€300M Investment into Waterford City

Max Powers

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I am interested too. Three posts by looksee! None of them positive! Two of them Sarcastic! .

True, a few peoples eagerness to whine or try to be negative is astounding..

Deiseen

tombliboo83 wrote: »

For the station to move there,money would have to be provided centrally to Irish rail via an increase in subvention. This will not happen as Irish rail barely have the money for basic network maintenance, never mind anything extra (which won't be gotten) for large scale capital plans outside of Dublin.
I can't see where the money would come from for such a move which is a pity as where the station is now is wholly unsuitable.

Doesn't the SDZ allocation mean that the government have to provide funding for things like relocating the station? Maybe i read it wrong but that's how it seems to me.

Harry Palmr

The deal requires an infrastructure investment of 70m by the state/semi states by the looks of it - so will the gubberment cut off our nose to spite our face?

Max Powers

Deiseen wrote: »

Doesn't the SDZ allocation mean that the government have to provide funding for things like relocating the station? Maybe i read it wrong but that's how it seems to me.

Something like that yeah, important site so infrastructure will be PRIORITISED or some other wording, can be vague priority etc etc.I think the other main thing with it is faster planning permission.apparently the SDZ is one of the main reasons for interest.the interest in Waterford appears on some saudi news sites too, just having a little look on line there about where else potential investment is news worthy.

looksee

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I am interested too. Three posts by looksee! None of them positive! Two of them Sarcastic! Perhaps one of the influencers" Adam Wyse was talking about on Deise AM:D An ideal Scenario in my opinion would be a pedestrian bridge from the Clock Tower. On the other side the pedestrian bridge a mixed use development with a large retail element. The Railway Station then integrated into this. So you would get off an intercity train and step into a retail area, so a walkthrough across the bridge up into John Roberts Square. I wouldn't be hopeful though if for no other reason that CIE as a national organization are a bunch of spiteful c*nts, who exist for CIE alone and not for the common good.

The first two posts were in reference to the source of the investment rather than resulting investment in Waterford.

The third point was about the railway station and is a simple statement of fact. Whatever about the flooding it would be ridiculously expensive to move the station, it would be more logical to move it back up the line a bit and build something more accessible. However the only reason for Saudis to build in Waterford is to turn a profit. I cannot see that the expense of moving the station to the North Quays would be worthwhile to the investors just on the basis of increased footfall. How many people would have to be attracted to Waterford to provide that footfall?

Yes, Waterford desperately needs investment, but how many Waterford people would regularly go over the river to the North Quays for the retail that is being discussed? There is already an empty shopping centre. There are empty offices all over the city - a conference centre would probably work, but more offices?

Buy cheap from NAMA, get all sorts of tax breaks to build - buildings - sit on them for a while, then sell them back to Waterford when they discover they really need to do something worthwhile with the North Quays?

One really good, worthwhile, tourist attraction would be a much better long term proposition than more retail outlets.

Road-Hog

looksee wrote: »

The first two posts were in reference to the source of the investment rather than resulting investment in Waterford.

The third point was about the railway station and is a simple statement of fact. Whatever about the flooding it would be ridiculously expensive to move the station, it would be more logical to move it back up the line a bit and build something more accessible. However the only reason for Saudis to build in Waterford is to turn a profit. I cannot see that the expense of moving the station to the North Quays would be worthwhile to the investors just on the basis of increased footfall. How many people would have to be attracted to Waterford to provide that footfall?

Yes, Waterford desperately needs investment, but how many Waterford people would regularly go over the river to the North Quays for the retail that is being discussed? There is already an empty shopping centre. There are empty offices all over the city - a conference centre would probably work, but more offices?

Buy cheap from NAMA, get all sorts of tax breaks to build - buildings - sit on them for a while, then sell them back to Waterford when they discover they really need to do something worthwhile with the North Quays?

One really good, worthwhile, tourist attraction would be a much better long term proposition than more retail outlets.

All we can assume is that the saudis have done their homework etc.....from what I've read they have invested in other not so attractive places in UK already

Deiseen

looksee wrote: »

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I am interested too. Three posts by looksee! None of them positive! Two of them Sarcastic! Perhaps one of the influencers" Adam Wyse was talking about on Deise AM:D An ideal Scenario in my opinion would be a pedestrian bridge from the Clock Tower. On the other side the pedestrian bridge a mixed use development with a large retail element. The Railway Station then integrated into this. So you would get off an intercity train and step into a retail area, so a walkthrough across the bridge up into John Roberts Square. I wouldn't be hopeful though if for no other reason that CIE as a national organization are a bunch of spiteful c*nts, who exist for CIE alone and not for the common good.

The first two posts were in reference to the source of the investment rather than resulting investment in Waterford.

The third point was about the railway station and is a simple statement of fact. Whatever about the flooding it would be ridiculously expensive to move the station, it would be more logical to move it back up the line a bit and build something more accessible. However the only reason for Saudis to build in Waterford is to turn a profit. I cannot see that the expense of moving the station to the North Quays would be worthwhile to the investors just on the basis of increased footfall. How many people would have to be attracted to Waterford to provide that footfall?

Yes, Waterford desperately needs investment, but how many Waterford people would regularly go over the river to the North Quays for the retail that is being discussed? There is already an empty shopping centre. There are empty offices all over the city - a conference centre would probably work, but more offices?

Buy cheap from NAMA, get all sorts of tax breaks to build - buildings - sit on them for a while, then sell them back to Waterford when they discover they really need to do something worthwhile with the North Quays?

One really good, worthwhile, tourist attraction would be a much better long term proposition than more retail outlets.

It might stop them driving to Kilkenny shopping for the day. It will also attract people from the surrounding area, especially considering they won't have to cross the river. As people have said, this could be the catalyst for the hospital, the university and general public/private investment so just wait and see.

Squidvicious

One question that I would have is in relation to traffic. Presumably, it's all going to have to enter/exit any development from/onto the existing dual carriageway. That's practically gridlocked most mornings so that's going to be a bit of a challenge to manage.

I don't see shops on that side being a viable proposition. The Michael Street development ought to be feasible but I'd say that's about all that would be needed for now. I really can't see a third major shopping area being viable(after City Sq/Michael St.).

That said, I suppose that these are good problems to have, questions of potential.

fuzzy dunlop

looksee wrote: »

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I am interested too. Three posts by looksee! None of them positive! Two of them Sarcastic! Perhaps one of the influencers" Adam Wyse was talking about on Deise AM:D An ideal Scenario in my opinion would be a pedestrian bridge from the Clock Tower. On the other side the pedestrian bridge a mixed use development with a large retail element. The Railway Station then integrated into this. So you would get off an intercity train and step into a retail area, so a walkthrough across the bridge up into John Roberts Square. I wouldn't be hopeful though if for no other reason that CIE as a national organization are a bunch of spiteful c*nts, who exist for CIE alone and not for the common good.

The first two posts were in reference to the source of the investment rather than resulting investment in Waterford.

The third point was about the railway station and is a simple statement of fact. Whatever about the flooding it would be ridiculously expensive to move the station, it would be more logical to move it back up the line a bit and build something more accessible. However the only reason for Saudis to build in Waterford is to turn a profit. I cannot see that the expense of moving the station to the North Quays would be worthwhile to the investors just on the basis of increased footfall. How many people would have to be attracted to Waterford to provide that footfall?

Yes, Waterford desperately needs investment, but how many Waterford people would regularly go over the river to the North Quays for the retail that is being discussed? There is already an empty shopping centre. There are empty offices all over the city - a conference centre would probably work, but more offices?

Buy cheap from NAMA, get all sorts of tax breaks to build - buildings - sit on them for a while, then sell them back to Waterford when they discover they really need to do something worthwhile with the North Quays?

One really good, worthwhile, tourist attraction would be a much better long term proposition than more retail outlets.

Your point about the railway station is not a statement of fact. It is mere opinion so far.Like everything else you have posted  Your thinking about this is frankly backward which is why your bona fides are suspect on the issue. The idea of railway stations being pushed back to some area further away from the city defeats the purpose of having it. It is an engineering problem and far from an impossible one. The ridiculously expensive cost of moving the station? Where are you getting this from? The 300 million investment  can easily be designed in a way (like all over Europe) where the station can be incorporated into the development. Virtually every significant railway station in the Netherlands has a retail element the size of city square.  Does it really need pointing out to you that if the destination is good enough it has the potential to attract destination shoppers from as far as Dublin and Cork or further. You also seem to fall for the fallacy that a city's retail and services are exclusively supported by the available market in the city. Not true. Your tourism comments are frankly BS too and ignorant of reality. We have the best regional tourist offering already by far. Kilkenny can maybe compete with their urban tourism. Wexford with natural heritage but Waterford has both with a larger capacity for expansion. Again your "objection" seems to be more about finding fault than anything else which indicates a lack of honesty.

fuzzy dunlop

Squidvicious wrote: »

One question that I would have is in relation to traffic. Presumably, it's all going to have to enter/exit any development from/onto the existing dual carriageway. That's practically gridlocked most mornings so that's going to be a bit of a challenge to manage.

I don't see shops on that side being a viable proposition. The Michael Street development ought to be feasible but I'd say that's about all that would be needed for now. I really can't see a third major shopping area being viable(after City Sq/Michael St.).

That said, I suppose that these are good problems to have, questions of potential.

60% of our own retailers shop in other cities according to Waterford CC. If this can be retained and the trend reversed then there is no reason to believe it is not viable. Including Michael Street, the equivalent of  three City Squares would be added. There has been no extra retail of significance in Waterford since 1993. Incomes were smaller then and the population significantly so.Therefore the extra retail even on a superficial level looks viable. Athlone has added much more retail then this in a much smaller urban area in a much less populated region.  This group are world leaders in what they do.They are not the Irish cowboys who tried to build Shopping Centres, Hotels and ""whatever your havin yourself"" in the middle of nowhere.

erica74

Maybe I'm not as knowledgeable as other people on this topic but I seriously fail to see how this news could be bad in any way for the city? If the deals are signed and final and work is ready to get underway, surely this is all good for us? More shops, more facilities, more jobs, more money in the city? Am I missing something?

So what if some of the plans are for the other side of the river, people will still go into the city for the big names like Debenhams and Shaws and the other smaller shops.

Max Powers

erica74 wrote: »

Maybe I'm not as knowledgeable as other people on this topic but I seriously fail to see how this news could be bad in any way for the city? If the deals are signed and final and work is ready to get underway, surely this is all good for us? More shops, more facilities, more jobs, more money in the city? Am I missing something?

So what if some of the plans are for the other side of the river, people will still go into the city for the big names like Debenhams and Shaws and the other smaller shops.

The only thing you are missing Erica is some people's ingrained depressing negativity, wouldnt be bad if they kept their misery to themselves but some have some sad need to try spread their negativity and misery..
It's good news yes, we'll be rejoicing hopefully if work starts.

fuzzy dunlop

erica74 wrote: »

Maybe I'm not as knowledgeable as other people on this topic but I seriously fail to see how this news could be bad in any way for the city?  If the deals are signed and final and work is ready to get underway, surely this is all good for us?  More shops, more facilities, more jobs, more money in the city?  Am I missing something?

So what if some of the plans are for the other side of the river, people will still go into the city for the big names like Debenhams and Shaws and the other smaller shops.

You're not wrong erica. The negativity is hypocrisy and as I suggested is down tho those who think they can create bad feeling towards the thing through forums like this. So far on the journal I have seen someone who thinks that the investor  should be persuaded to fund a new   Sligo-Tuam road. The fact that the investor doesn't build roads doesn't seem to register. Another thinks that the Dublin housing estate called Swords would more suited because it is next to the airport. Yes lets build everything in Ireland next to the airport. The sad thing this is a great investment for the region and country as a whole and this is the only place in the SE such a large investment could be made. But people will hate it and poo poo it rather than ask the question how their own leaders and business community could not manage it. I suppose they'll just have to snatch a VEC or something if they get the opportunity.

fuzzy dunlop

What a heap of f@cking sh!te.

Harry Palmr

The Journal's comments usually make this place look like teh Sorbonne

Marchandire

erica74 wrote: »

Maybe I'm not as knowledgeable as other people on this topic but I seriously fail to see how this news could be bad in any way for the city? If the deals are signed and final and work is ready to get underway, surely this is all good for us? More shops, more facilities, more jobs, more money in the city? Am I missing something?

So what if some of the plans are for the other side of the river, people will still go into the city for the big names like Debenhams and Shaws and the other smaller shops.

I think the root of some people's disquiet is that they remember what happened in 2008 and why it happened. This is exactly the kind of headline grabbing development that ruined us during and after the Celtic Tiger, and some people are willing to question if it's actually a good thing. Of course, the difference now is that we're desperate - as a result of the last recession - and these foreign funds have a lot more clout as a result.

One of my issues is that both of these developments are going to take on the American-style shopping mall structure, and that tends to kill off locally owned businesses. Another is that the jobs created will mostly be near minimum-wage retail positions, where we should be trying to create solid manufacturing and tech jobs. Without creating those kinds of jobs across the South-east, the kind of 'retail economy' they're building here in Waterford won't be sustainable. I also have a concern about the amount of tax-payers money that will be spent getting this off the ground, because I can't see any of these foreign funds taking this on without major subsidies on the land and developing the surrounding areas. That money might be better spent funding investment in non-retail sectors.

I suppose the point is that there's more than one way to invest and to encourage investment, and this is perhaps not the best way to spend our tax money and our political capital. It's great for John Cummins but it's not necessarily great for our kids ten or fifteen years from now.

That said, you'll never convince the likes of Fuzzy or Max of any of this, given that they're so desperate to look down on the begrudgers and the negative people. Their mentality was a major factor in wrecking the economy the last time round, and here we go again. Remember Bertie and his 'they should all commit suicide' comment?

Max Powers

Marchandire wrote: »

I think the root of some people's disquiet is that they remember what happened in 2008 and why it happened. This is exactly the kind of headline grabbing development that ruined us during and after the Celtic Tiger, and some people are willing to question if it's actually a good thing. Of course, the difference now is that we're desperate - as a result of the last recession - and these foreign funds have a lot more clout as a result.

One of my issues is that both of these developments are going to take on the American-style shopping mall structure, and that tends to kill off locally owned businesses. Another is that the jobs created will mostly be near minimum-wage retail positions, where we should be trying to create solid manufacturing and tech jobs. Without creating those kinds of jobs across the South-east, the kind of 'retail economy' they're building here in Waterford won't be sustainable. I also have a concern about the amount of tax-payers money that will be spent getting this off the ground, because I can't see any of these foreign funds taking this on without major subsidies on the land and developing the surrounding areas. That money might be better spent funding investment in non-retail sectors.

I suppose the point is that there's more than one way to invest and to encourage investment, and this is perhaps not the best way to spend our tax money and our political capital. It's great for John Cummins but it's not necessarily great for our kids ten or fifteen years from now.

That said, you'll never convince the likes of Fuzzy or Max of any of this, given that they're so desperate to look down on the begrudgers and the negative people. Their mentality was a major factor in wrecking the economy the last time round, and here we go again. Remember Bertie and his 'they should all commit suicide' comment?

That's nonsense on so many levels, we want all jobs, just because we could attract more retail doesn't mean we don't want those tech jobs too.the development proposes a hotel and offices too so you are picking the bits are not overly fond of I.e. international retail brands.offices and hotel and increased retail good for that tourism and tech/finance jobs, not to mention pedestrian bridge and a better located train stop. this could be the start of something even bigger again in light of companies leaving uk because of brexit, an opportunity is there for incredible investment that literally any city in the world would probably welcome, certainly here in Ireland anyway.

Harry Palmr

Maybe if it all works out they'll be willing to fund the WIT into an Islamic University

Max Powers

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Maybe if it all works out they'll be willing to fund the WIT into an Islamic University

Let's keep comments about religion or anything like that out of it.

Harry Palmr

Ah come on I'm obviously joking. (Are you the Imam on this thread? :pac:)

If they were willing to upgrade our under-resourced WIT to something A grade than I'd be thrilled. Who knows it could be the ultimate outcome of this kind of economic hook up.

Max Powers

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Ah come on I'm obviously joking. (Are you the Imam on this thread? :pac:)

If they were willing to upgrade our under-resourced WIT to something A grade than I'd be thrilled. Who knows it could be the ultimate outcome of this kind of economic hook up.

Yeah fair enough but there's already been some inappropriate comments on here, and look we all know even though yes Harry your just joking others were bit uglier and I just think sh1t can escalate from others prompts.You right though a better economy could help WIT, happy days indeed.
+I don't want to come across as PC brigade.

goochy

Yes you're only allowed to make jokes about Christians these days !

PTH2009

How will boats get down the quay If this light rail/footbridge from the clock tower too the new shopping centre is happening

Can't wait to see the plans for the whole area ?

Surly it will take at least 10/12 years to complete all the redevelopments ??

Road-Hog

PTH2009 wrote: »

How will boats get down the quay If this light rail/footbridge from the clock tower too the new shopping centre is happening

Can't wait to see the plans for the whole area ?

Surly it will take at least 10/12 years to complete all the redevelopments ??

The 'Armada' of boats that go to the so called 'boat/scrap' yard I take it you are referring to? From what I can gather this 'business' is the only reason that there are bridge lifts at rice bridge and also why any new bridge will have to have an opening span. Would it be worth WCCC evaluating the possibility of CPO'ing the boat yard lands? In any case I'm sure we will see the master plan for the north quays in the coming weeks and accompanied by the usual negativity 😡

Max Powers

Road-Hog wrote: »

The 'Armada' of boats that go to the so called 'boat/scrap' yard I take it you are referring to? From what I can gather this 'business' is the only reason that there are bridge lifts at rice bridge and also why any new bridge will have to have an opening span. Would it be worth WCCC evaluating the possibility of CPO'ing the boat yard lands? In any case I'm sure we will see the master plan for the north quays in the coming weeks and accompanied by the usual negativity 😡

Funny...armada of boats to scrap yard...You do wonder when you hear of bridge lifts where they going?

Harry Palmr

The Fastnet yard should be moved down stream, does Morris Oil Depot in Fiddown still use the river? I've a feeling those deliveries ceased with the by pass bridge.

fricatus

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The Fastnet yard should be moved down stream, does Morris Oil Depot in Fiddown still use the river? I've a feeling those deliveries ceased with the by pass bridge.

I believe you're right about that, IIRC.

invalid

Just to add a few facts:

The North Quays site doesn't flood, the only area that floods is the railway yard at sallypark.

60% of potential retail spend from Waterford city is spent in Kilkenny, Cork, Kildare and Dublin. (Figures from retail study done by WCCC)

A pedestrian bridge cuts journey time from the north quays to city centre by at least 15 minutes. (From the 2006 feasibility study for the first drafts of a footbridge)

Cost of relocating the train station is not significant as biggest costs for a new railway station is land and new rail tracks.

erica74

Marchandire wrote: »

I think the root of some people's disquiet is that they remember what happened in 2008 and why it happened. This is exactly the kind of headline grabbing development that ruined us during and after the Celtic Tiger, and some people are willing to question if it's actually a good thing. Of course, the difference now is that we're desperate - as a result of the last recession - and these foreign funds have a lot more clout as a result.

One of my issues is that both of these developments are going to take on the American-style shopping mall structure, and that tends to kill off locally owned businesses. Another is that the jobs created will mostly be near minimum-wage retail positions, where we should be trying to create solid manufacturing and tech jobs. Without creating those kinds of jobs across the South-east, the kind of 'retail economy' they're building here in Waterford won't be sustainable. I also have a concern about the amount of tax-payers money that will be spent getting this off the ground, because I can't see any of these foreign funds taking this on without major subsidies on the land and developing the surrounding areas. That money might be better spent funding investment in non-retail sectors.

I suppose the point is that there's more than one way to invest and to encourage investment, and this is perhaps not the best way to spend our tax money and our political capital. It's great for John Cummins but it's not necessarily great for our kids ten or fifteen years from now.

That said, you'll never convince the likes of Fuzzy or Max of any of this, given that they're so desperate to look down on the begrudgers and the negative people. Their mentality was a major factor in wrecking the economy the last time round, and here we go again. Remember Bertie and his 'they should all commit suicide' comment?

Just on the bit in bold - I've lived in Waterford for nearly 10 years and in that time, we've had a very long period of no investment, during which time small locally owned businesses have opened and closed and opened and closed - maybe it's about time we tried something new?
When I'm planning on a day out shopping, I don't think of Waterford because (a) there's very little selection for me and (b) the opening hours of some shops are bizarre (for example, not opening on Sundays). Now that's not to say I don't shop in Waterford, I support the town as much as possible but I'd love to support it even more.

Harry Palmr

Weren't we supposed to be getting some sort of statement from the council by now?

BBM77

Marchandire wrote: »

...both of these developments are going to take on the American-style shopping mall structure...

That is not true the Newgate centre has been very well planned and is nothing like the damaging out of town mall you get in the US and in places in Ireland for that matter. And it will not be so big as to cause people just to shop there and ignore the rest to the city centre.

Marchandire wrote: »

...and that tends to kill off locally owned businesses...

This old chestnut is brought up by certain groups every time big developments are announced without anything to back it up. The reality is that local businesses actually benefit from sharing city centres with chain stores. They benefit from the increased footfall that are attracted to these big-name stores.

Harry Palmr

Marchandire must be a tourist, creating an American Mall in Newgate Street would be a remarkable achievement of squeezing a quart into a pint pot.

Suryavarman

Marchandire wrote: »

where we should be trying to create solid manufacturing and tech jobs.

Go out and create them then instead of whingeing about it on Boards.

fuzzy dunlop

Marchandire wrote: »

I think the root of some people's disquiet is that they remember what happened in 2008 and why it happened.  This is exactly the kind of headline grabbing development that ruined us during and after the Celtic Tiger, and some people are willing to question if it's actually a good thing.  Of course, the difference now is that we're desperate - as a result of the last recession - and these foreign funds have a lot more clout as a result.

One of my issues is that both of these developments are going to take on the American-style shopping mall structure, and that tends to kill off locally owned businesses.  Another is that the jobs created will mostly be near minimum-wage retail positions, where we should be trying to create solid manufacturing and tech jobs.  Without creating those kinds of jobs across the South-east, the kind of 'retail economy' they're building here in Waterford won't be sustainable.  I also have a concern about the amount of tax-payers money that will be spent getting this off the ground, because I can't see any of these foreign funds taking this on without major subsidies on the land and developing the surrounding areas.  That money might be better spent funding investment in non-retail sectors.

I suppose the point is that there's more than one way to invest and to encourage investment, and this is perhaps not the best way to spend our tax money and our political capital.  It's great for John Cummins but it's not necessarily great for our kids ten or fifteen years from now.  

That said, you'll never convince the likes of Fuzzy or Max of any of this, given that they're so desperate to look down on the begrudgers and the negative people.  Their mentality was a major factor in wrecking the economy the last time round, and here we go again.  Remember Bertie and his 'they should all commit suicide' comment?

If only the world was a simple as you think it is it would be fantastic. Have you actually read any serious literature on the causes of 2008 or the banking inquiry? If you did then you would know the root causes were poor planning, poor lending and the zoning of land in rural areas to accommodate development  suitable for cities. Neither Michael St. or the North Quays fit into that category.They are both high value sites one of the largest urban centres in Ireland. The largest in the region. You're simply following a perverse logic  that because development got us into trouble in 2008 then all development is bad. 
BTW the only one looking down on people is you with the typical tactic of criticizing minimum wage jobs. This was the a favorite of our local trots who are too stupid to realize that minimum wage jobs are just as important as the higher paid one. These jobs are highly important for people entering the workforce or coming close to leaving the work force. Or even professionals who may need work on an interim basis.If you had a clue you would know this. There are also many people who simply don't need  or want high paid  professional jobs. Where is this Utopia where everybody is paid Top Dollar?  This is even before you get to the idea that retail and services only provide "low paid work". There is the entrepreneur who may want to operate the franchise. God forbid we facilitate those for fear of upsetting the usual sneerers! Or the managers that will have to help run this premises. Then there is the trades men and Engineers who will have to operate services and facilities in these retail/hotel/conference/apartment/entertainment . Yes all these things will be run by minimum wage flunkies and people on jobsbride!
It's amazing where all this critics and there brilliant innovative ideas and technical knowledge about railways were before this investor came along. Do they actually believe there is nobody working on creating tech jobs in Waterford?  We have been fighting for this constantly about for the last  15-20 years. The naysayers then  come along and say we have no "office infrastructure" or so on so forth.  Somebody comes along to build the infrastructure and it's "blah, blah, blah American Shopping Mall". In short, hot air, resentful negativity and bullsh!t memes.  

It appears all these sleeping giants only wake up when they see somebody else taking the initiative. Strange!  It's like  taxi driver syndrome where they have all the answers to the worlds problems but they're.....well driving a taxi!

Road-Hog

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

If only the world was a simple as you think it is it would be fantastic. Have you actually read any serious literature on the causes of 2008 or the banking inquiry? If you did then you would know the root causes were poor planning, poor lending and the zoning of land in rural areas to accommodate development  suitable for cities. Neither Michael St. or the North Quays fit into that category.They are both high value sites one of the largest urban centres in Ireland. The largest in the region. You're simply following a perverse logic  that because development got us into trouble in 2008 then all development is bad. 
BTW the only one looking down on people is you with the typical tactic of criticizing minimum wage jobs. This was the a favorite of our local trots who are too stupid to realize that minimum wage jobs are just as important as the higher paid one. These jobs are highly important for people entering the workforce or coming close to leaving the work force. Or even professionals who may need work on an interim basis.If you had a clue you would know this. There are also many people who simply don't need  or want high paid  professional jobs. Where is this Utopia where everybody is paid Top Dollar?  This is even before you get to the idea that retail and services only provide "low paid work". There is the entrepreneur who may want to operate the franchise. God forbid we facilitate those for fear of upsetting the usual sneerers! Or the managers that will have to help run this premises. Then there is the trades men and Engineers who will have to operate services and facilities in these retail/hotel/conference/apartment/entertainment . Yes all these things will be run by minimum wage flunkies and people on jobsbride!
It's amazing where all this critics and there brilliant innovative ideas and technical knowledge about railways were before this investor came along. Do they actually believe there is nobody working on creating tech jobs in Waterford?  We have been fighting for this constantly about for the last  15-20 years. The naysayers then  come along and say we have no "office infrastructure" or so on so forth.  Somebody comes along to build the infrastructure and it's "blah, blah, blah American Shopping Mall". In short, hot air, resentful negativity and bullsh!t memes.  

It appears all these sleeping giants only wake up when they see somebody else taking the initiative. Strange!  It's like  taxi driver syndrome where they have all the answers to the worlds problems but they're.....well driving a taxi!

Some Excellent points fuzzy......too many taxi driver style know it alls in this city

BBM77

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

...It's like  taxi driver syndrome where they have all the answers to the worlds problems but they're.....well driving a taxi!

Great line, I’m so going to use it myself

Deiseen

Minister says decision on funding for Waterford's North Quays due by September:
The planning Minister says it's too early to say how much Government funding will be available for infastructure needed to advance the North Quays development in Waterford.

Saudi developers Al Hokair plan to build shopping centres in Michael Street and the North Quays which will also include additional office space, a hotel and accommodation.

Speaking at the opening of the Waterford Greenway, Simon Coveney says it's been a good week for Waterford. He says Waterford will be a priority when infastructure funding is being allocated. "We'll have to wait and see, we need to go through a process there, at the moment we're in the middle in the process around a new National Planning Framework for the country and Waterford features very strongly in that."

Minister Coveney added that Minister Paschal Donohoe will be making decisions in relation to capital investment before September and "he will be guided by the new national plan in terms of where investment goes. I think it's a good news story for Waterford because Waterford will feature very strongly." He added that he expects the population of Waterford City "to virtually double over the next twenty to thirty years and that needs infrastructure and we have to find ways to fund that."

He says "it's too early to be saying definitively how much will be spent but undoubtedly Waterford will be a big priority in the context of those discussions."

Jambo

Deiseen wrote: »

Minister says decision on funding for Waterford's North Quays due by September:
The planning Minister says it's too early to say how much Government funding will be available for infastructure needed to advance the North Quays development in Waterford.

Saudi developers Al Hokair plan to build shopping centres in Michael Street and the North Quays which will also include additional office space, a hotel and accommodation.

Speaking at the opening of the Waterford Greenway, Simon Coveney says it's been a good week for Waterford. He says Waterford will be a priority when infastructure funding is being allocated. "We'll have to wait and see, we need to go through a process there, at the moment we're in the middle in the process around a new National Planning Framework for the country and Waterford features very strongly in that."

Minister Coveney added that Minister Paschal Donohoe will be making decisions in relation to capital investment before September and "he will be guided by the new national plan in terms of where investment goes. I think it's a good news story for Waterford because Waterford will feature very strongly." He added that he expects the population of Waterford City "to virtually double over the next twenty to thirty years and that needs infrastructure and we have to find ways to fund that."

He says "it's too early to be saying definitively how much will be spent but undoubtedly Waterford will be a big priority in the context of those discussions."

There are some detailed maps on etenders of what the infrastructure may look like.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=109751&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders

Hoffmans

Whoo hold the lashings and beheadings, sheik sharam , these dumb paddy's give us half their city centre for free send those peasants there instead to build our cash cow malls

Harry Palmr

Hoffmans ****ty beer really did claim a few unfortunate types.

Sosurface

Well I for one welcome our new Jihadi overlords. Allahu Ahkbar!

Hoffmans

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles
couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead
This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

Max Powers

Hoffmans wrote: »

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles
couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead
This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

Jeez, have a day off Hoffman, silly comments.government will only give money depending on private investment, its not rocket science, there would be no govt investment without investors.
Secondly, you can make that silly point about every non essential spend, e.g. shouldn't the govt be putting money into health, education, housing rather than squandering it on festivals, business development,IDA, roads, bin collection, the environment, etc etc...No sense.
Also, you'd do better to keep stupid and insulting stereotypes out of your posts.

Road-Hog

Hoffmans wrote: »

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles
couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead
This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

what conspiracy type theory are you suggesting? WCCC/NAMA and government are giving sweet deals to a Saudi sheik to shore up his balance sheet or something, yeah that sounds right.....

Deiseen

Hoffmans wrote: »

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles
couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead
This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

Your profits will take a hit when your spending €2 billion on shopping centres in Milan.

You got a link for the CEO news?

Wanderer78

Hoffmans wrote:

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

I'm wondering if there is capital flight outta Saudi at the moment just as there is in China?

Harry Palmr

Yeah 300m is some flight! They have been diversifying for decades. Saudi has a small population and huge revenues from a declining product.

Speckydodge

Unfortunately some people still believe diversity was an old old wooden ship used during the civil war era 😂

fuzzy dunlop

Hoffmans wrote: »

Whoo hold the lashings and beheadings, sheik sharam , these dumb paddy's give us  half their city centre for free send those peasants there instead to build our cash cow malls

So go build if you think you can do better... Christ if only we had you during the crisis when jobs were being lost all around us.

gw80

Hoffmans wrote: »

Whoo hold the lashings and beheadings, sheik sharam , these dumb paddy's give us half their city centre for free send those peasants there instead to build our cash cow malls

Well you know what they say,
If you mistreat your wife or husband for long enough, it will drive them into the arm's of someone who will treat them better.