Waterford's €400m development could create thousands of jobs

south

anyone know much about this?

Thousands of jobs will be created in Waterford City if plans for a massive retail and residential development get the go-ahead, it was announced today.

The €400m City Quay project is expected to employ around 500 people during construction and another 3,000 when completed.

Based on the site of Ard Rí Hotel the ambitious scheme will feature 400,000 square feet of retail, commercial, residential and cultural space as well as a new hotel.

Waterford TD and Tourism Minister Martin Cullen said the development was a vote of confidence in the county and its people.

“Waterford has many strengths including a strategic location, a compact city, proximity to a major port and an outstanding estuarine setting,” he said.

“Waterford has the potential to be Ireland’s leading Gateway city.

“WIT, an educational centre of excellence, is campaigning to be granted university status, Waterford Airport is expanding and growing its services to customers, while a new motorway to Dublin is due for completion by 2010, together with a new bypass and second river crossing.

“The City Quay development, when completed, will greatly add to the economic, social and cultural strengths of Waterford City.”

A planning application for City Quay is to be lodged tomorrow.

At the launch developer Tom Coughlan pledged the new 208 bed hotel would be finished by the start of the Tall Ships Race in Waterford in 2011 if they get to work by next year.

“As Ireland enters more challenging economic times, specifically in the construction industry, only projects with excellent potential will succeed,” Mr Coughlan said.

“With the support we have received from the City of Waterford for this project, as well as the strength of the local Waterford economy, we are confident that City Quay will help Waterford continue its development as one of Ireland’s leading regional cities.”

The city’s chamber of commerce said the development would enhance Waterford as both a place to live and work.


http://breakingnews.ie/business/mhgbojmheysn/

BBM77

God another plan, when are we going to see a big city centre development actually being built.

KingLoser

http://www.cityquay.ie

mike65

Is that the same plan as before regarding the Ard-Ri site? I never saw the previous illustations. Amused at the high minded sustainable living stuff and pix with cars all over the place!

Mike

ec18

from the link i like it.... reminds me of those dicovery shows, on projects around the world

trishw78

I passed the entrance of the Ard-ri about an hour ago there's a Planning notice up on the wooden fence there was two or three people standing there reading it and I didn't have time to stop and read it.

TheFlatulator

cue... yer man to lodge his objection to it today...

at least it will bring in some jobs anyways

Sully

How long does it take for the application to appear on the councils website again? I look forward to seeing the space shutle application

trishw78

after visiting the website I quite like it. of course it's only an artists impression I'm suree the final product will be much different

racram

That's a really cool website too.

Sully

KingLoser wrote: »

http://www.cityquay.ie

Sorry missed this link. This looks a lot different then the impression give to the News & Star in April. Looks a lot better, less space shuttly like! The website isnt the best though.

Cant see it getting the go ahead. All eyes on Brendan folks! (He needs an office of his own at this stage, or at least should be allowed on the list of planning officals :P)

run_Forrest_run

don't you just love those artists impressions! They use pictures of people obviously not from Ireland considering the fact that they are wearing clothes more suitable for the med! Or perhaps when this place is built the weather will magically improve..yeah, that's it surely.

BlaasForRafa

parts of the new development look good and some look not so good, still not sure about that red and white checkerboard design on the main part of the hotel.

Gotta say theres still the issue of the dual carraigeway splitting the north quary and Ardree development. Perhaps they could go really ambitious and build over (part of) the dual carraigeway to stop that visual disconnect between the quay and ardree making the dual carraigeway into a tunnel, do something wild and unusual to make it really stand out.

trishw78

BlaasFor Rafa wrote:

Gotta say theres still the issue of the dual carraigeway splitting the north quary and Ardree development. Perhaps they could go really ambitious and build over (part of) the dual carraigeway to stop that visual disconnect between the quay and ardree making the dual carraigeway into a tunnel, do something wild and unusual to make it really stand out.

I was think about this the other option is to build a walk over for pedestrains.

merlante

KRM has been going since '03 or '04 and it's still going. Could someone bump this thread in 5 years time at which time I'll start getting excited...

Apologies for the bleakness.

Aquos76

trishw78 wrote: »

I passed the entrance of the Ard-ri about an hour ago there's a Planning notice up on the wooden fence there was two or three people standing there reading it and I didn't have time to stop and read it.

Yeah, there were 2 guys in suits putting up those application signs last night at around 9.30 when I was passing.

It looks really well alright, but I could also see George Kavanagh objecting, he is the owner of sion house unless of course he get bought out. Also it look like is could be backing on to some houses in Bishopsgrove too. Fairly ambitious plan but unfortunately will probably never happen

trishw78

Although the 'artist impression' shows Sion house still being there.

Aquos76

trishw78 wrote: »

Although the 'artist impression' shows Sion house still being there.

Your dead right Trish, Its only when you go into the overview picture of it, you realise how big the actual site is. Also from that picture, it seems it goes no where near bishops grove either.

Bards

Waht's the bet that the Kilkenny side of the development gets the go ahead but the Waterford side gets put back:D

merlante

Bards wrote: »

Waht's the bet that the Kilkenny side of the development gets the go ahead but the Waterford side gets put back:D

Or vica versa. What a joke that 'county' boundary is. And all because of hurling.

run_Forrest_run

merlante wrote: »

Or vica versa. What a joke that 'county' boundary is. And all because of hurling.

all because of hurling?? u for real or bitter?

Bards

merlante wrote: »

Or vica versa. What a joke that 'county' boundary is. And all because of hurling.

nah, more than likely McCann couldn;'t be bothered travelling to Kilkenny to lodge an objection...oopps submission

trishw78

Bards wrote:

nah, more than likely McCann couldn;'t be bothered travelling to Kilkenny to lodge an objection...oopps submission

That's quite a distance for one man to travel in a day. He'd probably have to stay over.

merlante

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

all because of hurling?? u for real or bitter?

Bitter?

The only reason anybody cares about county boundaries in this country is because of the GAA. Councils also care about rates. It's a near certainty that if the GAA didn't exist Waterford would have had a boundary extension on the north side of the river and you wouldn't have the ridiculous situation where half of the Ard Ri is in Waterford and the other half is in Kilkenny. Similarly this development will have to apply to two local authorities.

run_Forrest_run

point taken merlante, fair enough. the planning system in this country is a joke anyway, it's designed to keep a few crusty civil servants in jobs for life and to keep them on a nice constant power trip.

Cabaal

mike65 wrote: »

Is that the same plan as before regarding the Ard-Ri site? I never saw the previous illustations. Amused at the high minded sustainable living stuff and pix with cars all over the place!

Mike

agreed, some joke... not a person on a bike in sight anywhere or anything like that

Personally can't see this going ahead, objections will be based on either:
- The ruining of the view from the city
- Affects on traffic congestion, lack of public transport etc
- "Taking the business out of Waterford" type of stuff

sure we'll see

merlante

Cabaal wrote: »

agreed, some joke... not a person on a bike in sight anywhere or anything like that

Personally can't see this going ahead, objections will be based on either:
- The ruining of the view from the city
- Affects on traffic congestion, lack of public transport etc
- "Taking the business out of Waterford" type of stuff

sure we'll see

Umm... it is Waterford.

dlofnep

Is this instead of the skyscraper development that was planned for bilberry or something else?

mike65

No this is seperate (skyscrapers north and south of the river!)

Mike.

dlofnep

What, there will be more than one skyscraper?

mike65

Nah not unless about 10 stories counts.

edit - the hotel will be 17 stories - nearly quite high.

Mike.

Aquos76

Sully wrote: »

How long does it take for the application to appear on the councils website again? I look forward to seeing the space shutle application

Planning has been lodged with KilkennyCoCo for part of this development

http://www.kilkennycoco.ie/PlanningDetails.aspx?FileNo=08794

And also with Waterford Corp

http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=08188

http://www.waterfordcity.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=08189

mike65

Crazy crazy business having to get two authorities to give the go-ahead on a scheme like this. What happens if one says no?

Mike.

KingLoser

Waterford City Council is the lead authority on this I believe.

Which means if they give the go ahead, KKCC will need a damn good reason for rejecting it.

Green Hornet

dlofnep wrote: »

What, there will be more than one skyscraper?

The Bilberry development will get cut back. There's no way they'll give permission for a 32 story skyscraper. TBH it would look out of place. There's plans for a lot of Colditz style appartments there too. They'll get permission for a hotel and some shops but not the development as it looks on the plans.

merlante

Green Hornet wrote: »

The Bilberry development will get cut back. There's no way they'll give permission for a 32 story skyscraper. TBH it would look out of place. There's plans for a lot of Colditz style appartments there too. They'll get permission for a hotel and some shops but not the development as it looks on the plans.

I hope you are wrong, it is the only place near the city centre, backed by a steep hill, where we could hope to build a skyscraper. It would be the ideal piece of iconic architecture for the northern approach to the city.

If you look at the main obstacles to developments in Waterford city centre they tend to stem around increased traffic, lowering light levels for residents, interference with archaeology, and disagreement with the city development plan.

Traffic will be an issue, and perhaps some kind of one-way system would have to be instigated on the Bilberry rd., possibly with other road works funded by the developers, but I think that it is doable. Given that we have only one bridge, soon to be two with a toll, that (in any way) serve the city centre, there will always be traffic problems with traffic coming from the north side. As for the south side, the development will have to have good links to the outer ring road, which will necessitate road works, which if the developers have a half a billion to spend on this development shouldn't be a problem.

As for the light levels, I think this development will be sufficiently set off from the urban core of the city such that it won't be a big issue. Obviously the new houses built overlooking the Suir will be objectors one way or the other. That can't be helped.

There should not be any archaeology on the site, so that won't be a problem. Also, I believe this area has been earmarked by the council for significant development, so it should not conflict (and indeed should agree with) the city development plan.

Although, a lot of people do believe that An Bord Pleanala is a 'reject outright or reduce the height for the sake of it' type of process, it is not clear to me what reasoning they would give for reducing the height in this case. That is, unless they are saying that Waterford effectively can't ever have a building of this size, which I would strongly disagree with.

Aquos76

Well in relation to the application for the Bilberry development, there are so far 27 submissions after been made against this. Many of these are from residents of Bowefield and Gracedieu, Also Brendan McCann ,the HSE, and Southern regional Fisheries board lodged separate submissions.

Mr McCann did acknowledge that there was a need for development on this site as it was an "eyesore" He felt that this development was a "missed opportunity". He refers to traffic congestion and lack of public transport also.

The fisheries board, have no objections to the actual development but have issues on the effect of the water and fish life during the construction stages.

source: Waterford Today front page story Wed 18/6/08

CantGetNoSleep

Aquos76 wrote: »

Well in relation to the application for the Bilberry development, there are so far 27 submissions after been made against this. Many of these are from residents of Bowefield and Gracedieu, Also Brendan McCann ,the HSE, and Southern regional Fisheries board lodged separate submissions.

Mr McCann did acknowledge that there was a need for development on this site as it was an "eyesore" He felt that this development was a "missed opportunity". He refers to traffic congestion and lack of public transport also.

The fisheries board, have no objections to the actual development but have issues on the effect of the water and fish life during the construction stages.

source: Waterford Today front page story Wed 18/6/08

My reply to that comment would get me banned i'd say, but i'm sure everyone else is thinking the same so there is no need for me to spell it out on here

mike65

Well McCan't is correct about traffic, its a pokey road which exits onto a one way junction.

Mike.

BBM77

Aquos76 wrote: »

Mr McCann did acknowledge that there was a need for development on this site as it was an "eyesore" He felt that this development was a "missed opportunity". He refers to traffic congestion and lack of public transport also.

This means nothing. It is McCann’s standard objection to very major development. If you were to look back at his previous objections you would find the same kind of thing. It is clearly his strategy in objections to say: I am in favour of development on the site but........... This is the usual delay tactics from McCann as far as I can see.

Who is McCann?

Will be a pity to see the ArdRí go - I kinda liked the old hotel...

Sully

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is McCann?

Will be a pity to see the ArdRí go - I kinda liked the old hotel...

He would be what people call a serial objector.