Proposed Eastern Bridge at the Riverside (mod warning, #137)

shellyriver

cranresident wrote: »

But...it was the local borough councillors who officially linked those projects in the Gateway Innovation submission in 2007.

As was stated earlier, because these Councillors signed off on this submission it doesn't follow that the projects should be linked.

Both schemes, (1) regenerated Cranmore and (2) new East Ward 'river crossing ie bridge' are laudable -- but the issue is why and what was the rationale behind joining them?

More to the point, I'm sure it was the Officials who dreamed this up and some of the Councillors blindly followed or they thought it was a good idea to front-load the re-development of Cranmore with the proviso that a Bridge MUST be constructed at Cleveragh. Again, why?

Dear Cranresident -- will you answer me this? What direct physical social and material benefit will the Bridge and new link road have for Cranmore.

Aside to you saying the projects are linked and we 'Cranmore Regneration Project' will get no funding unless Bridge is constructed. The point is what will the Bridge and Road do for Cranmore? and if, as must be the case, it will not benefit the community one jot -- can you accept that the projects should never have been linked as being dependant upon one another?

Secondly, if, as you seem to say, it was the Councillors who fouled on this one -- are you still in favour of turning their error/inadvertence into the reason for the Bridge project proceeding?

Thirdly, do you know accept that your version of 'social enhancement' in Cranmore is to the detriment of a large section of the population along the Riverside area?

I'm alright Jack and all that.?

cranresident

dardevle wrote: »

...

cranresident:

just a couple of queries on the subject:

when you say "the problem"- do you mean the problem of these projects being un-necessarily linked ?

or that these projects being linked went un- noticed by councillors before it had gone as far as it did?

and also if such a mistake in linking these projects was made in 2007, are you in favor of perpetuating the mistake to further your own cause?

and finally ( and you may have answered this before and if so- sorry to repeat it) are you a paid employee of the cranmore regen project?


...

No I dont mean these projets being unnessarily linked, I was just stating a fact that Cranmore did not link the two projects.

The problem is that we have a Council who lobby for a bridge for 37 years, apply for funding, receive funding and then remove the most inportant piece of infrastructure from the plan that impacts on the whole of Sligo.
This radical behaviour is the problem.

No I am not a paid employee of the Cranmore regen project.

garavoguesligo

shellyriver wrote: »

Isn't it obvious that this Bridge is simply to open up link to vast zone land at Hazlewood and potential land bank at Race course?

I mean, aside to the illogicallity of squeezing the Bridge in at its location, aesthetically it is a hideous monstrosity and totally unnecessary in scale.

The beauty and tranquilty of Doorly Park and Cleveragh has been severed to permit this bridge.

Very convenient that it was all pushed through at Xmas, and Finneran is now off the scene. Master stroke!

To my mind - the whole of Cranmore should be demolished before a Bridge is put across the Water at Buckley's Ford.

Regeneration? What a laugh! What a disgusting end game. Spineless politicians, changing position etc.

I feel sorry for anyone living in Martin Savage Tce, Garavogue and Doorly Park, this Bridge is a travesty -- justified on the pretence of development of a sad, tawdry, architecturally and broken identity estate.

This might sound Machievellian, but I believe that a certain politican's supporters are happy for Cranmore to limp along as perversely it maintains there electoral base.

Sad day for Sligo.

Im glad you feel sorry for us but for a different reason. I live in Garavouge and I have received no information from this group who claim to be representing us, I have spoken to many of my neighbours and they have no idea about when meetings are. Is it just the selected few who make the decision for all. I spoke to one women from Doorly park and she told me she said the people from our area were not contacted. How can you claim to represent us when no one has come to talk to me and my neighbours.:mad:

shellyriver

garavoguesligo wrote: »

Im glad you feel sorry for us but for a different reason. I live in Garavouge and I have received no information from this group who claim to be representing us, I have spoken to many of my neighbours and they have no idea about when meetings are. Is it just the selected few who make the decision for all. I spoke to one women from Doorly park and she told me she said the people from our area were not contacted. How can you claim to represent us when no one has come to talk to me and my neighbours.:mad:

Sorry Gallyog - I never claimed I represented anyone. Merely expressing my views on the matter. I have relatives still living at Garavogue and am a regular visitor to the Back Avenue and Doorly Park -- therefore, I know the area very well.

no to bridge

garavoguesligo wrote: »

Im glad you feel sorry for us but for a different reason. I live in Garavouge and I have received no information from this group who claim to be representing us, I have spoken to many of my neighbours and they have no idea about when meetings are. Is it just the selected few who make the decision for all. I spoke to one women from Doorly park and she told me she said the people from our area were not contacted. How can you claim to represent us when no one has come to talk to me and my neighbours.:mad:

hi ya garavoguesligo
just to let you no there is a meeting 2moro night (27th-jan-2011) at 7:30 in st anne's (new church) don't no how we missed your house we went round all of garavogue last week with letters about it and have done with all past meetings the meeting's are all so advertised in the mass bulletin in the weeks b4 thay happen

redarmyblues

This project is not mentioned in the reports of Leo Vardakers meeting with the CoC last week and seems to be dead in its current form.

RIP.

Oat23

A lot has happened since the last post here in 2011. I found this thread on Google when looking to see what the last news update was about this bridge.

They've started clearing all the trees and bushes from the hospital side of the river over the past few days.

June 2023

However, as design consultants are currently being appointed, the bridge will consist of a 2-way single carriageway with dedicated 2-way cycle lanes and pedestrian footpaths on either side.

According to a paywalled Champion article from June 2022 the plan was: Put out to tender in 2023. Work will commence in 2024 and finish in 2026.

Anyone have any more info to add? I don't listen to the radio, but maybe Ocean have been talking about it?

Are they still planning on turning the road going through Doorly park into a major road linking up with the bridge and adding a roundabout there? I remember 10+ years ago there were a lot of complaints about houses/gardens potentially being CPO'd to make room for extending that road further up in the direction of Cranmore road. Is that still the plan or have they scaled it back?