BonnieSituation wrote: » Lack of room to expand and stasis on the North bank as a result of misguided cultural inferences of a border. Shame that the boundary review was knocked on the head because of ridiculous "cultural" opposition.
road_high wrote: » Yea, that's the sole reason for the slow growth ...as we all know moving lines on a map has been a well regarded catalyst for growth the world over! Is there a chromic lack of space elsewhere in Waterford to stifle growth? Strange how Dublin seems to be burgeoning across Leinster regardless of boundaries.
JupiterKid wrote: » Here's the thing though, Waterford once held 4th place in the urban ranking scales. Until the 1980s it was larger than Galway. So what has happened in the past 35 years?
Harry Palmr wrote: » Something I've posted about a few times over the years! What happened was that Galway became the place outside Dublin - they got the university, they got the permanent seat at the Cabinet table (check the difference in that regard between Galway and Waterford), they played the artsy culture game (never underestimate the influence of soft power in shaping perception). Waterford went on strike throughout the 80s (see North Quay) and relied hugely on one industry - the Glass which was in a long term decline. Our public image was terrible and it's still poor enough because people have long memories.
BBM77 wrote: » I don’t disagree with you, there were clearly a lot of strikes, but this “Waterford went on strike throughout the 80s” is a bit harsh, the perception I am referring to not having a go at you. At the time Waterford had believe it or not had the biggest industrial estate in the country and a very high proportion of its jobs overall were in the manufacturing industry, higher than most of the rest of the country if not all. The 70’s and 80’s was a time of huge industrial unrest in many western countries, as a city with a large manufacturing base Waterford was bound to have been more affected by the industrial unrest of the time than the rest of the country. This perception that Waterford is prone to strikes is hugely unfair. It comes up from time to time but nobody has ever been able to back it up with any facts to show Waterford loses more days to strikes. Also, there was a certain amount of begrudgery towards Waterford with the success of Waterford Crystal at a time when the country seemed to be going nowhere economically. This did not help either. The reason Waterford fell behind Galway was that, again Waterford had a very high proportion of its jobs overall in the manufacturing industry. People at the time in Waterford tended to go straight into the manufacturing industry after school. For that reason Waterford had lower levels of entrepreneurship and college attendance as there was the security of a job in the manufacturing industry at a time when starting a business was very risky and going to college would leave you with a qualification that there was no jobs for in the country. Because of this and the lack of having a university when the economy turned around in the 90’s and Ireland started getting high skilled jobs Waterford was at a disadvantage in attracting these types of companies. The older industries tended to move to cheaper economies and Waterford’s unemployment rate creeped up. To make matters worse in the 90’s when Fine Gael was in power Ivan Yeats removed the IDA regional director from the southeast because he was getting too many companies for Waterford. It beggars belief but that was the attitude behind it and that still exists to this day. The Cork regional director took over and again Waterford was left at a disadvantage. To my mind the success of Waterford as it is today is not a case of falling behind but a sign of how resilient a city it is in the face of the many difficulties it has faced over the last 50 years or so coupled with incredibly unfair treatment from government.
Bards wrote: » I agree 100% of the above. and I think Waterford will only get fair treatment if pressure is put on the Govt of the day by outside influence. To get the ball rolling. I would urge the City Council to twin this City with Montana and start lobbying the Montana Governor to try and influence our own Government.
Road-Hog wrote: » Montana, wtf? I take it you are being sarcastic?
lawred2 wrote: » A population of 53000 would be classed as a town in most European countries.
Deiseen wrote: » It's also worth noting that this doesn't include Ferrybank which IS in Waterford city with a population of about 5000. You also have Tramore out the road with a population over 10,000 which is basically a suburb of Waterford. The cities population is closer to 60,000-70,000 because of this but listing the population in this way would justify certain benefits for Waterford that the Government just do not want to provide.
Squidvicious wrote: » Deiseen wrote: » It's also worth noting that this doesn't include Ferrybank which IS in Waterford city with a population of about 5000. You also have Tramore out the road with a population over 10,000 which is basically a suburb of Waterford. The cities population is closer to 60,000-70,000 because of this but listing the population in this way would justify certain benefits for Waterford that the Government just do not want to provide. http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/212681/council-moves-to-clarify-population-of-limerick-city.html You make a fair point and the link above shows what was done in Limerick. However, there's an element of "where do you draw the line" whenever you're estimating a city's population. In many ways, you're right about Tramore, but you could possibly make the same point about Oranmore in Co. Galway too. The main question to my mind is whether Waterford has grown as quickly as comparable cities. I'd say that most of us would agree that it hasn't. If so, the questions are why, what can be done to make it grow more quickly or perhaps whether some of us might actually be happy with slower growth?
Deiseen wrote: » What person in there right mind would be happy with slower growth and the unemployment that comes with it??? There's an argument for slower growth in boom towns but generally speaking growth is vital.
Max Powers wrote: » Excluding some old/retired people who don't care how the economy is going or have any loved ones depending on economy...An idiot is basically that answer to first bit.
Squidvicious wrote: » I doubt that there are many people in Waterford who are actively against faster growth for the city. But I'd say that there are an awful lot who really couldn't give a fiddler's one way or another.
please helpThank YOU wrote: » Two New Motorways linking Waterford City with Cork City and Limerick City. And New Waterford City University and Waterford City will be booming economy.
JupiterKid wrote: » According to the results of the 2016 Census, Waterford city and suburbs had a population of 53,000. This compares to 79,000 for Galway, 100,000 for Limerick and 210,000 for Cork. Here's the thing though, Waterford once held 4th place in the urban ranking scales. Until the 1980s it was larger than Galway. So what has happened in the past 35 years?
dzilla wrote: » please helpThank YOU wrote: » Two New Motorways linking Waterford City with Cork City and Limerick City. And New Waterford City University and Waterford City will be booming economy. Don't need two motorways. Motorway to Limerick and join the Dublin Motorway to Cork at Cahir.