Apple Market Roof/canopy?

Sosurface

Before you paint people as cranks/whingers etc, I would suggest maybe a trip in from the Dunmore Road or wherever to the Barrack Street area and decide if you think this is a good place to direct city centre/goods traffic. I mean have you people ever been on Barrack St or the streets/lanes adjoining it?

Max Powers

BBM77 wrote: »

Well there is two sides to that argument. Which is you have people who live out in the suburbs and beyond that rarely come into the city centre calling people who live in the city centre names for being concerned about changes that will affect them. Frankly I suspect the people who wrote the last few posts come under that category.

I mean they have closed John St and forced traffic up Castle St, up Convent Hill and on to Barrack St. Convent Hill particularly is completely unsuitable for this level of traffic and the Barrack St/Convent Hill junction is impossible to get out of safely at peak times. They want to make Bunkers Hill one-way which there is no need for. The changes to The Quay has forced traffic up towards the Ballybricken area because people are trying to avoid the pointless bottlenecks on The Quay. In general traffic is being forced to these areas with narrow two-way streets which are mostly residential. The people may not be able to communicate their concerns with snazzy Facebook pages etc so keyboard warriors can fight the good fight but this does not mean their concerns are not valid. Of course, there are some cranks but you just can’t paint everybody as cranks.

A bit of forward thinking would help a lot with this. The plan is to make Brown’s lane two way. Why not do this first? With John St closed this would help with the movement of traffic. The changes to The Quay should have been done last. The Quay is wide and more suited to heavy traffic and take the load of the inner city while changes are made.

I’m not saying changes should not be made. Some streets it is ridiculous that they have two-way traffic. But as somebody who lived for a long time in the inner city and still come in nearly every day, along with knowing people whose businesses have been badly affected by changes the council have made I can understand these people’s concerns.

Bbm, that stuff about people living out of city centre is tosh to be fair, its a small place and everything affects us all.if only people directly on works path can have their say then I'm guessing only the people in the halting site in bilberry should have had say about previous bilberry changes proposed...a nonsense I know.it's silly and unworkable.

BBM77

Max Powers wrote: »

Bbm, that stuff about people living out of city centre is tosh to be fair, its a small place and everything affects us all.if only people directly on works path can have their say then I'm guessing only the people in the halting site in bilberry should have had say about previous bilberry changes proposed...a nonsense I know.it's silly and unworkable.

It’s not toss at all. For example, can’t remember if it was Waterford Chamber or the Waterford City Centre Business group has identified that few people living out the Dunmore Road ever come into the city centre. How can somebody be affected if they never come into the area?

I never said that only people who live in an area should have a say! Not really sure what you mean by that.

I have pointed out the problems and you have pick out one point and called it toss. Kind of proves my point.

Kracken

It's interesting I downloaded and read the newly proposed traffic plan and objections, so I would consider that I see both sides, but here is my opinion (it is subjective and may be biased but it's still my own).

I work from home 3 days a week and 2 days in Dublin (previously rented up there 4 days a week) and the level of upgrades and urban development was all going into the capital and it was huge. But I watched as our city slowly rotted from the core with no development, shops closing as there was reduced footfall (locals aren't spending, some may say its due the issue of urban modernization).

However in the last 12 months I have an increase tourist footfall, more local coffee shops (and chains) opening and they are not empty. Whenever I am in town I see people where previously there were none.

We have more festivals drawing people in and the urban renewal going on, yes is a pain whilst it's being built but it's going to draw in more people and it looks good.

The advantage is that multinational will be drawn into a city where it looks good, but we have to give it a chance. If do nothing then we let the city die, it will waste away. Change has to happen, some may hate it and some may like but regardless a change is needed. if it doesn't work then change it again. But doing nothing is a death sentence for the city.

Max Powers

BBM77 wrote: »

It’s not toss at all. For example, can’t remember if it was Waterford Chamber or the Waterford City Centre Business group has identified that few people living out the Dunmore Road ever come into the city centre. How can somebody be affected if they never come into the area?

I never said that only people who live in an area should have a say! Not really sure what you mean by that.

I have pointed out the problems and you have pick out one point and called it toss. Kind of proves my point.

What I was calling tosh was in your original / first post about people not from city somehow not having opinions as valid, or like it doesn't affects us all.not a personal attack intended.similar stuff was said about bilberry from some saying, 'you don't drive it everyday so you would say that'..never heard about that survey, terrible if true to reality, I'll take your word on it.however,I value the city centre and its success greatly, what happens there is very important to me, even if I don't live directly in there.i think that my passion for the city and its success comes across in most of my posts to be fair, I'd consider myself more passionate about the city centre success than many mates I have living in/near city centre.council were making changes in my area in last year, it was advertised,I wrote a reasonable submission and they took it on board, just like they did with the city works.it wasn't to my exact liking but hey you see the value of works.

Road-Hog

It's definitely difficult to plan new routes for traffic that has an end destination of the city Centre or for the Residents there. Those on the suburbs who do not have an end destination of the city Centre have choices i.e. use the bypass ring road and/or Carrickpherish rd. To provide high capacity routes to the city Centre would involve CPO'ing rows of houses along specific steeets etc and I doubt if WCCC would be up for that in the short to medium term. The Maypark lane bridge over to ferrybank / abbey park would help as well as would a third bridge somwhere close to the tower hotel...these will come eventually but still won't improve things for those whose end destination is the city center area. Having read through the report on the part 8 planning process I can see merit in some of the concerns but also a lot of the comments/submissions were 'nimby' and myopic in nature....Don't know if anyone can follow my ramblings but that's my tuppence worth!

BBM77

Max Powers wrote: »

What I was calling tosh was in your original / first post about people not from city somehow not having opinions as valid, or like it doesn't affects us all.not a personal attack intended.similar stuff was said about bilberry from some saying, 'you don't drive it everyday so you would say that'..never heard about that survey, terrible if true to reality, I'll take your word on it.however,I value the city centre and its success greatly, what happens there is very important to me, even if I don't live directly in there.i think that my passion for the city and its success comes across in most of my posts to be fair, I'd consider myself more passionate about the city centre success than many mates I have living in/near city centre.council were making changes in my area in last year, it was advertised,I wrote a reasonable submission and they took it on board, just like they did with the city works.it wasn't to my exact liking but hey you see the value of works.

Of course they are more valid they live there you don’t, they have to live with the consequences you can go home to the suburbs.

I’m not questioning your passion for the city Max you clearly are, I’m passionate about it to. But the council have to be practical and at times their decisions are not. To use your example of Bilberry their decision to make it one-way was just not practical. But so is life nobody can get it right all the time.

The fact of the matter is that a lot people in Waterford live in the inner city. I have relatives from Galway and they comment when down about how many houses there is in the inner city compared to Galway. This is a good thing and is important to keep vibrancy in the city and something that should be fostered. Making wide roads narrow and forcing traffic onto narrow residential streets is not a way to foster people living in the inner city.

Sosurface

Arent they taking the exact opposite approach to this in Dublins inner city? I dunno what it's called but its sone kind of safe streets initiative to discourage use of residential streets by vehicles during times of day when children would be in days gone by using said streets as a makeshift playground and to encourage this activity again. Cars have literally destroyed the way inner city communities certainly as I remember from childhood and to further escalate this effect in the name of "progress" would be truly shameful.

Max Powers

BBM77 wrote: »

Of course they are more valid they live there you don’t, they have to live with the consequences you can go home to the suburbs.

I’m not questioning your passion for the city Max you clearly are, I’m passionate about it to. But the council have to be practical and at times their decisions are not. To use your example of Bilberry their decision to make it one-way was just not practical. But so is life nobody can get it right all the time.

The fact of the matter is that a lot people in Waterford live in the inner city. I have relatives from Galway and they comment when down about how many houses there is in the inner city compared to Galway. This is a good thing and is important to keep vibrancy in the city and something that should be fostered. Making wide roads narrow and forcing traffic onto narrow residential streets is not a way to foster people living in the inner city.

I disagree, you can't have it both ways, saying they're more valid and not do same for bilberry example, all those people on north side who use it as a rat run opinion not/less valid if that's case.facts here are, had chance to make submission and some did , those who didn't IMO too late to the party.plus,im not clear how some people think traffic will increase 100% by closing one lane(e.g. manor st), fair enough, might increase in few streets where traffic didn't go before but if people examined the plan their is not a whole lot of change outside of the manor/poleberry area.I'm guessing problem is we haven't heard specific concerns, just nonsense like scrap the whole thing.

Speaking of practical, the councils role, one of it at least is manage make best of city centre, being practical i is part of that too, they know more about traffic, safety, engineering etc than most on here.in general,I think this will advance the city centre, will certainly help traffic flow along likes of manor street and in city centre, which IMO is a good thing we should welcome, pain in ar$e if they're replacing the paths on your street but a good thing none the less,I don't think we should lose sight of that.

Road-Hog

Things heating up re the new city traffic access routes....face book page 'scrap the waterford city tragic plan - part 8' page give a report on their first meeting. 'Nobody consulted us' ie city center residents is one of the main gripes which is difficult to understand when you read the reports on the part 8 planning that is available......they are demanding meeting with city manage and engineers etc etc. How effective will such a meeting etc be. Can't see the plan being scrapped but possible some minor amendments.

Max Powers

Road-Hog wrote: »

Things heating up re the new city traffic access routes....face book page 'scrap the waterford city tragic plan - part 8' page give a report on their first meeting. 'Nobody consulted us' ie city center residents is one of the main gripes which is difficult to understand when you read the reports on the part 8 planning that is available......they are demanding meeting with city manage and engineers etc etc. How effective will such a meeting etc be. Can't see the plan being scrapped but possible some minor amendments.

Isn't that moronic...nobody consulted us...think the council held 2 public meetings and consultation document looking for submissions.totally bizarre

Harry Palmr

I was down there yesterday and it's not come on much from the pix posted a few days back - what is noticeable is the smell of wood glue! The whole street down to the junction looks like it'll be covered in grey parquet style brick.

taytobreath

the ceiling is going to some sort of reflective perspex. That will brighten it up a bit.

Sosurface

Looks utterly stupid and a tremendous waste of money/opportunity. Sad but typical of this place. Rather than a relatively simple steel and glass structure that would serve the purpose perfevtly well, its steel plus glass plus engineered wood plus reflective perspex. Sounds like as many palms as possible had to greased during construction tbh.

debok

Sosurface wrote: »

Looks utterly stupid and a tremendous waste of money/opportunity. Sad but typical of this place. Rather than a relatively simple steel and glass structure that would serve the purpose perfevtly well, its steel plus glass plus engineered wood plus reflective perspex. Sounds like as many palms as possible had to greased during construction tbh.

Stop boy will ya. Place was after turning into ****hole. This will improve it from what it was. And Il doubt ya will see the wood im sure its only to be used to fit the mirrored surface to.easier to attach to wood than steel.

Sosurface

debok wrote: »

Stop boy will ya. Place was after turning into ****hole. This will improve it from what it was. And Il doubt ya will see the wood im sure its only to be used to fit the mirrored surface to.easier to attach to wood than steel.

I agree it was/is a ****hole but instead of a fix we got what looks like a brand new eyesore. And can anybody explain why the surface was paved, then sections cut from the paving and patched up with tarmac? Looks bloody disgraceful down there tbh.

debok

Sosurface wrote: »

I agree it was/is a ****hole but instead of a fix we got what looks like a brand new eyesore. And can anybody explain why the surface was paved, then sections cut from the paving and patched up with tarmac? Looks bloody disgraceful down there tbh.

Maybe let them finish it first and then judge. My house was a building site before I moved in.

The_Shotz

Sosurface wrote: »

And can anybody explain why the surface was paved, then sections cut from the paving and patched up with tarmac? Looks bloody disgraceful down there tbh.

I presume to allow the placement of new lighting/structures. This is common practice, wait till all the big work is done to prevent damage to lighting etc....

Once ready install lighting/structures then finish the paving around them. The area is temporarily filled in tarmac rather than leaving a hole in the ground.

The area is still under construction so maybe we should all reserve judgement until it is finished.

Johnboy1951

debok wrote: »

Maybe let them finish it first and then judge. My house was a building site before I moved in.

Mine still is, decades later

Max Powers

The_Shotz wrote: »

The area is still under construction so maybe we should all reserve judgement until it is finished.

But shotz, that would be reasonable and get in the way of serial whinging by seriel whingers whose MO is bad mouthing everything.

Road-Hog

Sosurface wrote: »

I agree it was/is a ****hole but instead of a fix we got what looks like a brand new eyesore. And can anybody explain why the surface was paved, then sections cut from the paving and patched up with tarmac? Looks bloody disgraceful down there tbh.

Those patches/areas you are taking about are most likely an architectural feature ?

As for your eyesore comment......beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....one mans meat is another mans poison.....etc etc. You think your view is superior than everyone else ? I suggest you do a survey either an online one like you can set up on boards.ie or perhaps a face book one....most parisians abhored the Eiffel Tower initially

JohnC.

I don't think the tarmac bits were paved and then cut out. They were never paved to begin with. At least several patches I've witnessed them working one. Because, you may not believe this, they aren't finished yet.

Sosurface

Road-Hog wrote: »

Those patches/areas you are taking about are most likely an architectural feature ?

Tarmac as an architectural feature? Is it in honour of our newest ethnic grouping? I think leaving some of the barriers in place and making a cage for them would have been more appropriate tbh.

Max Powers

Sosurface wrote: »

Tarmac as an architectural feature? Is it in honour of our newest ethnic grouping? I think leaving some of the barriers in place and making a cage for them would have been more appropriate tbh.

More racist/hate comments from so surface, I don't know what's more pathetic at this stage, the racism or the remarkable lack of any reasonably well thought of points in any of his posts.

In most cases, the tarmac is there to facilitate services points for buildings, gas, water, etc.clearly when relevant supplier gives ok/puts in meter, they'll be paved..can't believe that it has to be said.this is the kind of nonsense you have to deal with when some who are looking for silly things to whinge about.

Gaspode

OK quit with the personal attacks & stick to the subject at hand

taytobreath

I'm assuming there will be seating from the cafes and pubs and and various street furniture under the roof. Maybe even those gas heated lamps for winter.

Max Powers

taytobreath wrote: »

I'm assuming there will be seating from the cafes and pubs and and various street furniture under the roof. Maybe even those gas heated lamps for winter.

Think I heard on radio council consulted shops/pubs in area about future arrangements,owner of bodega on wlr few weeks ago.

Chiparus

Max Powers wrote: »

Think I heard on radio council consulted shops/pubs in area about future arrangements,owner of bodega on wlr few weeks ago.

I think there will be issue with the traffic access to spring garden alley?

Max Powers

Chiparus wrote: »

I think there will be issue with the traffic access to spring garden alley?

I don't know why you think that, there's direct access maintained in plan.

Chiparus

I think it is a great space now, I could see concerts and other functions occurring there , but part of the space is a road, I think it would be great if they opened the other end of the alley