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....

Sosurface · 31-05-2017 12:06pm

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 · 31-05-2017 12:11pm

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 · 31-05-2017 1:01pm

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 · 31-05-2017 1:11pm

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 · 31-05-2017 2:19pm

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 · 31-05-2017 9:06pm

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 · 31-05-2017 9:58pm

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 · 31-05-2017 10:28pm

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 · 01-06-2017 8:30am

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 · 03-06-2017 11:03am

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 · 03-06-2017 11:22am

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 · 03-06-2017 6:23pm

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 · 03-06-2017 8:37pm

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

Sosurface · 03-06-2017 11:18pm

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 · 03-06-2017 11:48pm

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 · 04-06-2017 12:13am

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 · 04-06-2017 12:43am

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 · 04-06-2017 1:21am

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 · 04-06-2017 8:43am

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 · 04-06-2017 10:05am

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.

Apple Market Roof/canopy?

Comments