city square

Max Powers · 11-03-2015 10:33am #1

interesting
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/waterford-retail-centre-for-22-5m-1.2133692

iseegirls · 11-03-2015 12:17pm

I'm amazed at some of those rent prices. The contracted rent for Cards 'n' Things was €258,250. That is a crazy figure, probably agreed in the boom. At least it's down to €160,000 now.

Hopefully this sale will go through quickly, and we could see a much needed re-fit of the shopping centre, tearing down the empty units if Sully's, Brasserie and the Card Company.

webpal · 11-03-2015 9:52pm

And yet 100 meters away, businesses on the quay, struggle to attract tenants for 15k pa

O Riain · 11-03-2015 10:47pm

webpal wrote: »

And yet 100 meters away, businesses on the quay, struggle to attract tenants for 15k pa

Well hopefully the upgrades with the quay will change that once its totally finished.

katydid · 12-03-2015 11:07am

O Riain wrote: »

Well hopefully the upgrades with the quay will change that once its totally finished.

You are joking, right? Even when they are finished, the whole Quay will be a disaster zone. Cars nose to nose in single lanes, exhaust fumes...

fricatus · 12-03-2015 11:31am

O Riain wrote: »

Well hopefully the upgrades with the quay will change that once its totally finished.

katydid wrote: »

You are joking, right? Even when they are finished, the whole Quay will be a disaster zone. Cars nose to nose in single lanes, exhaust fumes...

The Quay as it is now is hardly a "disaster zone". It's a hell of a lot more pedestrian friendly than it used to be, and the traffic is rarely as bad as people make it out to be (I drive it morning and evening at rush hour). I'm conscious that it jams up quite a bit by the GPO, but that seems to have as much to do with the roadworks down beyond Dooley's as with anything else.

Hopefully that will have an impact on the attractiveness of retail units there, but it will always be a secondary shopping area.

wellboytoo · 12-03-2015 11:36am

katydid wrote: »

You are joking, right? Even when they are finished, the whole Quay will be a disaster zone. Cars nose to nose in single lanes, exhaust fumes...

Smell of dead horse off of that hoary old chestnut, ye were wrong start to finish, give up, when the leaves bloom on the trees it will put the final nail in the coffin of this internet campaign against change.

Now I think I got enough clichés into that answer

Max Powers · 12-03-2015 1:56pm

katydid wrote: »

You are joking, right? Even when they are finished, the whole Quay will be a disaster zone. Cars nose to nose in single lanes, exhaust fumes...

i think all our problems can be traced back to the process of making the Quays safer, more tourist, cyclist and pedestrian friendly. We should revert back immediately to having 4 lanes, both inner ones continuously blocked, speeding, traffic jams, trucks bombing down a city centre street and being cut-off from the river side.

Mr.Shabby · 12-03-2015 5:23pm

Hmm looking at the rental prices there, It seems a little unfair that Mulligans pays 65k while gamestop pays 125k? Maybe gamestop has a much bigger back room or something but judging on shopsize, they seem pretty similar?

iseegirls · 12-03-2015 6:08pm

Mr.Shabby wrote: »

Hmm looking at the rental prices there, It seems a little unfair that Mulligans pays 65k while gamestop pays 125k? Maybe gamestop has a much bigger back room or something but judging on shopsize, they seem pretty similar?

I could be completely wrong, but I remember hearing that GAME were looking at the premises, but GameStop came to a deal with City Square (as they already had a shop beside Kylemore) and moved them downstairs, and effectively shoving GAME out. Now with that trade of premises - it probably came with a hefty rise in rent.

Mr.Shabby · 12-03-2015 6:24pm

Yeah I remember hearing that before alright.

Is the plan for the upgrade still going to involve all the units opposite burger king? Either way it's good to hear that it's still a profitable centre despite some empty units. I remember my mother bringing me down for the opening back in the day. It was on the news later that day I recall, with one of my future teachers Mr Browne doing the honours. Seven year old me was never so excited about the opening of a shopping centre!

ec18 · 13-03-2015 11:30am

100K footfall per week? does that seem very high?

TrustedApple · 13-03-2015 3:48pm

ec18 wrote: »

100K footfall per week? does that seem very high?

Wouldn't find that to high myself as i say its not 100k different people but overall 100k with some could be counted maybe 7 to 10 of that number. You also have to add in the likes of the school kids walking trow it on a daily basis.

But there is always people around city square any time i have been there and nearly always someone in the shops.

With the key i find it to be quite a lot better since they done it all up and it might be down to a single lane but when it was two lanes and a straight road from the tower down to the bridge you used to see people always at night racing up and down it.

I was seeing there on a sign that there will be a 5 axal ban some parts of the city ?. During i think 10 to 7 every day

katydid · 13-03-2015 9:54pm

Max Powers wrote: »

i think all our problems can be traced back to the process of making the Quays safer, more tourist, cyclist and pedestrian friendly. We should revert back immediately to having 4 lanes, both inner ones continuously blocked, speeding, traffic jams, trucks bombing down a city centre street and being cut-off from the river side.

Sure, they're much safer now that it takes twenty minutes for a car to get from one end to the other. No one will get knocked down by cars going ten miles an hour. Nevermind the frustrated and tired motorists...

How on earth is it "tourist friendly"? Lanes merge into each other - a whole lane given over to the entrance to a car park??? If I were a tourist, I'd be stressed out by the time I'd get to Reginald's Tower from the Bridge.

wellboytoo · 13-03-2015 10:08pm

katydid wrote: »

Sure, they're much safer now that it takes twenty minutes for a car to get from one end to the other. .

I had a car like that to but I got rid of it!

BBM77 · 13-03-2015 11:14pm

I find this attitude that people who rose concerns about what has been done on The Quay as running an “internet campaign against change” a bit ridicules. Many people, myself included, have genuine concerns about the works carried out on The Quay. Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.

wellboytoo · 13-03-2015 11:24pm

BBM77 wrote: »

I find this attitude that people who rose concerns about what has been done on The Quay as running an “internet campaign against change” a bit ridicules. Many people, myself included, have genuine concerns about the works carried out on The Quay. Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.

You forgot to mention the poor ambulance drivers....

robtri · 13-03-2015 11:59pm

BBM77 wrote: »

I find this attitude that people who rose concerns about what has been done on The Quay as running an “internet campaign against change” a bit ridicules. Many people, myself included, have genuine concerns about the works carried out on The Quay. Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.

the aim is to allow traffic to flow to allow people come to the city but to be slow enough to stop people using it as a main road through the city..

they donot want the trucks and the cars who are just driving through going into the city centre.

they also want to make it more pedestrian friendly

overall I think it is doing a good job at meeting these aims...

katydid · 14-03-2015 12:15am

robtri wrote: »

the aim is to allow traffic to flow to allow people come to the city but to be slow enough to stop people using it as a main road through the city..

they donot want the trucks and the cars who are just driving through going into the city centre.

they also want to make it more pedestrian friendly

overall I think it is doing a good job at meeting these aims...

To allow people to come into the city by creating a stop go system on the quay? By reducing two lanes to one, thus doubling the traffic chaos? By creating roundabout that cars and trucks have difficulty manoeuvering? By dedicating an entire lane to a turn off for a car park?

robtri · 15-03-2015 10:55pm

katydid wrote: »

To allow people to come into the city by creating a stop go system on the quay? By reducing two lanes to one, thus doubling the traffic chaos? By creating roundabout that cars and trucks have difficulty manoeuvering? By dedicating an entire lane to a turn off for a car park?

yes, all correct, except traffic chaos....

waterford does not have a traffic problem....
soon trucks and lorries will get the message and get out of the city centre ...

there is no roundabout on the quay that a car has issues manourving around, its a lack of driving ability

entire lane for car park, exactly what is needed to help people park

Jambo · 15-03-2015 11:42pm

robtri wrote: »

yes, all correct, except traffic chaos....

waterford does not have a traffic problem....
soon trucks and lorries will get the message and get out of the city centre ...

According to the electronic traffic notice board on the Ferrybank Dual Carriageway there is a 5 Axle Lorry Ban coming into force on the Quay and Possibly Lombard Street starting soon between certain daytime hours (sorry could not catch it all when driving).

I cant find any link to the above on the councils site only a reference to is on Eddie Mulligans Facebook

Will be interesting to see how this works if at all , personally I dont think this will force trucks to use the bypass they will now use bridge street / military road to get through the town.

katydid · 15-03-2015 11:47pm

robtri wrote: »

yes, all correct, except traffic chaos....

waterford does not have a traffic problem....
soon trucks and lorries will get the message and get out of the city centre ...

there is no roundabout on the quay that a car has issues manourving around, its a lack of driving ability

entire lane for car park, exactly what is needed to help people park

The roundabouts can be manoeuvered by cars, but they are just stupid looking. And no, you don't need an entire lane for a car park.

wellboytoo · 15-03-2015 11:56pm

katydid wrote: »

To allow people to come into the city by creating a stop go system on the quay? By reducing two lanes to one, thus doubling the traffic chaos? By creating roundabout that cars and trucks have difficulty manoeuvering? By dedicating an entire lane to a turn off for a car park?

You miss the whole principal, the new system is meant to slow traffic, but keep it flowing.
The roundabouts have allowed them to create a system of no left turns onto the Quays, thereby keeping traffic flowing with the added bonus of being able to double back if you are a stranger and see something you want to do.the entire lane for a car park is for peak times so the through traffic is not blocked by cars going into the car park.

katydid · 16-03-2015 12:17am

wellboytoo wrote: »

You miss the whole principal, the new system is meant to slow traffic, but keep it flowing.
The roundabouts have allowed them to create a system of no left turns onto the Quays, thereby keeping traffic flowing with the added bonus of being able to double back if you are a stranger and see something you want to do.the entire lane for a car park is for peak times so the through traffic is not blocked by cars going into the car park.

I understand the principle. I understand that when you take four lanes and reduce it to two, you slow down the traffic. The roundabouts are fine, but there is no need for the inside circle to be so big. Buses still have to drive on the Quay, along with delivery trucks etc. and for them it is too big.

Max Powers · 16-03-2015 10:40am

katydid wrote: »

I understand the principle. I understand that when you take four lanes and reduce it to two, you slow down the traffic. The roundabouts are fine, but there is no need for the inside circle to be so big. Buses still have to drive on the Quay, along with delivery trucks etc. and for them it is too big.

There was never 4 lanes, there were 2 and 2 used for dropping off, parking, nipping in to shop, GPO etc etc. There was always traffic on Quays, a lot of people say this hasnt changed much. In fact, people on here commented that Waterford people knew not to drive in footpath side lane of old system until you got past dooleys hotel.
Its far more tourist and pededstrian friendly as traffic is not significantly worse, less crazy maneouvres by people turning right and left off/on side streets, new bike lanes. Its far friendlier place to walk for tourists and us as we dont have cars bombing down it, weaving all over the place, less HGVs etc, easier to walk over to river side, less traffic etc. The hysteria saying the council or morons on this is just that. There will always be some traffic, Waterford doesnt have bad traffic, for that go to Dublin or Galway to some extent. Making city centres more pedestrian and tourist friendly is done in nearly all European cities.

mire · 16-03-2015 1:54pm

BBM77 wrote: »

I find this attitude that people who rose concerns about what has been done on The Quay as running an “internet campaign against change” a bit ridicules. Many people, myself included, have genuine concerns about the works carried out on The Quay. Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.

The main question here is - what is and what should the purpose of the quays be? If it is as you say to be "the main artery through the city centre", then so be it - let our priority be the delivery of as much traffic through the city as fast as possible, regardless of the impacts. However, most cities realise that city centre streets should not prioritise through traffic [there is a bypass for that]; instead, they should prioritise activity, access, mobility, environment, walkability, safety. Part of that actually involves slowing traffic down. Deliberately. The idea that Waterford should have a dual carriageway of 4 lanes down the quays is bizarre, and the idea that this is compatible with making it "pedestrian/cycling friendly" is even more bizarre. Cities gave up those types of ideas 30-40 years ago.

Your suggestion that this is "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking" is silly and mistaken. It is best practice. Look outside Waterford. It's the type of thing that cities do; it's what Copenhagen did 50 years ago, and most European cities have done since. I appreciate your concerns are genuine; but they are misplaced. Grafton street traders in Dublin and the city centre businesses generally proclaimed the death of their business when it was changed to a pedestrian-only street. Traffic changes always cause concerns and always cause misplaced concerns. The traders in Grafton Street were wrong, as were traders in every other situation where they decried this type of "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking". And I'm afraid in this instance, your concerns, whilst predictable and understandable are misplaced also.

BBM77 · 16-03-2015 2:56pm

robtri wrote: »

...slow enough to stop people using it as a main road through the city...

This is where the argument falls down for me (and juvenile comments about ambulances). The two main problems on The Quay are that traffic has not been reduced because the bypass is not being used by through traffic due to the fact that it has a toll on it and most of the length of The Quay has inefficient surface cars parks. In all the money that was spent neither of these problems have been addressed. I never disputed the need for change on The Quay to make it more pedestrian friendly but trying to force people to use the bypass by altering the public realm when in reality it is not being used and The Quay is being used because of separate issues makes no sense.

wellboytoo · 16-03-2015 2:58pm

BBM77 wrote: »

This is where the argument falls down for me (and juvenile comments about ambulances). The two main problems on The Quay are that traffic has not been reduced because the bypass is not being used by through traffic due to the fact that it has a toll on it and most of the length of The Quay has inefficient surface cars parks. In all the money that was spent neither of these problems have been addressed. I never disputed the need for change on The Quay to make it more pedestrian friendly but trying to force people to use the bypass by altering the public realm when in reality it is not being used and The Quay is being used because of separate issues makes no sense.

Just like your last sentence!?

BBM77 · 16-03-2015 3:33pm

wellboytoo wrote: »

Just like your last sentence!?

You go off and think of a point to make like a good chap.

BBM77 · 16-03-2015 3:35pm

mire wrote: »

The main question here is - what is and what should the purpose of the quays be? If it is as you say to be "the main artery through the city centre", then so be it - let our priority be the delivery of as much traffic through the city as fast as possible, regardless of the impacts. However, most cities realise that city centre streets should not prioritise through traffic [there is a bypass for that]; instead, they should prioritise activity, access, mobility, environment, walkability, safety. Part of that actually involves slowing traffic down. Deliberately. The idea that Waterford should have a dual carriageway of 4 lanes down the quays is bizarre, and the idea that this is compatible with making it "pedestrian/cycling friendly" is even more bizarre. Cities gave up those types of ideas 30-40 years ago.

Your suggestion that this is "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking" is silly and mistaken. It is best practice. Look outside Waterford. It's the type of thing that cities do; it's what Copenhagen did 50 years ago, and most European cities have done since. I appreciate your concerns are genuine; but they are misplaced. Grafton street traders in Dublin and the city centre businesses generally proclaimed the death of their business when it was changed to a pedestrian-only street. Traffic changes always cause concerns and always cause misplaced concerns. The traders in Grafton Street were wrong, as were traders in every other situation where they decried this type of "illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking". And I'm afraid in this instance, your concerns, whilst predictable and understandable are misplaced also.

Don’t talk to me like I never left Ireland I have travelled in 22 countries over three continents.

I admit when I wrote "the main artery through the city centre" was probably not the best choice of words, the main artery into the city centre would probably have been better.

The cities you talk about in your pretentious post have vastly superior public transport than Waterford so you not ever comparing like for like.

wellboytoo · 16-03-2015 4:03pm

BBM77 wrote: »

You go off and think of a point to make like a good chap.

Ok read your last sentence again, it makes no sense, fix it so I will know what you are actually trying to say,

robtri · 16-03-2015 7:34pm

katydid wrote: »

The roundabouts can be manoeuvered by cars, but they are just stupid looking. And no, you don't need an entire lane for a car park.

well you where the one saying that the roundabouts where not manoeuverable by a car.

I disgaree, to make it more parking friendly I think it helps a lot...

robtri · 16-03-2015 7:49pm

BBM77 wrote: »

This is where the argument falls down for me (and juvenile comments about ambulances). The two main problems on The Quay are that traffic has not been reduced because the bypass is not being used by through traffic due to the fact that it has a toll on it and most of the length of The Quay has inefficient surface cars parks. In all the money that was spent neither of these problems have been addressed. I never disputed the need for change on The Quay to make it more pedestrian friendly but trying to force people to use the bypass by altering the public realm when in reality it is not being used and The Quay is being used because of separate issues makes no sense.

Problem 1. According to the NRA the bypass takes 10,000 vehicles a day.... which otherwise would be going along the quays...
Hard to argue with those numbers... in reality by altering the public relam has removed 10,000 vehicles a day... so it is working.. trying to keep the quays free for people wishing to use the city centre for work or pleasure

problem 2... unfortuantely as a lot are in private ownership its hard to do much with them, so the extra lane to get into the real busy ones is a good solution.

mire · 17-03-2015 8:42pm

BBM77 wrote: »

Don’t talk to me like I never left Ireland I have travelled in 22 countries over three continents.

I admit when I wrote "the main artery through the city centre" was probably not the best choice of words, the main artery into the city centre would probably have been better.

The cities you talk about in your pretentious post have vastly superior public transport than Waterford so you not ever comparing like for like.

Well done on all your travelling. Next time you venture off, maybe look out for a city that is proposing a four lane dual carriageway right through its centre? Good luck with it because there are none - cities are doing the opposite. This idea that Irish cities can't do public realm/traffic calming schemes because we have limited public transport is a fallacy

You have not addressed any of my arguments/facts beyond a childish jibe about 'pretentiousness' - does that mean you don't like the words or that you disagree?.

Look, your argument that the quay should still be used as a high capacity/high speed traffic channel is simply outdated and wrong-headed. These approaches have long been dropped from the standard traffic management textbooks. Gladly, the scheme that is being progressed is more enlightened than that.

BBM77 · 18-03-2015 12:43am

mire wrote: »

Well done on all your travelling. Next time you venture off, maybe look out for a city that is proposing a four lane dual carriageway right through its centre? Good luck with it because there are none - cities are doing the opposite. This idea that Irish cities can't do public realm/traffic calming schemes because we have limited public transport is a fallacy

You have not addressed any of my arguments/facts beyond a childish jibe about 'pretentiousness' - does that mean you don't like the words or that you disagree?.

Look, your argument that the quay should still be used as a high capacity/high speed traffic channel is simply outdated and wrong-headed. These approaches have long been dropped from the standard traffic management textbooks. Gladly, the scheme that is being progressed is more enlightened than that.

It means I did not have the time at that time…

What I originally said was “Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.” I never said Irish cities can't do public realm/traffic calming schemes. I have never said that The Quay did not need to be improved for pedestrians/cycling. You and others here are the ones being childish. I made a post stating an opinion contrary to the majority of the thread and I got silly replies about ambulances and spoken down to like I never even left Waterford.

What I am saying is that in the context of trying to increase the number of people using the city centre and the reality of how those people get into the city centre in reality is not properly reflected in the scheme implemented on The Quay. The reality of the situation is that in Waterford most people come in cars, Waterford serves a catchment area that is mostly rural which has very limited if any public transport, Waterford needs to strengthen its city centre to increase the number of jobs in the service/retail industry in order to reduce its higher than national average unemployment and also to make it more attractive for investment. The scheme implemented has reduced the city centres capacity to handle cars, created unnecessary bottlenecks (intended or otherwise) and created an impression (perceived or otherwise) that coming into the city centre is hassle. You or someone else said that the bottlenecks are intended. So in the city councils mind creating annoyances to the very people they are trying to attract into the city centre is a way to achieve their goal of increasing the vibrancy of the city centre. This is the absolute last thing the city centre needs.

Some of what was been done on The Quay in my opinion is simply bad design. Outside FieldMaster is a case in point. What is the point of that big gap between the footpath and the line of where cars park. That area could have been made into a nice paved area instead a tripping hazard has been put in. Having to drive down The Quay and turn back up again instead of turning right up to the City Square car park again is bad design.

Cars in cities is a bigger issue than you are saying. Cities like Liverpool are doing things like removing bus lane almost completely.

In my opinion the purpose of The Quay has been looked at in a very narrow way and the wider purpose of The Quay has been ignored by the works carried out.

mire · 18-03-2015 10:04am

BBM77 wrote: »

It means I did not have the time at that time…

What I originally said was “Making The Quay more pedestrian/cycling friendly is not contradictory to maintaining four lanes, having no bottle necks and an efficient flow of traffic. Especially considering the amount of room that is available. What is contradictory is reducing the capacity of The Quay as the main artery through the city centre to handle traffic which brings people into the city centre while your stated aim as a local authority is to increase the number of people in the city centre. It has illogical public sector/politically motivated thinking written all over it.” I never said Irish cities can't do public realm/traffic calming schemes. I have never said that The Quay did not need to be improved for pedestrians/cycling. You and others here are the ones being childish. I made a post stating an opinion contrary to the majority of the thread and I got silly replies about ambulances and spoken down to like I never even left Waterford.

What I am saying is that in the context of trying to increase the number of people using the city centre and the reality of how those people get into the city centre in reality is not properly reflected in the scheme implemented on The Quay. The reality of the situation is that in Waterford most people come in cars, Waterford serves a catchment area that is mostly rural which has very limited if any public transport, Waterford needs to strengthen its city centre to increase the number of jobs in the service/retail industry in order to reduce its higher than national average unemployment and also to make it more attractive for investment. The scheme implemented has reduced the city centres capacity to handle cars, created unnecessary bottlenecks (intended or otherwise) and created an impression (perceived or otherwise) that coming into the city centre is hassle. You or someone else said that the bottlenecks are intended. So in the city councils mind creating annoyances to the very people they are trying to attract into the city centre is a way to achieve their goal of increasing the vibrancy of the city centre. This is the absolute last thing the city centre needs.

Some of what was been done on The Quay in my opinion is simply bad design. Outside FieldMaster is a case in point. What is the point of that big gap between the footpath and the line of where cars park. That area could have been made into a nice paved area instead a tripping hazard has been put in. Having to drive down The Quay and turn back up again instead of turning right up to the City Square car park again is bad design.

Cars in cities is a bigger issue than you are saying. Cities like Liverpool are doing things like removing bus lane almost completely.

In my opinion the purpose of The Quay has been looked at in a very narrow way and the wider purpose of The Quay has been ignored by the works carried out.

I agree fully that waterford needs to strengthen its city centre and improve its economic performance. An important part of that is improving the public realm, appearance and quality of the city centre; and this means re-balancing the environment towards pedestrian activity. The quay is one of the city's usp's, it is one of Ireland's most impressive urban settings and should be seen as a key opportunity for regeneration, as a key commercial, retail, cultural space. This means moving away from the idea that it should be seen as a through traffic route and a dual carriageway is simply incompatible with its regeneration. It should be seen as a destination. This means it is part of the urban core that needs to be valued, protected enhanced, not used. You seem to be suggesting that the quay is a way to get to the city centre whereas I take the view that the quay is and should be part of the city centre. Part of good traffic management in city environments means YES, slowing traffic down. This might seem counteruntuitive but we need to slow traffic down in urban centres, not speed it up. The notion that if we have fine fast big roads going into Waterford city centre, people will suddenly rush in is a myth. What matters most in cities like this is what's available and what's of quality when you get there. Waterford's big competition is Kilkenny, which is notoriously difficult to drive into, park, navigate. However, it is hugely succesful because of the quality, character and appearance of the city centre, not because it's easy to get into. You ask the question whether creating annoyances to motorists by changing the city centre traffic environment is a good idea. People always adapt, and this idea that people stop visiting the city centre cause it's so congested/difficult, is simply horse manure. If the city is good enough, people will visit. I'd ask the question whether having a rubbish city centre is more worrying. Like it or not, traffic congestion is usually a sign of economic prosperity - and it's the cities that have no traffic congestion who should be worried.

katydid · 18-03-2015 5:21pm

mire wrote: »

I agree fully that waterford needs to strengthen its city centre and improve its economic performance. An important part of that is improving the public realm, appearance and quality of the city centre; and this means re-balancing the environment towards pedestrian activity. The quay is one of the city's usp's, it is one of Ireland's most impressive urban settings and should be seen as a key opportunity for regeneration, as a key commercial, retail, cultural space. This means moving away from the idea that it should be seen as a through traffic route and a dual carriageway is simply incompatible with its regeneration. It should be seen as a destination. This means it is part of the urban core that needs to be valued, protected enhanced, not used. You seem to be suggesting that the quay is a way to get to the city centre whereas I take the view that the quay is and should be part of the city centre. Part of good traffic management in city environments means YES, slowing traffic down. This might seem counteruntuitive but we need to slow traffic down in urban centres, not speed it up. The notion that if we have fine fast big roads going into Waterford city centre, people will suddenly rush in is a myth. What matters most in cities like this is what's available and what's of quality when you get there. Waterford's big competition is Kilkenny, which is notoriously difficult to drive into, park, navigate. However, it is hugely succesful because of the quality, character and appearance of the city centre, not because it's easy to get into. You ask the question whether creating annoyances to motorists by changing the city centre traffic environment is a good idea. People always adapt, and this idea that people stop visiting the city centre cause it's so congested/difficult, is simply horse manure. If the city is good enough, people will visit. I'd ask the question whether having a rubbish city centre is more worrying. Like it or not, traffic congestion is usually a sign of economic prosperity - and it's the cities that have no traffic congestion who should be worried.

That's all fine and dandy, but when you work in the city centre, or have to go through it to access work, you aren't thinking of these things. A city is a living entity, not a historical monument. People have to access it, park in it, get stuff delivered to it. You have to find the right balance. And the balance on the Quay now, and in the future, is against the everyday users.

mire · 18-03-2015 5:52pm

katydid wrote: »

That's all fine and dandy, but when you work in the city centre, or have to go through it to access work, you aren't thinking of these things. A city is a living entity, not a historical monument. People have to access it, park in it, get stuff delivered to it. You have to find the right balance. And the balance on the Quay now, and in the future, is against the everyday users.

Sorry, but i've no idea why you would think that the arguments above relate to the city being an historical monument? It's precisely because a city is a living thing that it needs protection from the negative effects of cars and excessive traffic. Your suggestion that the changes on the quay - which are modest in nature and scale are somehow 'against everyday users' is bizarre. Everyday users include catering for motorists who eventually get out of their car and also use footpaths etc.! this idea that we need to cater for car movements first and foremost is so discredited and outdated. what worries me is that these minor changes are being dicsussed as if they were radical, space-age new-fangled ideas! These are tried and tested methods - it's basic stuff. If you want congestion free traffic conditions you're city will probably be dead.

katydid · 18-03-2015 6:26pm

mire wrote: »

Sorry, but i've no idea why you would think that the arguments above relate to the city being an historical monument? It's precisely because a city is a living thing that it needs protection from the negative effects of cars and excessive traffic. Your suggestion that the changes on the quay - which are modest in nature and scale are somehow 'against everyday users' is bizarre. Everyday users include catering for motorists who eventually get out of their car and also use footpaths etc.! this idea that we need to cater for car movements first and foremost is so discredited and outdated. what worries me is that these minor changes are being dicsussed as if they were radical, space-age new-fangled ideas! These are tried and tested methods - it's basic stuff. If you want congestion free traffic conditions you're city will probably be dead.

You're suggesting that we sacrifice the needs of the users and inhabitants of the city to some kind of romantic vision of what a city should be. Some kind of place where the pedestrian rules and traffic fits in with them.

Sorry, but while that's sometimes a good idea - the pedestrianisation of the city centre in some places has worked, but you have to balance it. The Quay is the only viable artery through the city; Bridge St. and beyond has a certain value if you want to avoid the centre, but if you work there, or want to go out to the Dunmore area, you have to go along the Quay. A lot of people live in S. Kilkenny and have no choice but to use the Quay. Their journey time has been massively increased by the bottleneck on the Quay and that's not going to change when the roadworks are finished. To take a thoroughfare with a possibility of four lanes, to build a wide median and reduce the lanes on both sides to one for most parts, is ridiculous. The roundabouts are a good idea, but they could have been incorporated into a two lane each way system without any great difficulty. If there were no median, you could have two lanes and a cycle track on each side, no problem.

Taxburden carrier · 18-03-2015 6:35pm

If a REAL outer ring road had been built , instead of what we have, something that stops dead at the hospital, the quay wouldn't be the issue that it has become.

tonc76 · 19-03-2015 12:28pm

Taxburden carrier wrote: »

If a REAL outer ring road had been built , instead of what we have, something that stops dead at the hospital, the quay wouldn't be the issue that it has become.

Care to elaborate on that?

Heathen · 19-03-2015 11:13pm

So... How about that city square huh?

H

robtri · 19-03-2015 11:23pm

Heathen wrote: »

So... How about that city square huh?

H

Stop bringing this back on topic you!!!!

mire · 20-03-2015 9:28am

katydid wrote: »

You're suggesting that we sacrifice the needs of the users and inhabitants of the city to some kind of romantic vision of what a city should be. Some kind of place where the pedestrian rules and traffic fits in with them.

Sorry, but while that's sometimes a good idea - the pedestrianisation of the city centre in some places has worked, but you have to balance it. The Quay is the only viable artery through the city; Bridge St. and beyond has a certain value if you want to avoid the centre, but if you work there, or want to go out to the Dunmore area, you have to go along the Quay. A lot of people live in S. Kilkenny and have no choice but to use the Quay. Their journey time has been massively increased by the bottleneck on the Quay and that's not going to change when the roadworks are finished. To take a thoroughfare with a possibility of four lanes, to build a wide median and reduce the lanes on both sides to one for most parts, is ridiculous. The roundabouts are a good idea, but they could have been incorporated into a two lane each way system without any great difficulty. If there were no median, you could have two lanes and a cycle track on each side, no problem.

Who said anything about pedestrianising everything? This is If you are going to debate this, perhaps avoid making up things.

This idea that traffic management in urban areas, which means rebalancing the needs of pedestrians and vehicles, is somehow a 'romatic vision' is a bit sad really. It's what most cities in Europe have been doing for 40 years. In any case, your vision for the quay in Waterford being prioritised for through traffic is pretty horrific and this type of approach largely died out in the 1970s after the butchering of cities like Glasgow and Leicester. No-one anymore really advocates for city centres to become high volume trhough traffic routes with dual carriageways. You take the view that in order to facilitate cars going from the edge of the city to south kilkenny [i.e. through the heart of the city], that a dual carriageway is the answer. So, therefore, we should allow the city centre simply to be used as a through-route for suburban purposes? No Thanks. Traffic should come through city centres on the terms of the city centre.

Traffic should be facilitated in city centres. The design environment, however, should when possible be oriented towards pedestrians - simply because this makes for a better city centre environment - and cities that do this have higher footfall, better business and a more dynamic retail and commerical basis. This is not theoretical or 'romantic'. Look up the Design Mnaual for Roads and Streets for example - when it comes to city centres, the priority is the pedestrian. You suggest that "To take a thoroughfare with a possibility of four lanes, to build a wide median and reduce the lanes on both sides to one for most parts, is ridiculous." No it's not. It's absoulutely the correct thing to do. And long overdue too.

As for City Square....

katydid · 20-03-2015 4:02pm

mire wrote: »

Who said anything about pedestrianising everything? This is If you are going to debate this, perhaps avoid making up things.

This idea that traffic management in urban areas, which means rebalancing the needs of pedestrians and vehicles, is somehow a 'romatic vision' is a bit sad really. It's what most cities in Europe have been doing for 40 years. In any case, your vision for the quay in Waterford being prioritised for through traffic is pretty horrific and this type of approach largely died out in the 1970s after the butchering of cities like Glasgow and Leicester. No-one anymore really advocates for city centres to become high volume trhough traffic routes with dual carriageways. You take the view that in order to facilitate cars going from the edge of the city to south kilkenny [i.e. through the heart of the city], that a dual carriageway is the answer. So, therefore, we should allow the city centre simply to be used as a through-route for suburban purposes? No Thanks. Traffic should come through city centres on the terms of the city centre.

Traffic should be facilitated in city centres. The design environment, however, should when possible be oriented towards pedestrians - simply because this makes for a better city centre environment - and cities that do this have higher footfall, better business and a more dynamic retail and commerical basis. This is not theoretical or 'romantic'. Look up the Design Mnaual for Roads and Streets for example - when it comes to city centres, the priority is the pedestrian. You suggest that "To take a thoroughfare with a possibility of four lanes, to build a wide median and reduce the lanes on both sides to one for most parts, is ridiculous." No it's not. It's absoulutely the correct thing to do. And long overdue too.

As for City Square....

I never said anything about pedestrianising everything. I suggest you read again what I said; I said that the pedestrianisation that is already there works, for the most part.

The balance is there; the centre of the city is pedestrianised for the most part. In other words, pedestrians are prioritised, and rightly so. The Quay is a thoroughfare through and into the city, the car needs to be prioritised here.

wellboytoo · 20-03-2015 4:12pm

katydid wrote: »

I never said anything about pedestrianising everything. I suggest you read again what I said; I said that the pedestrianisation that is already there works, for the most part.

The balance is there; the centre of the city is pedestrianised for the most part. In other words, pedestrians are prioritised, and rightly so. The Quay is a thoroughfare through and into the city, the car needs to be prioritised here.

That is what this whole debate is about , both here and on other fora, I for one disagree and think the car should tale equal if not slightly less priority

Sully · 20-03-2015 11:50pm

Lets park the whole 'Quay is a mess vs Quay is lovely' debate as it bares no relevance to the original topic about City Square.

Keep to the original topic from now please!

Thanks

bilibob · 21-03-2015 12:44am

The same photo of the city square extension, first shown 2-3 years back is being used now when they are selling it. With the huge rents they are taking in its crazy that they haven't built it yet...

I don't feel there has been any investment in that shopping centre for about 15 years! Debenhams is like a ghost town most of the time and the Dunnes is as rundown as they come, compared to the ones in Kilkenny or Dublin it's appalling.

There was lots of talk of h&m and Zara moving in a couple of years back when sully so was bought, but nothing came of it.

Maybe the big retailers are holding out on the Newgate centre?

Shane07 · 21-03-2015 9:22am

The centre is really starting to show its age now, If the extension had gone ahead last year the likes of H&M or Zara would have gone into it both stores have stated they want to be in the city,either way they will be here within the next few years be it in City Square or the Newgate complex! the sooner the better!

padraig.od · 21-03-2015 9:25am

Shane07 wrote: »

The centre is really starting to show its age now, If the extension had gone ahead last year the likes of H&M or Zara would have gone into it both stores have stated they want to be in the city,either way they will be here within the next few years be it in City Square or the Newgate complex! the sooner the better!

What is so special about Zara and H&M? Maybe 40 minimum wage jobs and stores that you would find in every town in the country. I don't get it.

Dum_Dum · 21-03-2015 10:51am

padraig.od wrote: »

What is so special about Zara and H&M? Maybe 40 minimum wage jobs and stores that you would find in every town in the country. I don't get it.

Because Waterford is not like the rest of the country - it is a basket case, even minimum wage jobs are like gold dust - each and every one fought over and cherished.

city square

Comments