infrastructure in Waterford

dayshah wrote: »

Well obviously you are just lying now. .

How so Mister Soundbite? You're just following the herd with easy comments like "white elephant" while ignoring realities like similar developments in Kilkenny and Clonmel are online as we speak.

dayshah wrote: »

Unless City Square has a 5-star hotel, auditorium, and 'luxury' apartments attached, which I have just so happened to miss every time I was there over the past 20 years or so, then City Square is not roughly the same size as the proposed Newgate development..

The Newgate Centre is the retail development which are approximately the same size as city square. The hotel and conference facilities were a physically seperate entity. You obviously didn't look at the plans properly. 27 "luxury apartments". I'm sure if they weren't you'd be complaining they were bog standard.Or if they weren't their at all you'd be accusing developers of driving residents out of the city centre like all the other soundbite junkies:rolleyes:

dayshah wrote: »

If the developer did get finance, how come he didn't build it? Because its such a crap idea? Maybe we'd be better off with a half completed building in our city centre, lying idle apart from us as a cider den.

A little thing called the credit crunch happened. The banks had collapsed so any approved loans could not have been drawn down. I'm surprised you're not aware of it. It's been in the news almost every day for the last 3 1/2 years.

dayshah wrote: »

And why do you think the credit crunch happen? Because there was dodgy lending all over the globe. This is just the sort of white elephant project that is lying idle. The De La Salle Centre mightn't be pretty, but its far better than a half built construction that can't get enough finance to finish.

Imagine having the Árd Rí right in the city centre. Events have proven McCann and the WCTU to be right on this one.

What a load of tosh. Do you honestly think that Newgate would have been the sort of risky development that, say, took down Lehman Brothers? Do you honestly think Newgate shopping centre, at least, would have gone bust despite McDonough in Kilkenny and Athlone town centre surviving, with only a fraction of the number of people living in those places? Do you think that just because Newgate had additional elements, like a hotel, etc., that the whole development would have been a mistake? Nobody would have complained if Newgate shopping centre was planned and some other developer planned a hotel beside it; the problem seems to be that the one developer had the arrogance to build 3 things as part of the one plan. Well guess what, we won't see that kind of bullishness from developers for the foreseeable future, so the next time you walk past the De La Salle centre, have a think about what you've been saying.

The Ard Rí took years to reach that condition, and it has unique problems in being right up there on its own on a prominent hill. And yes, if I had a choice between a rotting hotel from the 70's on the hill and a rotting hotel from the 00's, I'd pick the latter. And I'd keep picking the latter for as long as there were developers who thought they could make a business out of it. The alternative, by the way, is derelict structures ultimately having to be demolished by the council. The Ard Rí got a wall built on front of it. I would prefer a NAMA hotel than a wall in lieu of demolition at the tax payers expense. And by the way, NAMA will complete the half finished sites in high value locations in order to get a return.

There's only 3 things that Waterford really needs in my opinion:
1. A university/WIT upgrade.
2. A shopping centre along the lines of the Newgate plan to accommodate large units and consolidate the city's retail offering.
3. Waterford city and county councils to remain separate so that urban and rural concerns and politics remain separate. (Merge rural with rural but not rural with urban. In an ideal world, Waterford city council -- and other city councils -- would be enlarged to encompass the larger urban zone (LUZ), for example, but that wouldn't suit the GAA-based, cowboys and indians mentality, which Phil Hogan would know only too well.)

That short list is not too bad, considering a few years ago you could have added to the list a motorway to Dublin, a second river crossing, an outer ring road, the resurrection of the airport and a few other bits and bobs.

dayshah wrote: »

Have you not seen the Anglo Irish building in Dublin? Just because they start a project doesn't mean it will be finished.

But anyway, if I a wrong it will be built in a few years time.

If I am right (which I always am) a new plan will be put forward for a shopping centre, but without a spa and leisure centre.

I don't care whether you're right or wrong, Waterford gets what it needs either way, just as it would have had the development gone ahead.

The Anglo building is not warranted because there is no anglo anymore. There are still shoppers in the south east, beleaguered and all as they are. If NAMA decided not to finish it, then the situation would not be little different to what it is now. Although I suppose the building site would be yet another symbol for Waterford people to shake their fists at...

dayshah wrote: »

The developers went for the whole development, not just the retail section. You are simply lying when calling it just a retail section. Many of the objections were related to the other components (such as the mug ugly "5* hotel with spa and leisure centre"..

Keep calling me a liar.It just proves you have nothing worthwhile to say.Facts are Facts and unlike your assertions the verifiable fact is that the retail section and the hotel and conference centre were physically seperate. They could and probably would have started in stages.

Plus if the hotel was Mug Ugly (Wow! another soundbite:rolleyes:) How come it got through the planning process despite McCanns objections.The ans is it was fine aestetically.

dayshah wrote: »

And why do you think the credit crunch happen? Because there was dodgy lending all over the globe. This is just the sort of white elephant project that is lying idle. The De La Salle Centre mightn't be pretty, but its far better than a half built construction that can't get enough finance to finish.
"

More crap! Where do you get your info from.The credit crunch was primaraly caused by sub prime mortgages in the US and low interest rates by the Fed/ECB and other central banks. This drove the price of land in Ireland to at least twice it's value. It has nothing to do with the viability of the project.

dayshah wrote: »

Imagine having the Árd Rí right in the city centre. Events have proven McCann and the WCTU to be right on this one.

Or imagine having a working hotel where the Ardree is now up and running for the tall ships.Plus another in the City. The reason we don't is because of McCann and proof that this man was cancer to the Waterford economy.Ask yourself this.Who made more money out of the tall ships event.Waterford or Kilkenny hoteliers.Probably the latter because they had better hotels for less cost.

dayshah wrote: »

Again, where is the 5* hotel, conference centre, arts centre, spa and leisure centre and luxury apartments in the McDonagh centre? I certainly missed them.?

You were told where they are.Kilkenny already has them. They are a decade ahead of Waterford in hotel and conference facilities.

dayshah wrote: »

If its a profitable plan it will get finance (and lots of people here don't seem to know the difference between meeting overheads, and making a profit). But I am 100% confident that the planned development will never see the light of day. So I don't really need to care what a few posters think.

It got finance. Do Keep up.

dayshah wrote: »

Instead of a shopping centre, 5* hotel, conference centre, arts centre, spa and leisure centre and luxury apartments; why not just build a bridge, and get over it?

We would but WCTU and Brendan McCann would lodge and objection.:D

dayshah wrote: »

I'm not going to name which local media directly benefit from the Newgate development for fear of annoying the mods, but its fairly obvious.

Anyway in the end the developers lost, the objectors and Waterford won :P

We all stood to benefit from the Newgate development. We're all vested interests.

McCann, WASCID, elements from Save Viking Waterford, NIMBYs, and assorted union men and socialists, of course, were all pure as the driven snow I suppose? I'd say something if they could get a council seat between the lots of them. But they can't. So they use undemocratic levers of power to inflict their ideology on the population.

-99% of people wanted and still want the Newgate centre to go ahead.
-Waterford is under-perfoming in terms of retail, our own chamber of commerce and city council is saying that.
-Big name retailers want to move in but dont have suitable spaces
-We are underperforming in getting city breakers here as a lot of people want a retail experience
-McCann, WCTU and a few other NIMBYs delayed it so much that funds are not being given out now due to the credit crunch.
-All the above know that delaying projects like this cost millions and in the long run decrease the liklihood of investment in Waterford
-They also know that by delaying and hindering projects that investors will go elsewhere
-If the project was started, it would be providing employment as we speak and long term jobs when it opens, yes maybe the centre would not be full during this recession but if it was there for when the economy turns, it could be full.

dayshah wrote: »

:rolleyes:

We didn't all stand to benefit from Newgate as it was a crap development, put forward by developers, some of who already went into liquidation. If we all stood to benefit why did people object? If these objections were simply vexatious they wouldn't have delayed the project as long as they did. The project was delayed because so many of the objections were upheld. Finally the project failed because the banks were forced to come to their senses. I wonder what appraisals were done by the banks before the bubble burst.

The people on WCTU are elected to their positions, but its not a political body so has no reason to have people on the city council (though plenty of councellors have been on WCTU).

Anyway, why should people have to be elected to make an objection? Should we do away with freedom of speech for those who object to projects that were obvious would fail, and have failed? Any other fundamental rights you would like to remove from those that disagree with you?

Thankfully, the Newgate Centre is dead. Time to move on.

Personally I think it would have been great. Nice modern shopping centre, apartments, nice hotel, what's not to like? Sure the apartments would have been undersubscribed and the hotel might never have opened, but that's life. A few years earlier the picture would have been different. And if we vetoed every development on the basis that a developer might go bankrupt half way through, you'd be living in Reginald's tower as Waterford's sole inhabitant. What seems to bug you is that the developers had multiple uses for the site in mind. God forbid. Shame on them.

Many of the objections by Brendan McCann and others have been vexatious. This is indicated by, 1) the fact that all substantial developments of any kind were objected to and 2) many/most of these objections were not successful. This, along with numerous interviews in the newspapers and on WLR with the man himself, paint a picture of an ideologically driven man, opposed to all large developments in what he felt was a town that should be preserved from modern development. He also appeared had a problem with fast food signage and alcohol. Brendan was so well known for his skill at crafting objections that every NIMBY group in the city sought out his services. Sure, some of the developments he objected to were bad developments, but he objected to all large developments, good and bad -- that's what makes it wrong. Humans being human, I am sure Bord Planala made a mistake or two on occasions in upholding objections where plans were acceptable, and of course there were many damaging delays, which ensured one shopping centre and one restaurant (off the top of my head) never opened. I remember seeing a league table of numbers of objections by person/organisation a few years back and he was the only individual up near the top of the list. The rest were organisations.

The right to object to developments is not a fundamental right, for a start, it's a fairly minor right. It has to be balanced against other rights. It is there to enlist the public in self-monitoring developments, and so on. But it has to be balanced against other rights. An individual who is filibustering the system by lodging vexatious objections is attempting to infringe on the rights of private persons and other entities to purchase land and develop it according to local regulations. The same thing could be done with Freedom of Information requests, where 40 people could submit complicated requests to a business or public organisation and grind it to a halt for a relatively small cost. Abuse of good laws like these, which extend powers and privileges to citizens, will eventually cause those laws to be changed.

The point about democracy is that if you are objecting vexatiously to developments on ideological grounds, and thereby disrupting the planning process, your ideology is taking precedence over the will of the people. The fact that McCannite ideology is not born out by the will of the people is indicated by the fact that despite several attempts, McCann has not managed to get elected to council or Dáil. I believe that if you have crackpot fantasies about the way the country should be run, you should put them to the people and then to the Dáil and see if you can get them enacted in law. The planning process is not the place promoting the ideology of a handful of people.

dayshah wrote: »

:rolleyes:

There was plenty not to like, hence the objections by various groups.
.

Various vested interests you mean.

dayshah wrote: »

There are already measures in place to prevent frivolous claims. We have a planning process to allow normal people, who don't have the backing of a local newspaper or a developers pockets, to raise their objections. In this case the developers had almost all the cards. I remember this project being talked about back in 2001. 10 years ago. The developers should have put forward a decent plan, then they wouldn't have been bogged down in the process. Luckily, the short termist views of those in favour of the project have been dealt a blow by the end of property mania.
.

Those in favour were the ones who were applying best practice with a holistic regional approach.Unlike Mister "only lodge objections in the city cos I can't afford the bus fare". I suppose you can't blame him when he's only on 90k a year.

dayshah wrote: »

The long term development of the city require preserving our heritage (especially around the city walls) to promote tourism, and far far more importantly the creation of jobs through industry and internationally traded services.

These were all part of the strategy the city council had in place. But what you refuse to acknowledge along with your serial objector budies is the most important element of a cities economy is retail specifically retail located in downtown locations.Also the perpetuation of myths like tourism being the primary economic activity in the city centre.It's not. Likewise srong industry will do nothing for sustainable development because of the likehood of such industries workforce being from an area up to a 30 mile radius. The type of economic activity that ensures urban cohesion is retail not tourism or hi tech industry.This phenomenan has been identified for decades by the most environmentally aware economists and planners.People like Jane Jacobs.

Plus its hard to have a tourist industry when Brendan McCann is objecting to all the toursit infrastructure?