Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

North Wharf buildings to be demolished

2

Comments

  • #52
    wellboytoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭wellboytoo


    Digital Society wrote: »
    What are you actually suggesting should go in there?

    1254 KG s of commercial explosive.


  • #53
    debit2credit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭debit2credit


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    The destruction of most of the city walls was done because they were "archaic" and now we would give our eye teeth for them back.

    I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. Also renewal can be beneficial... if christchurch cathedral had not been demolished would we have two amazing georgian cathedrals by the one architect?
    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    This building has mjor significance with regard to industrial heritage and has huge potential. This perhaps the one major example of twentieth century architecture that we have.

    Sorry I just don't accept this. If a building is a hazard and just plain ugly then it should be replaced or radically renewed. Did you want the waterford crystal factory retained also? That building contributed a lot more to waterford's industrial heritage.
    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    Also ask yourself this if it is demolished what are the odds of something of any significance going in there? I would say none! All least with this having some historical significance we can perhaps use it as a pretext for some investment strategy.

    There is a new focus across Europe with a more balanced approach to development involving communities and developers. We could take the lead here for once if we can get our acts together. I reckon the site is perfect for small startups and community groups such as what is happening in New Street at the moment. Or some art hub/geurilla gardening/ GIY project.The last thing we need is a hasty decision to demolish or loud hailer slogans that hindered us in the past. The city council should be ashamed for having no imagination here. I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye and the proposal has been made to generate some controversy..

    A large scale site like this needs a larger vision than GIY / business startups. It cant be just a museum piece either. It needs to be a thriving centre of activity and form a link between the two sides of waterford. I suggested a large scale WIT building. A prime site like this needs to draw large numbers of people on a daily basis.
    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    It might also be done relatively cheap

    Not going to happen given the dangerous hazards contained in the site.


  • #54
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    wellboytoo wrote: »
    1254 KG s of commercial explosive.


    What was that about "witty answers" and "prejudices"?


  • #55
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    debit2credit wrote: »
    I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. Also renewal can be beneficial... if christchurch cathedral had not been demolished would we have two amazing georgian cathedrals by the one architect?.


    Think again.If Christchurch had not been demolished we would have had a much more significant and historic cathedral similar to the one in Dublin. Yes Christchurch is nice but if we had the opportunity again we would retain the original cathedral. That is an undisputable fact.

    debit2credit wrote: »
    Sorry I just don't accept this. If a building is a hazard and just plain ugly then it should be replaced or radically renewed. Did you want the waterford crystal factory retained also? That building contributed a lot more to waterford's industrial heritage .

    So radically reknew it! This is what we did with the remainder of our city walls. Your solutuon would have been to demolish them.This is what I said. And the Waterford Crystal site has zero significane to our architectural heritage.

    debit2credit wrote: »
    A large scale site like this needs a larger vision than GIY / business startups. It cant be just a museum piece either. It needs to be a thriving centre of activity and form a link between the two sides of waterford. I suggested a large scale WIT building. A prime site like this needs to draw large numbers of people on a daily basis..

    A large scale WIT build will not be a thriving centre of activity. You could fit the main campus of WIT on the site and that is not going to happen. I didn't just say GIY.That is just one of a thousand things that could go in there. A developer is not going to do it and if there was one he would just **** it up with the usual mundane **** apartments

    debit2credit wrote: »
    Not going to happen given the dangerous hazards contained in the site.

    This is just opinion and misinformed one at that.


  • #56
    debit2credit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭debit2credit


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    Think again.If Christchurch had not been demolished we would have had a much more significant and historic cathedral similar to the one in Dublin. Yes Christchurch is nice but if we had the opportunity again we would retain the original cathedral. That is an undisputable fact.....

    <snip>

    This is just opinion and misinformed one at that.

    Don't think we're going to agree on anything here. Can't even agree on the past ...never mind the present ...


  • #57
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    debit2credit wrote: »
    Don't think we're going to agree on anything here. Can't even agree on the past ...never mind the present ...

    Are you even aware of what type of structure was there before the present Christ Church Cathedral?


  • #58
    wellboytoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭wellboytoo


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    What was that about "witty answers" and "prejudices"?

    No prejudices I think it should be dropped , it has no architectural or aesthetic merit a tenuous claim to fame on part of it being the first reinforced concrete structure built in Ireland which I dont see as a good enough reason to keep it.


  • #59
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    wellboytoo wrote: »
    No prejudices I think it should be dropped , it has no architectural or aesthetic merit a tenuous claim to fame on part of it being the first reinforced concrete structure built in Ireland which I dont see as a good enough reason to keep it.

    It isn't a tenuous claim it is a real one"and a significant one at that. It also has plenty of aesthetic and architectural merit if you look at it closely. There is over half a dozen structures there at least.If structures such as the grain silos were removed and the tallest structure of the group you would be left with the core buildings which if cleaned and refurbished can be enhanced considerably which is being done all over Europe in similar situations. It's claim is not based on it being the first reinforced concrete structure in Ireland. It claim is based on being one of the earliest modernist buildings in Europe which makes it very significant. The same reasons were given that you gave for nearly all the acts of vandalism on our heritage. If it is demolished what will replace it? Some three storey structure that will safely get through the planning process and be an even bigger eyesore within a decade all because the objectors fuelled by their brainwashed ideas of what is "aesthetic" are ignorant of the history and significance of the structure.


  • #60
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I'm quite "art and designy" but even I can't stand that monolithic carbuncle. That it happens to be an early example of a certain construction method is just not enough to keep it. What the hell could one do with a building in such disrepair? The cost of restoration would be massive and when complete it would still be an ugly block of re-enforced concrete.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    mike65 wrote: »
    I'm quite "art and designy" but even I can't stand that monolithic carbuncle. That it happens to be an early example of a certain construction method is just not enough to keep it. What the hell could one do with a building in such disrepair? The cost of restoration would be massive and when complete it would still be an ugly block of re-enforced concrete.


    But it wouldn't. There is countless examples of where it has been done on this scale.There has been four already posted on this thread. I have posted another four in another thread on the same issue. Its already been done with the government buildings and ESB.The Granary on the Quay too, The type of thing we are talking about is available to see in the Guinness Hopstore. But the best example I have seen is in Eindhoven in Holland which I posted a link to. Ask yourself this do you actually apreciated the City Walls? Or are you only aware of it because of the efforts of others over the years. For most people it is the later because the city walls have been in a state of disrepair for generations until we finally copped on.


  • #62
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    Nuke it all and be done with it. An empty field with aul fellas out grazing cattle would be preferable to whats there now. Its an absolute eyesore.


  • #63
    Tragamin2k2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 694 ✭✭✭Tragamin2k2


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    But it wouldn't. There is countless examples of where it has been done on this scale.There has been four already posted on this thread. I have posted another four in another thread on the same issue. Its already been done with the government buildings and ESB.The Granary on the Quay too, The type of thing we are talking about is available to see in the Guinness Hopstore. But the best example I have seen is in Eindhoven in Holland which I posted a link to. Ask yourself this do you actually apreciated the City Walls? Or are you only aware of it because of the efforts of others over the years. For most people it is the later because the city walls have been in a state of disrepair for generations until we finally copped on.

    what are you actually on about like


  • #64
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Nuke it all and be done with it. An empty field with aul fellas out grazing cattle would be preferable to whats there now. Its an absolute eyesore.

    What a good atitude.....In 1970's cambodia.


  • #65
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    Tragamin2k2 wrote: »
    what are you actually on about like

    I have explained my reasoning. So have others. It's not rocket science so if you can't understand it the that is your problem.Maybe a trip to the library is in order.


  • #66
    LuckyFinigan
    Registered Users Posts: 866 ✭✭✭LuckyFinigan


    Any idea when they're planning on demolishing it? Can't wait to watch it.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    LuckyFinigan wrote: »
    Any idea when they're planning on demolishing it? Can't wait to watch it.


    They're not.


  • #68
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    What a good atitude.....In 1970's cambodia.

    So you think I have a bad attitude because I no longer want to see old derelict buildings overshadowing the entire quay area? Fair enough, each to their own. The cost of renovating those buildings would surely be at least ten times what it would cost to level them and to put even a nice park or something in their place. Anything would be better than the way it currently looks.


  • #69
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    So you think I have a bad attitude because I no longer want to see old derelict buildings overshadowing the entire quay area? Fair enough, each to their own. The cost of renovating those buildings would surely be at least ten times what it would cost to level them and to put even a nice park or something in their place. Anything would be better than the way it currently looks.

    No I think you have a bad atitude because of your glib repsonses. You do not kinow what the cost is or the environmental damage by just demolishing them. Yet four people have posted several times with links as to why some (not all) of the buildings should be retained and posiible attractive solutions that have been done elsewhere. Maybe you would like to demolish Blacfriars and Greyfriars too? You see how easy the glibness is?


  • #70
    wellboytoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭wellboytoo


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    No I think you have a bad atitude because of your glib repsonses. You do not kinow what the cost is or the environmental damage by just demolishing them. Yet four people have posted several times with links as to why some (not all) of the buildings should be retained and posiible attractive solutions that have been done elsewhere. Maybe you would like to demolish Blacfriars and Greyfriars too? You see how easy the glibness is?

    I just like big bangs


  • #71
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    No I think you have a bad atitude because of your glib repsonses. You do not kinow what the cost is or the environmental damage by just demolishing them. Yet four people have posted several times with links as to why some (not all) of the buildings should be retained and posiible attractive solutions that have been done elsewhere. Maybe you would like to demolish Blacfriars and Greyfriars too? You see how easy the glibness is?

    Does using the word "glib" make you feel important or something? Comparing these buildings to Blackfriars or Greyfriars is like comparing apples and oranges. The buildings in question are rat infested eyesores, I personally do not care if they were pioneering structures when they were built or not.. If a cost effective solution would be to retain some of these buildings, then I would have no problem with that. The fact is that at the moment, these buildings have been decaying for decades and it gives an awful first impression of our historic city to tourists coming in through Ferrybank. It seems to me as if you either have a serious superiority complex (your way or the highway) or else you are completely unwilling to take on board other people's opinions.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Max Powers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,510 ✭✭✭Max Powers


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Does using the word "glib" make you feel important or something? Comparing these buildings to Blackfriars or Greyfriars is like comparing apples and oranges. The buildings in question are rat infested eyesores, I personally do not care if they were pioneering structures when they were built or not.. If a cost effective solution would be to retain some of these buildings, then I would have no problem with that. The fact is that at the moment, these buildings have been decaying for decades and it gives an awful first impression of our historic city to tourists coming in through Ferrybank. It seems to me as if you either have a serious superiority complex (your way or the highway) or else you are completely unwilling to take on board other people's opinions.

    +1, bit harsh maybe towards the end but there are some people (not singling out anyone) who reckon they are more enlightened than the knuckledraggers. The building is a complete eyesore in it current state, to renovate it would cost multiples of what it would cost to demolish and even if renovated would still be not very pleasing to look at. Just because innovative techniques were used in its construction, it just doesnt balance out with the eyesore factor. People who appreciate the reinforced concrete thing will just have to think back to its original charms after it hits the ground. Sooner the better


  • #73
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    Max Powers wrote: »
    +1, bit harsh maybe towards the end but there are some people (not singling out anyone) who reckon they are more enlightened than the knuckledraggers. The building is a complete eyesore in it current state, to renovate it would cost multiples of what it would cost to demolish and even if renovated would still be not very pleasing to look at. Just because innovative techniques were used in its construction, it just doesnt balance out with the eyesore factor. People who appreciate the reinforced concrete thing will just have to think back to its original charms after it hits the ground. Sooner the better

    Yeah I didnt mean to turn that into a personal attack but I dislike people with a holier than thou attitude. Agree 100% with your post. I guess we can all agree on the fact that something needs to be done down there. Its gone on for long enough now. Someone taking the trouble to write the word "C**T" in large letters across the top of the building last year was the final straw.


  • #74
    invalid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 188 ✭✭invalid


    Just wish to point out, these are not warehouses that are easily subdivided. The are grain drying silos, vertical shafts which extend from ground level to the very top. Sure, there are some stairs but no floors. Regardless of what ever technique was used in there construction they are a 1 use building that would be not be in any way, shape or form economical to save.

    I feel its about priorities now, which is better, wait and hope someone with bucketfuls of cash swoop in and renovate the buildings (and i am sure that whomever did such a thing would face an amount of objections, many no doubt from those now objecting to the demolition) or demolish them and remove the single biggest eyesore in the south east.


  • #75
    space2ground1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 576 ✭✭✭space2ground1


    Imagine a modern Bord Gais theatre type event centre there with a footbridge to the opposite quay. A few small restaurants and nice spaces for small open air events.. and no rats.


  • #76
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Does using the word "glib" make you feel important or something? Comparing these buildings to Blackfriars or Greyfriars is like comparing apples and oranges. The buildings in question are rat infested eyesores, I personally do not care if they were pioneering structures when they were built or not.. If a cost effective solution would be to retain some of these buildings, then I would have no problem with that. The fact is that at the moment, these buildings have been decaying for decades and it gives an awful first impression of our historic city to tourists coming in through Ferrybank.



    No the word glib desribes your arguement in a nutshell.....Nothing.. I'm sorry so find a four letter word so overpowering. The fact that you think I am tallking about all of these buildings shows that the arguement is completely gone over your head. The atitude being expressed by you and others to the listed buildings on this site is the exact same that saw many examples of our heritage destroyed.And btw you haven't posted any facts!
    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    It seems to me as if you either have a serious superiority complex (your way or the highway) or else you are completely unwilling to take on board other people's opinions.

    It's a debate. Get over it...


  • #77
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    No the word glib desribes your arguement in a nutshell.....Nothing.. I'm sorry so find a four letter word so overpowering. The fact that you think I am tallking about all of these buildings shows that the arguement is completely gone over your head. The atitude being expressed by you and others to the listed buildings on this site is the exact same that saw many examples of our heritage destroyed.And btw you haven't posted any facts!



    It's a debate. Get over it...

    The thing is, you arent debating. You are shoving your opinions down other people's throats. I dont need to post any facts - what are you even talking about? I have expressed my opinion, which is that the buildings in question are rat infested eyesores that ruin the landscape of the town, and I either want them gone or if a cost effective solution can be found, developed. "Facts" dont come into it. I personally do not think that taking these buildings away would negatively affect our heritage in any way. Anyway, I'm tired of you now. I hope something can be done with these buildings, and very soon at that. The Ard Ri Hotel too. The entrance to the town coming from the Ferrybank direction is awful.


  • #78
    test2014
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭test2014


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    The entrance to the town coming from the Ferrybank direction is awful.

    Its like post WW2 Germany on the left side going to town. Disgusting dump.

    Part of the heritage me arse. If thats Waterford Heritage its no wonder its such a depressing, deprived, hellhole.

    Tear it down.


  • #79
    fuzzy dunlop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    The thing is, you arent debating. You are shoving your opinions down other people's throats. I dont need to post any facts - what are you even talking about? I have expressed my opinion, which is that the buildings in question are rat infested eyesores that ruin the landscape of the town, and I either want them gone or if a cost effective solution can be found, developed. "Facts" dont come into it. I personally do not think that taking these buildings away would negatively affect our heritage in any way. Anyway, I'm tired of you now. I hope something can be done with these buildings, and very soon at that. The Ard Ri Hotel too. The entrance to the town coming from the Ferrybank direction is awful.

    I am not shoving my opinions down anyones throat. Some of the posters here are a bit quick to paint others as some sort of high handed snob becsuause they have some awareness of what is important and what isn't. You don't need to post facts? That really is an interesting approach to things. Rat infested is a phrase that is nothing but a cliche that can be used to describe anything. Do you get it? It is meaningless.The half moon tower was rat infested before they cleaned it. The granary was rat infested before they refurbished it.Everything becomes rat infested when its empty. Half the Georgian buildings in the country are rat infested at one time or another.So you don't thinks it is important enough for any sort of preservation? Good for you. Others do not just me but the experts on the subject. That is why the building in question is listed in the architectural journals. Why don't and a few other sneerers actually learn something about what is over there instead of passsing "heritage me arse comments"? Its about the heritage of the city and not the appeasement of my our your ego.


  • #80
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    Botanical-apartment-therapy-Phuket-Thailand.jpgThere could be a hundred things that could go in there. Look at the links I posted for examples. I gave three specific examples.

    Maybe give some over to the community for carte blanche projects

    Grow it yourself
    Guerilla Gardenning
    Urban Bee Keeping like they do in London

    Here is another good example from this guy where money was a constraint

    https://www.ted.com/talks/edi_rama_take_back_your_city_with_paint

    You can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig.

    The building is awful. I personally don't like the above buildings, but sometimes you can't demolish it as it looks better dressing it up. This building, I really suspect, is beyond repair and beyond renovation. There has been no expression of interest from any manufacturer to pop in and setup shop. To be honest, I think the quay side isn't a great place for factories to be setup. The building needs to be demolished, cleared and something better developed, bringing life to that side of the bridge. It has huge potential and we shouldn't just dress it up for the sake of the building being rare or important in terms of heritage (I really don't think a tourist would have any interest in it, even if it was 'restored' as a museum or sort).


  • #81
    debit2credit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭debit2credit


    It was during the tall ships festival that I got to look at the site up close as I was bringing friends to the funfair on the north quays.

    I knew it was an eyesore but it was actually shockingly bad up close an embarrassment tbh and gave a dreadful first impression to my friends (which the rest of the festival well made up for I might add!)

    Integrated development on the site would really give the city a shot in the arm. Imagine the train station moved there opening out onto open park space with a landmark to acknowledge the old site and WIT buildings nearby to provide the student atmosphere. Cross the new pedestrian/cycle bridge and see the wonderful quayside we show on the postcards.

    Now that would be a first impression we could be proud of!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    fuzzy dunlop wrote: »
    I am not shoving my opinions down anyones throat. Some of the posters here are a bit quick to paint others as some sort of high handed snob becsuause they have some awareness of what is important and what isn't. You don't need to post facts? That really is an interesting approach to things. Rat infested is a phrase that is nothing but a cliche that can be used to describe anything. Do you get it? It is meaningless.The half moon tower was rat infested before they cleaned it. The granary was rat infested before they refurbished it.Everything becomes rat infested when its empty. Half the Georgian buildings in the country are rat infested at one time or another.So you don't thinks it is important enough for any sort of preservation? Good for you. Others do not just me but the experts on the subject. That is why the building in question is listed in the architectural journals. Why don't and a few other sneerers actually learn something about what is over there instead of passsing "heritage me arse comments"? Its about the heritage of the city and not the appeasement of my our your ego.

    Yep, its the appeasement of my ego that makes me want those buildings flattened. You really caught me out there. Go you!


  • #83
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    debit2credit wrote: »
    It was during the tall ships festival that I got to look at the site up close as I was bringing friends to the funfair on the north quays.

    I knew it was an eyesore but it was actually shockingly bad up close an embarrassment tbh and gave a dreadful first impression to my friends (which the rest of the festival well made up for I might add!)

    Integrated development on the site would really give the city a shot in the arm. Imagine the train station moved there opening out onto open park space with a landmark to acknowledge the old site and WIT buildings nearby to provide the student atmosphere. Cross the new pedestrian/cycle bridge and see the wonderful quayside we show on the postcards.

    Now that would be a first impression we could be proud of!!!

    Absolutely agree. There's so many better ways that the space along there could be used. Hopefully there'll be some progress made soon.


  • #84
    Zed Bank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Zed Bank


    test2014 wrote: »
    Its like post WW2 Germany on the left side going to town. Disgusting dump.

    Part of the heritage me arse. If thats Waterford Heritage its no wonder its such a depressing, deprived, hellhole.

    Tear it down.

    Ferrybank a "disgusting dump" ?

    Haha. Good one.


  • #85
    test2014
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭test2014


    Zed Bank wrote: »
    Ferrybank a "disgusting dump" ?

    Haha. Good one.

    No the abandoned buildings going from Ferrybank to town behind the garage.

    Ferrybank itself is one of the best areas in Waterford.

    Go read what i actually said again.


  • #86
    Deise Vu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,983 ✭✭✭Deise Vu


    The Celtic Tiger came and went and no-one showed any interest in acquiring and developing this prime waterfront site. We will never see Celtic Tiger wealth / easy credit in our lifetimes. Expecting private equity to do it now is beyond ludicrous and the govt won't have any capital budget for the foreseeable future that would allow it to ignore it's innate compulsion to spend money anywhere in the country before Waterford.

    The people who defend these monstrosities are the same people who were marching to preserve Wood Quay and who will be marching to preserve the Civic Offices built on Wood Quay sometime in the future because Sam Stephenson was an 'important' architect (ie a pompous git with the inside track). Its a matter of taste, these aren't historic or ancient and a method of construction doesn't set too many pulses racing(mass concrete - wow, fancy that!!! They should furnish it with formica tables and plastic chairs to really make it attractive.).

    Ignoring the wishes of the vast majority and imposing this visual carbunkle on them because some tiny minority has a fixation that anything older than 50 years must be great is the worst kind of elitism. The buildings are an ugly eyesore, the hills beyond are attractive. Blow the fcuking things up tomorrow.


  • #87
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    Imagine turning it into the headquarters of pseudo-religious organisation for people with red hair


  • #88
    Tragamin2k2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 694 ✭✭✭Tragamin2k2


    MRnotlob606 wrote: »
    Imagine turning it into the headquarters of pseudo-religious organisation for people with red hair

    ok i imagined it and it wasnt that funny


  • #89
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    Tragamin2k2 wrote: »
    ok i imagined it and it wasnt that funny

    Sorry hun u OK XOXOXO


  • #90
    debit2credit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭debit2credit


    The only good thing from Waterford is the road out! It is a depressing kip of a town with rotten and decaying buildings and derelict sites all over the centre spreading outwards.

    www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=91453321

    From the worst town in ireland thread on AH...

    Any update on the plan to demolish the rats nest?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    thomasm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,503 ✭✭✭thomasm


    debit2credit wrote: »
    www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=91453321

    From the worst town in ireland thread on AH...

    Any update on the plan to demolish the rats nest?

    Nearly 250 submissions to that thread and only one mention. Some of the grumpy locals must not have seen the thread


  • #92
    danjo-xx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,393 ✭✭✭danjo-xx


    Any activity over there on this, work was due to start last month and then they said it would go ahead on the 11th May if I remember right.


  • #93
    wmpdd3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,625 ✭✭✭wmpdd3


    No, no sign of any thing happening, it was delayed by a week from may 7 but still no joy yet.


  • #94
    The Adversary
    Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭The Adversary


    Any progress yet? Eagerly awaiting since it was announced but still have to endure looking at those yokes daily. Starting to fear, like other things in Ferrybank, Its never going to happen.


  • #95
    Professey Chin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 51,054 ✭✭✭✭Professey Chin


    The Adversary wrote: »
    Any progress yet? Eagerly awaiting since it was announced but still have to endure looking at those yokes daily. Starting to fear, like other things in Ferrybank, Its never going to happen.

    Last update was a couple of weeks ago
    http://www.waterford-news.ie/2015/05/15/further-delays-for-north-quays-demolition/


  • #96
    The Bowling Alley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭The Bowling Alley


    last update was on their facebook yesterday
    NORTH QUAYS UPDATE:
    They're still there.
    A source close to the action says that he doesn't expect there to be any movement in the next fortnight anyway.
    We're going to stay on the case and will keep you updated!


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    What's all this listed building crap, sure it's a building which was the first of its kind when it was built in the 1930s but it has served it's purpose, it's totally different to the grandeur that is exemplified in the medical Towers and castles.Those buildings have aesthetic appeal and can attract tourists.

    It has laid dormant and in disrepair for a number of years now with nobody taken the initiative to do something productive with it.We need to stop being starry eyed here an move on and level this concrete edifice to the ground.

    I wonder how many people at the tall ships looked across as the giant monstrosity of a building in disgust.


  • #98
    Tragamin2k2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 694 ✭✭✭Tragamin2k2


    MRnotlob606 wrote: »
    What's all this listed building crap, sure it's a building which was the first of its kind when it was built in the 1930s but it has served it's purpose, it's totally different to the grandeur that is exemplified in the medical Towers and castles.Those buildings have aesthetic appeal and can attract tourists.

    It has laid dormant and in disrepair for a number of years now with nobody taken the initiative to do something productive with it.We need to stop being starry eyed here an move on and level this concrete edifice to the ground.

    I wonder how many people at the tall ships looked across as the giant monstrosity of a building in disgust.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejzteDPhLsg


  • #99
    Max Powers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,510 ✭✭✭Max Powers


    i think the latest stuff on front of N&S about a DIT competition to see what can be done with the north quays is pretty much pie in the sky as we dont have money to renovate them and capital investment from private or public sector will more than likely not happen any time in short to medium term. Im for keeping some of it in hope that it can be done up, the old industrial style does have a bit of charm and potential when done up.


  • #100
    Guramoogah
    Registered Users Posts: 193 ✭✭Guramoogah


    I think that "artists impression of a micro brewery" on the North Quays on the front page of today's News & Star is the work of a PISS artist. What are they proposing - a lick of paint for the silos? "A year-long collaboration between the city architect's office, the IDA and students at Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT)" - why not WIT? And as for that yarn on page 26 about a fella wanting to install "a series of tall columns" to "punctuate the river front and actually function as public lavatories"??!! Ah c'mon, we know it's the river Suir but these Dublin students must be thinking of it as a Sewer. I actually had to check the date on the top of the page as I thought it was 1st of April


  • #101
    Irishlad2014
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭Irishlad2014


    Hi guys, I dont live in Ireland anymore, could someone post the front page of the N&S?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement