€300M Investment into Waterford City

Road-Hog

Hoffmans wrote: »

If this "investment" more like peanuts for vultures feeding on he last bits of carcass left around the country,
Its a bailout for a Saudi company in trouble and all possibility it could come to a halt mid build and the taxpayer foot the bill to complete the project which will have rocketed to 900 million by then, sound familiar?

Yes. You are dead right.....off with these Saudi chancers. They think they can 'sell beer to the Irish'. How dare they

Max Powers

Hoffmans wrote: »

If this "investment" more like peanuts for vultures feeding on he last bits of carcass left around the country,
Its a bailout for a Saudi company in trouble and all possibility it could come to a halt mid build and the taxpayer foot the bill to complete the project which will have rocketed to 900 million by then, sound familiar?

Literally any project can stop half way...this is a well experienced, well funded with major track record proposing investment..+ as far as we can guess, money is coming from non Irish sources and banks so it doesn't really get much better, unless a government or local mystery billionaire was funding it and even govt has limits, see that cinema in Galway.
These investors are far from the vulture fund crowds you mention but i doubt know what are, its like the PBP rubbish often trotted out,a lot of rhetoric,like the other nonsense posted here about govt should put 50m into housing instead...like that 50 would be even considered without this outside investment.I'm positive on it anyway, hopefully as said before we'll see action sooner rather than later, I'd be happier then.

Max Powers

Just looking back there, it was actually yourself Hoffman,who said the govt should give the millions to hospital (not housing as I mentioned in my previous )instead of facilitating this 300m private investment....you lose all credibility with your negative comments when you can't understand...No private investment means no extra money.

Deiseen

Hoffmans wrote: »

If this "investment"   more like peanuts for vultures feeding on he last bits of carcass left around  the country,
Its a bailout for a Saudi company in trouble and all possibility it could come to a halt mid build and the taxpayer foot the bill to complete the project which will have rocketed to 900 million by then, sound familiar?

Plenty of Irish Based developments that stopped mid-way when the country went bust. Going by your logic then we shouldn't build anything in case the company goes tits up mid way.
I'm skeptical about this whole thing, I'm in a bit of "I'll believe it when I see it fully built" kind of stance, but I'm still extremely positive and optimistic about it. I don't understand how any true Waterford person could be any different about something that will literally lift our city from the dirt and bring it on a level playing field with the rest of the cities. 
If you want to wallow in negativity and hope that Waterford under performs just so you can carry on giving out about everything then that's your issue but don't try to dampen everyone else's optimism unless its with some genuine constructive conversation. 
Your issue here seems to be more about what country the money is coming from, I'm not a huge fan of the Saudis either but this should be embraced to the fullest extent as it is good for Waterford, and at the end of the day that's all that really matters.

Deiseen

Hoffmans wrote: »

If this "investment"   more like peanuts for vultures feeding on he last bits of carcass left around  the country,
Its a bailout for a Saudi company in trouble and all possibility it could come to a halt mid build and the taxpayer foot the bill to complete the project which will have rocketed to 900 million by then, sound familiar?

Plenty of Irish Based developments that stopped mid-way when the country went bust. Going by your logic then we shouldn't build anything in case the company goes tits up mid way.
I'm skeptical about this whole thing, I'm in a bit of "I'll believe it when I see it fully built" kind of stance, but I'm still extremely positive and optimistic about it. I don't understand how any true Waterford person could be any different about something that will literally lift our city from the dirt and bring it on a level playing field with the rest of the cities. 
If you want to wallow in negativity and hope that Waterford under performs just so you can carry on giving out about everything then that's your issue but don't try to dampen everyone else's optimism unless its with some genuine constructive conversation. 
Your issue here seems to be more about what country the money is coming from, I'm not a huge fan of the Saudis either but this should be embraced to the fullest extent as it is good for Waterford, and at the end of the day that's all that really matters.

Harry Palmr

I know expressed opinions and free thinking are central planks of a democracy but some people really do abuse the privilege

fuzzy dunlop

Great interview on WLR with Seamus Walsh who bought the Ardree. His  "Team Waterford" idea hits the nail on the head because I have been saying it for a long time that we are not very politically savvy in Waterford.

http://www.wlrfm.com/shows/4-deise-today/4741-listen-seamus-walsh-who-has-bought-the-ard-ri-speaks-exclusively-to-eamon-keane-on-deise-today.html

I have seen on this forum people say that they are going to vote John Halligan because "he got me mother a house". I saw some guy on the paper doing something similar for Brendan Keneally. This frankly is a wasted vote and if you vote for this reason then you are a cheap date. So expected to be treated like a cheap date.

TheQuietFella

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I have seen on this forum people say that they are going to vote John Halligan because "he got me mother a house".

He put his own Mother out to allow them in! :mad:

PTH2009

knw its nothing to do with this development but Supermacs are opening a drive thru resteraunt on the cork road in the former premises of an old tile store just behind PC world

Mcdonalds and Rockin Joes will not be happy i imagine

johndoe99

PTH2009 wrote: »

Mcdonalds and Rockin Joes will not be happy i imagine

nothing like a bit of competition.

Max Powers

Great to see ad in the Munster express that council putting tender out to do the core drill and investigations preliminary stuff in preparation for pedestrian bridge and other stuff, there'll be many boxes to be ticked, progress being made.

MRnotlob606

We are in bad need of a Pedestrian bridge. Its 2017 and I cannot believe we don't have a bridge just for pedestrians .

TheQuietFella

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

We are in bad need of a Pedestrian bridge. Its 2017 and I cannot believe we don't have a bridge just for pedestrians.

In more need of a second bridge to cater for both traffic and pedestrians!
Unlikely though as it would impact on the toll bridge!

Max Powers

TheQuietFella wrote: »

In more need of a second bridge to cater for both traffic and pedestrians!
Unlikely though as it would impact on the toll bridge!

I'd disagree on that, we have been over this before,pedestrian bridge linking quays more important and funding is the issue, not toll bridge,

TheQuietFella

Max Powers wrote: »

I'd disagree on that, we have been over this before,pedestrian bridge linking quays more important and funding is the issue, not toll bridge,

What would the cost difference be between both structures?

Surely with the new developments being suggested for the North Quays we
need a proper bridge to cater for increased volumes of traffic?

I'm not against a pedestrian bridge but why only go halfway?

Harry Palmr

There is no way a road bridge will be built, the cost would be about 4 or 5 times as great due to load bearing design and materials, and the knock on engineering for sinking deep piers in the riverbed. A pedestrian bridge could be made of lightweight materials a road bridge of concrete and steel obviously would clock in at thousands of tonnes. Plus you'd have to redesign the point that the road bridge joins the south quay and extend the road from the Ferrybank DC to the exit point on the north quay

The span would need to be about 225 meters, here is the overview of Rice Bridge (which obviously being opening had additional construction costs) https://structurae.net/structures/brother-edmund-ignatius-rice-bridge

Max Powers

TheQuietFella wrote: »

What would the cost difference be between both structures?

Surely with the new developments being suggested for the North Quays we
need a proper bridge to cater for increased volumes of traffic?

I'm not against a pedestrian bridge but why only go halfway?

I'm pretty sure it was yourself we talked before,i believe the suggestion was a bridge at tower hotel.......we have 2 fine vehicle bridges, one under used.to suggest another vehicle bridge in city centre is lunacy, what's the point when there is one a couple of hundred metres down the quay.another vehicle bridge out by Ballygunner or out that way yeah , is a vehicle bridge out that way more important than pedestrian (public transport capability great too if possible) linking south and north, not a chance.

It's not about going half way, its about sensible choices and money.

Aquos76

TheQuietFella wrote: »

What would the cost difference be between both structures?

Surely with the new developments being suggested for the North Quays we
need a proper bridge to cater for increased volumes of traffic?

I'm not against a pedestrian bridge but why only go halfway?

Where would you propose we put a third bridge, the whole N Quays development will be accessible via the purposed pedestrian bridge which will link directly to the city centre.

Max Powers

I think the whole mentioning the toll bridge and vehicle bridge won't be built was some sort of conspiracy type suggestion, like the council are in league with the toll operators...this is just nonsense, not thought out and gonna happen when you throw out such comments consistently.

TheQuietFella

Aquos76 wrote: »

Where would you propose we put a third bridge, the whole N Quays development will be accessible via the purposed pedestrian bridge which will link directly to the city centre.

My previous suggestion was from the Tower Hotel but in hind sight it probably wouldn't have worked!
I just hope that this bridge will be wide enough, not just a token effort!

Max Powers

TheQuietFella wrote: »

My previous suggestion was from the Tower Hotel but in hind sight it probably wouldn't have worked!
I just hope that this bridge will be wide enough, not just a token effort!

They mentioned, ideally they want pedestrian with some form of shuttle between north quays and Michael street, probably big wish but would be fantastic of worked out like that.

Suryavarman

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Very common statement on boards, and its sad to see. It's very obvious, to me anyway, that the (not so) free market has actually failed in regards our housing needs.

You are correct when you say "not so free market". We have some of the most strict planning laws in the developed world, and they are also the most expensive to comply with. We also have dual aspect ratio regulations and a mountain of other regulations that drive up the cost of housing.

We need Government oversight of construction and provision of housing for the worst off in society. It's completely disingenuous to say that our current problems are the result of a free market in housing. Admittedly we need the Government to do a lot more in some areas, but we also need the Government to step back and do a lot less in other areas. Blaming everything on the free market reveals a pretty poor knowledge of the current housing market and more than a bit of bias on your side..

Road-Hog

Suryavarman wrote: »

You are correct when you say "not so free market". We have some of the most strict planning laws in the developed world, and they are also the most expensive to comply with. We also have dual aspect ratio regulations and a mountain of other regulations that drive up the cost of housing.

We need Government oversight of construction and provision of housing for the worst off in society. It's completely disingenuous to say that our current problems are the result of a free market in housing. Admittedly we need the Government to do a lot more in some areas, but we also need the Government to step back and do a lot less in other areas. Blaming everything on the free market reveals a pretty poor knowledge of the current housing market and more than a bit of bias on your side..

Off topic again....this thread is not about solving the nations housing crisis.

Wanderer78

Suryavarman wrote:

We need Government oversight of construction and provision of housing for the worst off in society. It's completely disingenuous to say that our current problems are the result of a free market in housing. Admittedly we need the Government to do a lot more in some areas, but we also need the Government to step back and do a lot less in other areas. Blaming everything on the free market reveals a pretty poor knowledge of the current housing market and more than a bit of bias on your side..

It of course is a multitude of failures but the failures of the free-for-all market are well documented, but this probably is a debate for another thread

Max Powers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It of course is a multitude of failures but the failures of the free-for-all market are well documented, but this probably is a debate for another thread

Wanderer, you might not be wrong but you write the same or similar stuff about capitalism time and time again, and then say probably not suitable for this thread, might be time to actually start a thread on it.No offence intended but it has no place in this thread or bull about housing...whoever keeps bringing that up, maybe start that thread.

invalid

If you look at the development plan you will see the third crossing is proposed to start at Maypark Lane and cross the river into cat land there.

The idea of the crossing at the tower looks great for symmetry but sucks for traffic management. It was all planned out over 12 years ago with the Waterford City PLUTS report.

Harry Palmr

I was thinking where is cat land, then the penny dropped.

The proposed road into Maypark will be a disaster should be come to fruition. Imagine the trucks thundering into the old Ardkeen roundabout and then crawling along the old section of the ring road during peak hours traffic?

JohnC.

If there were a new bridge built there, I'd imagine other associated work/upgrades on roads it connects to would be carried out too.

Harry Palmr

JohnC. wrote: »

If there were a new bridge built there, I'd imagine other associated work/upgrades on roads it connects to would be carried out too.

Find the space on google maps and come back to me!

JohnC.

Maybe the hospital will be downgraded out of existence by the time it happens.

Dunmoreroader

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I was thinking where is cat land, then the penny dropped.

The proposed road into Maypark will be a disaster should be come to fruition. Imagine the trucks thundering into the old Ardkeen roundabout and then crawling along the old section of the ring road during peak hours traffic?

Maybe a ban on HGV's using it? Otherwise you're looking at a crossing at the island or even knockboy.

fricatus

What worries me about this whole thing is that €50m of infrastructural investment is needed from the government, and this government has to be the worst shower in a long time for kicking Waterford in the head.

FF under Bertie and Cowen may have driven the economy over a cliff, but at least we got some proper roads investment in Waterford, plus some other scraps... maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but it would not surprise me in the least if those fcukers held back the money and let this thing fall through.

Wanderer78

fricatus wrote:

FF under Bertie and Cowen may have driven the economy over a cliff, but at least we got some proper roads investment in Waterford, plus some other scraps... maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but it would not surprise me in the least if those fcukers held back the money and let this thing fall through.

My gut is telling me that this is probably what's gonna happen, I truly will be surprised if this gets the go ahead, but then again, a roof over the Apple market seemed impossible when first mentioned, so who knows

BBM77

fricatus wrote: »

What worries me about this whole thing is that €50m of infrastructural investment is needed from the government, and this government has to be the worst shower in a long time for kicking Waterford in the head.

FF under Bertie and Cowen may have driven the economy over a cliff, but at least we got some proper roads investment in Waterford, plus some other scraps... maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but it would not surprise me in the least if those fcukers held back the money and let this thing fall through.

This is my biggest worry to. But surly the Saudi's would have sounded the government out on this first and got the answers they wanted before they got to this stage.

Max Powers

Doh

Max Powers

There are some positives here, understandably depending on govt to make sensible decision is never ideal but 30m was already in national development govt plan for north quays, now that was back in coffeys time but still.also, the fact that it is a SDZ helps massively as these areas are to be prioritised for infrastructure.thirdly, an idiot if given the opportunity to get 300 investment would/should stump up 50, its not massive money.also, we/council aren't asking for money for an event centre or a fancy publicly funded cinema, we are asking for money for infrastructure;, pedestrian bridge, moving train station to better location, probably changes to roads, footpaths, etc.

Dunmoreroader

Yes, sucessive Irish government's(FF/FG/Lab etc.) have been very proactive in developing Waterford......:(
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=608616

Johnboy1951

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Yes, sucessive Irish government's(FF/FG/Lab etc.) have been very proactive in developing Waterford......:(
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=608616

Yes ........ a 2002 post reckoning it would take 20 years to develop after plans were published ......

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=609271&postcount=4


It gets my vote as best prediction for ..... however long!

mike65 wrote:

At last! Now they've chosen a company to design the thing it'll only take 20 years to complete....Its been an age since the plans were first announced and I was starting to view the North Quay development like the 2nd river crossing. Promises, promises!

The whole thing is meant to be about a Km long, and it'll certainly bring much needed life the Ferrybank. I like the
east bridge idea but won't it have to lift?

Mike.

PremierDeise

I think there was originally a plan called Project 2014 which included the pedestrian bridge

PTH2009

I'd love if we done a principality stadium Cardiff type thing and build a 20000 seater stadium on the new quay development

The Wit campus ij Carrignore is build already and no point in knockong it and rebuilding

Got too love the Waterford county board

Harry Palmr

When the WIT Carriganore site was being mooted the future of Walsh Park should have been part of the planning but that would have require something like a measure of wit and foresight wouldn't it? There is plenty of land to build a new stadium but there would be some logistical issues regarding parking etc (unless they are happy to lose 3 playing pitches in total), esp as the Greenway carpark would be at it's fullest when the big games are played.

Deiseen

Harry Palmr wrote: »

When the WIT Carriganore site was being mooted the future of Walsh Park should have been part of the planning but that would have require something like a measure of wit and foresight wouldn't it? There is plenty of land to build a new stadium but there would be some logistical issues regarding parking etc (unless they are happy to lose 3 playing pitches in total), esp as the Greenway carpark would be at it's fullest when the big games are played.

AFAIK there is land set aside for the stadium up in WIT.

Deiseen

Harry Palmr wrote: »

When the WIT Carriganore site was being mooted the future of Walsh Park should have been part of the planning but that would have require something like a measure of wit and foresight wouldn't it? There is plenty of land to build a new stadium but there would be some logistical issues regarding parking etc (unless they are happy to lose 3 playing pitches in total), esp as the Greenway carpark would be at it's fullest when the big games are played.

Also, I think Carrignore is the wrong place for it. The only positive factor is that they have the space for it. It's 5.5km out of the city and we will get none of the added benefits of a stadium if it's not closer to town.
Imagine having 20,000+ people arriving into the town for a Munster Semi final with a large portion of them drinking in the bars and having some food, you can't put a price on that activity. If we could get that once or twice a year then the amount of money coming into the city would be absurd. 
If it's out in Carrignore then people will drive their cars there, park, go to the game and the go off home. Where is the benefit in that?
There is plenty of room on the goal ends at Walsh Park for expansion, admittedly nothing on the terrace opposite the stand  but surely with a bit of readjusting they could create more space on the side with the stand? Could they make Slievekeale road one way which would allow more room for a stand or possibly even do away with that part of the road altogether and allow access for the business there through Keanes road? Might cause havoc with traffic but it's something that should be considered.

Harry Palmr

I agree in principle - stadiums should be where the people are really even though it does create it's own problems - ask the locals! As for space in the current footprint - the space around the pitch on three sides is actually tight esp when you factor in the required safety margins (the standing areas narrow towards the furthest corner) - the pathways need to be a certain width for example. Anything built now would have to pass the health and safety tests. If if it were possible to made the site a regular shape the locals would hold out (and rightly) against losing land at the bottom of their gardens.

Deiseen

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I agree in principle - stadiums should be where the people are really even though it does create it's own problems - ask the locals!  As for space in the current footprint - the space around the pitch on three sides is actually tight esp when you factor in the required safety margins (the standing areas narrow towards the furthest corner) - the pathways need to be a certain width for example. Anything built now would have to pass the health and safety tests. If if it were possible to made the site a regular shape the locals would hold out (and rightly) against losing land at the bottom of their gardens.

Work can be done on the three other sides to make something of reasonable quality. Who knows, why don't they even put feelers out to see if the locals would be willing to give up some of their gardens for a cost.
In relation to the stand, they could easily make it a two tiered stand to squeeze in a few extra bums. To me, moving it out of the city is not an option.
Apparently the capacity of the stadium is 17,000 so with a bit of work you could easily bump it above 20,000.

blue note

The north quays would be a good location for this.

Harry Palmr

Deiseen wrote: »

Work can be done on the three other sides to make something of reasonable quality. Who knows, why don't they even put feelers out to see if the locals would be willing to give up some of their gardens for a cost.
In relation to the stand, they could easily make it a two tiered stand to squeeze in a few extra bums. To me, moving it out of the city is not an option.
Apparently the capacity of the stadium is 17,000 so with a bit of work you could easily bump it above 20,000.

Two tiers is easy to say but harder to build within the same area - each tier adds 80-100% to the depth of a stadium stand basically as more people in it have to be able to get in and out safely.

PTH2009

blue note wrote: »

The north quays would be a good location for this.

yeah would be perfect and really add to the landscape, it has worked for Cardiff. I was in Glasgow last year and the SSE Hydro arena is build on a similar development ad has perfect access

Would rebuilding the RSC and making into a multi sports stadium work ???

TheQuietFella

Deiseen wrote: »

Work can be done on the three other sides to make something of reasonable quality. Who knows, why don't they even put feelers out to see if the locals would be willing to give up some of their gardens for a cost.
In relation to the stand, they could easily make it a two tiered stand to squeeze in a few extra bums. To me, moving it out of the city is not an option.
Apparently the capacity of the stadium is 17,000 so with a bit of work you could easily bump it above 20,000.

Where though are 17,000/20,000 people going to park?

The_Shotz

The same place 50k people Park in Thurles or 80k in Croke Park, away from the ground. Plenty fields for parking on the old kilmeaden Road, WIT, industrial estate, Mount Sion Gaa, RSC. Plenty parking.

As for redeveloping the RSC to multi purpose, not possible to have a running track around a GAA field.