infrastructure in Waterford

savic04

Just on a side note, speaking with Cork airport at several meetings the last few months in the line of work we do and since the new motorway opened, numbers are down and in some cases , down massive numbers on certain routes...

So Waterford renovation would impact even further

Teebor15

I've been watching this thread since it started and the amount of uninformed ****e being posted about the airport (most of it by master and commander)was laughable at first but now i feel i have to put more of a realistic spin on the issue..Firstly, Ryanair withdrew services from the airport in the early ninetys because of a change of direction..out went the ATR42 turboprop aircraft in favour of 737s. As correctly pointed out the airport runway cannot at present cater for these aircraft. Ryanair are not in the business of buying airports, but i believe Michael Crawley of Ryanair did stae when asked about Waterford said they would certainly be interested in serving Waterford again if they runway was extended..and the charges were right!!! (nearly nothing, like nearly all airports ryanair serve). In my opionion they would not base an aircraft at Waterford, as of the 100+ destinations they fly only about maybe 30-40 airports are bases..these tend to be large airports. They would probaly do a daily flight to Stansted or Luton with maybe an extra in the summer and possibly a daily or 3 times a week to liverpool. For these flights they would require about 1850m runway and 2000m..if they were to fly to the sun destinations which they probably would if they follow the pattern from Kerry, Knock and Derry. Although relativly few extra flights they could easlily triple the passenger numbers as they use 189 seat plane versus max 70 seat Aerarann aircraft. I believe there would also be space for Aerarann to continue morning evenins servises to london with daily Manchester, Birmingham and add edinburgh and possibly Bristol. These routes are too thin for ryanair aircraft but if Aerarann's deal with AerLingus could be extended to Waterford then these routes would be viable.

The claimed 23 million cost of the runway extension is totally misleading. Back when the exchequer was awash with money (2007) the govenment had i think about 60 million designated for regional airport capital development where each airport had put forward their infrastruture requirements to see how it would be divided up. Waterford applied for the runway extension with all the bells and whistles attached, like extra parking space for aircraft, and extra taxiway, much larger terminal. They were thinking.."Lets make the biggest Jump forward in one go that we can" and why not since the money was there..and they were alloocated this money by then minister for Transport Martin Cullen. While the airport were finalising their plans prior to construction..the economy went belly up and money for all capital projects in the country that had not yet gone to tender were suspend then cut completly. Unfortune but thats life..maybe the airport people should have got the finger out and got the project to contruction quickly but the no one thought the money would be pulled or at least not so quickly!

The cost now for just a basic neccesary extension just to get on to the bottom rung of a Jet capable airport is i would extimate to be closer to 12-15million. Why so much for a simple extra few loads of tar? Well it not only requires extending but also need to be widened from 30m to 45m and strenghted by overlaying the exsiting ruway with a few more inches so your talking about more than doubling the physical size of the present runway plus add in the basic fixture and fitting which i wont get into here.

There are about 450,000 people living in the desiganated South East region when you include Waterford, Kilkenny, Wexford, Carlow and South Tipp. A study has shown that on a time basis it can be as quick from someone from Naas to get from home to airborne out of waterford as it is from Dublin when you you take into account the new Motorway, by-pass new airport road, car parking at terminal door, quick passenger processing due to the small size of Waterford compared to Dublin. This all increases Waterfords catchment area.

The airport like all airports in this country except Dublin (And kerry last year who made a 300,000 profit) requires to be subsidized. Waterford is circa less than 1 million per year. Which can be reduced or even eliminated if we were able to get to the Jet runway position like Kerry which is very similiar to Waterford. This subsidy is small compared to the likes of Shannon and Cork. I think there are over 100 jobs supported directly at the airport (including attached avaition bussiness) so i belive 10-15million is a small price to pay to secure these jobs and create many more. Its short sightedness to cut the money The airport "Needs help to help themselves" But we dont have the money so its not going happen in the immediate future.

sunnysoutheast

Teebor15 wrote: »

I've been watching this thread since it started and the amount of uninformed ****e being posted about the airport (most of it by master and commander)was laughable at first but now i feel i have to put more of a realistic spin on the issue..Firstly, Ryanair withdrew services from the airport in the early ninetys because of a change of direction..out went the ATR42 turboprop aircraft in favour of 737s. As correctly pointed out the airport runway cannot at present cater for these aircraft. Ryanair are not in the business of buying airports, but i believe Michael Crawley of Ryanair did stae when asked about Waterford said they would certainly be interested in serving Waterford again if they runway was extended..and the charges were right!!! (nearly nothing, like nearly all airports ryanair serve). In my opionion they would not base an aircraft at Waterford, as of the 100+ destinations they fly only about maybe 30-40 airports are bases..these tend to be large airports. They would probaly do a daily flight to Stansted or Luton with maybe an extra in the summer and possibly a daily or 3 times a week to liverpool. For these flights they would require about 1850m runway and 2000m..if they were to fly to the sun destinations which they probably would if they follow the pattern from Kerry, Knock and Derry. Although relativly few extra flights they could easlily triple the passenger numbers as they use 189 seat plane versus max 70 seat Aerarann aircraft. I believe there would also be space for Aerarann to continue morning evenins servises to london with daily Manchester, Birmingham and add edinburgh and possibly Bristol. These routes are too thin for ryanair aircraft but if Aerarann's deal with AerLingus could be extended to Waterford then these routes would be viable.

The claimed 23 million cost of the runway extension is totally misleading. Back when the exchequer was awash with money (2007) the govenment had i think about 60 million designated for regional airport capital development where each airport had put forward their infrastruture requirements to see how it would be divided up. Waterford applied for the runway extension with all the bells and whistles attached, like extra parking space for aircraft, and extra taxiway, much larger terminal. They were thinking.."Lets make the biggest Jump forward in one go that we can" and why not since the money was there..and they were alloocated this money by then minister for Transport Martin Cullen. While the airport were finalising their plans prior to construction..the economy went belly up and money for all capital projects in the country that had not yet gone to tender were suspend then cut completly. Unfortune but thats life..maybe the airport people should have got the finger out and got the project to contruction quickly but the no one thought the money would be pulled or at least not so quickly!

The cost now for just a basic neccesary extension just to get on to the bottom rung of a Jet capable airport is i would extimate to be closer to 12-15million. Why so much for a simple extra few loads of tar? Well it not only requires extending but also need to be widened from 30m to 45m and strenghted by overlaying the exsiting ruway with a few more inches so your talking about more than doubling the physical size of the present runway plus add in the basic fixture and fitting which i wont get into here.

There are about 450,000 people living in the desiganated South East region when you include Waterford, Kilkenny, Wexford, Carlow and South Tipp. A study has shown that on a time basis it can be as quick from someone from Naas to get from home to airborne out of waterford as it is from Dublin when you you take into account the new Motorway, by-pass new airport road, car parking at terminal door, quick passenger processing due to the small size of Waterford compared to Dublin. This all increases Waterfords catchment area.

The airport like all airports in this country except Dublin (And kerry last year who made a 300,000 profit) requires to be subsidized. Waterford is circa less than 1 million per year. Which can be reduced or even eliminated if we were able to get to the Jet runway position like Kerry which is very similiar to Waterford. This subsidy is small compared to the likes of Shannon and Cork. I think there are over 100 jobs supported directly at the airport (including attached avaition bussiness) so i belive 10-15million is a small price to pay to secure these jobs and create many more. Its short sightedness to cut the money The airport "Needs help to help themselves" But we dont have the money so its not going happen in the immediate future.

Out of interest do you know if the airport already owns the land for the extension?

(if any land purchase is needed!)

SSE

Master and commander

The airport like all airports in this country except Dublin (And kerry last year who made a 300,000 profit) requires to be subsidized. Waterford is circa less than 1 million per year. Which can be reduced or even eliminated

Its like this imo, there sould be no subsidy for anything. It is subsidising failed and non viable activities which is what has this country f'ed up the hole. If an industry or activity cannot survive on its own and is not financially viable it should be wound up. It is unfair and wasteful to expect the productive sectors of the economy to artificially support failed basket case facilities and companies. State campanies like CIE and HSE are classic examples. State run = badly run and inefficient. Running airports and such is the job of the private companies, not TD's. In short, only the fit should survive. The unfit must go the way of the dinosaur.

invinciblePRSTV

Teebor15 wrote: »

The claimed 23 million cost of the runway extension is totally misleading. Back when the exchequer was awash with money (2007) the govenment had i think about 60 million designated for regional airport capital development where each airport had put forward their infrastruture requirements to see how it would be divided up. Waterford applied for the runway extension with all the bells and whistles attached, like extra parking space for aircraft, and extra taxiway, much larger terminal. They were thinking.."Lets make the biggest Jump forward in one go that we can" and why not since the money was there..and they were alloocated this money by then minister for Transport Martin Cullen. While the airport were finalising their plans prior to construction..the economy went belly up and money for all capital projects in the country that had not yet gone to tender were suspend then cut completly. Unfortune but thats life..maybe the airport people should have got the finger out and got the project to contruction quickly but the no one thought the money would be pulled or at least not so quickly!

Thank goodness for the financial crisis, at least it put an end to disgraceful bouts of political patronage like highlighted. Ireland is a small country, we don't need multiple airports dotted around the place. You realise we're moving away from the state subsidising every 2 bit airport in the state?

Teebor15 wrote: »

The cost now for just a basic neccesary extension just to get on to the bottom rung of a Jet capable airport is i would extimate to be closer to 12-15million. Why so much for a simple extra few loads of tar? Well it not only requires extending but also need to be widened from 30m to 45m and strenghted by overlaying the exsiting ruway with a few more inches so your talking about more than doubling the physical size of the present runway plus add in the basic fixture and fitting which i wont get into here.

If the business case for a runway extension is so good then why can't the airport owners secure private funding? Why do you expect the state to subsidise yet another small airport when in the past few years the DoT has made decisive moves away from this model of funding low pax and commerically unviable airports dotted around the state?

Teebor15 wrote: »

There are about 450,000 people living in the desiganated South East region when you include Waterford, Kilkenny, Wexford, Carlow and South Tipp. A study has shown that on a time basis it can be as quick from someone from Naas to get from home to airborne out of waterford as it is from Dublin when you you take into account the new Motorway, by-pass new airport road, car parking at terminal door, quick passenger processing due to the small size of Waterford compared to Dublin. This all increases Waterfords catchment area.

What a useless soounding study, why not provide a link for it? Face facts, the entire SE as you've outlined is within a couple of hours maximum of the main airports in the state by motorway, all of which offer far more in terms of destination choice.

Teebor15 wrote: »

The airport like all airports in this country except Dublin (And kerry last year who made a 300,000 profit) requires to be subsidized. Waterford is circa less than 1 million per year. Which can be reduced or even eliminated if we were able to get to the Jet runway position like Kerry which is very similiar to Waterford. This subsidy is small compared to the likes of Shannon and Cork. I think there are over 100 jobs supported directly at the airport (including attached avaition bussiness) so i belive 10-15million is a small price to pay to secure these jobs and create many more. Its short sightedness to cut the money The airport "Needs help to help themselves" But we dont have the money so its not going happen in the immediate future.

So you want a large subsidy to replace a smaller subsidy? I understand you appear to have a vested interest in seeing your airport succeed, but there's no logic in the DoT withdrawing support from airports like Galway and the PSOs if it's just going to waste money on another small insignificant regional airport.

Times have changed, Ireland isn't in the game of providing financial support to every local airport anymore, if you want a runway extension then pay it for yourself rather then expecting mug taxpayers to!

wellboytoo

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Out of interest do you know if the airport already owns the land for the extension?

(if any land purchase is needed!)

SSE

Yes on one end and very close to conclusion on the other.

wellboytoo

Master and commander wrote: »

Its like this imo, there sould be no subsidy for anything. It is subsidising failed and non viable activities which is what has this country f'ed up the hole. If an industry or activity cannot survive on its own and is not financially viable it should be wound up. It is unfair and wasteful to expect the productive sectors of the economy to artificially support failed basket case facilities and companies. State campanies like CIE and HSE are classic examples. State run = badly run and inefficient. Running airports and such is the job of the private companies, not TD's. In short, only the fit should survive. The unfit must go the way of the dinosaur.

So master, no school bus's, social workers, post to out of the way places, electricity on the islands, services for the handicapped, orphanages.
The list is long, give it a rest and try and engage your head before your fingers! You will give us capitalists an even worse name.

letsbet

Master and commander wrote: »

Its like this imo, there sould be no subsidy for anything. It is subsidising failed and non viable activities which is what has this country f'ed up the hole. If an industry or activity cannot survive on its own and is not financially viable it should be wound up. It is unfair and wasteful to expect the productive sectors of the economy to artificially support failed basket case facilities and companies. State campanies like CIE and HSE are classic examples. State run = badly run and inefficient. Running airports and such is the job of the private companies, not TD's. In short, only the fit should survive. The unfit must go the way of the dinosaur.

Subsidies given to airports are totally different to many. Just because an airport isn't making a profit doesn't mean that it's not a good idea overall. Imagine for example how much an extra 50,000 people flying into Waterford (or Ireland in general) is worth in terms of money spent elsewhere. Reasonable subsidies can make economic sense because of this. If we didn't subsidise certain activities they would not be done.

merlante

The Department of Transport report recommended closing Sligo and Galway and putting Waterford on probation for a few years. Waterford was cut a break because it has the capacity to replicate successes in Knock, Kerry and Derry.

There's no reason why Waterford cannot make a profit in a few years time if it adds one or two flights to European hubs and a selection of holiday flights. This is a tried a tested model used by the above mentioned airports and is achievable in a short time. But a runway extension is needed.

By the way, keeping Donegal open is a complete head scratcher when Derry is actually closer to Letterkenny and other centres than Donegal is. You could close 3 airports, which would give pretty good savings, and may the other airports more viable.

fuzzy dunlop

It's great when you hear people especially from Cork moaning about PSO's and regional airports.When the fact is Cork airport was the very first of these regional airports to be subsidised up to the hilt for over three decades. This is the airport that doesn't want to pay it's debts or to be correct wants the taxpayer to pay its debts for them. This is the airport that was never needed in the first place with Shannon being almost equidistant from the three largest urban areas in Munster and South Connaught i.e Cork,Galway and Waterford. Why did Munster with a population of 800000 at the time need a second International airport? The answer is it didn't .Yeah let's make the airport raise their own funds.Better still let's make all the airports pay back the taxpayer funding they received since their foundation and see how economically viable they are.

Teebor15

Thank goodness for the financial crisis, at least it put an end to disgraceful bouts of political patronage like highlighted. Ireland is a small country, we don't need multiple airports dotted around the place. You realise we're moving away from the state subsidising every 2 bit airport in the state?

Yes, having Martin Cullen in Transport did our case no harm at all..but i honestly think they would have got the money at the time whoever was in charge.

If the business case for a runway extension is so good then why can't the airport owners secure private funding? Why do you expect the state to subsidise yet another small airport when in the past few years the DoT has made decisive moves away from this model of funding low pax and commerically unviable airports dotted around the state?

Your interpretation of "Buisness case" is not really relevant to private airports like Waterford. Yes it is privatly owned by shareholders but like nearly all comparable airports its never really going to make a return for any private investor. The airport is a piece of infrastructure for the Region..it requires a one off relativly small capital investment by the Govenment to get it to a break even situation. The return for this is the boost it will give to the region in terms of Job creation not only at the airport but also indirectly and by businesess who require an airport close by in an area to set up there. Also, Tourism Ireland has stated that the South East is the region with the most potential for inbound vistors, These may be more inclined to come to the region if they did not have to travel through other airports.

What a useless soounding study, why not provide a link for it? Face facts, the entire SE as you've outlined is within a couple of hours maximum of the main airports in the state by motorway, all of which offer far more in terms of destination choice.

The study was only a small part of a much larger College research project which is not available online.

Ok..on that basis do you agree they should stop funding Cork airport and leave it go belly up too..as Shannon is within two hours of Corks catchment area.

For foreign companies to set up here they would deem an airport with international connections within one hours drive as important. Its in this doc somewhere http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/12921-2010_06_04__VFM_REPORT_REG_AIRPORTS_FINAL_DOC_REVISED_3-1.DOC So its more about what the expanded airport could bring to the region in terms of inward investment rather than just saving joe soap an hours drive to Cork or Dublin for his annual week in the sun.

So you want a large subsidy to replace a smaller subsidy? I understand you appear to have a vested interest in seeing your airport succeed, but there's no logic in the DoT withdrawing support from airports like Galway and the PSOs if it's just going to waste money on another small insignificant regional airport

You have'nt a clue..have you?! At present all regional airports are receiving an annual subvention to make up for the losses they incur every year. Cork and Shannon are under the umbrella of the Dublin Airport Authority, which basiclly means that Dublin is supporting them..if Cork were cut loose it would sink to he bottom with the weight of the 200 Million TAXPAYER debt it owes for its brand new terminal complete with marble floors! And shannon would suffer a familiar fate as it has now shown it just a regional airport not much bigger than Waterford but stuck with vast facilities and huge staff numbers which the unions will fight tooth and nail to keep at the TAXPAYERS expense. Dublin airport is the only truly commercially viable airport in the country and it is owned by the taxpayer. As i said Waterford like most other regional airports recieves about 1 million per year to offset losses. For a one off cost of 10-15m to complete the runway extension the airport has every chance of following Kerry who in the last few years require no annual subvention as they make a small profit. I actually believe Waterford has much more potential than kerry.

The Government has decided to continue to support Waterford over the next few years as it belives it has the potential to follow Kerry, Knock and Derry but they will not give it the money to be in a postion to do this..Its catch 22!!

Times have changed, Ireland isn't in the game of providing financial support to every local airport anymore, if you want a runway extension then pay it for yourself rather then expecting mug taxpayers to!

Ah..ok!

Finnbar01

As soon as the airport takes off (no pun intended) we will have unions all over it, like our docks, and before we know it, it will be closed down.

merlante

Finnbar01 wrote: »

As soon as the airport takes off (no pun intended) we will have unions all over it, like our docks, and before we know it, it will be closed down.

Jesus Christ, no wonder there is an epidemic of suicides in Waterford...

mike65

Even Waterford trade unionists are not quite that stupid.

merlante

mike65 wrote: »

Even Waterford trade unionists are not quite that stupid.

Besides the unions are all but dead. We're all too sophisticated for collective bargaining these days in our nice shiny white collars...

Max Powers

mike65 wrote: »

Even Waterford trade unionists are not quite that stupid.

i dont know, a collection of idiots is what i see of them. Objecting to the Newgate centre which could be providing 100s of jobs now etc etc, they have gone beyond their remit long ago. The unions main goal i would say is to keep the public service running for the benefit of its employees, not the public. see the state of Iarnroid Eireann, education system, health service, dublin bus, ESB, hundreds of quangos for prime examples of pathetic organisations, under efficient, under effective, over staffed, over paid.

wellboytoo

Max Powers wrote: »

i dont know, a collection of idiots is what i see of them. Objecting to the Newgate centre which could be providing 100s of jobs now etc etc, they have gone beyond their remit long ago. The unions main goal i would say is to keep the public service running for the benefit of its employees, not the public. see the state of Iarnroid Eireann, education system, health service, dublin bus, ESB, hundreds of quangos for prime examples of pathetic organisations, under efficient, under effective, over staffed, over paid.

I agree whole heartedly, makes my blood boil to hear them say on radio " we are representing the poor and the downtrodden" B****x, and they are never pulled up on it! they represent the people who pay there wages to get the best bang for their buck. full stop so they are a pressure group like any other, IBEC etc, and have been hugely effective in the state owned controlled enterprises because the management is by and large weak and was led by the now infamous Bertie the cheque book manager.

Finnbar01

Max Powers wrote: »

i dont know, a collection of idiots is what i see of them. Objecting to the Newgate centre which could be providing 100s of jobs now etc etc, they have gone beyond their remit long ago. The unions main goal i would say is to keep the public service running for the benefit of its employees, not the public. see the state of Iarnroid Eireann, education system, health service, dublin bus, ESB, hundreds of quangos for prime examples of pathetic organisations, under efficient, under effective, over staffed, over paid.

Did you know that nobody really knows exactly how many quangos there are in Ireland?

wellboytoo

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Did you know that nobody really knows exactly how many quangos there are in Ireland?

We should appoint a consultant to do a report not taking longer than seven monthd to do same, and the report should then be considered by a committee of interested parties that the Minister will appoint in due course.

dayshah

Max Powers wrote: »

i dont know, a collection of idiots is what i see of them. Objecting to the Newgate centre which could be providing 100s of jobs now etc etc, they have gone beyond their remit long ago. The unions main goal i would say is to keep the public service running for the benefit of its employees, not the public. see the state of Iarnroid Eireann, education system, health service, dublin bus, ESB, hundreds of quangos for prime examples of pathetic organisations, under efficient, under effective, over staffed, over paid.

I wonder if we could get some white peanuts to feed the white elephant.

The trade unions didn't stop the Newgate Centre (though they objected, and their objections were largely upheld). The Newgate Centre was stopped because it was a crap idea and couldn't get finance. Have you ever even looked at the plans?

Also the vast majority of union members in Waterford are in the private sector :rolleyes:

Waterford held back by people who think a M&S is the cure for all our ills.

Finnbar01

wellboytoo wrote: »

We should appoint a consultant to do a report not taking longer than seven monthd to do same, and the report should then be considered by a committee of interested parties that the Minister will appoint in due course.

I think we should actually have a tribunal. It will go on for years and make a lot of solicitors and barrister millionaires in no time.

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

I wonder if we could get some white peanuts to feed the white elephant.

What was white elephant about it? It was a medium size shopping centre roughly the same size as city square.

dayshah wrote: »

The trade unions didn't stop the Newgate Centre (though they objected, and their objections were largely upheld). The Newgate Centre was stopped because it was a crap idea and couldn't get finance. Have you ever even looked at the plans?

I looked at the plans and attended the ABP hearing in it's entirety and every word of what you said is untrue. The trade unions objections were not upheld nor were Brendan McCanns. The development that was given planning permission was virtually the same in scale and concept to what was submitted.Brendan McCann himself conceded this. The only reason there was changes made was due to lack of legislation in Ireland on the issues of Shadowing. It was down to ABP being magnanimous towards residents more than anything else. Changes on these grounds could just as easily have been ignored and probably would have been if the consultant that was hired to assess the impact had done his job properly which he clearly didn't. The amount of time this was dragged through the planning process would have seen it built and instead of an empty landbank that the state is probably paying for through Nama you would have a facility earning some revenue. The project did get finance.

dayshah wrote: »

Also the vast majority of union members in Waterford are in the private sector :rolleyes:
.

I very much doubt it. Union membership in the private sector is much smaller as a percentage than 20 years ago. The only reason its holding up at all is because of the public service.

dayshah wrote: »

Waterford held back by people who think a M&S is the cure for all our ills.

No Waterford is held back by a variety of reasons one of which is people with ill conceived ideas of what sustainable development is and ideas that a strong retail core is some sort of accessory we can take or leave.

By the way I don't think a trade union was even involved in the objection.WCTU was and from what I saw of WCTU the last few years they are only a shadow of what they were many years ago when they actually contributed something to the City. More Judean Peoples Front than anything else. It looked at one stage at the ABP hearing that they couldn't get out of bed early enough to make it for their submission. To see Brendan McCann frantically ringing them on a mobile "wondering where they were" was a site to behold.

dayshah

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

What was white elephant about it? It was a medium size shopping centre roughly the same size as city square.





I looked at the plans and attended the ABP hearing in it's entirety and every word of what you said is untrue. The trade unions objections were not upheld nor were Brendan McCanns. The development that was given planning permission was virtually the same in scale and concept to what was submitted.Brendan McCann himself conceded this. The only reason there was changes made was due to lack of legislation in Ireland on the issues of Shadowing. It was down to ABP being magnanimous towards residents more than anything else. Changes on these grounds could just as easily have been ignored and probably would have been if the consultant that was hired to assess the impact had done his job properly which he clearly didn't. The amount of time this was dragged through the planning process would have seen it built and instead of an empty landbank that the state is probably paying for through Nama you would have a facility earning some revenue. The project did get finance.

Well obviously you are just lying now.

Unless City Square has a 5-star hotel, auditorium, and 'luxury' apartments attached, which I have just so happened to miss every time I was there over the past 20 years or so, then City Square is not roughly the same size as the proposed Newgate development.

If the developer did get finance, how come he didn't build it? Because its such a crap idea? Maybe we'd be better off with a half completed building in our city centre, lying idle apart from us as a cider den.

fricatus

dayshah wrote: »

If the developer did get finance, how come he didn't build it?

Timing. Along came the credit crunch in 2008 - Lehmans and all that... surely you remember?

The Ferrybank SC got built (and it was a comparable development) because it was allowed to proceed, got finance, etc. before the credit crunch came along. That's the only difference! (that, and the fact that McCann and WCTU, etc. thought it was OK for KK County Council to approve a big shopping centre on Waterford's northern fringe and didn't bother to object, while objecting to a more sustainable, better located centre in the city).

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

Well obviously you are just lying now.

Unless City Square has a 5-star hotel, auditorium, and 'luxury' apartments attached, which I have just so happened to miss every time I was there over the past 20 years or so, then City Square is not roughly the same size as the proposed Newgate development.

If the developer did get finance, how come he didn't build it? Because its such a crap idea? Maybe we'd be better off with a half completed building in our city centre, lying idle apart from us as a cider den.

The fact of the matter is, similar shopping centres are doing well enough, or at least surviving, in much smaller places, like Athlone and Kilkenny. It was not a good time to get finance and if you had finance, it was not a good time to be over leveraging yourself. I don't blame them for not proceeding.

Had they got the project going the same time as the McDonagh centre in Kilkenny, which could easily have happened giving the timings of both projects, it would be built by now. It wouldn't be full, but there would be major retailers there and the numbers traveling to Waterford to shop today would be double what they are, recession or no recession. Trade in City Square would also double, because when people go somewhere to shop they don't stop at one shopping centre. Waterford is only idling retail wise. There is a relatively large population centre that is there to be tapped. Similar population centres in Ireland have vastly more retail activity than Waterford, and this disparity is not due to Waterford being poorer than other places. That would only ever account for maybe 20% less business at most, not the 50+% less business than Galway or Limerick (which though larger have comparable population catchments -- though less competition).

dayshah

fricatus wrote: »

Timing. Along came the credit crunch in 2008 - Lehmans and all that... surely you remember?

The Ferrybank SC got built (and it was a comparable development) because it was allowed to proceed, got finance, etc. before the credit crunch came along. That's the only difference! (that, and the fact that McCann and WCTU, etc. thought it was OK for KK County Council to approve a big shopping centre on Waterford's northern fringe and didn't bother to object, while objecting to a more sustainable, better located centre in the city).

Yes, I think crunch is the sound of the financial sector collectively realising that ill thought out developments are a crap idea.

Anyway, I suspect the Ferrybank SC is doing a roaring trade?

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

The fact of the matter is, similar shopping centres are doing well enough, or at least surviving, in much smaller places, like Athlone and Kilkenny. It was not a good time to get finance and if you had finance, it was not a good time to be over leveraging yourself. I don't blame them for not proceeding.

Does the McDonagh Centre have a 5* hotel with spa and leisure centre, auditorium, luxury apartments, rooftop food emporium, and arts and culture centre?
(admittedly the spa and leisure centre would be the jacks in City Square)

Maybe if a proper plan was lodged in the first instance then there wouldn't have been the delays.

If financiers thought it will be profitable then it will be built.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

Does the McDonagh Centre have a 5* hotel with spa and leisure centre, auditorium, luxury apartments, rooftop food emporium, and arts and culture centre?
(admittedly the spa and leisure centre would be the jacks in City Square)

Maybe if a proper plan was lodged in the first instance then there wouldn't have been the delays.

If financiers thought it will be profitable then it will be built.

So half of that stuff remains closed up for 10 years. Who cares? And half the shopping centre remains unoccupied for 5-10 years. Again, who cares? Better than the current wasteland, taking in such architectural gems as the De La Salle centre. It could and should have been built, and if the 4/5 year planning process had completed even 6 months earlier, it would be there now.

In a credit crunch, credit dries up so you can't necessarily get the credit no matter how convinced you or the bank are that it will make a profit. Particularly if the payback is 5/6 years down the line.

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

So half of that stuff remains closed up for 10 years. Who cares? And half the shopping centre remains unoccupied for 5-10 years. Again, who cares? Better than the current wasteland, taking in such architectural gems as the De La Salle centre. It could and should have been built, and if the 4/5 year planning process had completed even 6 months earlier, it would be there now.

I care. But anyway, I don't have to bother convincing anyone, it simply ain't gonna happen baby.

Time for them to go back to the drawing board and designing something worth building. Something without the Celtic Tiger signature of white elephant projects, a 'spa and leisure centre'.

wellboytoo

amateur developers . ditto architects, with no track record in this area result a bag of ****e, the whole thing from start to finish was amateur.