New Shopping Centre

the leader 64

Bord Pleanala will give their decisaion on February the 12th.

So lets hope it is thumbs up for KRM.

The City needs it badly.

ex_infantry man

too bloody right it does!!!!! there feck all decent shops in the city

jimmytheman

anyone got the link to the newgate centre web site??

fricatus

jimmytheman wrote: »

anyone got the link to the newgate centre web site??

http://www.newgatecenter.com/

JohnC.

fricatus wrote: »

http://www.newgatecenter.com/

Nice to see more pictures than those in the local papers. It is bigger than I thought. Though I wouldn't like to be in the amphitheatre on a day like today;)

Sully

Looks pretty good.. would be good for Waterford, id support it.

Question though: Whos objecting besides Brendan McCann?

Not The Real Scarecrow

think some of the shops like the army store and places are objecting to it cause it means they will have to close down.I have no real objections to it just as long as some decent stores go in and they actually use good traffic planning

jimmytheman

IT LOOKS BRILLIANT !!!
what is all the fuss about - 4 star hotel - cool
all the parking (underground and hidden) is much needed
and the pics look great -
WATERFORD REALLY NEED SOMETHING LIKE THIS

decies

Sully wrote: »

Looks pretty good.. would be good for Waterford, id support it.

Question though: Whos objecting besides Brendan McCann?

Noel local army store chap.One of the trade unions.Dept of the enviroment,local residents.

Sully

decies wrote: »

Noel local army store chap.One of the trade unions.Dept of the enviroment,local residents.

I cant see how it would affect the Army Store, its not like they offer something the centre will take away. Why would the unions object? Environment is probably to do with it being Brendan McCann objecting. Residents, many? Probably does affect them.

merlante

Meatwad wrote: »

think some of the shops like the army store and places are objecting to it cause it means they will have to close down.I have no real objections to it just as long as some decent stores go in and they actually use good traffic planning

Maybe they'll have to close down out of shame become the shop doesn't look too hot, but I can't think of any other reason.

I think it's fair to say that there won't be any army shops in the centre itself, and if there was, the two of them would create some critical mass and people would come from all over for Waterford's army shop experience. The volume of people passing his shop will of course increase, as the pull of the centre draws people from all over the region.

I really don't see what the problem is.

This idea that the addition of unrelated retail to an urban centre will result in business closures and job losses is one of those wackier Waterford quirks "that has us the way we are".

the leader 64

look lads the new shopping centre will be the best in the south east.

forget about mccann and co., they would like to see the city fall behind always.

where was mccann when they were building the ugly thing on the site of the old manor school.

roll on 12th february

JohnC.

Interesting that the Army store is objecting. One of the pics on the site actually includes the shop and makes it and the surroundings look more attractive to shoppers than it is now.

Bards

Sully wrote: »

I cant see how it would affect the Army Store, its not like they offer something the centre will take away. Why would the unions object? Environment is probably to do with it being Brendan McCann objecting. Residents, many? Probably does affect them.

The guy who owns the army store is objecting becuase he will have to suffer the inconvenience during construction. He doesn't see the huge potential increase in value his business will have once this development opens

the leader 64

bards mcdonagh who owns the army store is out for money only.

he got it when city square was built and when the new car park went up as well.

roll on feb 12th.

the champagne will flow

Sully

the leader 64 wrote: »

bards mcdonagh who owns the army store is out for money only.

he got it when city square was built and when the new car park went up as well.

Ah that explains it so.

What happens to the residents the new building takes? Are they re-located or something? Has that land actually been purchased yet?

ec18

The land would have had to be purchased if they applied for planning permission

Not The Real Scarecrow

wouldn't it be great if a pound shop style army store opened in the new place...3 rambo knives for a euro.
That mccan ****er has no interest in what any one in waterford wants all he cares about is furthering his own rep. under the guise of telling us all whats good for us and the town.Wouldn't mind but don't think he's even from waterford originally.Its easy for pricks like him with cushy jobs to try and dictate, he lives in a fantasy world.Would love to run over him in my gas guzzeling jeep.
should start a mccan protest thread , or even a vote on who the most hated person in waterford is.

deisemum

McCann is from Galway, same as myself but I want the shopping centre. He lives in the same estate as me and it is with great difficulty that I have to force myself to do the legal thing and not crash into him when I'm driving and he's on the road. :rolleyes:

Cabaal

I could be wtrong but it looks like the carpark entry/exit for the center is at the applemarket area, this area is bad enough traffic wise without addinhg a bigger carpark right on the corner.

BBM77

the leader 64 wrote: »

Bord Pleanala will give their decisaion on February the 12th.

So lets hope it is thumbs up for KRM.

The City needs it badly.

I hate to be the negative one but I would not build up your hopes too much that a decision will be given on the 12th Feb. It is not far fetched to say that a decision could be put off up of 5 or 6 times. I hope it will be given, but experience with other developments does not bode well.

JohnC.

Cabaal wrote: »

I could be wtrong but it looks like the carpark entry/exit for the center is at the applemarket area, this area is bad enough traffic wise without addinhg a bigger carpark right on the corner.

Yeah, that's where it is. Although the traffic may not be as bad if they put a stop to all the illegal parking there which keeps blocking traffic.

ChapOfDRyans

the reason mc cann is objecting is not that he doesnt want a new shopping centre its just that he wants to predestrinise that area as there is a number of schools in the area and all the extra traffic on john street.

other objecters want to turn the area into a camden type place or covent gardens with a green area,what they all have in common except the army shop owner is they want it to go ahead but a review of the design to account for what i said above.

also some people are concern for the medevil walls in the area and the heritage that is in that area

another note a while ago mc cann was slated about the railway square development because he objected but it turns out he was right,he said that the place would remain empty as they had no shops to go i there and what has happened all the stalls are empty

mad man

ChapOfDRyans wrote: »

the reason mc cann is objecting is not that he doesnt want a new shopping centre its just that he wants to predestrinise that area as there is a number of schools in the area and all the extra traffic on john street.

other objecters want to turn the area into a camden type place or covent gardens with a green area,what they all have in common except the army shop owner is they want it to go ahead but a review of the design to account for what i said above.

also some people are concern for the medevil walls in the area and the heritage that is in that area

another note a while ago mc cann was slated about the railway square development because he objected but it turns out he was right,he said that the place would remain empty as they had no shops to go i there and what has happened all the stalls are empty

Well with all due respect every bit of this is factually incorrect.Even if he does want to pedestrianise the area why is it now we are only hearing about it.Also why has he not mentioned it publicly or in any of his appeals or at the ABP hearing.Also the hertitage value of the area is quiet poor and this has been acknowledged by the Department of the Environment which was one of the objectors.The walls and the items of heritage are not going to be touched except to preserve them and open them to the public.

The fact is the not for profit "covent garden" type development which has been counter proposed would be entirely unsuitable and is the attempts of a socialist activist and objector to the project to force his politics on the rest of us.In any case the developer have incorporated features like this in the design.But the elephant in the room here is that a developer has legitimately bought property to develop in Waterford to build a commercial proposal.If the council was to rezone land so that he could not do this would be tantamount to stealing and the result would be that investors would not touch Waterford with a stick.

As for Railway square.Somebody might move in their if it was actually finished.Not one unit is.Likewise in O'Connell St.Also someone might move in their if Brendan McCann did not object to any modification or installations that are needed to start the business.This is what he did with Pizza Hut.Also maybe if Brendan McCann wasn't doing what he is doing Waterford would not have one of the lowest number of small business starts in the country.All these places like Pizza Hut are franchises run by small businessmen.Brendan McCann is hurting the little guy not the Fat Cat as his sycophants like to think.

JohnC.

ChapOfDRyans wrote: »

another note a while ago mc cann was slated about the railway square development because he objected but it turns out he was right,he said that the place would remain empty as they had no shops to go i there and what has happened all the stalls are empty

It's not empty. There's a cinema there and another sizeable chunk is currently being fitted out for Centra.

ChapOfDRyans

mad man wrote: »

Well with all due respect every bit of this is factually incorrect.Even if he does want to pedestrianise the area why is it now we are only hearing about it.Also why has he not mentioned it publicly or in any of his appeals or at the ABP hearing.Also the hertitage value of the area is quiet poor and this has been acknowledged by the Department of the Environment which was one of the objectors.The walls and the items of heritage are not going to be touched except to preserve them and open them to the public.

The fact is the not for profit "covent garden" type development which has been counter proposed would be entirely unsuitable and is the attempts of a socialist activist and objector to the project to force his politics on the rest of us.In any case the developer have incorporated features like this in the design.But the elephant in the room here is that a developer has legitimately bought property to develop in Waterford to build a commercial proposal.If the council was to rezone land so that he could not do this would be tantamount to stealing and the result would be that investors would not touch Waterford with a stick.

As for Railway square.Somebody might move in their if it was actually finished.Not one unit is.Likewise in O'Connell St.Also someone might move in their if Brendan McCann did not object to any modification or installations that are needed to start the business.This is what he did with Pizza Hut.Also maybe if Brendan McCann wasn't doing what he is doing Waterford would not have one of the lowest number of small business starts in the country.All these places like Pizza Hut are franchises run by small businessmen.Brendan McCann is hurting the little guy not the Fat Cat as his sycophants like to think.

i wasnt agreeing with the objectors i was just saying what i read down in canada street where it was on display for a month,so where in my comment am i wrong maybe my wording and expression is incorrect but i think you have worded it better

Sully

I got the impression the reasons you gave were wrong..

You were saying:-

1) The place will attract to much cars for an area with schools,
2) The heritage will be damaged
3) The people want a different type of area

The response:-
1) Apparently, he never said that anywhere.
2) This has been addressed
3) Addressed within the development.

Also, Railway Square is terrible. Its a big block with only a cinema and now a Centra on the way. I thought Super Value was due?

run_Forrest_run

Kahless wrote: »

It's not empty. There's a cinema there and another sizeable chunk is currently being fitted out for Centra.

oh great, just what we need, another generic bland Centra.

mad man

I think Centra and Supervalue are the same crowd or a least they have some corporate connection.There is a huge supply depot near where I live which exclusively supply's to both.I think Centra is disapointing but then again when this was built that is all that was happening in Waterford.

I don't agree that the development looks terrible.I think most of the people who say this have been infected with some form of popular idea of what is good and bad architecture. Remember that architects would have been taught to consider the sensitivities of the surrounding area based on previous mistakes. What is certainly true is that any thing you build that is any way inovative will result in someone writing a letter into the paper,going on Billy McCarty or lodging an objection which will describe it using words like a)ghetto,b)high rise flats,c)glass boxes.

Bards

mad man wrote: »

I think Centra and Supervalue are the same crowd or a least they have some corporate connection..

Yep they all belong to Musgraves - http://www.musgrave.ie/ourbrands.php

Cabaal

Kahless wrote: »

Yeah, that's where it is. Although the traffic may not be as bad if they put a stop to all the illegal parking there which keeps blocking traffic.

Yeah cause they'll put a stop to all the illegal parking, :rolleyes:
I've seen people parking in the bus stops down on the quays...these people don't give a **** because nobody is ever going to give them a ticket

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

BBM77

mad man wrote: »

.............What is certainly true is that any thing you build that is any way inovative will result in someone writing a letter into the paper,going on Billy McCarty or lodging an objection which will describe it using words like a)ghetto,b)high rise flats,c)glass boxes.

That is so true mad man.:(



Centra will hopefully be only the first shop. With an anchor tenant in place, shops that are more interesting will hopefully fill up the remaining space. Waterstones and HMV would be great. Fingers crossed.

Cabaal

I can't believe they finished Railway Square without a anchor tenant in place, madness I tell you.

Can't see it filling up anytime soon,

merlante

Cabaal wrote: »

I can't believe they finished Railway Square without a anchor tenant in place, madness I tell you.

Can't see it filling up anytime soon,

You're right, when they couldn't find an anchor tenant they should have stopped building and let the wind blow through the place, proper order!

Lets hope you are very wrong about it filling up. Quite the withering assessment.

The problem with the place, in my opinion, is that the internal design was poor. There is a lot of space in there but it's all on the ground floor, so it would suit normal shops but the square footage is too large. It wouldn't suit many larger stores because it's all on one floor. I have the impression that the floors are very low too, but maybe that's just in my head.

JohnC.

Cabaal wrote: »

I can't believe they finished Railway Square without a anchor tenant in place, madness I tell you.

Can't see it filling up anytime soon,

I suspect Musgraves were always going to be an anchor tenant. Visualisations before building even started had Super Valu in among the generic shops, so Musgraves probably just decided to use Centra instead of Super Valu more recently.

JohnC.

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah cause they'll put a stop to all the illegal parking, :rolleyes:
I've seen people parking in the bus stops down on the quays...these people don't give a **** because nobody is ever going to give them a ticket

I'm all for having a mobile car crusher patrolling the Quays

Asmodean

Yeah railway square is a shame but hopefully they will fill it up at some stage in the future as it could be a great location under the proper direction.
Waterford needs to move on with these types of building projects. The new shopping centre is a fantastic idea. Whereas Waterford is a hugely historical/heritage city we can't make it 100% just about that. Modernising the City has taken some large steps in recent years so lets hope the good work continues with proper thought and public input also.
We're always complaining that we are not regarded as a proper City. This is a milestone in gaining that proper recognition we know we deserve!

BBM77

Cabaal wrote: »

I can't believe they finished Railway Square without a anchor tenant in place, madness I tell you.

Can't see it filling up anytime soon,

Where has this come from? It has been know that Musgrave’s is to be the anchor tenant in Railway Square long before they finished building it. They applied for planning permission to adjust their space and were turned down the first time. They had to change and apply again and got it the second time. That has been part of the delay. See the planning permissions:


http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=07174

http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=07361

http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=07426


This thing of finishing without an anchor tenant in place is not true a toll.

JohnC.

I remember a big plan in the papers several years ago about the Lisduggan centre being redeveloped. It was going to be a lot bigger, with M&S being a main anchor tenant (along with another major retailer, IIRC) and Tesco moving to a new building near it too. Was that all hot air or did it just fail to get permission?

BBM77

Kahless wrote: »

I remember a big plan in the papers several years ago about the Lisduggan centre being redeveloped. It was going to be a lot bigger, with M&S being a main anchor tenant (along with another major retailer, IIRC) and Tesco moving to a new building near it too. Was that all hot air or did it just fail to get permission?

It got planning all right. Lately, I saw a planning application to amend part of the original permission so I take it from that something is moving there.

Sully

Musgraves is Super Value, Centra and there warehouse. Super Value were originaly the anchor tenant, but it seems Musgrave put Centra in. I assume they dont think this is an anchor tenant, and it will actually be a Super Value in addition?

Ballybrickenman wrote: »

Where has this come from? It has been know that Musgrave’s is to be the anchor tenant in Railway Square long before they finished building it. They applied for planning permission to adjust their space and were turned down the first time. They had to change and apply again and got it the second time. That has been part of the delay. See the planning permissions:


http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=07174

http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=07361

http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=07426


This thing of finishing without an anchor tenant in place is not true a toll.

Sully

Ballybrickenman wrote: »

It got planning all right. Lately, I saw a planning application to amend part of the original permission so I take it from that something is moving there.

Interesting.. is there any article that states whats happening (planning wise) and what the plan to go in there is? Never knew M&S were part of the picture!

BBM77

Sully wrote: »

Interesting.. is there any article that states whats happening (planning wise) and what the plan to go in there is? Never knew M&S were part of the picture!

All I really know is from the planning applications. I never heard of the M&S thing either. But when you think about it, it makes sense. The second application kind of sounds like an M&S with the second floor. They want a store in Waterford, they have said they would like an out of town one, they failed to get the necessary zoning on the Airport Rd. Lisduggan is ready to go, so…………………we’ll see.


http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=05217

http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=07423

JohnC.

Bear in mind that the article I mentioned is from over 5 years ago, so it could be different now.

Not The Real Scarecrow

they have no tennants, m&s only showed a little interest in it.They were looking at a site out by 6cross roads in november but apparently they have no future plans to open in waterford.

Sully

As expected, its been delayed yet again. What the hell is wrong with our country? They got asked for more information on January 24th so that puts it back until March 10th. :rolleyes:

Aquos76

A decision was due on this today after been put back from March 10 to today, Guess what, it has yet again been put back for yet another couple of weeks.

This is really getting beyond a joke.

decies

If they cant make a judgement every couple of weeks you begin to wonder what they are doing????????

Sully

Aquos76 wrote: »

A decision was due on this today after been put back from March 10 to today, Guess what, it has yet again been put back for yet another couple of weeks.

This is really getting beyond a joke.

Christ. Someone needs to tell them to cop the **** on. Youd think there would be some policy / law that prevents delays. This could go on indefinately. I wonder is this the plan? Keep delaying until the company gives up?

edmund_f

sound like the north quay?