New footbridge

pigtown

According to both the Times and the Independent, funding for a city centre footbridge has been allocated in the budget. That's all the information they give, no location/budget etc.

Does anybody know anything about this?

Doom

Footbridge to no where... City centre is dead... Use money to reduce rates to increase new and existing businesses.

highlydebased

This I assume http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business/business-news/plans-for-footbridge-in-limerick-to-provide-river-link-to-king-john-s-castle-1-5893444

Silentcorner

This is what happens when you have talentless people in important positions.

Forget about how ugly it can only be in that particular spot, there is no way any bridge can enhance that area, they are actually going to direct tourists away from The Hunt Museum and St Mary Cathedral.

Not to mention that this will be of absolutely no use to Limerick people, building bridges for the benefit of tourism is madness. We already have a footbridge between the Hunt Museum and the Potato Market, use a fraction of the cash to clean up the walkway.

Idiocy.

pigtown

Wow, I hope they get the design right with this. It could look something like the boardwalks in Philadelphia and Brisbane, and finally complete the three bridges loop.

Silentcorner

pigtown wrote: »

Wow, I hope they get the design right with this. It could look something like the boardwalks in Philadelphia and Brisbane, and finally complete the three bridges loop.

Knowing our lot they'll probably dig up the one out in UL and move it into town!!

Honestly I can't see this ending well, they did enough damage when they built Revenue and City Hall where they did...I just don't understand this one.

Could they not have invested that money on Nicholas St?

Poxyshamrock

This was discussed on here before.

I think it'll really detract from the view across the Shannon from Clancy's Strand. Not to mention, it just bypasses Nicholas Street instead of trying to improve it.

pigtown

Silentcorner wrote: »

Knowing our lot they'll probably dig up the one out in UL and move it into town!!

Honestly I can't see this ending well, they did enough damage when they built Revenue and City Hall where they did...I just don't understand this one.

They also built the new boardwalk on the quays, the revamped art gallery, the pedestrianized Thomas St./Catherine St area, just because they made some bad decisions in the past doesn't mean the always will.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Could they not have invested that money on Nicholas St?

Maybe they couldn't. Perhaps the budget wouldn't stretch to revamping possibly the most historic street in the city, with all the extra cost that would involve (archaeologists, conservation architects, etc.), perhaps they have already secured funding for this job from another source.

Silentcorner

pigtown wrote: »

They also built the new boardwalk on the quays, the revamped art gallery, the pedestrianized Thomas St./Catherine St area, just because they made some bad decisions in the past doesn't mean the always will.



Maybe they couldn't. Perhaps the budget wouldn't stretch to revamping possibly the most historic street in the city, with all the extra cost that would involve (archaeologists, conservation architects, etc.), perhaps they have already secured funding for this job from another source.

I agree to be fair, a lot has been improved, but I do believe they should rethink this one, the boardwalk did not interrupt any views, it really enhanced the river experience, this however could very possibly be a blot on the river, a blot that we will be stuck with, and it will direct tourists (who are the only people who will be using this bridge) away from the other attractions in the area.

I should apologize for the words I chose in my first post, you have a point about the work that has been done.

Nicholas St is practically derelict, maybe you are right maybe it is because of it's for the reasons you outlined, but doing nothing with Nicholas St isn't exactly what the most historic street in the city deserves either.

zulutango

This is lunacy. A real waste of money, and it'll spoil one of Limerick's primary natural assets. They need to seriously rethink this, but I suspect that the wheels are already in motion.

Mahatma Geansai

People will always find something to complain about. A nice pedestrain bridge exploiting the river-front and further integrating the castle into the city Centre is a great idea.

zulutango

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

People will always find something to complain about. A nice pedestrain bridge exploiting the river-front and further integrating the castle into the city Centre is a great idea.

Exploiting the river front? You must be having a laugh. This can only damage the river front.

zulutango

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

People will always find something to complain about. A nice pedestrain bridge exploiting the river-front and further integrating the castle into the city Centre is a great idea.

Exploiting the river front? You must be having a laugh. This can only damage the river front.

Mahatma Geansai

zulutango wrote: »

Exploiting the river front? You must be having a laugh. This can only damage the river front.

Why?

It will/can integrate the river further into the city. Its great having the city altered to face the river, but this goes one step further by bringing the city and its people onto the river itself. St. Nicholas' street can (hopefully will) be renovated to some degree too which might create a nice loop.

Does the Living Bridge in UL damage the campus' relationship with the river? The views of the city from a brilliantly designed foot-bridge will only add another dimension.

DoYouEvenLift

Meanwhile in the Limerick city council

gotasmoke

I think a bridge from Arthurs Quay to King Johns castle is a great idea. Limerick needs to attract tourist. It's as simple as that. More tourists means more footfall in the city and this will have knock on effects of attracting more business into town.

squonk

Great idea! One of the things that spoils a river walk is having to circle round by Arthurs Quay, along by the park and the dingy government buildings and up along Nicholas Street. The footbridge is exactly what's needed to avoid these dingy areas and keep people along by the river which is much nicer.

zulutango

gotasmoke wrote: »

I think a bridge from Arthurs Quay to King Johns castle is a great idea. Limerick needs to attract tourist. It's as simple as that. More tourists means more footfall in the city and this will have knock on effects of attracting more business into town.

We're all for more tourists but this is likely to damage one of Limerick's primary tourism assets!

This project is in the very same category as the interpretive centre in King John's Castle or the proposed plan to build an 'iconic' building (i.e. monstrosity) on Sarsfield Bridge / Limerick Boat Club a few years back. We should be learning from these mistakes, not repeating them.

zulutango

squonk wrote: »

Great idea! One of the things that spoils a river walk is having to circle round by Arthurs Quay, along by the park and the dingy government buildings and up along Nicholas Street. The footbridge is exactly what's needed to avoid these dingy areas and keep people along by the river which is much nicer.

I'm sorry, but I really think this is very backward thinking. It's better to invest in and renovate dingy areas, as you call them, than turn our backs on them and pretend they don't exist. One of those areas (Nicholas Street) is one of the oldest medieval streets in Ireland. It's absolute absurd that we would choose not to refurbish and protect it and instead build something which enables people to avoid it, while at the same time seriously compromising the river front in the city.

On top of that, there's the much heralded Limerick 2030 plan which the council are supposed to be following. At no point is this particular footbridge mentioned in it.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

We're all for more tourists but this is likely to damage one of Limerick's primary tourism assets!

This project is in the very same category as the interpretive centre in King John's Castle or the proposed plan to build an 'iconic' building (i.e. monstrosity) on Sarsfield Bridge / Limerick Boat Club a few years back. We should be learning from these mistakes, not repeating them.

Without seeing any actual plans or designs you can't claim that it will definitely damage anything. Personally I'm holding judgement until I see the plans.
Also while money has been allocated, this hasn't even gotten to planning yet.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Without seeing any actual plans or designs you can't claim that it will definitely damage anything. Personally I'm holding judgement until I see the plans.
Also while money has been allocated, this hasn't even gotten to planning yet.

It's a very reasonable assumption though.

I mean, if somebody told you they planned on building a five storey monolith on Sarsfield Bridge / Limerick Boat Club a few years back, you wouldn't need to see plans to know full well that it would seriously compromise the bridge and the general area. The plans only confirmed it, and thankfully for Limerick City, An Bord Pleanála overruled the City Council and rejected the proposal.

A big problem with 'waiting to see plans' for these projects is that the wheels are very much put in motion to bring it to that stage. A lot of money gets spent and there's no turning back.

It's never a case of "Here's the plans, what do you think?" but rather it's more like "Here's the plans, this is what we're going to do regardless of what you think". The fact that the funding has been allocated in yesterdays budget suggests that the decision has already been made at a high level, irrespective of the views of stakeholders, etc. That's a real problem, and it's compounded by the fact that the people making these decisions at a high level are quiet often ill-qualified to make them. We can get lucky and have an inspired senior executive officer or city manager, but that goes against the long tradition of promotion in local government!

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

It's a very reasonable assumption though.

I mean, if somebody told you they planned on building a five storey monolith on Sarsfield Bridge / Limerick Boat Club a few years back, you wouldn't need to see plans to know full well that it would seriously compromise the bridge and the general area. The plans only confirmed it, and thankfully for Limerick City, An Bord Pleanála overruled the City Council and rejected the proposal.

A big problem with 'waiting to see plans' for these projects is that the wheels are very much put in motion to bring it to that stage. A lot of money gets spent and there's no turning back.

It's never a case of "Here's the plans, what do you think?" but rather it's more like "Here's the plans, this is what we're going to do regardless of what you think". The fact that the funding has been allocated in yesterdays budget suggests that the decision has already been made at a high level, irrespective of the views of stakeholders, etc. That's a real problem, and it's compounded by the fact that the people making these decisions at a high level are quiet often ill-qualified to make them. We can get lucky and have an inspired senior executive officer or city manager, but that goes against the long tradition of promotion in local government!

The bit I bolded is the important bit. It can still be appealed to APB if given planning permission by the council.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The bit I bolded is the important bit. It can still be appealed to APB if given planning permission by the council.

Yes, it can, but it's an expensive process.

Poxyshamrock

gotasmoke wrote: »

I think a bridge from Arthurs Quay to King Johns castle is a great idea. Limerick needs to attract tourist. It's as simple as that. More tourists means more footfall in the city and this will have knock on effects of attracting more business into town.

It's not really "as simple as that"!

Tourists aren't going to come to Limerick because we built a new bridge.

Vanquished

It's difficult to know what to make of this proposal as no solid information exists on what exactly it would entail or what form it would take. However my initial reaction is that I'd be sceptical of its merits! This is a hugely sensitive and historical part of Limerick city and any intervention here needs to be considered very carefully!

I'd be concerned about the impact of such a structure on the riverside environment and the vista towards Kings Island, St. Marys cathedral and the castle. Along with encroaching upon the setting of the old customs house/Hunt museum.

I'm struggling to really see the need for such a link anyhow. Sarsfield house is earmarked for demolition, opening up the opportunity for the provision of a sizeable riverside space on the site. A walkway already exists to the rear of the Hunt museum and the Sylvester O'Halloran pedestrian bridge spans the Abbey river to the potato market. Which is also a site where redevelopment is proposed, including removal of the existing wall to open up the quayside.

It may also have escaped their attention but there is a perfectly adequate riverside walkway running around the courthouse and city hall all the way over to the castle!! The more I think about this proposal the more it seems like another of those hairbrained plans such as the castle boardwalk! I'd far rather if the funding went towards a worthwhile venture such as the long awaited revamp of O'Connell Street!

pigtown

Silentcorner wrote: »

this however could very possibly be a blot on the river, a blot that we will be stuck with

zulutango wrote: »

This is lunacy. A real waste of money, and it'll spoil one of Limerick's primary natural assets. They need to seriously rethink this, but I suspect that the wheels are already in motion.

Why would it be a blot on the landscape? Of course we have seen no design yet but any bridge would be of the same height as the existing quay walls and more than likely will just be supported by pillars, not suspension cables, meaning it won't be any more visible than the various walls/railings that line the quays.
It may even be the case that the new walkway would 'float' on the river like a jetty, reducing visibility further. (Personally I think this would be the best outcome, feeling like you're walking on water).

zulutango wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I really think this is very backward thinking. It's better to invest in and renovate dingy areas, as you call them, than turn our backs on them and pretend they don't exist. One of those areas (Nicholas Street) is one of the oldest medieval streets in Ireland. It's absolute absurd that we would choose not to refurbish and protect it and instead build something which enables people to avoid it, while at the same time seriously compromising the river front in the city.

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not both? Also what's wrong with enabling people to avoid it? Tourists to the city will go to the castle and the cathedral regardless. As for the street itself, it seems to be primarily a residential street and not a great attraction anyway.

Poxyshamrock wrote: »

It's not really "as simple as that"!
Tourists aren't going to come to Limerick because we built a new bridge.

No, but it will contribute to the image of the place, and enhance the whole 'riverside city' vibe.

Vanquished wrote: »

It may also have escaped their attention but there is a perfectly adequate riverside walkway running around the courthouse and city hall all the way over to the castle!! The more I think about this proposal the more it seems like another of those hairbrained plans such as the castle boardwalk! I'd far rather if the funding went towards a worthwhile venture such as the long awaited revamp of O'Connell Street!

Is it adequate though? It's quite narrow in places and awkward enough to access. I know if I were a tourist here I wouldn't go searching around the back of the courthouse/through a carpark for an amenity walk. And even if it is adequate, is that all we're aiming for? Why not try for 'great' or 'fantastic'?

Regards the castle boardwalk, I for one am looking forward to seeing it built. Especially now with Castle Lane closed to the public.

Denmark has some great examples of riverfront amenities;
Here
Here
and here

Silentcorner

My concerns are the following, Pigtown.

1 It will block the point of the River where the Shannon meets the Abbey, this for me is quintessential Limerick, the birthplace of the city. It also is unique in that it gives visitors and locals a vista of how it looked 800 plus years ago, that is why it is a sensitive spot for me.

2 The design has to look perfect, not just for the next ten years but for all time, that is going to be a challenge for any designer.

3 I think building something such as this in that spot, where now you will have two footbridges in the space of 50 meters is too much.

4 Building bridges should only ever be built for locals, it won't on its own attract tourists

5 The walkway from Revenue to King Johns Castle is actually quiet nice, it just needs a clean up, the courthouse is on the move and it leads right up beside the castle.

6 It will divert tourists from The Hunt Museum and St Marys...if tourists then want to visit the either they need to either double back or walk down Nicholas St, which defeats the purpose of the bridge.

I can't see the upside of this one I'm afraid...a foot bridge from poor mans kilkee over to the boathouse would make more sense to me, stick in a nice cafe or bar...

Vanquished

pigtown wrote: »

Is it adequate though? It's quite narrow in places and awkward enough to access. I know if I were a tourist here I wouldn't go searching around the back of the courthouse/through a carpark for an amenity walk. And even if it is adequate, is that all we're aiming for? Why not try for 'great' or 'fantastic'?

The riverside walk around the courthouse and city hall is nicely paved and well maintained. Any supposed pinch-points can easily be rectified without the need for an elaborate structural intervention. The only issues I can see are Sarsfield house and the potato market. The latter of which is easily rectified by removing the riverfront wall and opening up a riverside walkway. The green area behind the Hunt museum is actually very pleasant but totally underutilised, primarily due to the monolith that is Sarsfield house. It could be a stunning amenity if opened up to its full potential by the removal of the 1970s monstrosity overshadowing it! We should be focusing on progressing those plans instead of proposing to waste valuable and scarce resources on an ill conceived, misguided and unnecessary project!

Regards the castle boardwalk, I for one am looking forward to seeing it built. Especially now with Castle Lane closed to the public.

I think you're the first person I've ever heard speaking in favour of that pathetic proposal to lob a boardwalk along the front of the castle! It's riverside setting has been untouched for hundreds of years but some clown in the council felt that a tacky, fairytale, Disney-esque walkway would be an appropriate addition to a centuries old national monument! It's no wonder this city has such an appalling record of protecting its heritage when absolute garbage like that is proposed! Give me strength!

zulutango

I can imagine that there will be quite an amount of opposition to this from not just ordinary plebs like ourselves, but from senior architects, urban designers, historians, etc, etc. ... anyone with half a brain, an ounce of taste and interest in the city! It's hard to see it getting passed An Bord Pleanála, to be honest.

squonk

How does one access the current walkway? It's really not obvious at all. The current riverside walk leads you round to Sarsfield House where you have to pass by the Hunt Museum and continue on up by the cathedral and over the bridge followed by a circuitous route though city streets over to the castle. Not a river in sight. It's the best hidden walkway I've ever seen. You can be fairly certain that tourists are never going to find it during their short few days here.

zulutango

squonk wrote: »

How does one access the current walkway? It's really not obvious at all. The current riverside walk leads you round to Sarsfield House where you have to pass by the Hunt Museum and continue on up by the cathedral and over the bridge followed by a circuitous route though city streets over to the castle. Not a river in sight. It's the best hidden walkway I've ever seen. You can be fairly certain that tourists are never going to find it during their short few days here.

Sarsfield House is due for demolition and the whole area around Arthur's Quay (both the park and the shopping centre) are to be remodelled under the Limerick 2030 plan, so with these changes happening there's plenty of scope to design and plan a walkway that doesn't compromise the river amenity.

The proposed 'footbridge' seems like a departure from Limerick 2030, and that is not good at all.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

Sarsfield House is due for demolition and the whole area around Arthur's Quay (both the park and the shopping centre) are to be remodelled under the Limerick 2030 plan, so with these changes happening there's plenty of scope to design and plan a walkway that doesn't compromise the river amenity.

The proposed 'footbridge' seems like a departure from Limerick 2030, and that is not good at all.

The 2030 plan is just a plan. There is nothing set in stone. The council recently bought the Cleeves site. This wasn't part of the plan, but now they're trying to see how they can fit it in. Other parts of the plans include demolishing privately owned Arthurs Quay and Dunnes Sarsfield St. Thats not happening without massive moneys.

squonk

Seems a bit stupid demolishing Arthur's Quay! it must be only about 25-30 years old? I'm still confused about how I'd exactly go to access the existing footbridge that's there. I'm genuinely interested in knowing! It looks like you've got to get round the back of Sarsfield House but I'm not sure!

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The 2030 plan is just a plan. There is nothing set in stone. The council recently bought the Cleeves site. This wasn't part of the plan, but now they're trying to see how they can fit it in. Other parts of the plans include demolishing privately owned Arthurs Quay and Dunnes Sarsfield St. Thats not happening without massive moneys.

The plan was pretty clear about remodelling that whole area. It was one of the central points about Limerick 2030.

Cleeves wasn't part of the plan. It's a completely separate issue. Limerick 2030 didn't touch on that site or even that side of the river, so 'seeing how they can fit it in' is basically double speak for saying we're going to put Limerick 2030 on a shelf and vaguely refer to it now and again in a vain attempt to justify anything we do. If Cleeves is to be part of Limerick 2030, then the current plan is redundant and needs to be revised. It's as simple as that.

Itsdacraic

squonk wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid demolishing Arthur's Quay! it must be only about 25-30 years old? I'm still confused about how I'd exactly go to access the existing footbridge that's there. I'm genuinely interested in knowing! It looks like you've got to get round the back of Sarsfield House but I'm not sure!

Yes, you can access it just by where Sarsfield House meets Arthurs Quay Park

zulutango

squonk wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid demolishing Arthur's Quay! it must be only about 25-30 years old? I'm still confused about how I'd exactly go to access the existing footbridge that's there. I'm genuinely interested in knowing! It looks like you've got to get round the back of Sarsfield House but I'm not sure!

About 25 years old, but poorly designed in itself, and also the site that it sits on would have much greater value to Limerick if it was knocked and the whole area remodelled.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

The plan was pretty clear about remodelling that whole area. It was one of the central points about Limerick 2030.

Cleeves wasn't part of the plan. It's a completely separate issue. Limerick 2030 didn't touch on that site or even that side of the river, so 'seeing how they can fit it in' is basically double speak for saying we're going to put Limerick 2030 on a shelf and vaguely refer to it now and again in a vain attempt to justify anything we do. If Cleeves is to be part of Limerick 2030, then the current plan is redundant and needs to be revised. It's as simple as that.

And I pointed out on the 2030 thread at the time, that they don't own half the buildings the plan to demolish. Dunnes don't want to sell the the Sarsfield St site.
As I said above, it's a plan. It's not set in stone. Why would the council buy Cleeves if they didn't plan to develop it as part of the 2030 plan?
And while there is a plan to demolish Sarsfield House, something else has to be built to rehouse the 800 staff. It's not going to be demolished this side of 2020.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

And I pointed out on the 2030 thread at the time, that they don't own half the buildings the plan to demolish. Dunnes don't want to sell the the Sarsfield St site.
As I said above, it's a plan. It's not set in stone. Why would the council buy Cleeves if they didn't plan to develop it as part of the 2030 plan?
And while there is a plan to demolish Sarsfield House, something else has to be built to rehouse the 800 staff. It's not going to be demolished this side of 2020.

But there's no way you can just make Cleeves part of 2030. So much of the plan was about remodelling the area around Sarsfield House and Arthur's Quay. You can't just say Dunnes won't sell so let's buy a site in a different part of the city and say it's part of Limerick 2030. That would completely undermine the report and those who wrote it.

It is great that the council purchased the Cleeves site, but let's not pretend it's part of 2030. The council have bought many properties and sites around the city, which also are not part of 2030.

I agree that it will be quite a few years to rehouse the Revenue Commissioners staff, but that's no justification for building an expensive and permanent piece of infrastructure such as the proposed footbridge now.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

But there's no way you can just make Cleeves part of 2030. So much of the plan was about remodelling the area around Sarsfield House and Arthur's Quay. You can't just say Dunnes won't sell so let's buy a site in a different part of the city and say it's part of Limerick 2030. That would completely undermine the report and those who wrote it.

It is great that the council purchased the Cleeves site, but let's not pretend it's part of 2030. The council have bought many properties and sites around the city, which also are not part of 2030.

Parts of the plan are very aspirational and vague. Including the line A renaissance of Limerick’s entire waterfront and the creation of an iconic destination building ‘The Limerick Cultural Centre’.
It doesn't say that the cultural center definitely has to be built at the Dunnes site and incorporating the Cleeves site to build the center would fit perfectly within the stated aim.

thesimpsons

squonk wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid demolishing Arthur's Quay! it must be only about 25-30 years old? I'm still confused about how I'd exactly go to access the existing footbridge that's there. I'm genuinely interested in knowing! It looks like you've got to get round the back of Sarsfield House but I'm not sure!

if you are standing in front of Sarsfield house there is a gateway to the left of the building beside the river. go through there, lovely little part there which you go through to the footbridge and into the market and easy access to St. Mary's Cathedral, Nicholas Street, etc. I only found it last summer as I'd always thought the gateway was lock. I was embarrassed not to have walked that way previously. Loads of tourists were using the walkway though - they all had maps.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Parts of the plan are very aspirational and vague. Including the line A renaissance of Limerick’s entire waterfront and the creation of an iconic destination building ‘The Limerick Cultural Centre’.
It doesn't say that the cultural center definitely has to be built at the Dunnes site and incorporating the Cleeves site to build the center would fit perfectly within the stated aim.

From the above, I suspect that you haven't read the full plan, but perhaps just the summary?

The 2030 plan is clear that the area around Arthur's Quay, Patrick Street and Sarsfield House should be remodelled.

The idea for the 'cultural centre' is directly related to the old Dunnes site. It's a case of here's a derelict, prominent site, and here's a suggestion as to what we should we do with it.

I can see how somebody might say Cleeves would be a good site for a cultural centre, and that's fine, but we'd still be left with a derelict Dunnes site and that's what Limerick 2030 was trying to tackle (among other things).

If the footbridge was a good idea, why wasn't it proposed in Limerick 2030 given that the plan looks at that very area? I just don't see how you can say that the footbridge isn't a departure from the plan. It clearly is.

By proceeding with the footbridge, the council is basically saying we have a plan which we spent a lot of money on and which we endorsed, and here's something totally different which we are actually going to do.

Vanquished

thesimpsons wrote: »

if you are standing in front of Sarsfield house there is a gateway to the left of the building beside the river. go through there, lovely little part there which you go through to the footbridge and into the market and easy access to St. Mary's Cathedral, Nicholas Street, etc. I only found it last summer as I'd always thought the gateway was lock. I was embarrassed not to have walked that way previously. Loads of tourists were using the walkway though - they all had maps.

Hang a left outside the potato market towards the courthouse and continue along the quayside promenade. It offers spectacular views of the river, Curragour falls, Sarsfield bridge, Thomond bridge, the castle etc etc.

https://maps.google.com/maphp?hl=en&ll=52.66833,-8.625546&spn=0.000943,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.66833,-8.625546&panoid=PJGHbXgBQKgAAAQXIZA3ZA&cbp=12,170.43,,0,0

squonk

Vanquished wrote: »

Hang a left outside the potato market towards the courthouse and continue along the quayside promenade. It offers spectacular views of the river, Curragour falls, Sarsfield bridge, Thomond bridge, the castle etc etc.

https://maps.google.com/maphp?hl=en&ll=52.66833,-8.625546&spn=0.000943,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.66833,-8.625546&panoid=PJGHbXgBQKgAAAQXIZA3ZA&cbp=12,170.43,,0,0

Looks lovely! Thanks for the link!

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

From the above, I suspect that you haven't read the full plan, but perhaps just the summary?

The 2030 plan is clear that the area around Arthur's Quay, Patrick Street and Sarsfield House should be remodelled.

The idea for the 'cultural centre' is directly related to the old Dunnes site. It's a case of here's a derelict, prominent site, and here's a suggestion as to what we should we do with it.

I can see how somebody might say Cleeves would be a good site for a cultural centre, and that's fine, but we'd still be left with a derelict Dunnes site and that's what Limerick 2030 was trying to tackle (among other things).

If the footbridge was a good idea, why wasn't it proposed in Limerick 2030 given that the plan looks at that very area? I just don't see how you can say that the footbridge isn't a departure from the plan. It clearly is.

By proceeding with the footbridge, the council is basically saying we have a plan which we spent a lot of money on and which we endorsed, and here's something totally different which we are actually going to do.

Where did I say it wasn't a departure from the plan? That's my whole point. It is a departure as the plan is not set in stone and it looks as if they've decided to include Cleeves and a new bridge in it.
Even you're own language as I've highlighted shows that it's what might happen, not what will happen.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Where did I say it wasn't a departure from the plan? That's my whole point. It is a departure as the plan is not set in stone and it looks as if they've decided to include Cleeves and a new bridge in it.
Even you're own language as I've highlighted shows that it's what might happen, not what will happen.

The plan is a load of ****e then and hardly worth the paper it's written on.

To think that they even costed the major infrastructural works on such a vague, meaningless plan.

:eek::eek::eek:

Edited for clarity: I do not think the plan is as shallow and woolly as you make it out to be. A lot of work went into it, and it drew on a huge amount of expertise. It was clear that the area should be remodelled. The cultural centre was a suggestion for what could go on the old Dunnes site. The main point was that the area should be remodelled.

cgcsb

Dear lord what a depressing collection of histrionic posts. A new bridge = 'tis a terrible ting that'll ruin our lives. Reminds me of the thread about Cork City being 'destroyed' by cycle lanes. I suppose revelling in misery and impending doom through objectively benign changes(normal people might call them improvements) to the built environment is part of the Irish psyche.

pigtown

Silentcorner wrote: »

My concerns are the following, Pigtown.

1 It will block the point of the River where the Shannon meets the Abbey, this for me is quintessential Limerick, the birthplace of the city. It also is unique in that it gives visitors and locals a vista of how it looked 800 plus years ago, that is why it is a sensitive spot for me.

According to Michael Noonan in today's Leader, the bridge will be built along the weir, from Shannon Rowing Club to Merchant's Quay. I suppose it will block this point and of course it is a beautiful vista at the moment. However you should know that this area has changed a great deal in the past 800 years ago; the Potato Market was originally the docks and so is an infill development, as is Arthur's Quay. And the weir itself is not that old.

Silentcorner wrote: »

2 The design has to look perfect, not just for the next ten years but for all time, that is going to be a challenge for any designer.

True. If it were me designing it I would keep it as low to the water as practicable.

Silentcorner wrote: »

3 I think building something such as this in that spot, where now you will have two footbridges in the space of 50 meters is too much.

Too much what? They will be very different beasts.

Silentcorner wrote: »

4 Building bridges should only ever be built for locals, it won't on its own attract tourists

I'm sure it will mostly be locals using it. The amount of people who do the three bridges loop regularly is surprisingly large. And not many attractions on their own attract tourists. It will contribute though.

Silentcorner wrote: »

5 The walkway from Revenue to King Johns Castle is actually quiet nice, it just needs a clean up, the courthouse is on the move and it leads right up beside the castle.

Apparently the bridge will only reach the courthouse so this walkway will still be in use. But since the closure of Castle Lane this part of the riverwalk is redundant. If you get to City Hall you need to turn around and go back again because the way is blocked.

Silentcorner wrote: »

6 It will divert tourists from The Hunt Museum and St Marys...if tourists then want to visit the either they need to either double back or walk down Nicholas St, which defeats the purpose of the bridge.

So let them double back. Anyone who visits a city should be prepared for a fair amount of walking, and if they're not able for it then they can avoid the bridge.

If you go to the Highline in New York or La Promenade Plantée in Paris you bypass whole swaths of the city. That doesn't mean that you don't return to see the attractions you missed, and they certainly don't negatively affect those attractions.

Silentcorner wrote: »

I can't see the upside of this one I'm afraid...a foot bridge from poor mans kilkee over to the boathouse would make more sense to me, stick in a nice cafe or bar...

Ya that would be lovely. I wonder if the buildings could be purchased by the council?

Vanquished wrote: »

I think you're the first person I've ever heard speaking in favour of that pathetic proposal to lob a boardwalk along the front of the castle! It's riverside setting has been untouched for hundreds of years but some clown in the council felt that a tacky, fairytale, Disney-esque walkway would be an appropriate addition to a centuries old national monument! It's no wonder this city has such an appalling record of protecting its heritage when absolute garbage like that is proposed! Give me strength!

Just to clarify, that proposal for the castle boardwalk is terrible and should never be given serious consideration. I do think a boardwalk would be nice here though. Just because the castle was built on the river 800 years ago doesn't mean we need to be stuck with that. Cities evolve and today's needs shouldn't be ignored (within reason obviously).

zulutango

Anybody got access to the article from the Leader?

How will boats go under it?

Silentcorner

cgcsb wrote: »

Dear lord what a depressing collection of histrionic posts. A new bridge = 'tis a terrible ting that'll ruin our lives. Reminds me of the thread about Cork City being 'destroyed' by cycle lanes. I suppose revelling in misery and impending doom through objectively benign changes(normal people might call them improvements) to the built environment is part of the Irish psyche.

Do you know what, you've changed my mind, just by suggesting I am revelling in misery and impending doom...good argument sir!

The castle has been abused by the local authority for decades there used to be local authority housing in the centre of it....we floored them and then put up a highly controversial "facade" around the entrance...the attraction was a poor mans Bunratty castle after that...they finally got it right with the recent renovation and information centre, it gives the visitor local or otherwise an excellent insight into the deep history of the castle, it is an excellent visitor attraction now...now they just need to leave it alone...they could easily spend that money on lighting up the entire riverfront in a very tasteful manner, or as we suggested do up Nicholas St, if this was about revelling in misery or impending doom we wouldn't bother suggesting alternatives.

zulutango

cgcsb wrote: »

Dear lord what a depressing collection of histrionic posts. A new bridge = 'tis a terrible ting that'll ruin our lives. Reminds me of the thread about Cork City being 'destroyed' by cycle lanes. I suppose revelling in misery and impending doom through objectively benign changes(normal people might call them improvements) to the built environment is part of the Irish psyche.

Objectively benign changes? Like the interpretive centre in King John's Castle, the proposed develoment of Limerick Boat Club from a few years back, or Sarsfield House in the 70's? You think these kinds of shoddy development are benign, let alone improvements to the built environment? Spare me.

zulutango

cgcsb wrote: »

Dear lord what a depressing collection of histrionic posts. A new bridge = 'tis a terrible ting that'll ruin our lives. Reminds me of the thread about Cork City being 'destroyed' by cycle lanes. I suppose revelling in misery and impending doom through objectively benign changes(normal people might call them improvements) to the built environment is part of the Irish psyche.

I've just looked over your post history and there's little if anything there about Limerick. Perhaps you'd have a different view if you actually knew the city and understood how an infrastructural development like this could affect it.