The Tipperary Venue: major plans for sport & culture complex off M8 Junction 5

Amtmann

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The project itself is 800 acres and with additional development in the region you would be talking well over 1,000 acres of countryside lost (although not necessarily cover in concrete). Our agricultural sector has huge potential for growth and can create plenty of jobs in this region (more on the scale of what is required). If this project goes ahead we will be lamenting the loss of so much agricultural land to yet another white elephant development surrounded by low density, poorly connected, car dependant communities which have very little economic value. It is too much to ask for this country to apply some foresight to these issues. But sure lets sacrific more land that has export potential and increase our reliance on imported oil!

Lots of issues being broached in your paragraph above, but I simply cannot get behind your notion that these 800 acres are really fields of gold that must be preserved because of the economic bounty they'll surely bring if farmed in a certain way. Agriculture is not remotely labour intensive. I'd love to know how many jobs you think this 800 acres could give rise to, even considering the multiplier effect.

Also, if the Tipperary Venue proves to be very economically productive, in terms of tourism, sport, employment and tax, would you be willing to change your mind about its economic utility vs 800 acres of fields (which have already been there, presumably, for a few centuries at least)?

Pete_Cavan

Tremelo wrote: »

Lots of issues being broached in your paragraph above, but I simply cannot get behind your notion that these 800 acres are really fields of gold that must be preserved because of the economic bounty they'll surely bring if farmed in a certain way. Agriculture is not remotely labour intensive. I'd love to know how many jobs you think this 800 acres could give rise to, even considering the multiplier effect.

Farming, processing and marketing in the agri-food sector accounts for almost 10% of employment in this country and agri-food exports have an 8.5% share of our total exports. Agriculture is a huge employer in this country, we are a world leader in the sector and we have potential for further growth here. I understand that agriculture will not create jobs on, or even anywhere near the same scale as the Tipperary Venue but the potential jobs from it more suitable for the area in question. Spin-off development resulting from this also has to be taken into account, not only in land take, but also provision of infrastructure (which the taxpayer will pay for). We get better value for money for money spent on infrastructure in higher density areas, so that is where it (and development) should be focused.

Tremelo wrote: »

Also, if the Tipperary Venue proves to be very economically productive, in terms of tourism, sport, employment and tax, would you be willing to change your mind about its economic utility vs 800 acres of fields (which have already been there, presumably, for a few centuries at least)?

I am not questioning whether the Tipperary Venue will be economically productive, in terms of tourism, sport, employment and tax. My issue is with the sustainability of a project of this size in a rural location. I would have hoped you of all people would understand the folly of low density sprawl and the problems it creates, and the need to increase densities in our cities - the drivers of our economy. With the price of petrol it should be obvious to everyone we should not be creating more car dependant communities. Large employment centres like this should be located in cities and planned in conjunction with public transport and higher density residential areas.

I say this as a person who was born, lives and works in one of the most rural parts of the country. I see the damage poorly planned developments in inappropriate locations has done. I am not anti this, or any type of, development but I think our planning laws should apply more stringent assessment criteria before approving such developments. This is not some hippy rant about where will all the bunnies live if you build that, I am talking about long term economic value, proper community development and sustainable land use. If I am to be proved right it will take twenty years, by which point the damage will have been done.

Pete_Cavan

otenkscrfits wrote: »

A guy from the locality wants to build something there. IF you think it would do better somewhere else, find your onw money and build it there and see who wins, its a free market. Who are you to dictate to private investors where they should put their money.

If I want to put my own money into a development, should I be given free reign to build whatever I want, wherever I want? After all, its a free market and who are you to dictate to me where I, as a private investor, should put my money?

Amtmann

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Farming, processing and marketing in the agri-food sector accounts for almost 10% of employment in this country and agri-food exports have an 8.5% share of our total exports. Agriculture is a huge employer in this country, we are a world leader in the sector and we have potential for further growth here. I understand that agriculture will not create jobs on, or even anywhere near the same scale as the Tipperary Venue but the potential jobs from it more suitable for the area in question.

Serious question: Why should rural counties have to focus on agri-business when other *suitable options*, which play to area's cultural strengths and traditions, are manifestly available?

Spin-off development resulting from this also has to be taken into account, not only in land take, but also provision of infrastructure (which the taxpayer will pay for). We get better value for money for money spent on infrastructure in higher density areas, so that is where it (and development) should be focused.

What infrastructure are you referring to? In terms of water and sewerage, and transport upgrades the TV will be self-sufficient. Other spin-off development is going to be discouraged in rural areas surrounding the site and concentrated instead in nearby urban areas such as Thurles and Cashel. This is desirable.

I am not questioning whether the Tipperary Venue will be economically productive, in terms of tourism, sport, employment and tax. My issue is with the sustainability of a project of this size in a rural location. I would have hoped you of all people would understand the folly of low density sprawl and the problems it creates, and the need to increase densities in our cities - the drivers of our economy.

But this is a red herring issue with regard to the TV. The TV will not be 'low density sprawl' - it will be a a glorified park with a few large, non-residential buildings. It's not a business park, or an industrial park, or a housing estate. It's a demesne-style country park.

With the price of petrol it should be obvious to everyone we should not be creating more car dependant communities. Large employment centres like this should be located in cities and planned in conjunction with public transport and higher density residential areas.

How will it create a car dependent "community"? The most it will do is alter pre-existing commuting patterns, and probably for the better, too. People commuting to it from work will be driving no farther than people do from Carrigaline to Cork. Indeed, many Cashel and Thurles people already commute to Clonmel each day. A commute to the TV is less than that distance. You also have to factor in the TV's central location. Site it in Dublin and people from the furthest parts of the country all have to drive to Dublin, which is farther from Limerick, Cork and Waterford than the TV is.

I say this as a person who was born, lives and works in one of the most rural parts of the country. I see the damage poorly planned developments in inappropriate locations has done. I am not anti this, or any type of, development but I think our planning laws should apply more stringent assessment criteria before approving such developments. This is not some hippy rant about where will all the bunnies live if you build that, I am talking about long term economic value, proper community development and sustainable land use. If I am to be proved right it will take twenty years, by which point the damage will have been done.

I'm also from such an area, but I profoundly disagree that this is an unsustainable plan or an unsuitable location. Frankly I could not think of a less suitable location for a sprawling parkland development than Dublin.

eia340600

The repetition of "transport links are good" is a non runner.It's the transport for the 1000 workers that's the issue.How will 1000 people come from miles around to work here.One answer-In individual cars.They form a great part of the unsustainability of the project.A problem that would be MUCH smaller in an urban area.By the way, Dublin isn't the only alternative.Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford would all be better suited than T-M-B.

Pete_Cavan

Tremelo wrote: »

Serious question: Why should rural counties have to focus on agri-business when other *suitable options*, which play to area's cultural strengths and traditions, are manifestly available?

In didnt say rural counties should focus on agri-business. There are plenty of other types of businesses that can operate in towns and villages in rural counties - and dont get me started on developments outside of towns effectively killing off trade in the town cente or how it further increases our reliance on cars. Like I have already said, there is nothing wrong with a development like that beside Two Mile Borris per se, it is the size and scale of the project that is the problem. The race track, equestrian centre can be built there, the casino doesnt "play to area's cultural strengths and traditions" anyway.

Tremelo wrote: »

What infrastructure are you referring to? In terms of water and sewerage, and transport upgrades the TV will be self-sufficient. Other spin-off development is going to be discouraged in rural areas surrounding the site and concentrated instead in nearby urban areas such as Thurles and Cashel. This is desirable.

Is TV going to provide water and sewerage, and transport for new houses built for employees or for new retail/commercial/industrial built by people wanting to cash in on all the extra tourists? There will be a huge amount of spin-off development which will require infrastructure.

Tremelo wrote: »

But this is a red herring issue with regard to the TV. The TV will not be 'low density sprawl' - it will be a glorified park with a few large, non-residential buildings. It's not a business park, or an industrial park, or a housing estate. It's a demesne-style country park.

The houses the employees will live in will be low density sprawl. The TV will have a major casino, a 500-room hotel and a 15,000-seat entertainment venue so it will not all be "glorified park". These elements are definitely not suitable for the area.

Tremelo wrote: »

How will it create a car dependent "community"? The most it will do is alter pre-existing commuting patterns, and probably for the better, too. People commuting to it from work will be driving no farther than people do from Carrigaline to Cork. Indeed, many Cashel and Thurles people already commute to Clonmel each day. A commute to the TV is less than that distance. You also have to factor in the TV's central location. Site it in Dublin and people from the furthest parts of the country all have to drive to Dublin, which is farther from Limerick, Cork and Waterford than the TV is.

As eia340600 pointed out, the staff will have to drive to work, however there will be 2,000 of them if Quirke gets his way. Building something that will employ 2,000 full time staff with no public transport available for to travel to work is creating a car dependent community. Even medium distance commuting is fast becoming prohibitively expensive with the price of petrol. We should be planning large residential areas and large employment centres along public transport routes and the best way to do this is in higher density urban areas. Typical of this country not to apply foresight and to wait until we have no alternative before we change our thinking.

Tremelo wrote: »

I'm also from such an area, but I profoundly disagree that this is an unsustainable plan or an unsuitable location. Frankly I could not think of a less suitable location for a sprawling parkland development than Dublin.

Built the race track, equestrian centre, etc. in Tipperary and not the major casino, 500-room hotel and 15,000-seat entertainment venue. These belong in cities, although not necessarily Dublin (which I did not suggest btw).

Amtmann

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

As eia340600 pointed out, the staff will have to drive to work, however there will be 2,000 of them if Quirke gets his way. Building something that will employ 2,000 full time staff with no public transport available for to travel to work is creating a car dependent community.

You raise valid points of course. You are speculating though to a large extent. For sure many people will drive to work; I could equally speculate, however, that staff minibus services will be regularly provided from Thurles and Cashel town centres. Many employees are likely to car-pool as well.

The houses the employees will live in will be low density sprawl. The TV will have a major casino, a 500-room hotel and a 15,000-seat entertainment venue so it will not all be "glorified park". These elements are definitely not suitable for the area.

Are you assuming that hundreds of new worker houses will suddenly appear? There are many local people who already live in current houses that will work at the TV. These people already drive hither and thither about the place. Rather than them all driving in disparate directions, as they presently do, they'll be focused on the TV. This will actually regularise commuting patterns. I don't think that new housing estates need be constructed. And if some do need to be constructed, then we will then have an excellent opportunity to plan them in a way that increases the population densities of Thurles and Cashel, thereby improving the vibrancy and economic attractiveness of both towns.

Is TV going to provide water and sewerage, and transport for new houses built for employees or for new retail/commercial/industrial built by people wanting to cash in on all the extra tourists? There will be a huge amount of spin-off development which will require infrastructure.

Again, you're presuming a lot. But if infrastructure needs to be provided to cater for swelling economic activity in two towns, this is a good thing.

i wonder what peoples stance would be if it was a multinational who proposed to build a factory in TMB?

Would they still say no and the land should only be for agricultural use?

I wonder how many threads opened up in protest when Merck, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson or Boston Scientific came to this country and built factories and pledged to create jobs? These places also created volumes of traffic on the roads but show me a thread where they were objected to? These places could also go in the morning and then there is the problem of getting an interested party to invest in the country despite the low rate of corporation tax?

I dont want Tipperary to become urbanised overnight as much as anyone but i want Tipperary to prosper so that my generation and future generations will be provided for and wont have to head for London or Australia or the US because there simply is no jobs in the country.


And the fact that some posters tried to defend the volumes of traffic in Dublin is laughable when the last time i was up there it must have taken an hour alone to get from the mad cow to the Poitin still. Could the big cities cope with the extra traffic this development would bring?

runway16

Deleted User wrote: »

i wonder what peoples stance would be if it was a multinational who proposed to build a factory in TMB?

Would they still say no and the land should only be for agricultural use?

I wonder how many threads opened up in protest when Merck, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson or Boston Scientific came to this country and built factories and pledged to create jobs? These places also created volumes of traffic on the roads but show me a thread where they were objected to? These places could also go in the morning and then there is the problem of getting an interested party to invest in the country despite the low rate of corporation tax?

I dont want Tipperary to become urbanised overnight as much as anyone but i want Tipperary to prosper so that my generation and future generations will be provided for and wont have to head for London or Australia or the US because there simply is no jobs in the country.


And the fact that some posters tried to defend the volumes of traffic in Dublin is laughable when the last time i was up there it must have taken an hour alone to get from the mad cow to the Poitin still. Could the big cities cope with the extra traffic this development would bring?

I totally agree!

There is now a culture in this country of objecting to everything as a "white elephant". Suddenly everyone has become a planning expert, everyone is an environmentalist, everyone just wants to get angry and say no to something.

Unemployment at 14%, emigration once again ravaging rural areas, cries for efforts to boost tourism and breath life back into the hospitality industry - and then someone comes along and promises to provide good well paid jobs, a project which will have spin off benefits to an entire region, probably prevent people from having to leave their country and people still complain.

Its pathetic.

otenkscrfits

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If I want to put my own money into a development, should I be given free reign to build whatever I want, wherever I want? After all, its a free market and who are you to dictate to me where I, as a private investor, should put my money?

Yes, exactly. Subject to local planning laws you are free to build whatever you want wherever you want. If you want to build a chocolate teapot factory in Cavan it is nobodies business to object on the grounds that there is no market for Chocolate teapots in Cavan. That is for the bankers and private investors who will provide the money to decide.

otenkscrfits

runway16 wrote: »

I totally agree!

There is now a culture in this country of objecting to everything as a "white elephant". Suddenly everyone has become a planning expert, everyone is an environmentalist, everyone just wants to get angry and say no to something.

Indeed. Some people object that the transport links are not good enough. When you consider that Semple stadium has a capacity for 55,000 people, if a 15,000 music venue is going to be a burden on the infrastructure then someone at the NRA should be sacked. Of course if they future proofed roads it would be like terminal 2 in Dublin airport, nothing but a white elephant to many people.

MrDerp

Overall I like the idea for the complex.

1. I think a well serviced venue like this could bring Ireland its own Cheltenham, and many smaller festivals. This has obvious tourism implications. NB: I absolutely hate horse-racing, but still think its one of our better tourism offerings.

2. The Concert venue is a great idea, if of sufficient capacity to draw large acts. With the right infrastructure, this could be planned from scratch so that people have a good experience and aren't sitting on buses outside Slane for 4 hours trying to get on the road to Dublin.

3. I see no issue with a casino. We have a bookies on every street corner FFS. Why are we pretending to be something we are not.

However, I have two things I'd like to see changed:

1. The location. It's fine on a local scale, but I think we could be better placed from an international perspective. Shannon airport ticks all the boxes for me - the closer to it the better. Operators could run cheap flights from all over Europe and anywhere you liked in the US, without the hullabaloo of Dublin airport. In particular for European flying visitors though, the quicker you can put their butts in the stadium or at a table, the more likely they'll visit. I regularly discount Ryanair destinations for weekend breaks because the airport is too far from the action. It should be 1 hour tops from hitting the tarmac to swiping into your hotel room.

2. More family stuff. We can make it less of a Dad's boozy weekend with mates venue, and more of a trick the family into coming venue, if there's some major attractions for kids. I'm talking water park, theme parks, low budget holiday villages, family restaurants, celtworld-style 'experience', etc etc.

3. Convention centre! Great draw for off-season conventions. Provide cheap hotel and conference space for major corporations, then fleece the visiting delegates at the craps table and tax the **** out of the profits!

Pete_Cavan

Tremelo wrote: »

You raise valid points of course. You are speculating though to a large extent. For sure many people will drive to work; I could equally speculate, however, that staff minibus services will be regularly provided from Thurles and Cashel town centres. Many employees are likely to car-pool as well.

Are you assuming that hundreds of new worker houses will suddenly appear? There are many local people who already live in current houses that will work at the TV. These people already drive hither and thither about the place. Rather than them all driving in disparate directions, as they presently do, they'll be focused on the TV. This will actually regularise commuting patterns. I don't think that new housing estates need be constructed.

So employment suddenly increases by 2,000 in a town with a population of 500, plus factor in the multiply effect of this employment, as well as other jobs created from the increase in tourism, and you dont think new housing estates need be constructed?

Tremelo wrote: »

And if some do need to be constructed, then we will then have an excellent opportunity to plan them in a way that increases the population densities of Thurles and Cashel, thereby improving the vibrancy and economic attractiveness of both towns.

Again, you're presuming a lot. But if infrastructure needs to be provided to cater for swelling economic activity in two towns, this is a good thing.

Why should we be providing infrastructure and increasing densities in Thurles and Cashel when we already have larger urban centres. Our economy relies on Dublin as the driver of economic activity, we should be building up more urban areas which can also contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. Focusing development in Cork, Limerick and Galway would have much greater benefits to our national economy than sticking this in Tipperary. Increasing economic activity in cities will have a greater effect on the national economy, and knock-on effects for rural areas, whereas this level of economic activity in Tipperary will have an opportunity cost for the cities, costing the national economy overall. Its the usual story here, focus on the local economy and fcuk the national economy. The fact is that any benefits from something like this would be many times greater in a large urban area, would give greater value for money in terms of infrastructure spend and would not result in the loss of 800 acres of potential agricultural land.

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder how many threads opened up in protest when Merck, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson or Boston Scientific came to this country and built factories and pledged to create jobs? These places also created volumes of traffic on the roads but show me a thread where they were objected to?

Here is a thread where I have pointed out the unsustainability of building a global pharmaceutical centre of excellence in Tralee. The response I got there was the same as here, for all those is favour of it, it comes down to one thing - they are promising jobs so let them at it and never mind about sustainable planning in a national context.

Deleted User wrote: »

And the fact that some posters tried to defend the volumes of traffic in Dublin is laughable when the last time i was up there it must have taken an hour alone to get from the mad cow to the Poitin still. Could the big cities cope with the extra traffic this development would bring?

First of all I am not promoting building a casino in Dublin. Secondly, Dublins problems are as a result of money generated in Dublin leaving the capital to subsidise most other parts of the country. Also, funny how people recognise the traffic problems in Dublin yet see no problem with building TV which will employ 2,000 people but have no public transport. Like I said, large employers like this should be located in higher density urban areas and be planned along with public transport. Look at the mess that is Citywest, currently in receivership and we are building a Luas extension out to it.

otenkscrfits wrote: »

Yes, exactly. Subject to local planning laws you are free to build whatever you want wherever you want. If you want to build a chocolate teapot factory in Cavan it is nobodies business to object on the grounds that there is no market for Chocolate teapots in Cavan. That is for the bankers and private investors who will provide the money to decide.

Our planning laws are not fit for purpose. Look around you; half finished estates in places there was never a demand for the houses with enough zoned land for thousands more, one-off houses littered along main roads, large residential areas with not enough schools, low density urban sprawl radiating from towns and cities, large retain/commercial developments on the outskirts killing off trade in the town centre, lack of public transport meaning most houses rely on cars, even where public transport is provided it is often disjointed and of limited use, poor water/sewerage/broadband in general across the country. Saying a development should proceed because it is approved by our planners is like saying the blanket bank guarantee was a good idea because it was approved by our government, the basis on which the decisions were made is flawed.

otenkscrfits

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

So employment suddenly increases by 2,000 in a town with a population of 500, plus factor in the multiply effect of this employment, as well as other jobs created from the increase in tourism, and you dont think new housing estates need be constructed?

Thurles is 8 kilometers away with a population of 6 thousand and plenty of empty rent-able houses courtesy of our reckless planning authorities. Many large towns are a commutable distance away, especially when you consider how many Thurles people commute to Dublin and Cork at the moment.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Here is a thread where I have pointed out the unsustainability of building a global pharmaceutical centre of excellence in Tralee. The response I got there was the same as here, for all those is favour of it, it comes down to one thing - they are promising jobs so let them at it and never mind about sustainable planning in a national context.

And you are wrong on this point also. For someone that lives in Cavan, it is very odd that you want to force the rest of the country to live in Dublin. While I agree that would be much cheaper to manage, I like my one off house. I like the countryside and I don't want to see country towns and villages killed off because people like you think everything needs to be centralized.

Amtmann

To be honest Pete, I find your views on this development to be very narrow, generic and far too simplistic. You're also factually weak here, particularly with regard to your views of where workers will come from, the population of Thurles, and the source of the TV's infrastructure. Your refrain to protect the 800 acres, which you keep referring to, strikes me as a magic beans type argument, and a particularly unconvincing one at that.

As someone who is passionately in favour of urban growth in Ireland, I disagree that all substantial development should occur in cities - especially a development such as this, the typology of which is unique and rural. I disagree that new housing estates will be needed - there are, as as been pointed out, several sizable towns all within 30km or so of the proposed site, including Thurles, Cashel, Cahir, Tipperary and Clonmel. Links to and from all these towns are good, consisting of rail (Tipp to Thurles) and motorway. Mini-buses will surely be used to transport large numbers of employees, too.

I also find it completely preposterous that increasing population density and economic activity in any of these towns would be a bad thing. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be happening in certain circumstances - far better than rural one off housing dominating the area.

In our drive to grow the cities, we should not at the same time neglect the regions.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

eia340600

Tremelo wrote: »

Mini-buses will surely be used to transport large numbers of employees, too.

You also said that "surely" people will carpool.What are you basing this on?There is very little precedent for car pooling or for employers providing transport in this country.For you to presume that this will happen is what's preposterous.

Nobody on this board has said that all substantial development should happen in the cities.There is no reason why development shouldn't happen in Thurles.If it is going to happen, though, it should be in Thurles.Increasing density and urbanism in the town.Not miles down the road on a vast scale with poor public transport links and no suggestions of how workers/tourists will get there in a sustainable way.

dubhthach

Regarding the site where exactly is in terms of Thurles and TMB anyone got a link to relevant location on OSI online mapping?

http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,617169,658607,4,3

Pete_Cavan

Tremelo wrote: »

To be honest Pete, I find your views on this development to be very narrow, generic and far too simplistic. You're also factually weak here, particularly with regard to your views of where workers will come from, the population of Thurles, and the source of the TV's infrastructure. Your refrain to protect the 800 acres, which you keep referring to, strikes me as a magic beans type argument, and a particularly unconvincing one at that.

As someone who is passionately in favour of urban growth in Ireland, I disagree that all substantial development should occur in cities - especially a development such as this, the typology of which is unique and rural. I disagree that new housing estates will be needed - there are, as as been pointed out, several sizable towns all within 30km or so of the proposed site, including Thurles, Cashel, Cahir, Tipperary and Clonmel. Links to and from all these towns are good, consisting of rail (Tipp to Thurles) and motorway. Mini-buses will surely be used to transport large numbers of employees, too.

I also find it completely preposterous that increasing population density and economic activity in any of these towns would be a bad thing. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be happening in certain circumstances - far better than rural one off housing dominating the area.

In our drive to grow the cities, we should not at the same time neglect the regions.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I find your views shortsighted, parochial and far too simplistic. I have repeatedly said it is not the development I have issues with, it is a development of that scale in that location. Not building a major casino, a 500 room hotel and a 15,000 capacity concert venue in TMB is not "neglecting the regions". It is not about "protecting" 800 acres, it is about sustainable land use. I can guarantee you that in the medium and long term (20-50 years time), this country will have huge problems if we replace large chunks of agricultural land, continue creating car dependent communities with no public transport and encourage urban decay in cities by denying them higher densities. It is very naive of you to suggest that this is a "magic beans type argument", and that that is a head-in-the-sand response.

I think it is laughable that you are "passionately in favour of urban growth" yet you advocate increasing densities in Thurles, Cashel, Cahir, Tipperary and Clonmel. These are small regional towns for which there is no demand for higher densities. You are taking the need for higher densities in cities and applying that same logic to a completely different situation. Also, your claims about carpooling and minibuses is just clutching at straws. Again, it is a short term, sticky plaster type solution to what will be a huge problem if left untreated.

Amtmann

eia340600 wrote: »

You also said that "surely" people will carpool.What are you basing this on?There is very little precedent for car pooling or for employers providing transport in this country.For you to presume that this will happen is what's preposterous.

Many people will carpool because many people generally do to save money. I have in the past and I know many others who do, too.

I have worked for two companies that provided shuttle bus services for employees: Sanmina SCI in Fermoy (the buses for this travelled from as far away as Clonmel and Kilmallock, in fact) and Eastpoint Management at Eastpoint Business Park. There are precedents, and TV would be particularly well suited for this.

Nobody on this board has said that all substantial development should happen in the cities.There is no reason why development shouldn't happen in Thurles.If it is going to happen, though, it should be in Thurles.

Yeah, but there's no room in Thurles for this. It's as simple as that.

Increasing density and urbanism in the town.Not miles down the road on a vast scale with poor public transport links and no suggestions of how workers/tourists will get there in a sustainable way.

What is sustainable? Is Little Island accessible in a sustainable manner? Is Pfizer in Ringaskiddy? Is Merck Sharpe and Dome, or Bulmers in Clonmel? If motorised transport is unsustainable across kilometres outside of city (which is essentially what you're saying) then why build anything outside of a city dense enough for regular bus transport. Why improve any road. You are taking this line of thinking much too far. If the proposed development was planned 20km from the nearest town in Connemara I would be in full agreement with you. Perhaps you don't know the area's transport network and settlement patterns well enough.

Anyway, it seems we will never agree on this matter, so I won't be replying to this particular exchange again. I'm not one for arguing back and forth till the cows come home.

otenkscrfits

eia340600 wrote: »

Nobody on this board has said that all substantial development should happen in the cities.There is no reason why development shouldn't happen in Thurles.If it is going to happen, though, it should be in Thurles.

I don't think you are going to find 800 acres going cheap in the middle of Thurles. And there would be a lot of objections. If I was building something like this I would prefer to keep it near the motorway between the 2 largest cities in the country. It would cause congestion in the town also, and would require roads to be upgraded. I really don't think it would get planning permission. Developments like this are better placed outside of the town in my opinion, and also in the opinion of the people who are building this one it seems.

eia340600

otenkscrfits wrote: »

I don't think you are going to find 800 acres going cheap in the middle of Thurles. And there would be a lot of objections. If I was building something like this I would prefer to keep it near the motorway between the 2 largest cities in the country. It would cause congestion in the town also, and would require roads to be upgraded. I really don't think it would get planning permission. Developments like this are better placed outside of the town in my opinion, and also in the opinion of the people who are building this one it seems.

Why build a casino in the middle of an 800 acre plot?What is the space required for?I can understand why racecourse etc. might have to be on the fringe but, you must agree that a large casino and 500 room hotel are better placed in the city centre.One need only look to Citywest on convention night to see that putting a huge venue on the side of a motorway doesn't work.Compare with the O2/DCC/GCT and you see what I mean.

otenkscrfits

eia340600 wrote: »

Why build a casino in the middle of an 800 acre plot?What is the space required for?I can understand why racecourse etc. might have to be on the fringe but, you must agree that a large casino and 500 room hotel are better placed in the city centre.One need only look to Citywest on convention night to see that putting a huge venue on the side of a motorway doesn't work.Compare with the O2/DCC/GCT and you see what I mean.

So they would bus the punters at the race course back to the hotel casino every night during the breeders cup?

Bards

looks like this has been approved by ABP

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0613/breaking23.html

An Bord Pleanala has given the go-ahead for the construction of a €460 million "Las Vegas-style" sports and leisure complex in Co Tipperary.

The 800-acre Tipperary Venue, close to the village of Two-Mile-Borris, will include a 500-bedroom, five-star hotel; a 6,000sq m casino; an all-weather racecourse; a greyhound track and a golf course.

The site, which is located off the M8 Dublin-Cork motorway, will also feature a full-size replica of the White House in Washington which will be used as “a banqueting facility” and to host wedding receptions.

Planning permission for a 15,000-capacity underground entertainment centre was refused by An Bord Pleanála as it was deemed "inappropriate".

North Tipperary County Council granted planning permission for the project last year but the case was appealed to the board by some local residents and An Taisce.

Concerns included the level of traffic which would be generated by the venue, along with noise, carbon emissions, helicopter use, its distance from public transport and the sustainability of such a large-scale development.

An estimated 1,000 jobs will be created in building the facility, while between 1,350 and 2,000 full-time positions are expected once the complex is opened.


The Tipperary Venue is the brainchild of developer Richard Quirke, a former garda from Thurles who is best known for running Dr Quirkey’s Good Time Emporium gaming arcade on Dublin’s O’Connell Street.

Today's decision was welcomed by Independent TD for Tipperary North Michael Lowry, who said the complex would generate "enormous economic activity and create thousands of sustainable jobs."

"All involved with the Tipperary venue are heartened and encouraged by An Bord Pleanála’s ruling. There is a renewed commitment and determination to make this exciting development a reality," he added.

The project is still dependent on the Oireachtas passing proposed new legislation to enable the opening of casinos. Proposals to modernise the Republic's gaming legislation were unveiled in December.

meglome

I'm personally not buying this is a good idea, at the proposed size, at the proposed site. Even if there was an international airport nearby, maybe.

Bluetonic

meglome wrote: »

I'm personally not buying this is a good idea, at the proposed size, at the proposed site. Even if there was an international airport nearby, maybe.

Dublin Airport is less than an hour and a half away. That is little or no time for world class facilities.

Judgement Day

Just heard Lowry on the 1 o'clock news about this project - anything associated with him will never fly. No doubt the taxpayer will be stung somewhere along the way.

IngazZagni

I'm all for this and delighted with the news as long as if it does become a failure, the only losers are the private investors.

I am slightly disappointed with refusal of permission of the entertainment venue. I'm someone that feels that the 02 in Dublin is of inadequate design and capacity for the Countries main entertainment venue. Although on the flipside, the location may have prevented it for becoming popular with your standard shows and many people wouldn't travel down for a one evenings show.

Looking forward to continuing developments including legislation change for gambling.

edit:

As for Lowery, he really has nothing to do with it apart from being a TD in the area. Really he would be best to shut up rather than try to blow his own trumpet on he is part of the reason this is going ahead.

Aidan1

Getting planning for something like this is one thing - actually getting it built another entirely . To be fair, it's not like the country is short of high end hotels, with golf courses. Or of racecourses. Or greyhound tracks. As I've said before, all of that stuff looks like sweetener for the casino. Even if the legislation on gambling is actually pursued (it was proposed by the last Govt, not the present one, who are not inclined to give Deputy Lowry a helping hand), I can't see how that much capital investment could be made stand up.

I'd love to meet the bank manager who'd finance a half a billion euro sub Vegas/Indian reservation vanity project in Tipperary in the middle of an extremely serious liquidity crisis in Irish banking, in which the State is in de facto ownership of most of the State's banking infrastructure.

IngazZagni

Aidan1 wrote: »

I'd love to meet the bank manager who'd finance a half a billion euro sub Vegas/Indian reservation vanity project in Tipperary in the middle of an extremely serious liquidity crisis in Irish banking, in which the State is in de facto ownership of most of the State's banking infrastructure.

Who says they have to use an Irish bank?

OurLadyofKnock

Judgement Day wrote: »

Just heard Lowry on the 1 o'clock news about this project - anything associated with him will never fly. No doubt the taxpayer will be stung somewhere along the way.

Isn't dog and horse racing in Ireland tax payer financed anyways?

OurLadyofKnock

IngazZagni wrote: »

I'm someone that feels that the 02 in Dublin is of inadequate design and capacity for the Countries main entertainment venue.

You are right what this country need is another giant shed in the middle of nowhere in the hope the Rose of Tralee becomes as big as the World Cup.

Built in a field with an R road leading to it and a few overpirced B&Bs nearby and a pub owned by a TD. Perfect!

The Irish development model. Never lets us down. These new fangled cities thing-a-magigs will never take off.

I can just see it now. "Are you ready to rock Clogher-on-Carrigeeeeeeeeennnnn!"

IngazZagni

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

You are right what this country need is another giant shed in the middle of nowhere in the hope the Rose of Tralee becomes as big as the World Cup.

Built in a field with an R road leading to it and a few overpirced B&Bs nearby and a pub owned by a TD. Perfect!

The Irish development model. Never lets us down. These new fangled cities thing-a-magigs will never take off.

I can just see it now. "Are you ready to rock Clogher-on-Carrigeeeeeeeeennnnn!"

Glad you cut the second part of my quote off were I mentioned location being a problem and thus probably a good idea that it's not a going to go ahead. Why did you ignore that part?

Amtmann

Why is this being referred to constantly in the media as "Las Vegas-style"? What exactly is "Las Vegas-style"? It sounds to me like a rhetorical strategy designed to arouse negativity.

OurLadyofKnock

IngazZagni wrote: »

Glad you cut the second part of my quote off were I mentioned location being a problem and thus probably a good idea that it's not a going to go ahead. Why did you ignore that part?

Oh sorry. I wasn't talking about you per se - It was a general glib statement in relation to how messed up this country is in terms of building white elephants in rural areas. My apology.

OurLadyofKnock

Tremelo wrote: »

Why is this being referred to constantly in the media as "Las Vegas-style"? What exactly is "Las Vegas-style"? It sounds to me like a rhetorical strategy designed to arouse negativity.

You are lobbying again.

Aidan1

Why is this being referred to constantly in the media as "Las Vegas-style"?

Because it almost precisely mirrors the Vegas business model - building a standalone settlement premised entirely on leisure and gambing, distant from any urban centre of significaant scale, hoping to drag people in on a number of grounds and persuading them to depart after leaving as much cash as possible.

For the record, I wouldn't be in favour of this if it was in the Phoenix Park or in the Lee Fields; the fact that it is literally miles from anywhere merely compounds my opposition.

Pete_Cavan

IngazZagni wrote: »

As for Lowery, he really has nothing to do with it apart from being a TD in the area. Really he would be best to shut up rather than try to blow his own trumpet on he is part of the reason this is going ahead.

Lowery has plenty to do with it and according to Quirke “this project would not have come to fruition if it were not for his time and dedication”. And because Lowery is involved they should not get a casino licence, see here

Amtmann

Aidan1 wrote: »

Because it almost precisely mirrors the Vegas business model - building a standalone settlement premised entirely on leisure and gambing, distant from any urban centre of significaant scale, hoping to drag people in on a number of grounds and persuading them to depart after leaving as much cash as possible.

But isn't Las Vegas itself now an urban centre of significant scale? (Or is that just because that's what LV ended up becoming in the end?)

marmurr1916

Tremelo wrote: »

But isn't Las Vegas itself now an urban centre of significant scale? (Or is that just because that's what LV ended up becoming in the end?)

There wouldn't be a Las Vegas without the casinos. Las Vegas is probably one of the most environmentally unsustainable cities in the world, if not the the most.

The Thurles complex isn't going to be particularly environmentally friendly either, given that most people will be driving to it.

I'd imagine that if the racecourse is successful it will lead to the closure of at least one existing racecourse - most likely the Tipperary Racecourse at Limerick Junction.

Amtmann

Let me re-phrase that.

It seems you (Aidan) are comparing the proposed Tipp Venue the complex to Las Vegas the city. But I on the other hand am wondering why the Tipp Venue is being likened to a typical casino in Las Vegas (which is what I understand by the phrase "Las Vegas-style casino"), not to Las Vegas itself. We understand two different things by that phrase

Since the casinos of Las Vegas are often imagined with garish neon signs and slot machines, the comparison is baseless if those journalists are simply saying the the casino of the Tipperary Venue will be the same as a typical casino in Las Vegas. It won't be.

As for Las Vegas itself, it had a population of 25,000 before the first casino opened there, but naturally I agree that these days its raison d'etre is gambling. I don't think it's very meaningful to compare a largely green site in Tipp a mere 60 minutes from Cork and 70 from the M50 to a desert city of half a million, however.

Judgement Day

I listened to assorted bods associated with the project on Matt Cooper's programme today and the point was made ad nauseum about how great it was that everybody would be able to drive to Two-mile-Borris. Ireland just doesn't get it when it comes to planning for the future - the 1950s are over. :rolleyes:

Amtmann

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

You are lobbying again.

What does that mean? You do realise that it comes across as paranoia, right? I am a lobbyist? Really? Please get a grip. I asked a legitimate question, nothing more, nothing less.

dubhthach

{Mod}
Folks this thread is starting to generate way too much heat (and not enough light). Can we keep the discussion to the project as oppose to discussing posters inner motivations etc. -- The place for that is "Personal Issues" I would think.

If it continues to consist of posts making statements about individual posters and their motivations etc then I won't have any problems with locking the thread.

{/Mod}

Personally I'm not particulary in favour of the Casino industry, does anyone have details specifically about the Bords ruling today (I only briefly heard something on radio in passing)

IngazZagni

Judgement Day wrote: »

I listened to assorted bods associated with the project on Matt Cooper's programme today and the point was made ad nauseum about how great it was that everybody would be able to drive to Two-mile-Borris. Ireland just doesn't get it when it comes to planning for the future - the 1950s are over. :rolleyes:

??? Driving will be around for a long time to come, whether it be in its current fashion or in electric vehicles. Even if in 20 years time, private automobiles are almost non-existent which I doubt very much will be the case. Bus transport can get here quickly via the motorway or even the Dublin-Cork train, getting off at Thurles which is a mere taxi shuttle away.

Amtmann

dubhthach wrote: »

Personally I'm not particulary in favour of the Casino industry, does anyone have details specifically about the Bords ruling today (I only briefly heard something on radio in passing)

Report attached. The Bord went against the inspector's recommendation to refuse permission.

Amtmann

Transport and access issues are dealt with in detail on page 22 of 77 of the above attached document.

OurLadyofKnock

Tremelo wrote: »

Transport and access issues are dealt with in detail on page 22 of 77 of the above attached document.

I read it and it is the usual guff about "potential" bus connections and apparently Thurles is the best rail connected location outside Dublin???

The usual Gombeen Newspeak. I have no idea why you are so eager to see this horror foisted upon your home county (I know the national interest means nothing outside Dublin so I won't ask your opinion on that).

It I lived there I would would be looking to investigate how and why this thing has come this far and what Lowery's real agenda is. Apart from getting the local simpletons to re-elect him.

Honestly, you are embrassing yourself on this board with your gung ho endorsement of this piece of crap which serves nobody other than gombeens on the public payroll. This is precisely the kind of thing which has horribly damaged this country in the past in terms of infrastructure development and legitimacy on this island.

A classic piece of GAA county jersey paddywackery patriotism.

dubhthach

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

I read it and it is the usual guff about "potential" bus connections and apparently Thurles is the best rail connected location outside Dublin???

The usual Gombeen Newspeak. I have no idea why you are so eager to see this horror foisted upon your home county (I know the national interest means nothing outside Dublin so I won't ask your opinion on that).

It I lived there I would would be looking to investigate how and why this thing has come this far and what Lowery's real agenda is. Apart from getting the local simpletons to re-elect him.

Honestly, you are embrassing yourself on this board with your gung ho endorsement of this piece of crap which serves nobody other than gombeens on the public payroll. This is precisely the kind of thing which has horribly damaged this country in the past in terms of infrastructure development and legitimacy on this island.

A classic piece of GAA county jersey paddywackery patriotism.

Mod!

Infracted and banned for two weeks. Breach of rules 1 (baiting/trolling) and 3 (attacking other poster). I had put a warning on the thread that I wanted it to concentrate on the actual proposal/project and not to be analysing other posters posts etc.

Amtmann

Just as a declaration: I have no vested interest in this project whatsoever. I don't own any land close to it (or anywhere else for that matter). I don't own horses or greyhounds, nor am I involved in the retail, construction or hospitality industries. I would be in favour of this development whether I lived in Tipperary, Boulder City or Bangkok. I have already commented on what I think of Michael Lowry's involvement in the project (not that that it is really relevant to the development). I have posted often against the GAA jersey mentality and parochialism. I am also well known for my pro-urban, pro-public transport sentiments.

I favour this because:

• It is being backed by private money at no cost to the public purse
• It is an infrastructurally interesting proposal which plays to the strengths of the area in which it is to be located
• In the midst of this deep recession, it has the potential to generate thousands of jobs and economically boost a depressed part of this state.

I have no problem with people holding a contrary opinion to mine.

Aidan1

seems you (Aidan) are comparing the proposed Tipp Venue the complex to Las Vegas the city.

I explicitly am, both from the political economies of the proposed development and because of the regional development/planning considerations.

In the first instance, both developments leveraged their existence/origin from their location, and political sensitivities around that, Vegas to the fact that the State of Nevada had liberal gaming laws, was close enough to LA to attract investment, but had no other major industries, so the gambling industries (ie, the Mob) could control political life and thus secure the licensing regime. This development is placed so that the developers can bang the drum for jobs 'in a marginal rural area', and to try and squeeze a change in the law from that position of power - and woe betide any politician who comes out against it. It is no different from companies like Lockheed or GD opening plants in the American South in the 1960s and 1970s - they could exercise an undue degree of political control (particularly when they could swing Dem seats to Repub) over public policy (defence spending in this case). In this case, the developers aim to become very wealthy by exploiting other, far more mundane, cultural senstivities. Ask yourself, why Two Mile Borris, and not Limerick or Cork (or Waterford or Limerick)? Could it possibly be that location = leverage? I mean, after all the developer in question has retail presence in Dublin city centre, why is he not trying to turn that into a casino?

On a more practical front, significant elements of the project are either inappropriate for the area, or (in my view) should not go ahead at all. I have no difficulty with a private developer wanting to build a racecourse, greyhound track or a hotel/golf course. The first two are entire culturally appropriate, and it's no skin off my nose if somebody wants to invest several hundred million of his own money into building facilities that are entirely redundant - after all the country is awash with bankrupt 5 star hotel/golf course developments. I can't see any rational financier actually backing it, but so as the debt isn't socialised, I don't care.

The event centre and casino, on the other hand, are very different. I can think of absolutely no rational reason why planning should be granted for an event centre over an hour and 15 minutes from the closest large urban settlement, and I'm glad that ABP think the same way. There is going to be no shortage of venues in the regional cities - if Two Mile Borris is 'only an hour and 15 mins from Cork/Limerick', then the reverse is also true, and fewer people have to travel the longer distance. Lastly, to the casino.

Think about it. To make money, the casino would have to attract large numbers of punters in the door every night it's open. To think that resort development in Tipperary will attract enough high rollers to ensure that the development is a classy Monte Carlo type joint is wishful thinking. Instead of immaculately groomed aristocratic types playing baccarat, it means large volumes of people, which means the full range of services, including slot machines (low labour costs after all) - so yes, garish, nasty, loud gambling - the less pleasant end of the Vegas strip. The gaming laws that we presently have are not perfect, but they do prevent the growth of large retail level casinos, a concept that I am entirely uncomfortable with (and I suspect that a great many oher Irish people are also). The developers are trying to use the sweetener of promising hotels, golf courses, and jobs, jobs, jobs in order to get the law changed so that they can go build their casino. I don't think it appropriate that important policy issues be decided on the basis of small vocal pressure groups with a commercial agenda.