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 :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

city square

2456719

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭ robtri


    katydid wrote: »
    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.

    well you where the one saying that the roundabouts where not manoeuverable by a car.

    I disgaree, to make it more parking friendly I think it helps a lot...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭ robtri


    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.

    Problem 1. According to the NRA the bypass takes 10,000 vehicles a day.... which otherwise would be going along the quays...
    Hard to argue with those numbers... in reality by altering the public relam has removed 10,000 vehicles a day... so it is working.. trying to keep the quays free for people wishing to use the city centre for work or pleasure

    problem 2... unfortuantely as a lot are in private ownership its hard to do much with them, so the extra lane to get into the real busy ones is a good solution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭ mire


    BBM77 wrote: »
    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.

    Well done on all your travelling. Next time you venture off, maybe look out for a city that is proposing a four lane dual carriageway right through its centre? Good luck with it because there are none - cities are doing the opposite. This idea that Irish cities can't do public realm/traffic calming schemes because we have limited public transport is a fallacy

    You have not addressed any of my arguments/facts beyond a childish jibe about 'pretentiousness' - does that mean you don't like the words or that you disagree?.

    Look, your argument that the quay should still be used as a high capacity/high speed traffic channel is simply outdated and wrong-headed. These approaches have long been dropped from the standard traffic management textbooks. Gladly, the scheme that is being progressed is more enlightened than that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭ BBM77


    mire wrote: »
    Well done on all your travelling. Next time you venture off, maybe look out for a city that is proposing a four lane dual carriageway right through its centre? Good luck with it because there are none - cities are doing the opposite. This idea that Irish cities can't do public realm/traffic calming schemes because we have limited public transport is a fallacy

    You have not addressed any of my arguments/facts beyond a childish jibe about 'pretentiousness' - does that mean you don't like the words or that you disagree?.

    Look, your argument that the quay should still be used as a high capacity/high speed traffic channel is simply outdated and wrong-headed. These approaches have long been dropped from the standard traffic management textbooks. Gladly, the scheme that is being progressed is more enlightened than that.

    It means I did not have the time at that time…

    What I originally said was “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.” I never said Irish cities can't do public realm/traffic calming schemes. I have never said that The Quay did not need to be improved for pedestrians/cycling. You and others here are the ones being childish. I made a post stating an opinion contrary to the majority of the thread and I got silly replies about ambulances and spoken down to like I never even left Waterford.

    What I am saying is that in the context of trying to increase the number of people using the city centre and the reality of how those people get into the city centre in reality is not properly reflected in the scheme implemented on The Quay. The reality of the situation is that in Waterford most people come in cars, Waterford serves a catchment area that is mostly rural which has very limited if any public transport, Waterford needs to strengthen its city centre to increase the number of jobs in the service/retail industry in order to reduce its higher than national average unemployment and also to make it more attractive for investment. The scheme implemented has reduced the city centres capacity to handle cars, created unnecessary bottlenecks (intended or otherwise) and created an impression (perceived or otherwise) that coming into the city centre is hassle. You or someone else said that the bottlenecks are intended. So in the city councils mind creating annoyances to the very people they are trying to attract into the city centre is a way to achieve their goal of increasing the vibrancy of the city centre. This is the absolute last thing the city centre needs.

    Some of what was been done on The Quay in my opinion is simply bad design. Outside FieldMaster is a case in point. What is the point of that big gap between the footpath and the line of where cars park. That area could have been made into a nice paved area instead a tripping hazard has been put in. Having to drive down The Quay and turn back up again instead of turning right up to the City Square car park again is bad design.

    Cars in cities is a bigger issue than you are saying. Cities like Liverpool are doing things like removing bus lane almost completely.

    In my opinion the purpose of The Quay has been looked at in a very narrow way and the wider purpose of The Quay has been ignored by the works carried out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭ mire


    BBM77 wrote: »
    It means I did not have the time at that time…

    What I originally said was “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.” I never said Irish cities can't do public realm/traffic calming schemes. I have never said that The Quay did not need to be improved for pedestrians/cycling. You and others here are the ones being childish. I made a post stating an opinion contrary to the majority of the thread and I got silly replies about ambulances and spoken down to like I never even left Waterford.

    What I am saying is that in the context of trying to increase the number of people using the city centre and the reality of how those people get into the city centre in reality is not properly reflected in the scheme implemented on The Quay. The reality of the situation is that in Waterford most people come in cars, Waterford serves a catchment area that is mostly rural which has very limited if any public transport, Waterford needs to strengthen its city centre to increase the number of jobs in the service/retail industry in order to reduce its higher than national average unemployment and also to make it more attractive for investment. The scheme implemented has reduced the city centres capacity to handle cars, created unnecessary bottlenecks (intended or otherwise) and created an impression (perceived or otherwise) that coming into the city centre is hassle. You or someone else said that the bottlenecks are intended. So in the city councils mind creating annoyances to the very people they are trying to attract into the city centre is a way to achieve their goal of increasing the vibrancy of the city centre. This is the absolute last thing the city centre needs.

    Some of what was been done on The Quay in my opinion is simply bad design. Outside FieldMaster is a case in point. What is the point of that big gap between the footpath and the line of where cars park. That area could have been made into a nice paved area instead a tripping hazard has been put in. Having to drive down The Quay and turn back up again instead of turning right up to the City Square car park again is bad design.

    Cars in cities is a bigger issue than you are saying. Cities like Liverpool are doing things like removing bus lane almost completely.

    In my opinion the purpose of The Quay has been looked at in a very narrow way and the wider purpose of The Quay has been ignored by the works carried out.

    I agree fully that waterford needs to strengthen its city centre and improve its economic performance. An important part of that is improving the public realm, appearance and quality of the city centre; and this means re-balancing the environment towards pedestrian activity. The quay is one of the city's usp's, it is one of Ireland's most impressive urban settings and should be seen as a key opportunity for regeneration, as a key commercial, retail, cultural space. This means moving away from the idea that it should be seen as a through traffic route and a dual carriageway is simply incompatible with its regeneration. It should be seen as a destination. This means it is part of the urban core that needs to be valued, protected enhanced, not used. You seem to be suggesting that the quay is a way to get to the city centre whereas I take the view that the quay is and should be part of the city centre. Part of good traffic management in city environments means YES, slowing traffic down. This might seem counteruntuitive but we need to slow traffic down in urban centres, not speed it up. The notion that if we have fine fast big roads going into Waterford city centre, people will suddenly rush in is a myth. What matters most in cities like this is what's available and what's of quality when you get there. Waterford's big competition is Kilkenny, which is notoriously difficult to drive into, park, navigate. However, it is hugely succesful because of the quality, character and appearance of the city centre, not because it's easy to get into. You ask the question whether creating annoyances to motorists by changing the city centre traffic environment is a good idea. People always adapt, and this idea that people stop visiting the city centre cause it's so congested/difficult, is simply horse manure. If the city is good enough, people will visit. I'd ask the question whether having a rubbish city centre is more worrying. Like it or not, traffic congestion is usually a sign of economic prosperity - and it's the cities that have no traffic congestion who should be worried.


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


    mire wrote: »
    I agree fully that waterford needs to strengthen its city centre and improve its economic performance. An important part of that is improving the public realm, appearance and quality of the city centre; and this means re-balancing the environment towards pedestrian activity. The quay is one of the city's usp's, it is one of Ireland's most impressive urban settings and should be seen as a key opportunity for regeneration, as a key commercial, retail, cultural space. This means moving away from the idea that it should be seen as a through traffic route and a dual carriageway is simply incompatible with its regeneration. It should be seen as a destination. This means it is part of the urban core that needs to be valued, protected enhanced, not used. You seem to be suggesting that the quay is a way to get to the city centre whereas I take the view that the quay is and should be part of the city centre. Part of good traffic management in city environments means YES, slowing traffic down. This might seem counteruntuitive but we need to slow traffic down in urban centres, not speed it up. The notion that if we have fine fast big roads going into Waterford city centre, people will suddenly rush in is a myth. What matters most in cities like this is what's available and what's of quality when you get there. Waterford's big competition is Kilkenny, which is notoriously difficult to drive into, park, navigate. However, it is hugely succesful because of the quality, character and appearance of the city centre, not because it's easy to get into. You ask the question whether creating annoyances to motorists by changing the city centre traffic environment is a good idea. People always adapt, and this idea that people stop visiting the city centre cause it's so congested/difficult, is simply horse manure. If the city is good enough, people will visit. I'd ask the question whether having a rubbish city centre is more worrying. Like it or not, traffic congestion is usually a sign of economic prosperity - and it's the cities that have no traffic congestion who should be worried.
    That's all fine and dandy, but when you work in the city centre, or have to go through it to access work, you aren't thinking of these things. A city is a living entity, not a historical monument. People have to access it, park in it, get stuff delivered to it. You have to find the right balance. And the balance on the Quay now, and in the future, is against the everyday users.


  • Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭ mire


    katydid wrote: »
    That's all fine and dandy, but when you work in the city centre, or have to go through it to access work, you aren't thinking of these things. A city is a living entity, not a historical monument. People have to access it, park in it, get stuff delivered to it. You have to find the right balance. And the balance on the Quay now, and in the future, is against the everyday users.

    Sorry, but i've no idea why you would think that the arguments above relate to the city being an historical monument? It's precisely because a city is a living thing that it needs protection from the negative effects of cars and excessive traffic. Your suggestion that the changes on the quay - which are modest in nature and scale are somehow 'against everyday users' is bizarre. Everyday users include catering for motorists who eventually get out of their car and also use footpaths etc.! this idea that we need to cater for car movements first and foremost is so discredited and outdated. what worries me is that these minor changes are being dicsussed as if they were radical, space-age new-fangled ideas! These are tried and tested methods - it's basic stuff. If you want congestion free traffic conditions you're city will probably be dead.


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


    mire wrote: »
    Sorry, but i've no idea why you would think that the arguments above relate to the city being an historical monument? It's precisely because a city is a living thing that it needs protection from the negative effects of cars and excessive traffic. Your suggestion that the changes on the quay - which are modest in nature and scale are somehow 'against everyday users' is bizarre. Everyday users include catering for motorists who eventually get out of their car and also use footpaths etc.! this idea that we need to cater for car movements first and foremost is so discredited and outdated. what worries me is that these minor changes are being dicsussed as if they were radical, space-age new-fangled ideas! These are tried and tested methods - it's basic stuff. If you want congestion free traffic conditions you're city will probably be dead.
    You're suggesting that we sacrifice the needs of the users and inhabitants of the city to some kind of romantic vision of what a city should be. Some kind of place where the pedestrian rules and traffic fits in with them.

    Sorry, but while that's sometimes a good idea - the pedestrianisation of the city centre in some places has worked, but you have to balance it. The Quay is the only viable artery through the city; Bridge St. and beyond has a certain value if you want to avoid the centre, but if you work there, or want to go out to the Dunmore area, you have to go along the Quay. A lot of people live in S. Kilkenny and have no choice but to use the Quay. Their journey time has been massively increased by the bottleneck on the Quay and that's not going to change when the roadworks are finished. To take a thoroughfare with a possibility of four lanes, to build a wide median and reduce the lanes on both sides to one for most parts, is ridiculous. The roundabouts are a good idea, but they could have been incorporated into a two lane each way system without any great difficulty. If there were no median, you could have two lanes and a cycle track on each side, no problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 528 ✭✭✭ Taxburden carrier


    If a REAL outer ring road had been built , instead of what we have, something that stops dead at the hospital, the quay wouldn't be the issue that it has become.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭ tonc76


    If a REAL outer ring road had been built , instead of what we have, something that stops dead at the hospital, the quay wouldn't be the issue that it has become.

    Care to elaborate on that?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭ Heathen


    So... How about that city square huh?

    H


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭ robtri


    Heathen wrote: »
    So... How about that city square huh?

    H

    Stop bringing this back on topic you!!!! :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭ mire


    katydid wrote: »
    You're suggesting that we sacrifice the needs of the users and inhabitants of the city to some kind of romantic vision of what a city should be. Some kind of place where the pedestrian rules and traffic fits in with them.

    Sorry, but while that's sometimes a good idea - the pedestrianisation of the city centre in some places has worked, but you have to balance it. The Quay is the only viable artery through the city; Bridge St. and beyond has a certain value if you want to avoid the centre, but if you work there, or want to go out to the Dunmore area, you have to go along the Quay. A lot of people live in S. Kilkenny and have no choice but to use the Quay. Their journey time has been massively increased by the bottleneck on the Quay and that's not going to change when the roadworks are finished. To take a thoroughfare with a possibility of four lanes, to build a wide median and reduce the lanes on both sides to one for most parts, is ridiculous. The roundabouts are a good idea, but they could have been incorporated into a two lane each way system without any great difficulty. If there were no median, you could have two lanes and a cycle track on each side, no problem.

    Who said anything about pedestrianising everything? This is If you are going to debate this, perhaps avoid making up things.

    This idea that traffic management in urban areas, which means rebalancing the needs of pedestrians and vehicles, is somehow a 'romatic vision' is a bit sad really. It's what most cities in Europe have been doing for 40 years. In any case, your vision for the quay in Waterford being prioritised for through traffic is pretty horrific and this type of approach largely died out in the 1970s after the butchering of cities like Glasgow and Leicester. No-one anymore really advocates for city centres to become high volume trhough traffic routes with dual carriageways. You take the view that in order to facilitate cars going from the edge of the city to south kilkenny [i.e. through the heart of the city], that a dual carriageway is the answer. So, therefore, we should allow the city centre simply to be used as a through-route for suburban purposes? No Thanks. Traffic should come through city centres on the terms of the city centre.


    Traffic should be facilitated in city centres. The design environment, however, should when possible be oriented towards pedestrians - simply because this makes for a better city centre environment - and cities that do this have higher footfall, better business and a more dynamic retail and commerical basis. This is not theoretical or 'romantic'. Look up the Design Mnaual for Roads and Streets for example - when it comes to city centres, the priority is the pedestrian. You suggest that "To take a thoroughfare with a possibility of four lanes, to build a wide median and reduce the lanes on both sides to one for most parts, is ridiculous." No it's not. It's absoulutely the correct thing to do. And long overdue too.

    As for City Square....


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


    mire wrote: »
    Who said anything about pedestrianising everything? This is If you are going to debate this, perhaps avoid making up things.

    This idea that traffic management in urban areas, which means rebalancing the needs of pedestrians and vehicles, is somehow a 'romatic vision' is a bit sad really. It's what most cities in Europe have been doing for 40 years. In any case, your vision for the quay in Waterford being prioritised for through traffic is pretty horrific and this type of approach largely died out in the 1970s after the butchering of cities like Glasgow and Leicester. No-one anymore really advocates for city centres to become high volume trhough traffic routes with dual carriageways. You take the view that in order to facilitate cars going from the edge of the city to south kilkenny [i.e. through the heart of the city], that a dual carriageway is the answer. So, therefore, we should allow the city centre simply to be used as a through-route for suburban purposes? No Thanks. Traffic should come through city centres on the terms of the city centre.


    Traffic should be facilitated in city centres. The design environment, however, should when possible be oriented towards pedestrians - simply because this makes for a better city centre environment - and cities that do this have higher footfall, better business and a more dynamic retail and commerical basis. This is not theoretical or 'romantic'. Look up the Design Mnaual for Roads and Streets for example - when it comes to city centres, the priority is the pedestrian. You suggest that "To take a thoroughfare with a possibility of four lanes, to build a wide median and reduce the lanes on both sides to one for most parts, is ridiculous." No it's not. It's absoulutely the correct thing to do. And long overdue too.

    As for City Square....
    I never said anything about pedestrianising everything. I suggest you read again what I said; I said that the pedestrianisation that is already there works, for the most part.

    The balance is there; the centre of the city is pedestrianised for the most part. In other words, pedestrians are prioritised, and rightly so. The Quay is a thoroughfare through and into the city, the car needs to be prioritised here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭ wellboytoo


    katydid wrote: »
    I never said anything about pedestrianising everything. I suggest you read again what I said; I said that the pedestrianisation that is already there works, for the most part.

    The balance is there; the centre of the city is pedestrianised for the most part. In other words, pedestrians are prioritised, and rightly so. The Quay is a thoroughfare through and into the city, the car needs to be prioritised here.

    That is what this whole debate is about , both here and on other fora, I for one disagree and think the car should tale equal if not slightly less priority


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,041 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sully


    Lets park the whole 'Quay is a mess vs Quay is lovely' debate as it bares no relevance to the original topic about City Square.

    Keep to the original topic from now please!

    Thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭ bilibob


    The same photo of the city square extension, first shown 2-3 years back is being used now when they are selling it. With the huge rents they are taking in its crazy that they haven't built it yet...

    I don't feel there has been any investment in that shopping centre for about 15 years! Debenhams is like a ghost town most of the time and the Dunnes is as rundown as they come, compared to the ones in Kilkenny or Dublin it's appalling.

    There was lots of talk of h&m and Zara moving in a couple of years back when sully so was bought, but nothing came of it.

    Maybe the big retailers are holding out on the Newgate centre?


  • Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭ Shane07


    The centre is really starting to show its age now, If the extension had gone ahead last year the likes of H&M or Zara would have gone into it both stores have stated they want to be in the city,either way they will be here within the next few years be it in City Square or the Newgate complex! the sooner the better!


  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭ padraig.od


    Shane07 wrote: »
    The centre is really starting to show its age now, If the extension had gone ahead last year the likes of H&M or Zara would have gone into it both stores have stated they want to be in the city,either way they will be here within the next few years be it in City Square or the Newgate complex! the sooner the better!

    What is so special about Zara and H&M? Maybe 40 minimum wage jobs and stores that you would find in every town in the country. I don't get it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭ Dum_Dum


    padraig.od wrote: »
    What is so special about Zara and H&M? Maybe 40 minimum wage jobs and stores that you would find in every town in the country. I don't get it.

    Because Waterford is not like the rest of the country - it is a basket case, even minimum wage jobs are like gold dust - each and every one fought over and cherished.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭ bilibob


    padraig.od wrote: »
    What is so special about Zara and H&M? Maybe 40 minimum wage jobs and stores that you would find in every town in the country. I don't get it.

    Who are you to decide whether they are special or not? For the vast majority of young people in Waterford these are the shops and clothes we want.. Not some overpriced oul tat that's been bleached by the sun its been sitting the shop window so long. Penneys in Waterford has the entire market! Do you ever see any other shopping bags in peoples hands walking through John Roberts square.

    As for the minimum wage jobs, I'm most certain that retail jobs pay the same whether you work for fitzgeralds or inditex..

    As for the clothes, are you suggesting the clothes sold in independent Waterford shops are somehow unique, in any other way than their price tags? They certainly aren't made in Waterford.


  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭ padraig.od


    bilibob wrote: »
    Who are you to decide whether they are special or not? For the vast majority of young people in Waterford these are the shops and clothes we want.. Not some overpriced oul tat that's been bleached by the sun its been sitting the shop window so long. Penneys in Waterford has the entire market! Do you ever see any other shopping bags in peoples hands walking through John Roberts square.

    As for the minimum wage jobs, I'm most certain that retail jobs pay the same whether you work for fitzgeralds or inditex..

    As for the clothes, are you suggesting the clothes sold in independent Waterford shops are somehow unique, in any other way than their price tags? They certainly aren't made in Waterford.

    >> For the vast majority of young people in Waterford these are the shops and clothes we want..

    I didn't know you spoke for all the young people of Waterford. Is that City or County? Or both?

    >> As for the minimum wage jobs, I'm most certain that retail jobs pay the same whether you work for fitzgeralds or inditex..

    didn't claim that they would

    >>As for the clothes, are you suggesting the clothes sold in independent Waterford shops are somehow unique, in any other way than their price tags?

    didn't say that

    >> They certainly aren't made in Waterford.

    didn't claim that they were


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭ O Riain


    padraig.od wrote: »
    >> For the vast majority of young people in Waterford these are the shops and clothes we want..

    I didn't know you spoke for all the young people of Waterford. Is that City or County? Or both?

    >> As for the minimum wage jobs, I'm most certain that retail jobs pay the same whether you work for fitzgeralds or inditex..

    didn't claim that they would

    >>As for the clothes, are you suggesting the clothes sold in independent Waterford shops are somehow unique, in any other way than their price tags?

    didn't say that

    >> They certainly aren't made in Waterford.

    didn't claim that they were

    People do want those shops, silly to suggest otherwise. Also given that Waterford is the main city in the south east we should have a wide selection of shops. If these stores are in 'every town and city' but ours then there's a problem isn't there?


  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭ padraig.od


    O Riain wrote: »
    People do want those shops, silly to suggest otherwise. Also given that Waterford is the main city in the south east we should have a wide selection of shops. If these stores are in 'every town and city' but ours then there's a problem isn't there?

    I didn't say that either. Stop projecting! I don't see how, bar the 40 or so jobs these stores would create, how they would make any difference to the city. They would barely increase people shopping in the city, nor would they attract people from other towns and cities.

    If you were talking about a BT (like Limerick & Galway) or an M&S (Athlone & Naas) that would be something to get excited about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭ bilibob


    padraig.od wrote: »
    I didn't say that either. Stop projecting! I don't see how, bar the 40 or so jobs these stores would create, how they would make any difference to the city. They would barely increase people shopping in the city, nor would they attract people from other towns and cities.

    If you were talking about a BT (like Limerick & Galway) or an M&S (Athlone & Naas) that would be something to get excited about.


    I'd welcome any retail investment, but in my experience the Brown Thomas in Limerick is empty most of the time too, a bit like most of the big department stores.
    In addition with two large department stores in City Square, another is hardly what's needed.

    I'm not familiar with the Galway store.. Does Waterford have the critical mass of wealthy people to support a BT? I feel similarly about the marks and sparks when you see how the Clonmel store is doing, although I'm optimistic that Waterford store would do better. Wasn't there talk of them going in down near railway square?

    However if you see how the h&m and Zara stores are doing, usually thronged, and the h&m does well in a smaller city like Kilkenny too


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


    Does anyone be in city centre during week who could tell me is there much work going on in the part they recently demolished? Seems like good bit happening in new restaurant bit, reason ask is, don't see much machinery there, would expect to see piling machine or something.I don't usually be in city centre week days so no idea if much happening outside.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭ JohnC.


    I see stuff happening there all the time. I think the piling machine (or something like one) has been and gone a while ago. Got a glimpse in an open access door yesterday and they seem to be laying sections of ground floors in there now.


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


    JohnC. wrote: »
    I see stuff happening there all the time. I think the piling machine (or something like one) has been and gone a while ago. Got a glimpse in an open access door yesterday and they seem to be laying sections of ground floors in there now.

    Good stuff, thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭ danjo-xx


    I see 'book station' are moving in just inside the door on the left at the p.o.
    entrance.

    http://www.bookstation.ie/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,218 ✭✭✭✭ JupiterKid


    What has happened to Burger King? Is it gone? Or is it refurbishing or relocating?

    Every city should have a BK.


Advertisement