€300M Investment into Waterford City

alta stare

BBM77 wrote: »

Don’t twist what I am saying. You know what I mean. If people have been coming on this thread saying from the get-go the north quays project will not happen they cannot expect to be read now with much credibility. Saying now the north quays project will not happen because of a pandemic recession means nothing when the same people were saying the whole time it won’t happen because of whatever reason they came up with at the time.

Lets remember here who has been right in their prediction so far..... those who have said it wont happen or those who said it will? I think we can all agree it certainly isnt the latter.

alta stare

azimuth17 wrote: »

Does anyone on here think that there will have to be an enormous cash splurge to try get the economy back up and running after the epidemic? If that happens then surely some money will find its way here and some section of the NQ may happen, even if its only the bridge and moving the train station?

I hope they plough money into the economy as much as possible to keep it ticking over as i feel it may ease things in the future. I am not an economist so i don't know how things could pan out but lets hope it wont be as bad it could be.

BBM77

alta stare wrote: »

Lets remember here who has been right in their prediction so far..... those who have said it wont happen or those who said it will? I think we can all agree it certainly isnt the latter.

My point exactly, all along some people here have been saying it won’t happen. There has been no predictions, they are just saying it won’t happen and ignore anything that looks like it will happen.

imacman

BBM77 wrote: »

My point exactly, all along some people here have been saying it won’t happen. There has been no predictions, they are just saying it won’t happen and ignore anything that looks like it will happen.

Well I dont want taxpayers money spent on a risky development which in my opinion is a real danger of becoming a white elephant.Its not like we haven't got in trouble before in this country with developers over reaching themselves just before a down-turn and there is another one coming .Waterford needs investment in real things that will benefit the city like the hospital or WIT.

Gardner

imacman wrote: »

Well I dont want taxpayers money spent on a risky development which in my opinion is a real danger of becoming a white elephant.Its not like we haven't got in trouble before in this country with developers over reaching themselves just before a down-turn and there is another one coming .Waterford needs investment in real things that will benefit the city like the hospital or WIT.

spot on it's time to scrap it

Johnboy1951

imacman wrote: »

Well I dont want taxpayers money spent on a risky development which in my opinion is a real danger of becoming a white elephant.Its not like we haven't got in trouble before in this country with developers over reaching themselves just before a down-turn and there is another one coming .Waterford needs investment in real things that will benefit the city like the hospital or WIT.

Yeah, grab/take/steal the money from the investors and spend it on WIT and Hospital ..... and make sure it is done in similar manner to the children's hospital.

Sure, that makes great sense on all fronts.

alta stare

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Yeah, grab/take/steal the money from the investors and spend it on WIT and Hospital ..... and make sure it is done in similar manner to the children's hospital.

Sure, that makes great sense on all fronts.

To be fair he is not suggesting that and id bet you know that already. We all know any money diverted to things like WIT and the hospital would be very welcome and better placed than a potential white elephant. Of course the problem is which you are right, we cannot expect to take private Investors money nor can we expect them to put their money in to public causes.

Im sure the idea of the government putting a substantial amount of our money into such a risky project is making some people uneasy. All the money in the world could be thrown at this and it could still end up being nothing but a pipe dream and perhaps the government see this hence why they dont seem too keen on backing it.

Harry Palmr

The governments lard arsed reaction to the NQP has nothing to do with risk and everything to do with lack of interest (and pressure from Cork obviously )

Wanderer78

With the current situation persisting, this sadly looks unlikely

Johnboy1951

alta stare wrote: »

To be fair he is not suggesting that and id bet you know that already. We all know any money diverted to things like WIT and the hospital would be very welcome and better placed than a potential white elephant. Of course the problem is which you are right, we cannot expect to take private Investors money nor can we expect them to put their money in to public causes.

We also have a committent to the improvement of this country and its regions.
Obviously the gov does not have the resources to do that properly, alone.
So, when investors are prepared to put their money where it is required, the gov have a duty to support that - for the improvement of this country.

Im sure the idea of the government putting a substantial amount of our money into such a risky project is making some people uneasy. All the money in the world could be thrown at this and it could still end up being nothing but a pipe dream and perhaps the government see this hence why they dont seem too keen on backing it.

You really think that investors select 'risky projects' to invest in to the detriment of their wealth?

None of our individual opinions on the risk factors involved in this are in any way meaningful.
The investors have done their due diligence and stayed with the project. Their belief is that it will make a (substantial?) return on their investment and efforts.

No one ...... absolutely and certainly, no one ....... posting here has more than a tiny fraction of the information (and probably capability) to counter the investors stand. They have their risk assessment done and they are still prepared to invest.
I guess that is meaningless to some whose baseless opinion is that the investment is too risky.

It will be an absolute disgrace if foreign investment in such projects fail because of lack of gov support.

BBM77

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

We also have a committent to the improvement of this country and its regions.
Obviously the gov does not have the resources to do that properly, alone.
So, when investors are prepared to put their money where it is required, the gov have a duty to support that - for the improvement of this country.



You really think that investors select 'risky projects' to invest in to the detriment of their wealth?

None of our individual opinions on the risk factors involved in this are in any way meaningful.
The investors have done their due diligence and stayed with the project. Their belief is that it will make a (substantial?) return on their investment and efforts.

No one ...... absolutely and certainly, no one ....... posting here has more than a tiny fraction of the information (and probably capability) to counter the investors stand. They have their risk assessment done and they are still prepared to invest.
I guess that is meaningless to some whose baseless opinion is that the investment is too risky.

It will be an absolute disgrace if foreign investment in such projects fail because of lack of gov support.

God, you have some neck coming on here with this positive attitude!

Seriously, could not agree with you more. There are individuals coming on here saying the north quays will not happen no matter what. The pandemic is just their latest bandwagon to jump on, as you say it is just baseless opinion.

shockwave

Another tender has gone up on E Tenders website https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/164845/0/0?returnUrl=&b=

alta stare

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

We also have a committent to the improvement of this country and its regions.
Obviously the gov does not have the resources to do that properly, alone.
So, when investors are prepared to put their money where it is required, the gov have a duty to support that - for the improvement of this country.



You really think that investors select 'risky projects' to invest in to the detriment of their wealth?

None of our individual opinions on the risk factors involved in this are in any way meaningful.
The investors have done their due diligence and stayed with the project. Their belief is that it will make a (substantial?) return on their investment and efforts.

No one ...... absolutely and certainly, no one ....... posting here has more than a tiny fraction of the information (and probably capability) to counter the investors stand. They have their risk assessment done and they are still prepared to invest.
I guess that is meaningless to some whose baseless opinion is that the investment is too risky.

It will be an absolute disgrace if foreign investment in such projects fail because of lack of gov support.

Not all investments work out so yes there is always a risk to their wealth.

None of our individual opinions are meaningful? True but at least we are allowed voice them...sometimes.

I have never once said the investors would loose their investment so perhaps they are staying with the project...it is the government who seem to have their doubts.

Of course many of us do not inside information yet at the same time some of ye are relying on a person who loves having a pop at the government at any little moment he can. Does that mean we should all toe the line just because of he he says he is? I dont think so.

Show me what you know that you can prove our opinions are not as worthy as yours?

I agree it will be a disgrace if this doesnt get built but lets be honest there is a good chancr it wont. Waterford needs it to be a success and i have never said otherwise. Yet again people like you just cannot accept other peoples opinion's and doubts about this and ye are very quick to shout down at anyone who dares say anything untoward regarding this project. Pretty sad to be honest that ye refuse to allow other people's opinions be heard without the usual and predictable tripe that gets posted.

alta stare

BBM77 wrote: »

God, you have some neck coming on here with this positive attitude!

Seriously, could not agree with you more. There are individuals coming on here saying the north quays will not happen no matter what. The pandemic is just their latest bandwagon to jump on, as you say it is just baseless opinion.

Sigh...the usual lazy argument by the chosen few.

I want the North Quays to happen. I have never said otherwise. The pandemic is not the issue here..the very real possibility of a recession is.

Do you not think the country may go into recession? If so do you think Waterford will escape it?

Do you have firm belief that the developer's will continue on with their plans once we in a recession?

Those questions are allowed be asked and are in no way negative and it is a pathetic silly lazy typical argument by a select few on here.

SOPHIE THE DOG

Posted on ETenders over the weekend.
Covers roadway adjustments, bridge across the river & new Train Station.
Interested Contractors have until 27/4/20 to make a submission.
The five most Suitable Contractors will be shortlisted and then invited to tender for the works.

167673 - WCCC 20/135 North Quays SAQ - Waterford City- North Quays Project- SAQ for Main Contractor
Publication date: 27-03-2020
Response deadline: 27-04-2020 16:00 Irish time
Procedure: Restricted Procedure (OJEU)
Description: Waterford City and County Council is seeking a contractor to construct an Employer- Designed project in the center of Waterford City. There are three distinguishable components to the project: - Road and Bridge construction/realignment of c.1km of urban dual carriageway to provide access to the North Quays Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) which includes two new road bridges over a live rail line. - Sustainable Transport Bridge: A 207m long 8m wide steel bridge with lifting centre section connecting the existing Waterford city centre to the North Quays SDZ over the River Suir. - Transport Hub: A train station (to replace the existing Plunkett Station) which will include a bus, cycle, pedestrian and car interchange adjacent to and over the existing rail line and joined to the North Quays SDZ. This questionnaire is issued in advance of a tender competition using a Restricted Procedure. It purpose is to obtain information from applicants for a suitability assessment.
Buyer: Waterford City and County Council

Johnboy1951

alta stare wrote: »

Not all investments work out so yes there is always a risk to their wealth.

None of our individual opinions are meaningful? True but at least we are allowed voice them...sometimes.

I have never once said the investors would loose their investment so perhaps they are staying with the project...it is the government who seem to have their doubts.

Of course many of us do not inside information yet at the same time some of ye are relying on a person who loves having a pop at the government at any little moment he can. Does that mean we should all toe the line just because of he he says he is? I dont think so.

Show me what you know that you can prove our opinions are not as worthy as yours?

I agree it will be a disgrace if this doesnt get built but lets be honest there is a good chancr it wont. Waterford needs it to be a success and i have never said otherwise. Yet again people like you just cannot accept other peoples opinion's and doubts about this and ye are very quick to shout down at anyone who dares say anything untoward regarding this project. Pretty sad to be honest that ye refuse to allow other people's opinions be heard without the usual and predictable tripe that gets posted.

Calm yourself.

What opinion did I express above that you disagree with so strongly that you felt urged to write the above?

alta stare

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Calm yourself.

What opinion did I express above that you disagree with so strongly that you felt urged to write the above?

I am calm.

So a reply to you should be short and sweet.

Did i disagree with you so strongly?... as you put it. I replied to your post and it happened to come out as it did. Is that ok?

Deiseen

People on here losing their minds over money going into a "white elephant" development.

The Government money is for infrastructure, not the development itself. If the development happens then brilliant but are people honestly saying they do not want a pedestrian bridge and a new train station for the city? Do they even realise that this is what the money is for?

This is not to mention that the road layout is being done in such a way to allow for another bridge near the tower hotel. That's probably a few years away yet, but this facilitates that.

azimuth17

Deiseen wrote: »

People on here losing their minds over money going into a "white elephant" development.

The Government money is for infrastructure, not the development itself. If the development happens then brilliant but are people honestly saying they do not want a pedestrian bridge and a new train station for the city? Do they even realise that this is what the money is for?

This is not to mention that the road layout is being done in such a way to allow for another bridge near the tower hotel. That's probably a few years away yet, but this facilitates that.

Exactly.

imacman

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

We also have a committent to the improvement of this country and its regions.
Obviously the gov does not have the resources to do that properly, alone.
So, when investors are prepared to put their money where it is required, the gov have a duty to support that - for the improvement of this country.



You really think that investors select 'risky projects' to invest in to the detriment of their wealth?

None of our individual opinions on the risk factors involved in this are in any way meaningful.
The investors have done their due diligence and stayed with the project. Their belief is that it will make a (substantial?) return on their investment and efforts.

No one ...... absolutely and certainly, no one ....... posting here has more than a tiny fraction of the information (and probably capability) to counter the investors stand. They have their risk assessment done and they are still prepared to invest.
I guess that is meaningless to some whose baseless opinion is that the investment is too risky.

It will be an absolute disgrace if foreign investment in such projects fail because of lack of gov support.

So you are saying that every development is a success and developers are brilliant geniuses who cannot fail . I present the celtic tiger and all of the uncompleted developments ans ghost estates as evidence. Lets not forget the lessons of the past

Johnboy1951

imacman wrote: »

So you are saying that every development is a success and developers are brilliant geniuses who cannot fail . .....

Thanks for telling me what I said ....... that you are incorrect probably does not matter a damn to you, but what else should one expect?

alta stare

Deiseen wrote: »

People on here losing their minds over money going into a "white elephant" development.

The Government money is for infrastructure, not the development itself. If the development happens then brilliant but are people honestly saying they do not want a pedestrian bridge and a new train station for the city? Do they even realise that this is what the money is for?

This is not to mention that the road layout is being done in such a way to allow for another bridge near the tower hotel. That's probably a few years away yet, but this facilitates that.

No one is loosing their minds so lets just relax with the hyperbolic notions. People can voice the opinions whether you agree with them or not. People can be skeptical about the project but still want it to happen. We live in a democracy where we can thankfully disagree with others although that seems to go out the window on Boards.

Can you point out where anyone said they did not want any new infrastructure? And yes I know for sure what this money is for.

Even if the North Quays did not go ahead it would be fantastic if the bridge and associated works did.

alta stare

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thanks for telling me what I said ....... that you are incorrect probably does not matter a damn to you, but what else should one expect?

Lets be honest a few of ye are quick enough to put words into other peoples mouths aswell.

If anyone even dares go against the grain they are lynched by posters like you. Then ye get all smart when ye get challenged. Boring typical ignorant responses as per usual.

Johnboy1951

alta stare wrote: »

Lets be honest a few of ye are quick enough to put words into other peoples mouths aswell.

If anyone even dares go against the grain they are lynched by posters like you. Then ye get all smart when ye get challenged. Boring typical ignorant responses as per usual.

Try a bit of honesty yourself sometime. You might find it beneficial.

If you wish to address something I posted that you disagree with, then quote me, and present your opinion/argument.

Your use of 'scatter-gun' tactics without saying anything meaningful just shows your posts for what they are .....

I refuse to feed such anymore.

Deiseen

alta stare wrote: »

No one is loosing their minds so lets just relax with the hyperbolic notions. People can voice the opinions whether you agree with them or not. People can be skeptical about the project but still want it to happen. We live in a democracy where we can thankfully disagree with others although that seems to go out the window on Boards.

Can you point out where anyone said they did not want any new infrastructure? And yes I know for sure what this money is for.

Even if the North Quays did not go ahead it would be fantastic if the bridge and associated works did.

Every post that I read (up to what I wrote) said money shouldn't be pumped into the development. As if the developers themselves were getting the cash or as if we were actually building it ourselves.

Not a single post (or very little) even mentioned the bridge, the train station or any infrastructure what so ever.

Having an opinion is great, lets talk about whether we should be funding the bridge and train station over the hospital or university. But don't say that we should choose between the hospital/uni over the development because we are not footing the bill for the development.

Bards

Deiseen wrote: »

Every post that I read (up to what I wrote) said money shouldn't be pumped into the development. As if the developers themselves were getting the cash or as if we were actually building it ourselves.

Not a single post (or very little) even mentioned the bridge, the train station or any infrastructure what so ever.

Having an opinion is great, lets talk about whether we should be funding the bridge and train station over the hospital or university. But don't say that we should choose between the hospital/uni over the development because we are not footing the bill for the development.

University, hospital and North Quays Infrastructure are all from different budgets therefore it is not a case of choosing between them.. All three are needed especially so once the Pandemic crisis ceases to exist and we rebuild the economy through Capital Expenditure

Deiseen

Bards wrote: »

University, hospital and North Quays Infrastructure are all from different budgets therefore it is not a case of choosing between them.. All three are needed especially so once the Pandemic crisis ceases to exist and we rebuild the economy through Capital Expenditure

Also this!

I'm not even sure what people are complaining of about at all.

alta stare

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Try a bit of honesty yourself sometime. You might find it beneficial.

If you wish to address something I posted that you disagree with, then quote me, and present your opinion/argument.

Your use of 'scatter-gun' tactics without saying anything meaningful just shows your posts for what they are .....

I refuse to feed such anymore.

Honesty from me? there are no lies coming out of me nor any dramatic statements of negativity.

I disagree with your assessment that some of us are being negative.

Scatter gun tactics show me where you have said anything meaningful? Nope you cant you just spout out nonsense trying to shoot other people down...just like others here.

You refuse to feed??? Feed what? That very sentence is the typical response of someone who has nothing to say...it happens alot on Boards though so your ok.

alta stare

Deiseen wrote: »

Every post that I read (up to what I wrote) said money shouldn't be pumped into the development. As if the developers themselves were getting the cash or as if we were actually building it ourselves.

Not a single post (or very little) even mentioned the bridge, the train station or any infrastructure what so ever.

Having an opinion is great, lets talk about whether we should be funding the bridge and train station over the hospital or university. But don't say that we should choose between the hospital/uni over the development because we are not footing the bill for the development.

Finally a a worthy reply from a poster without the word negative in it.

Should we be funding the bridge and train station..... absolutely.

If the North Quays do not happen in their current form then maybe at some time something will. Any infrastructure works done before then will only help in securing development there. Im all for it. Do i believe the current developers will do as they say?...no not really.

I understand we are not footing the bill for the development but people's concerns are simple, this project could end up being a white elephant and some of the money spent of the infrastructure into this development could be wasted.

A hypothetical question here. What if the pedestrian bridge gets built and the developer's start building the North Quays, then halfway through the build goes tits up and suddenly our tax payers bridge goes to no where but a building site... what happens then? Perhaps that is a wild thought but you cannot deny such an issue could arise.

Harry Palmr

Then we'll have a bridge to whatever gets built there eventually. A crossing there would be handy anyway. You could turn it into an amenity zone if the exiting development didn't happen

As for going bust halfway, that presupposes the backers of this do not have any clue about their own resources. Either this starts and is finished or it never starts.