Apple Market Roof/canopy?

Harry Palmr · 28-05-2017 2:35pm

So the underside is MDF?

amber69 · 28-05-2017 2:36pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

So the underside is MDF?

OSB I'd say

Deiseen · 28-05-2017 3:10pm

sillysocks wrote: »

Deiseen wrote: »

Guys, has anyone got any recent photos of this? I think the ones above from facebook are a few weeks old now..

Took this last night. Looking forward to seeing it finished. The whole area looks much bigger and the paving etc looks like it'll be lovely but I was very surprised at the state of the paths down the side by Bodega/Burzza. They're awful, how people aren't falling every day never mind after a drink at night I don't know! Must be awful for the businesses there but I'm guessing they'll have a huge benefit once it's finished so worth putting up with the pain now.

Great stuff, thanks. Seems to be going slowly now. Anymore of the rest of John Street?

Pasted · 28-05-2017 5:19pm

Looks lovely, why not incorporate the old clock which stood on the Apple Market.

sillysocks · 28-05-2017 5:32pm

Deiseen wrote: »

Great stuff, thanks. Seems to be going slowly now. Anymore of the rest of John Street?

No sorry!

Sosurface · 28-05-2017 10:39pm

amber69 wrote: »

OSB I'd say

You would hope at least it's Smartply.....

Hoffmans · 29-05-2017 10:36am

Ultimate Waste of cash , could have built 60 x 3 bed semis for the price of it

Deiseen · 29-05-2017 11:14am

Hoffmans wrote: »

Ultimate Waste of cash , could have built 60 x 3 bed semis for the price of it

Money from the EU wasn't allocated for houses. It was either money for a city revamp or no money at all, I'll have the money please.

As part of this revamp John Street has got an upgrade and lady lane, colbeck street, Henrietta Street, high street and Arundel street are all having works done on them, badly needed works.

Dublin has temple bar, Galway has shop street and we had John Street, one of the most hideously ugly streets focussed on socialising/night life in Ireland. Tourists were just lining up see the area for themselves.

Already i see bars and restaurants with seating outside that couldn't do it under the previous arrangement and now we have a covered area where we can do something similar to what you'd see in he squares in Spain, Italy and France but all people can do is complain.

Bring back the taxi rank I say, that was much easier on the eyes.

Wanderer78 · 29-05-2017 11:17am

Deiseen wrote: »

Money from the EU wasn't allocated for houses. It was either money for a city revamp or no money at all, I'll have the money please.

is it showing a fundamental problem in the thinking of the eu?

Deiseen · 29-05-2017 11:19am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Deiseen wrote: »

Money from the EU wasn't allocated for houses. It was either money for a city revamp or no money at all, I'll have the money please.

is it showing a fundamental problem in the thinking of the eu?

What, that they are willing to invest money in trying to revitalise the city centre of a run down, delapitated town that is suffering from mass unemployment?

Wanderer78 · 29-05-2017 11:22am

Deiseen wrote: »

What, that they are willing to invest money in trying to revitalise the city centre of a run down, delapitated town that is suffering from mass unemployment?

the investment is needed and most welcome, but there are some serious issues in the thinking deep in the eu processes.

Deiseen · 29-05-2017 11:23am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Deiseen wrote: »

What, that they are willing to invest money in trying to revitalise the city centre of a run down, delapitated town that is suffering from mass unemployment?

the investment is needed and most welcome, but there are some serious issues in the thinking deep in the eu processes.

Here we go.....

Wanderer78 · 29-05-2017 11:25am

Deiseen wrote: »

Here we go.....

im currently watching a diem25 talk, you aint seen nothing yet:D

BBM77 · 29-05-2017 12:57pm

Deiseen wrote: »

What, that they are willing to invest money in trying to revitalise the city centre of a run down, delapitated town that is suffering from mass unemployment?

You are phrasing in a negative way but I actually agree with you.

I don’t think a lot of people in Waterford realise how many jobs Waterford has missed out on because of previous council’s failure, short-sightedness and frankly not caring about the development of tourism and retail in the city. Whatever you think of what is happening in the city centre, some of the things I don’t agree with myself, but at least they are trying to develop tourism and retail in the city and are making great progress. At the end of the day that is what all the changes to the city centre is about, developing tourism and retail in the city and creating jobs.

Adyx · 30-05-2017 1:13am

I admit I don't particularly like it, however I do acknowledge that something was needed in that area and I'm glad to see some revitalisation of the city center. So I like the idea but not the execution. I'd prefer to see something like that replace the monstrosity that is our Quay

mire · 30-05-2017 8:54am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

is it showing a fundamental problem in the thinking of the eu?

No it's not; talk about missing the point spectacularly.

The EU funds many social and environmental programmes, one of which is urban renewal. Are you saying that Waterford City Council should not have applied for and spent that grant money for the works in the city centre - I am glad that you are not a decision-maker for the city! Should the EU not engage in regional development activities that effectively distributes money to poorer performing cities - because that's what the project involves? The EU also has an enormous housing loan and grant scheme which is regularly used by local authorities to fund housing programmes - it's facilitated by the European Investment Bank.

So, the decision by the City Council to apply for and spend regional development funds on public realm/streetscape infrastructure , and the EU's decision to allocate that money for that purpose, has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability of either body to build and fund housing construction.

Max Powers · 30-05-2017 9:14am

Deiseen wrote: »

Here we go.....

:-)

Davyboyz · 30-05-2017 11:05am

Tomorrow night May 31st there is a meeting open to the public and residents in the area in Edmund Rice Centre on barrack street at 7pm on how to best oppose the new traffic plan for this area of the city, please feel free to come along to hear out the arguments against the traffic plan.

Deiseen · 30-05-2017 11:22am

Davyboyz wrote: »

Tomorrow night May 31st there is a meeting open to the public and residents in the area in Edmund Rice Centre on barrack street at 7pm on how to best oppose the new traffic plan for this area of the city, please feel free to come along to hear out the arguments against the traffic plan.

Here we go.....

Bilberry road changes Part 2

Bunch of dopes

Davyboyz · 30-05-2017 11:29am

By the way there is a facebook page set up with information on the new traffic plan for this area of the city; please see

Scrap Waterford City Traffic Plan - Part 8

Deiseen · 30-05-2017 11:59am

Davyboyz wrote: »

By the way there is a facebook page set up with information on the new traffic plan for this area of the city; please see

Scrap Waterford City Traffic Plan - Part 8

Why wasn't there objections made when these plans came out ages ago?

erica74 · 30-05-2017 3:01pm

Davyboyz wrote: »

Tomorrow night May 31st there is a meeting open to the public and residents in the area in Edmund Rice Centre on barrack street at 7pm on how to best oppose the new traffic plan for this area of the city, please feel free to come along to hear out the arguments against the traffic plan.

What exactly is the point of opposing this now? Were the plans opposed prior to work getting under way? And what exactly is the issue with the traffic plan?

iseegirls · 30-05-2017 3:14pm

http://www.waterfordcouncil.ie/media/forward-planning/CE's%20Final%20Report%20Urban%20Renewal%20Scheme%20Oct%202015.pdf

There are about 20 pages of issues raised and the responses give - whereby most of the issues were taken on board, with actions happening because of this resulting in a change of layout in some places

It's way too late for people to be opposing this. There was adequate amount of time for people to give their thoughts.

JohnC. · 30-05-2017 4:54pm

I like how it was described as "information on the new traffic plan" but is actually a belated whinge.

Dum_Dum · 30-05-2017 7:47pm

JohnC. wrote: »

I like how it was described as "information on the new traffic plan" but is actually a belated whinge.

Put a lid on it I say.

Gardner · 31-05-2017 3:48am

had a quick look at their facebook page. not one bit of constructive information in regards to the plan. all i see is a photo of pensioners who have **** all else better to do "jaysus Mary isn't it terrible seeing those trucks coming up the road?" "tis girl, i think we should setup a meeting and have a cuppa after"

not one of these people have a degree in construction engineering, experience in traffic management nor have engaged a 3rd party consultant to review the councils traffic management plan and respond with constructive information and questions.

typical Waterford bull****!

Deiseen · 31-05-2017 7:07am

Gardner wrote: »

had a quick look at their facebook page. not one bit of constructive information in regards to the plan. all i see is a photo of pensioners who have **** all else better to do "jaysus Mary isn't it terrible seeing those trucks coming up the road?" "tis girl, i think we should setup a meeting and have a cuppa after"

not one of these people have a degree in construction engineering, experience in traffic management nor have engaged a 3rd party consultant to review the councils traffic management plan and respond with constructive information and questions.

typical Waterford bull****!

Somebody asked them "I live on castle Street how it will it affect me" they responded by saying "to be honest, we don't have a clue". Sounds like they haven't even read the plans.

Max Powers · 31-05-2017 8:04am

Gardner wrote: »

had a quick look at their facebook page. not one bit of constructive information in regards to the plan. all i see is a photo of pensioners who have **** all else better to do "jaysus Mary isn't it terrible seeing those trucks coming up the road?" "tis girl, i think we should setup a meeting and have a cuppa after"

not one of these people have a degree in construction engineering, experience in traffic management nor have engaged a 3rd party consultant to review the councils traffic management plan and respond with constructive information and questions.

typical Waterford bull****!

You get this nonsense everywhere, see bridge in kk or galways ORR.
Danger is of course, weak councillors and attention seeking councillors and others such as socialist workers clowns who think they are standing up for the little man when really they object to everything and are more interested in getting their misguided mugs in the paper.this is also the type of rubbish that regularly gets posted on here by uninformed posters, comments like council have ruined city, council have too much power, or been in conspiracy with toll bridge,utter rubbish.
You just hope council see this for what it is, minority probably loud but minority all the same, reckon big majority see this as positive for city.

BBM77 · 31-05-2017 11:48am

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.

Cabaal · 31-05-2017 11:58am

Hoffmans wrote: »

Ultimate Waste of cash , could have built 60 x 3 bed semis for the price of it

So because some people need houses we shouldn't do anything else?

I guess we shouldnt have built the greenway then. Utter waste of cash apparently....

Apple Market Roof/canopy?

Comments