Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

city square

«13456719

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,834 ✭✭✭ iseegirls


    I'm amazed at some of those rent prices. The contracted rent for Cards 'n' Things was €258,250. That is a crazy figure, probably agreed in the boom. At least it's down to €160,000 now.

    Hopefully this sale will go through quickly, and we could see a much needed re-fit of the shopping centre, tearing down the empty units if Sully's, Brasserie and the Card Company.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,140 ✭✭✭ webpal


    And yet 100 meters away, businesses on the quay, struggle to attract tenants for 15k pa


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,107 O Riain


    webpal wrote: »
    And yet 100 meters away, businesses on the quay, struggle to attract tenants for 15k pa

    Well hopefully the upgrades with the quay will change that once its totally finished.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭ katydid


    O Riain wrote: »
    Well hopefully the upgrades with the quay will change that once its totally finished.

    You are joking, right? Even when they are finished, the whole Quay will be a disaster zone. Cars nose to nose in single lanes, exhaust fumes...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,012 ✭✭✭ fricatus


    O Riain wrote: »
    Well hopefully the upgrades with the quay will change that once its totally finished.
    katydid wrote: »
    You are joking, right? Even when they are finished, the whole Quay will be a disaster zone. Cars nose to nose in single lanes, exhaust fumes...

    The Quay as it is now is hardly a "disaster zone". It's a hell of a lot more pedestrian friendly than it used to be, and the traffic is rarely as bad as people make it out to be (I drive it morning and evening at rush hour). I'm conscious that it jams up quite a bit by the GPO, but that seems to have as much to do with the roadworks down beyond Dooley's as with anything else.

    Hopefully that will have an impact on the attractiveness of retail units there, but it will always be a secondary shopping area.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 wellboytoo


    katydid wrote: »
    You are joking, right? Even when they are finished, the whole Quay will be a disaster zone. Cars nose to nose in single lanes, exhaust fumes...

    Smell of dead horse off of that hoary old chestnut, ye were wrong start to finish, give up, when the leaves bloom on the trees it will put the final nail in the coffin of this internet campaign against change.

    Now I think I got enough clichés into that answer


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,511 ✭✭✭ Max Powers


    katydid wrote: »
    You are joking, right? Even when they are finished, the whole Quay will be a disaster zone. Cars nose to nose in single lanes, exhaust fumes...

    i think all our problems can be traced back to the process of making the Quays safer, more tourist, cyclist and pedestrian friendly. We should revert back immediately to having 4 lanes, both inner ones continuously blocked, speeding, traffic jams, trucks bombing down a city centre street and being cut-off from the river side.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36 ✭✭✭ Mr.Shabby


    Hmm looking at the rental prices there, It seems a little unfair that Mulligans pays 65k while gamestop pays 125k? Maybe gamestop has a much bigger back room or something but judging on shopsize, they seem pretty similar?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,834 ✭✭✭ iseegirls


    Mr.Shabby wrote: »
    Hmm looking at the rental prices there, It seems a little unfair that Mulligans pays 65k while gamestop pays 125k? Maybe gamestop has a much bigger back room or something but judging on shopsize, they seem pretty similar?

    I could be completely wrong, but I remember hearing that GAME were looking at the premises, but GameStop came to a deal with City Square (as they already had a shop beside Kylemore) and moved them downstairs, and effectively shoving GAME out. Now with that trade of premises - it probably came with a hefty rise in rent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36 ✭✭✭ Mr.Shabby


    Yeah I remember hearing that before alright.

    Is the plan for the upgrade still going to involve all the units opposite burger king? Either way it's good to hear that it's still a profitable centre despite some empty units. I remember my mother bringing me down for the opening back in the day. It was on the news later that day I recall, with one of my future teachers Mr Browne doing the honours. Seven year old me was never so excited about the opening of a shopping centre!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭ ec18


    100K footfall per week? does that seem very high?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭ TrustedApple


    ec18 wrote: »
    100K footfall per week? does that seem very high?

    Wouldn't find that to high myself as i say its not 100k different people but overall 100k with some could be counted maybe 7 to 10 of that number. You also have to add in the likes of the school kids walking trow it on a daily basis.

    But there is always people around city square any time i have been there and nearly always someone in the shops.

    With the key i find it to be quite a lot better since they done it all up and it might be down to a single lane but when it was two lanes and a straight road from the tower down to the bridge you used to see people always at night racing up and down it.

    I was seeing there on a sign that there will be a 5 axal ban some parts of the city ?. During i think 10 to 7 every day


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭ katydid


    Max Powers wrote: »
    i think all our problems can be traced back to the process of making the Quays safer, more tourist, cyclist and pedestrian friendly. We should revert back immediately to having 4 lanes, both inner ones continuously blocked, speeding, traffic jams, trucks bombing down a city centre street and being cut-off from the river side.

    Sure, they're much safer now that it takes twenty minutes for a car to get from one end to the other. No one will get knocked down by cars going ten miles an hour. Nevermind the frustrated and tired motorists...

    How on earth is it "tourist friendly"? Lanes merge into each other - a whole lane given over to the entrance to a car park??? If I were a tourist, I'd be stressed out by the time I'd get to Reginald's Tower from the Bridge.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 wellboytoo


    katydid wrote: »
    Sure, they're much safer now that it takes twenty minutes for a car to get from one end to the other. .

    I had a car like that to but I got rid of it!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,734 ✭✭✭ BBM77


    I find this attitude that people who rose concerns about what has been done on The Quay as running an “internet campaign against change” a bit ridicules. Many people, myself included, have genuine concerns about the works carried out on The Quay. Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 wellboytoo


    BBM77 wrote: »
    I find this attitude that people who rose concerns about what has been done on The Quay as running an “internet campaign against change” a bit ridicules. Many people, myself included, have genuine concerns about the works carried out on The Quay. Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.

    You forgot to mention the poor ambulance drivers....


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,515 ✭✭✭ robtri


    BBM77 wrote: »
    I find this attitude that people who rose concerns about what has been done on The Quay as running an “internet campaign against change” a bit ridicules. Many people, myself included, have genuine concerns about the works carried out on The Quay. Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.

    the aim is to allow traffic to flow to allow people come to the city but to be slow enough to stop people using it as a main road through the city..

    they donot want the trucks and the cars who are just driving through going into the city centre.

    they also want to make it more pedestrian friendly

    overall I think it is doing a good job at meeting these aims...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭ katydid


    robtri wrote: »
    the aim is to allow traffic to flow to allow people come to the city but to be slow enough to stop people using it as a main road through the city..

    they donot want the trucks and the cars who are just driving through going into the city centre.

    they also want to make it more pedestrian friendly

    overall I think it is doing a good job at meeting these aims...
    To allow people to come into the city by creating a stop go system on the quay? By reducing two lanes to one, thus doubling the traffic chaos? By creating roundabout that cars and trucks have difficulty manoeuvering? By dedicating an entire lane to a turn off for a car park?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,515 ✭✭✭ robtri


    katydid wrote: »
    To allow people to come into the city by creating a stop go system on the quay? By reducing two lanes to one, thus doubling the traffic chaos? By creating roundabout that cars and trucks have difficulty manoeuvering? By dedicating an entire lane to a turn off for a car park?

    yes, all correct, except traffic chaos....

    waterford does not have a traffic problem....
    soon trucks and lorries will get the message and get out of the city centre ...

    there is no roundabout on the quay that a car has issues manourving around, its a lack of driving ability

    entire lane for car park, exactly what is needed to help people park


  • Registered Users Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ Jambo


    robtri wrote: »
    yes, all correct, except traffic chaos....

    waterford does not have a traffic problem....
    soon trucks and lorries will get the message and get out of the city centre ...

    According to the electronic traffic notice board on the Ferrybank Dual Carriageway there is a 5 Axle Lorry Ban coming into force on the Quay and Possibly Lombard Street starting soon between certain daytime hours (sorry could not catch it all when driving).

    I cant find any link to the above on the councils site only a reference to is on Eddie Mulligans Facebook

    Will be interesting to see how this works if at all , personally I dont think this will force trucks to use the bypass they will now use bridge street / military road to get through the town.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭ katydid


    robtri wrote: »
    yes, all correct, except traffic chaos....

    waterford does not have a traffic problem....
    soon trucks and lorries will get the message and get out of the city centre ...

    there is no roundabout on the quay that a car has issues manourving around, its a lack of driving ability

    entire lane for car park, exactly what is needed to help people park

    The roundabouts can be manoeuvered by cars, but they are just stupid looking. And no, you don't need an entire lane for a car park.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 wellboytoo


    katydid wrote: »
    To allow people to come into the city by creating a stop go system on the quay? By reducing two lanes to one, thus doubling the traffic chaos? By creating roundabout that cars and trucks have difficulty manoeuvering? By dedicating an entire lane to a turn off for a car park?

    You miss the whole principal, the new system is meant to slow traffic, but keep it flowing.
    The roundabouts have allowed them to create a system of no left turns onto the Quays, thereby keeping traffic flowing with the added bonus of being able to double back if you are a stranger and see something you want to do.the entire lane for a car park is for peak times so the through traffic is not blocked by cars going into the car park.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭ katydid


    wellboytoo wrote: »
    You miss the whole principal, the new system is meant to slow traffic, but keep it flowing.
    The roundabouts have allowed them to create a system of no left turns onto the Quays, thereby keeping traffic flowing with the added bonus of being able to double back if you are a stranger and see something you want to do.the entire lane for a car park is for peak times so the through traffic is not blocked by cars going into the car park.

    I understand the principle. I understand that when you take four lanes and reduce it to two, you slow down the traffic. The roundabouts are fine, but there is no need for the inside circle to be so big. Buses still have to drive on the Quay, along with delivery trucks etc. and for them it is too big.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,511 ✭✭✭ Max Powers


    katydid wrote: »
    I understand the principle. I understand that when you take four lanes and reduce it to two, you slow down the traffic. The roundabouts are fine, but there is no need for the inside circle to be so big. Buses still have to drive on the Quay, along with delivery trucks etc. and for them it is too big.

    There was never 4 lanes, there were 2 and 2 used for dropping off, parking, nipping in to shop, GPO etc etc. There was always traffic on Quays, a lot of people say this hasnt changed much. In fact, people on here commented that Waterford people knew not to drive in footpath side lane of old system until you got past dooleys hotel.
    Its far more tourist and pededstrian friendly as traffic is not significantly worse, less crazy maneouvres by people turning right and left off/on side streets, new bike lanes. Its far friendlier place to walk for tourists and us as we dont have cars bombing down it, weaving all over the place, less HGVs etc, easier to walk over to river side, less traffic etc. The hysteria saying the council or morons on this is just that. There will always be some traffic, Waterford doesnt have bad traffic, for that go to Dublin or Galway to some extent. Making city centres more pedestrian and tourist friendly is done in nearly all European cities.


  • Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭ mire


    BBM77 wrote: »
    I find this attitude that people who rose concerns about what has been done on The Quay as running an “internet campaign against change” a bit ridicules. Many people, myself included, have genuine concerns about the works carried out on The Quay. Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.

    The main question here is - what is and what should the purpose of the quays be? If it is as you say to be "the main artery through the city centre", then so be it - let our priority be the delivery of as much traffic through the city as fast as possible, regardless of the impacts. However, most cities realise that city centre streets should not prioritise through traffic [there is a bypass for that]; instead, they should prioritise activity, access, mobility, environment, walkability, safety. Part of that actually involves slowing traffic down. Deliberately. The idea that Waterford should have a dual carriageway of 4 lanes down the quays is bizarre, and the idea that this is compatible with making it "pedestrian/cycling friendly" is even more bizarre. Cities gave up those types of ideas 30-40 years ago.

    Your suggestion that this is "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking" is silly and mistaken. It is best practice. Look outside Waterford. It's the type of thing that cities do; it's what Copenhagen did 50 years ago, and most European cities have done since. I appreciate your concerns are genuine; but they are misplaced. Grafton street traders in Dublin and the city centre businesses generally proclaimed the death of their business when it was changed to a pedestrian-only street. Traffic changes always cause concerns and always cause misplaced concerns. The traders in Grafton Street were wrong, as were traders in every other situation where they decried this type of "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking". And I'm afraid in this instance, your concerns, whilst predictable and understandable are misplaced also.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,734 ✭✭✭ BBM77


    robtri wrote: »
    ...slow enough to stop people using it as a main road through the city...

    This is where the argument falls down for me (and juvenile comments about ambulances). The two main problems on The Quay are that traffic has not been reduced because the bypass is not being used by through traffic due to the fact that it has a toll on it and most of the length of The Quay has inefficient surface cars parks. In all the money that was spent neither of these problems have been addressed. I never disputed the need for change on The Quay to make it more pedestrian friendly but trying to force people to use the bypass by altering the public realm when in reality it is not being used and The Quay is being used because of separate issues makes no sense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 wellboytoo


    BBM77 wrote: »
    This is where the argument falls down for me (and juvenile comments about ambulances). The two main problems on The Quay are that traffic has not been reduced because the bypass is not being used by through traffic due to the fact that it has a toll on it and most of the length of The Quay has inefficient surface cars parks. In all the money that was spent neither of these problems have been addressed. I never disputed the need for change on The Quay to make it more pedestrian friendly but trying to force people to use the bypass by altering the public realm when in reality it is not being used and The Quay is being used because of separate issues makes no sense.

    Just like your last sentence!?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,734 ✭✭✭ BBM77


    wellboytoo wrote: »
    Just like your last sentence!?

    You go off and think of a point to make like a good chap.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,734 ✭✭✭ BBM77


    mire wrote: »
    The main question here is - what is and what should the purpose of the quays be? If it is as you say to be "the main artery through the city centre", then so be it - let our priority be the delivery of as much traffic through the city as fast as possible, regardless of the impacts. However, most cities realise that city centre streets should not prioritise through traffic [there is a bypass for that]; instead, they should prioritise activity, access, mobility, environment, walkability, safety. Part of that actually involves slowing traffic down. Deliberately. The idea that Waterford should have a dual carriageway of 4 lanes down the quays is bizarre, and the idea that this is compatible with making it "pedestrian/cycling friendly" is even more bizarre. Cities gave up those types of ideas 30-40 years ago.

    Your suggestion that this is "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking" is silly and mistaken. It is best practice. Look outside Waterford. It's the type of thing that cities do; it's what Copenhagen did 50 years ago, and most European cities have done since. I appreciate your concerns are genuine; but they are misplaced. Grafton street traders in Dublin and the city centre businesses generally proclaimed the death of their business when it was changed to a pedestrian-only street. Traffic changes always cause concerns and always cause misplaced concerns. The traders in Grafton Street were wrong, as were traders in every other situation where they decried this type of "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking". And I'm afraid in this instance, your concerns, whilst predictable and understandable are misplaced also.

    Don’t talk to me like I never left Ireland I have travelled in 22 countries over three continents.

    I admit when I wrote "the main artery through the city centre" was probably not the best choice of words, the main artery into the city centre would probably have been better.

    The cities you talk about in your pretentious post have vastly superior public transport than Waterford so you not ever comparing like for like.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 wellboytoo


    BBM77 wrote: »
    You go off and think of a point to make like a good chap.

    Ok read your last sentence again, it makes no sense, fix it so I will know what you are actually trying to say,


Advertisement