to-all-men. The reason why it was called the Cosy Nook is/was obvious. The alternative is/would be the absolute opposite and couldn't possibly be called that again unless the dimensions were the same as the original.

If there is to be a new building then why can't it be built on the same footprint with all the same or very similar features incorporated into a modern build; low ceiling with beams, outside shell of manx stone, fireplace/burner etc. Atmos makes a place like the Cosy Nook. The alternative would 110% functional/utilitarian. Absolutely no atmos.

I can't help thinking that the architects have been given an easy assignment. Make them work for their money. Not everything that is modern needs to look modern or indeed bigger. The challenge, I would suggest, is to try and retain some sort authentic feel about the place.  

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I can see both points of view.

However, the proposed replacement is/was, I think, not in keeping with other buildings at that level and was designed to be all-things-to-all-men. The reason why it was called the Cosy Nook is/was obvious. The alternative is/would be the absolute opposite and couldn't possibly be called that again unless the dimensions were the same as the original.

If there is to be a new building then why can't it be built on the same footprint with all the same or very similar features incorporated into a modern build; low ceiling with beams, outside shell of manx stone, fireplace/burner etc. Atmos makes a place like the Cosy Nook. The alternative would 110% functional/utilitarian. Absolutely no atmos.

I can't help thinking that the architects have been given an easy assignment. Make them work for their money. Not everything that is modern needs to look modern or indeed bigger. The challenge, I would suggest, is to try and retain some sort authentic feel about the place.  

 I imagine its because the footprint is so small. In fact if you look its tiny. hardly even big enough for a kitchen and toilets. The only option is to go up a couple of levels. The new design was adventurous and daring but clearly not for everyone. Aspect of it though were

1. Made optimum use of the small space

2. Provided inside and outside areas with sea views so it could be used all year round.

For me low ceiling, dingy old cottages are not great in winter but that's just my view.

[P.K.]

8 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I can see both points of view.

However, the proposed replacement is/was, I think, not in keeping with other buildings at that level and was designed to be all-things-to-all-men. The reason why it was called the Cosy Nook is/was obvious. The alternative is/would be the absolute opposite and couldn't possibly be called that again unless the dimensions were the same as the original.

If there is to be a new building then why can't it be built on the same footprint with all the same or very similar features incorporated into a modern build; low ceiling with beams, outside shell of manx stone, fireplace/burner etc. Atmos makes a place like the Cosy Nook. The alternative would 110% functional/utilitarian. Absolutely no atmos.

I can't help thinking that the architects have been given an easy assignment. Make them work for their money. Not everything that is modern needs to look modern or indeed bigger. The challenge, I would suggest, is to try and retain some sort authentic feel about the place.  

I suspect the commissioners simply wanted to max out on what the site was worth. Mindful of the obvious success of the Sound they proposed something similar. Unfortunately they completely misunderstood how the Cosy Nook was viewed by the populace.

Which is a big worry in itself really....

[Andy Onchan]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

 I imagine its because the footprint is so small. In fact if you look its tiny. hardly even big enough for a kitchen and toilets. The only option is to go up a couple of levels. The new design was adventurous and daring but clearly not for everyone. Aspect of it though were

1. Made optimum use of the small space

2. Provided inside and outside areas with sea views so it could be used all year round.

For me low ceiling, dingy old cottages are not great in winter but that's just my view.

I wouldn't even call it adventurous or daring... to me it's a typical late-20th century design, loads of them around in UK seaside resorts. I'm suggesting that replacing a like-for-like modern structure with characteristics to the original on a similar footprint would actually make it more marketable for a family/small tenancy to operate out of.

[Andy Onchan]

4 minutes ago, P.K. said:

I suspect the commissioners simply wanted to max out on what the site was worth. Mindful of the obvious success of the Sound they proposed something similar. Unfortunately they completely misunderstood how the Cosy Nook was viewed by the populace.

Which is a big worry in itself really....

Yes, the assumption that bigger is better is bollocks. The bigger the building, the bigger the operation, the more expensive it will be to run.

[Non-Believer]

18 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I wouldn't even call it adventurous or daring... to me it's a typical late-20th century design, loads of them around in UK seaside resorts. I'm suggesting that replacing a like-for-like modern structure with characteristics to the original on a similar footprint would actually make it more marketable for a family/small tenancy to operate out of.

+1. We stipulate replicating the image of what was there previously in so many other instances, whether it's new build, barn conversions or just the replacement of the likes of windows that there's no reason why this couldn't be applied to the Cosy Nook if the original is so far gone. Modern materials and design could make it a far more viable and attractive proposition to any prospective tenant.

[Happier diner]

54 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Yes, the assumption that bigger is better is bollocks. The bigger the building, the bigger the operation, the more expensive it will be to run.

Understanding what you are saying. However its my view that the footprint is just too small to work with in that way. I looked at it the other day and it opened my eyes to the issue. The footprint is tiny. It really is a small building. There isn't even a window at the seaward side as its too narrow. Therefore it need more floors.

To try an make it look Manx would be a disaster. I have said it before. Look at previous examples. Glen Falcon terrace. Might as well have a contemporary building/design and give up on crappy imitations.

[Rhumsaa]

2 hours ago, Apple said:

We all know they will have to sell it eventually. Should fetch a tidy sum. I think that was the plan all along.

surely the registered building status just slashed the value of that building?

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

surely the registered building status just slashed the value of that building?

It has no value due to its state. Site value only. It’s no longer fit for purpose as catering premises. However it’ll increase the cost of any work required and make planning/registered building consent a lengthy tortuous process. More cost to the rate payers.