Jump to content

The Cosy Nook Cafe Port Erin


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Are there any other shitholes we can look to get registered just for a laugh?

Well the Cosy Nook has officially been added to the protected buildings register so a shitty derelict cottage partially obscured by a cheaply constructed serving hatch and a toilet block will be here

The existing structure is a worthless pile of bastardized crap. It’s in a shit state and is a particularly inappropriate food outlet. It has no heritage or architectural substance. The attempt to ‘sav

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.  


It would be great to see an architectural rework of the existing Cosy Nook site with some of it's key features retained or accented

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:


It would be great to see an architectural rework of the existing Cosy Nook site with some of it's key features retained or accented

What are its key features? 

Its a white rendered (probably over Manx stone) building with a slate roof and a very poor extension to the front elevation?

Its rectangular and facing the wrong way?

I suppose the plus is that the architect's fee could be low as it wouldn't take much imagination to recreate its distinguishing features 

Edited by Happier diner
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The monstrosity, in my view, that was envisaged to take its place was never a runner, and I think they knew that. 

There is too little space for parking down there and the neighbours would probably not appreciate any constant traffic going back and forth looking for somewhere to park.

The only option is in time to sell to HNWI for a new house. Lovely view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Wright said:

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.

Precisely - all the more laughable that it was a clique of idiot ratepayers pushing for the registration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Precisely - all the more laughable that it was a clique of idiot ratepayers pushing for the registration.

In fairness though my anger is more with the massive amount of non PE ratepayers who have forced this decision.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chef Raekwon said:

In fairness though my anger is more with the massive amount of non PE ratepayers who have forced this decision.

Understandably.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uhtred said:

Precisely - all the more laughable that it was a clique of idiot ratepayers pushing for the registration.

To be fair if it has managed to stop the Commissioners wasting vast sums of ratepayers money on a white elephant, then they're not that idiotic.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roger Mexico said:

To be fair if it has managed to stop the Commissioners wasting vast sums of ratepayers money on a white elephant, then they're not that idiotic.

It hasn't stopped them. Just postponed it for a bit. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...