infrastructure in Waterford

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

A development with a profitable shopping centre and, if we take your pessimism on board, a failed hotel and vacant apartment block, would be fine. What's wrong with that? The developers go into receivership -- maybe -- and the shopping centre is sold as a going concern. What's the problem? At least in that situation only *part* of the land is sitting idle.

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

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

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

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

If NAMA decided not to finish it, then the situation would not be little different to what it is now.

Except Newgate St and Michael St would be totally ruined.

Its interesting how people talk of the WCTU as a vested interest (even though the builders unions were all for the project), but don't look at who stood to gain from the project, and if this might have biased some of the local media coverage.

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

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

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

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

dayshah wrote: »

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

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

dayshah wrote: »

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

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

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

Except Newgate St and Michael St would be totally ruined.

Who says? The people who have nothing to offer only opinion and objection? There is plenty of others who have seen it as an improvement.

dayshah wrote: »

Its interesting how people talk of the WCTU as a vested interest (even though the builders unions were all for the project), but don't look at who stood to gain from the project, and if this might have biased some of the local media coverage.

Why don't you man up and tell us who these biased people are!

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

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

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

dayshah wrote: »

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

It got finance. Do Keep up.

dayshah wrote: »

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

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

dayshah

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

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

It doesn't matter if they were supposed to be physically separate. The planning wasn't separate. In no way is Brendan McCann a cancer, and its a fairly sick description to use of a decent man who is standing up for the city. The city isn't held back by McCann, its held back by people who think the short term gain for a few vested interests is what's good for the whole city. You have been lying by describing Newgate as a retail development, when that was only a part of the development.

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

It got finance. Do Keep up.

:rolleyes:

If it has the planning and has the finance why isn't it being built? How come one of the partners went into liquidation over a year ago? The project might have been started, but there is no hope it would have been finished.

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

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

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

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

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

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

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

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

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

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

:rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

Max Powers

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

dayshah

Max Powers wrote: »

-99% of people wanted and still want the Newgate centre to go ahead.

99% eh? Sounds like an opinion pole from Syria :rolleyes:

And again it is ignored that retail was just a part of the development. Did you look at the plans yet. Here they are. The newgatecentre.com website has gone offline. I wonder why, if this is such a sure thing project. The website hardly broke the bank.

But, hey, if its such a fantastic money making idea why not have a whip-round for the liquidated developer? It might speed things along and I'm sure you'll get a terrific return on your investment.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

:rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they were supposed to be physically separate. The planning wasn't separate. In no way is Brendan McCann a cancer, and its a fairly sick description to use of a decent man who is standing up for the city. The city isn't held back by McCann, its held back by people who think the short term gain for a few vested interests is what's good for the whole city. You have been lying by describing Newgate as a retail development, when that was only a part of the development.

Anyone who contributes to the phenomenan of urban sprawl the way McCann did and retards a cities economy can only be described as a cancer. He is the foremost objector in Ireland according to the Farmers journal and all his activities are focused exclusively in Waterford. Hence Ferrybank Shopping centre unobjected to and now currently idle. Yet the Ardree a couple of hundred yards down the road objected to and now currently derelict. Butlerstown retail park unobjected to and contributing to sprawl on the west of the city and contributing nothing to the cities rate base. Yet Newgate gets hauled through ABP for three years. No worries for the "vested interests" here! It doesn't matter how much of a luvee you think McCann is.He is corrosive to the city and therefore the cancer description is apt.

dayshah wrote: »

If it has the planning and has the finance why isn't it being built? How come one of the partners went into liquidation over a year ago? The project might have been started, but there is no hope it would have been finished.

There could be numerous reasons.Was the development the only asset of the person who went into a liquidation.Probably not.Was the burden of servicing the loans used to purchase the land too much while a concerted effort to delay and prevent the development was made by Brendan McCann, ncluding lobbying the Minister for Environment. Probably.None of this has anything to do with the viability of the project which Athlone Town Centre proves.

dayshah wrote: »

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

Don't try and hide your moral cowardice behind the mods. The fact is if you did name someone the site and you would be libel for slander. You know this so you depend on inference.

dayshah wrote: »

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

Yeah the objectors won.I suppose when you're a malcontent who can't get elected you have to have a consolation prize. In this case an extra couple of thousand people unnecessarily on the dole.

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

Personally I think it would have been great. Nice modern shopping centre, apartments, nice hotel, what's not to like?

:rolleyes:

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

merlante wrote: »

The point about democracy is that if you are objecting vexatiously to developments on ideological grounds, and thereby disrupting the planning process, your ideology is taking precedence over the will of the people.

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

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

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

:rolleyes:

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

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

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

Remind me again, were those objections upheld or not? Because you make it sound like the development didn't get full planning approval -- which it did.

The people of Waterford got their way on the Newgate plan. Sadly, the credit dried up and the unelected coalition of cranks had the last laugh. Sad day for Waterford.

And by the way, the "the long term development of the city", embodied in city development plans, is to build exactly what they planned to build on that site. The city council looked at it, Bord Pleanala looked at it, and they all agreed with the developers and 90+% of the city that Newgate was on the money.

Waterford's tourism offering is progressing apace at the behest of the city council and others in the viking triangle. They deserve infinite credit for the work they have done and are doing there. But tourists like to shop too, and Newgate would have been bang smack in the centre of the shopping area.

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

:rolleyes:

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

Various vested interests you mean.

dayshah wrote: »

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

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

dayshah wrote: »

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

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

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

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

Remind me again, were those objections upheld or not? Because you make it sound like the development didn't get full planning approval -- which it did.

The original application did NOT get full approval. That's why there were all the delays. You are lying by saying otherwise.

And given that you think all objectors should first run for election, must all developers run for election too? :rolleyes:

dayshah

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Various vested interests you mean.


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

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

I suppose the developers aren't a vested interest group :rolleyes:

And again the lie, which you keep repeating, that this was a retail development. It was a mixed development, retail only being a part of the project.

But yeah, lets forget about tourism and high-tech industry. Waterford is going to shop its way to prosperity!!!

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

I suppose the developers aren't a vested interest group :rolleyes:

No they are but what you don't seem to realise is that most of the objectors were objecting for purely selfish reasons. Hence the "vested interst" slur doesn't discriminate and applies to them equally.

dayshah wrote: »

And again the lie, which you keep repeating, that this was a retail development. It was a mixed development, retail only being a part of the project.
!!!

True it was a mixed development but they were physically seperate and could have been granted permission in stages like Waterhaven if there was a problem with a particular element. But seeing as there wasn't permission was granted a fact you conveniently ignore. A sin of omission or in effect lie. I can see why you have suvh an affinity for Brendan McCann.You have the same style of dishonesty. Don't tell lies just evade the facts.

dayshah wrote: »

But yeah, lets forget about tourism and high-tech industry. Waterford is going to shop its way to prosperity!!!

Nobody suggested such a strategy. But the fact is industry effects a cities settlement patterns negatively if retail and leisure amenities are not in place.

dayshah

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

But seeing as there wasn't permission was granted a fact you conveniently ignore. A sin of omission or in effect lie.

I never denied it got permission, which was foolish in my view. But so did lots of things like the Ferrybank SC, and housing estates in Leitrim that have never been completed.

Luckily the credit crunch has forced the banks to sober up after their reckless lending to property developers.

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

I never denied it got permission, which was foolish in my view. But so did lots of things like the Ferrybank SC, and housing estates in Leitrim that have never been completed.
.

You've continuosly distorted the facts. Such as presenting the initial refusal as a rejection of the overall concept. You've also accused people of lying by suggesting the development was different in concept to McDonagh junction.It isnt. McDonagh junction is also a mixed use development. Here you go again presenting a development in a downtown urban setting as the same as a development in Rural Leitrim. This is dishonesty.

dayshah wrote: »

Luckily the credit crunch has forced the banks to sober up after their reckless lending to property developers.

Again it did no such thing! it stopped banks lending full stop.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

The original application did NOT get full approval. That's why there were all the delays. You are lying by saying otherwise.

And given that you think all objectors should first run for election, must all developers run for election too? :rolleyes:

The original plan did not get full approval, but the final plan did (with the usual string of conditions). What I mean is that each portion of the mixed use -- the shopping centre, the hotel and the apartments -- were all deemed to be consistent with the Waterford city development plan, drawn up by the city council in consultation with citizens; by the city council and bord pleanala. So it was a good, fine plan by the estimation of our rigorous planning process and a crying shame it didn't get built.

As for your rolleyes, accusations of lying, and twisting of words, I presume that's just a way of avoiding the substance of what posters are saying.

dayshah

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

What was white elephant about it? It was a medium size shopping centre roughly the same size as city square.

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

You've also accused people of lying by suggesting the development was different in concept to McDonagh junction.It isnt. McDonagh junction is also a mixed use development. Here you go again presenting a development in a downtown urban setting as the same as a development in Rural Leitrim. This is dishonesty.

You're not very consistent are you? First you describe it as another City Square, then a mixed use development like McDonagh Junction.

My point about Ferrybank SC and Leitrim is that planners were too relaxed in what they permitted. This includes Newgate Centre. If the developers had put in a proper plan it wouldn't have been delayed for so long.

Its a bit sad though that some people have learned absolutely nothing from the property mania.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

My point about Ferrybank SC and Leitrim is that planners were too relaxed in what they permitted. This includes Newgate Centre. If the developers had put in a proper plan it wouldn't have been delayed for so long.

Its a bit sad though that some people have learned absolutely nothing from the property mania.

The Ferrybank shopping centre is in an entirely different category to the Newgate centre. One is an attempt to grab rates from the outskirts of a city with an oversized development (Ferrybank), the other is an appropriate city centre shopping centre-based development (Newgate). Do not make the fatal mistake of trying to add all bad developments the world has ever known into this argument. We are talking about Newgate and comparable developments such as McDonagh in Kilkenny.

There wasn't a property "mania" in Waterford. If there was, we'd have a Sydney opera house scale development on the north quay, a skyscraper in Bilberry a crystal centre and much more. We don't. We managed to avoid good developments and bad. You seem to fall into the same tragic category as McCann, who can't seem to tell apart the good developments from the bad. Luckily we have planning procedures to try to bring a bit of objectivity into the process.

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

There wasn't a property "mania" in Waterford. If there was, we'd have a Sydney opera house scale development on the north quay, a skyscraper in Bilberry a crystal centre and much more. We don't. We managed to avoid good developments and bad. You seem to fall into the same tragic category as McCann, who can't seem to tell apart the good developments from the bad. Luckily we have planning procedures to try to bring a bit of objectivity into the process.

Part of what propped up the property mania (which I agree was largely avoided in Waterford) was the various tax breaks. The cashflows for the hotel/spa and leisure centre and the luxury apartments were dependent on these tax breaks.

Now these tax breaks are gone the numbers for these parts of the plan don't add up, even if the retail projections did add up. They will never get to 'draw down' the finance they had.

Michael St, with its varied shop fronts, is just the sort of urban shopping space that makes Waterford special, rather than a cut and paste of any English high street. However the uncertainty caused by the Newgate Centre means that people are less willing to invest in a business there, because they are uncertain of the future. Instead there is an increase in tackier shops, and the Old Stand is a disgrace.

The best thing for Waterford now is the KRM announce that they are scrapping plans for the hotel/luxury apartments, and they put forward a retail development, with enough space to attract the likes of M&S, but without ruining the character of Michael Street, or dominating the City Walls. If the surviving members of KRM are smart they will cut their losses and start the process now, because no matter what happens, building won't be starting for a few years, whichever project goes ahead.

decies

Michael street alot sadder without johnny or helena and eddie,john michael menswear and gissele shoes.

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

You're not very consistent are you? First you describe it as another City Square, then a mixed use development like McDonagh Junction..

My consistency is fine.The retail element is broadly on a par with City Square. Brendan McCann himself used this comparison in the Manor School. The entire project to revitalise a derelict area of Waterford is a mixed use development similar in scope to McDonagh Junction. Just because a project is part of a singular application doesn't mean its a unit.

dayshah wrote: »

My point about Ferrybank SC and Leitrim is that planners were too relaxed in what they permitted. This includes Newgate Centre. If the developers had put in a proper plan it wouldn't have been delayed for so long.

The developers did put in a proper plan.That is why it passed the planning process. The reason it dragged on was that there was a concerted effort by a small group of people passing themselves off as a variety of groups

dayshah wrote: »

Its a bit sad though that some people have learned absolutely nothing from the property mania.

The problem with this is that not everything that was built in Ireland was part of the so called property mania. Much of it would still have been built probably much of the hotels and retail in the 10 largest urban centres. Even much of the housebuilding would have been sustainable as we had a low base of home ownership. As we do now despite the myths of us all being property junkies.

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

Part of what propped up the property mania (which I agree was largely avoided in Waterford) was the various tax breaks. The cashflows for the hotel/spa and leisure centre and the luxury apartments were dependent on these tax breaks.

Do you actually realise how popular hotel spas are with people .They are a major part of our tourist infrastructure. Even the most expensive ones are affordable by hundreds of thousands of Irish prople alone.Yet we have none that are worth talking about.

dayshah wrote: »

Now these tax breaks are gone the numbers for these parts of the plan don't add up, even if the retail projections did add up. They will never get to 'draw down' the finance they had.

But this is all supposition on your part. The tax breaks as you call them were restricted to certain areas.It was only when the they were applied in a blanket way that they became a proble. Tax breaks for a designated area are entirley legitimate which is what was there otiginally and probably remain there. It was these tax breaks that revitalised vast areas of Waterford in the eighties.

dayshah wrote: »

Michael St, with its varied shop fronts, is just the sort of urban shopping space that makes Waterford special, rather than a cut and paste of any English high street. However the uncertainty caused by the Newgate Centre means that people are less willing to invest in a business there, because they are uncertain of the future. Instead there is an increase in tackier shops, and the Old Stand is a disgrace.
.

This is more of your distortion and more buzz words. Newgate had nothing to do uncertainty in business confidence. On the other hand if you get a lease on a premises inWaterford to open a café you will have to get planning permission for any modifications. This will be inevitably be appealed by Brendan McCann if it's not perfect according to his infallible opinion. This more than anything else has undermined confidence,

dayshah wrote: »

The best thing for Waterford now is the KRM announce that they are scrapping plans for the hotel/luxury apartments, and they put forward a retail development, with enough space to attract the likes of M&S, but without ruining the character of Michael Street, or dominating the City Walls. If the surviving members of KRM are smart they will cut their losses and start the process now, because no matter what happens, building won't be starting for a few years, whichever project goes ahead.

You don't get it do you? Even if KRM were to do this Brendan McCann would object because will only accept his view of what should be there. This is where it backfires on you.KRM or anyone else will deviate as little as possiblr from the current plan because the know it has already gotten through the process. Newgate is probably set in stone.

Max Powers

dayshah wrote: »

99% eh? Sounds like an opinion pole from Syria :rolleyes:

And again it is ignored that retail was just a part of the development. Did you look at the plans yet. Here they are. The newgatecentre.com website has gone offline. I wonder why, if this is such a sure thing project. The website hardly broke the bank.

But, hey, if its such a fantastic money making idea why not have a whip-round for the liquidated developer? It might speed things along and I'm sure you'll get a terrific return on your investment.

The apartments look a tiny bit of the development to me. Yes obviously the 99% I quoted I thought everyone would realise was just from talking to people. Near everyone on here was behind it back in the day. I havent met anyone who was against it. Waterford needs a new shopping centre as we are underpeforming there, big retailers want to set up but cant. A 5-star hotel would be a good attraction also as we are probably the only city without a 5-star hotel in city centre.

Dayshah, are you so ill-informed that you think all the investment they made consisted of a web-site. First off they need to do their research to see is it viable (time and money) acquire the property (lots of money), put a plan together using expert architects, designers, engineers and the likes (more money), line up contracts, delays then by NIMBYs and McCann cost more money, responding to objections, bord pleanala, presentations to those concerned. All of these tasks are carried out by people who cost money, investors could be using there money on projects/investments that arent costing them money.

Max Powers

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Newgate is probably set in stone.

have to disagree there fuzzy, the planning permission will more than likely be only for 5-7 years (a guess, as thats how long these things are usually for). We are not even half-way through this recession, we have another 5 years to go at least so by the time money starts being loaned again, the planning will have to be done again....McCann will object to whatever anyone wants to put in there then again.

fuzzy dunlop

Max Powers wrote: »

have to disagree there fuzzy, the planning permission will more than likely be only for 5-7 years (a guess, as thats how long these things are usually for). We are not even half-way through this recession, we have another 5 years to go at least so by the time money starts being loaned again, the planning will have to be done again....McCann will object to whatever anyone wants to put in there then again.

The point I'm making is that even three years down the road when the planning will be need to be renewed any would be investor will hardly deviate from the plan for fear of going having to go through the Brendan McCann quagmire again. Why would they do anything innovative when they know it will be hell to get it passed. Throughout history any pioneering urban project has had it's detractors and cynics and they have been proven wrong. The problem is that architects to avoid controversy tend to go for bland inoffensive and unremarkable designs so that they can make it through the planning process as quickly as possible.

Professey Chin

How long is planning permission valid for? I have 10 years in my head but Ive no idea why

wellboytoo

5 years is standard but you can apply for a ten year permission, but that brings a lot more questions...

dayshah

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Do you actually realise how popular hotel spas are with people .They are a major part of our tourist infrastructure. Even the most expensive ones are affordable by hundreds of thousands of Irish prople alone.Yet we have none that are worth talking about.




But this is all supposition on your part. The tax breaks as you call them were restricted to certain areas.It was only when the they were applied in a blanket way that they became a proble. Tax breaks for a designated area are entirley legitimate which is what was there otiginally and probably remain there. It was these tax breaks that revitalised vast areas of Waterford in the eighties.

Oh, I fully agree about spas being affordable. That's because there is such a huge over supply across the country. They are popular, but very far from profitable. Operators are happy just to cover the overheads.

As for the the tax breaks, the were removed by the last government, one of the few smart things they did. In addition to a university are we going to start lobbying the govt to subside a M&S for us?

Max Powers wrote: »

Dayshah, are you so ill-informed that you think all the investment they made consisted of a web-site.

Of course, the website is a tiny fraction of the overall cost. That's why I was so surprised that they didn't maintain it. I mean, how much is a dot com address? If the developers are serious why would they not pay for the website? Its very strange.

The planning will lapse. Its best for the developers to submit a new plan, without all the hotel stuff. If they are lucky they will get planning (and finance) in time for the economy to recover.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

In addition to a university are we going to start lobbying the govt to subside a M&S for us?

I think if we just built a decent sized shopping centre they'd come of their own accord, don't you?

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

I think if we just built a decent sized shopping centre they'd come of their own accord, don't you?

Yes, but must we subsidise the building of a development through tax breaks?

I'm confident that a retail development in the Newgate area could be viable without tax breaks, but the current plan was designed with those tax breaks in mind. That's one of the several reasons why it isn't viable.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

Yes, but must we subsidise the building of a development through tax breaks?

I'm confident that a retail development in the Newgate area could be viable without tax breaks, but the current plan was designed with those tax breaks in mind. That's one of the several reasons why it isn't viable.

Who said anything about subsidising a building? If those jokers who objected to the final plan, which was perfectly good and took into consideration the views of all stakeholders, the building would more than likely be there now, like McDonagh in Kilkenny.

How would you know whether it's viable or not? Earlier on in the thread you were getting mixed up between developments being unviable and credit being scarce due to the credit crunch. One thing evil developers are good at is making money, right? Well then they wouldn't have gone to all that effort just to put together a plan that wouldn't make them money, would they?

And what's wrong with taking advantage of tax breaks? That's what they're there for?

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

Yes, but must we subsidise the building of a development through tax breaks?

I'm confident that a retail development in the Newgate area could be viable without tax breaks, but the current plan was designed with those tax breaks in mind. That's one of the several reasons why it isn't viable.

A tax break is not a subsidy and it bears no resemblance to a subsidy. Your perpetuating political slogans.And tax breaks and oversupply are not the reason spas are affordable. A large section of the Irish populace has a relatively high income and desire to use health spas.They are basic hotel facilities unless you live in Waterford. You might think visitorrs to Waterford will put up with bog standard hotels but they won't.They will stay in Kilkenny and explore the region from there.

BTW it's interesting that your Michael St. pictures are of the part of the street untouched by the development.

dayshah

merlante wrote: »

How would you know whether it's viable or not? Earlier on in the thread you were getting mixed up between developments being unviable and credit being scarce due to the credit crunch. One thing evil developers are good at is making money, right? Well then they wouldn't have gone to all that effort just to put together a plan that wouldn't make them money, would they?

And what's wrong with taking advantage of tax breaks? That's what they're there for?

I'm not mixed up at all. There is a credit crunch AND the project is unviable. The project was based on projections of economic growth and the continuation of tax breaks. I don't blame developers for taking advantage of tax breaks, I blame government for creating them. 'That's what they're there for'. Just one problem. They aren't there anymore. They have been withdrawn over the past few budgets.

You keep referring to the McDonagh Centre. KRM made reference to the number of people within 45 minutes of Waterford, but ignored the facilities that are in place. If developers were so great at making money we wouldn't have NAMA. One of the core partners in KRM has gone into liquidation. Plenty of unviable projects were given money during the property mania. Fortunately that has stopped.

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

A tax break is not a subsidy and it bears no resemblance to a subsidy. Your perpetuating political slogans.And tax breaks and oversupply are not the reason spas are affordable. A large section of the Irish populace has a relatively high income and desire to use health spas.They are basic hotel facilities unless you live in Waterford. You might think visitorrs to Waterford will put up with bog standard hotels but they won't.They will stay in Kilkenny and explore the region from there.

A tax break resembles a subsidy very closely. Why should we give tax breaks to property developers, but not export orientated industry? We can't give tax breaks to everyone, or we'd have no tax base. A tax break is in effect a subsidy. This is just basic economics.

As for hotels. I don't deny that people are willing to pay the low prices to stay in spa and leisure centres. But no one can make a profit at those prices. Waterford is already over supplied with hotels. Anyway, most tourists would prefer to stay in a cheaper 3* than splash out on a 5*. They come for the city, not a spa.

So we have the withdrawal of tax breaks, a plan to build a hotel in the city with the lowest room rates in Ireland, luxury apartments when we already have an oversupply of apartments, spa and leisure centre when across the country operators are happy if they can manage to cover overheads, cashflow projections based on continued economic growth and ignoring the more intense retail competition within 45 minutes, and a core partner gone into liquidation. Yeah, sign me up for that!!!

Feck sake, KRM don't even keep the website up anymore.

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

I'm not mixed up at all. There is a credit crunch AND the project is unviable. The project was based on projections of economic growth and the continuation of tax breaks. I don't blame developers for taking advantage of tax breaks, I blame government for creating them. 'That's what they're there for'. Just one problem. They aren't there anymore. They have been withdrawn over the past few budgets.
.

You don't know the project is unviable.You've been given several examples where similar projects of larger scale have been viable in locations smaller than Waterford where the traditional centre is thriving.Athlone in Particular but Drogheda as well.

dayshah wrote: »

You keep referring to the McDonagh Centre. KRM made reference to the number of people within 45 minutes of Waterford, but ignored the facilities that are in place. If developers were so great at making money we wouldn't have NAMA. One of the core partners in KRM has gone into liquidation. Plenty of unviable projects were given money during the property mania. Fortunately that has stopped.
.

Developers didn't invent Nama.The government did.The government are responsible for Nama and the collapse of the banks. It was up to the banks and regulators to ensure projects were viable.Plus you don't seem to realise that if consumers are aware of facilities that the want exsist in neighbouring towns then that's were they will go. The state of play now is Kilkenny in Particular in the South East has benefitted from developers projects with superior economic and business infrastructure.Even if they are in Nama which they may not be they are making a contribution to the cities economy whereas we just have landbanks and derelict buildings in Nama.

dayshah wrote: »

A tax break resembles a subsidy very closely. Why should we give tax breaks to property developers, but not export orientated industry? We can't give tax breaks to everyone, or we'd have no tax base. A tax break is in effect a subsidy. This is just basic economics.

A tax break is not a subsidy, is nothing like a subsidy and does not resemble a subsidy.A subsidy is a direct financial grant. A tax break is a tax generator in another area.This is basic economics.

dayshah wrote: »

As for hotels. I don't deny that people are willing to pay the low prices to stay in spa and leisure centres. But no one can make a profit at those prices. Waterford is already over supplied with hotels. Anyway, most tourists would prefer to stay in a cheaper 3* than splash out on a 5*. They come for the city, not a spa.

This is opinionated drivel. People are not stupid.There not going to stay in a damp 3 star in Waterford when they can get a five star for the same price in Kilkenny which is only 20 minutes away by car..This is basic economics.Your statement about coming for the city is just nonsense. They will come for a variety of reasons including destination shopping and leisure facilities. Look at town like Killarney. We have nothing in comparison.Kilkenny has!They developed these to cater for the potential market. We're developing tourist attractions that potentially benefit our neighbours more.

dayshah wrote: »

So we have the withdrawal of tax breaks, a plan to build a hotel in the city with the lowest room rates in Ireland, luxury apartments when we already have an oversupply of apartments, spa and leisure centre when across the country operators are happy if they can manage to cover overheads, cashflow projections based on continued economic growth and ignoring the more intense retail competition within 45 minutes, and a core partner gone into liquidation. Yeah, sign me up for that!!!

We have the lowest room rates because we have the lowest standard of hotels in the country. The 10 largest towns in the country at least plus Wexford and Kilkenny have hotel facilities at least a decade ahead of us.The only reason there is an oversupply is because of the vast number of hotels built in areas where there is no strong urban fabric or tourist potential.Places like Tulloow,Tullamore and Offally. Where the market is viable there is less of an over supply. There certainly is no over supply of quality hotels in Waterford.Your philosophy is don't build it because there is more intense competition 45 minitues away says it all really

dayshah wrote: »

Feck sake, KRM don't even keep the website up anymore.

Why would they keep up the website? They don't need it.

dayshah

"People are not stupid.There not going to stay in a damp 3 star in Waterford when they can get a five star for the same price in Kilkenny which is only 20 minutes away by car."
And how is someone opening a new 5* hotel meant to make a profit in that situation? (The 3* hotels in Waterford are not damp. That is a slur on Waterford's hotels)


Christ, can you not figure out the difference between meeting overheads and turning a profit?

Plenty of other places are kept open by creditors because they can meet overheads, but they still can't meet capital costs. When making a decision about building a new site, they have to assess whether capital costs will be met.

The more intense competition, slow down in growth, and end of tax breaks; which was not anticipated at the time the plans were made, means capital costs can't be met. The state has to pay over 8% interest on the markets, how much do you think financiers would want for this project?

Time to go back to the drawing board.

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

"
Christ, can you not figure out the difference between meeting overheads and turning a profit?.

Yes I do! You don't that is your problem.There is a massive landbank there that was bought at the height of the property boom. Paid for a with a massive loan that still has to be serviced. The assett as it is is a fixed overhead accumulating interest on it's loan if it is not been service and not turning one red cent.

dayshah wrote: »

Plenty of other places are kept open by creditors because they can meet overheads, but they still can't meet capital costs. When making a decision about building a new site, they have to assess whether capital costs will be met. .

Not necessarily.The landbank is still a liability. The banks will ultimately have to make a call on what to do with it. Continue to service the loan which is accumulating interest without taking money in or funding the project.The site is constrained by zoning and planning permission by the council which is not going to change yet interest still accumulates. It could even get to the stage that they will have to release capital to build it and sell it on to an invester as a going concern.

dayshah wrote: »

"
The more intense competition, slow down in growth, and end of tax breaks; which was not anticipated at the time the plans were made, means capital costs can't be met. The state has to pay over 8% interest on the markets, how much do you think financiers would want for this project?.

You don't know any of this. Your presenting your own desires as solid evidence and fact. And the 8% your talking about is on "the markets". It's pure theory in your head with nothing to back it up. Recessions don't last for ever as much as people like you revel in them. The more intense competition your talking about is not in the city but in neighbouring towns. This guarantees a need for it as well as your acknowledgement that there is a market for it however twisted your logic might be.

dayshah wrote: »

"Time to go back to the drawing board.

There is no need or practical reason. What do you actually think is going to be sufficient to claw back some money. Anything less than than the proposes plan will be pretty much incapable of doing so. City square was built when the economy was only half the size it is now.Construction costs are falling and continuing to fall. Yet the loans still have to be serviced. Whoever owns the site has a lead weight around their neck which can only be alleviated by building the thing.

dayshah

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

You don't know any of this. Your presenting your own desires as solid evidence and fact. And the 8% your talking about is on "the markets". It's pure theory in your head with nothing to back it up. Recessions don't last for ever as much as people like you revel in them. The more intense competition your talking about is not in the city but in neighbouring towns. This guarantees a need for it as well as your acknowledgement that there is a market for it however twisted your logic might be.

The development was based on shoppers in the south east, Waterford can not sustain this development. It will be in direct competition with the McDonagh Centre for any punters from South Kilkenny

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

There is no need or practical reason. What do you actually think is going to be sufficient to claw back some money. Anything less than than the proposes plan will be pretty much incapable of doing so. City square was built when the economy was only half the size it is now.Construction costs are falling and continuing to fall. Yet the loans still have to be serviced. Whoever owns the site has a lead weight around their neck which can only be alleviated by building the thing.

I agree it has a lead weight, but it will probably be alleviated by liquidating KRM, as happened with one of the core partners. This will allow a new crowd to come along, and build a more sensible development.


Tick tock, tick tock.

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

The development was based on shoppers in the south east, Waterford can not sustain this development. It will be in direct competition with the McDonagh Centre for any punters from South Kilkenny.

This proves you haven't a clue what you're talking about. This makes it an absolute necessity. No planner or business plan would suggest neglecting the cities retail offering (The most important function of a city centre) because Kilkenny already has such it thing.It would be idiotic and ludicrous. We have to remain cometitive.We can't do this with inferioir offering. This city planners learned this lesson years ago.

dayshah wrote: »

I agree it has a lead weight, but it will probably be alleviated by liquidating KRM, as happened with one of the core partners. This will allow a new crowd to come along, and build a more sensible development.

Tick tock, tick tock.

Whether KRM is liquidated ir not doesn't matter.It's still a viable business plan.New partners can be found.Even if all the partners were liquidated. A new consortium can be created with foreign investors which is what KRM more or less representred anyway. Planning permission is fully in place and will be renewed. easily second time around.

fricatus

dayshah wrote: »

The development was based on shoppers in the south east, Waterford can not sustain this development. It will be in direct competition with the McDonagh Centre for any punters from South Kilkenny

I don't think I've ever heard anything so idiotic or craven in my life! What, do you think we live in a bloody command economy?

South Kilkenny is Waterford's natural hinterland. Whatever the colour of their hurling jerseys, and whatever they might say about "not an inch" over the boundary extension, the people there live within the orbit of Waterford city, not Kilkenny city.

Where the hell do you think they go to school, and work, in their thousands? Should they be earning their money here and then spending it outside the local economy? Should they f**k!

Maybe you might change your username to "KingHenry" or something, if that's your attitude. As Ciarán Fitzgerald once asked, "where's your f**cking pride???"

dayshah

fricatus wrote: »

I don't think I've ever heard anything so idiotic or craven in my life! What, do you think we live in a bloody command economy?

South Kilkenny is Waterford's natural hinterland. Whatever the colour of their hurling jerseys, and whatever they might say about "not an inch" over the boundary extension, the people there live within the orbit of Waterford city, not Kilkenny city.

Where the hell do you think they go to school, and work, in their thousands? Should they be earning their money here and then spending it outside the local economy? Should they f**k!

Maybe you might change your username to "KingHenry" or something, if that's your attitude. As Ciarán Fitzgerald once asked, "where's your f**cking pride???"

Again, if you look at the brochure they are based on the population within a 15min, 30min, 45min and 1hour radius. They ignored the competition within that radius. There is probably demand enough for a more modest, City Square size development, but not for the proposed white elephant.

The unanticipated (by KRM) competition, withdrawal of taxbreaks, general decrease in the economy, massive increase in financing costs, and liquidation of a core partner all combine to make this project totally unviable.

Just try go to a bank and get a loan based on 'pride' rather than cash flow.

sunnysoutheast

merlante wrote: »

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

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

An airport upgrade (medium term) or (short term) flights to an airport which has useful onward connections to facilitate FDI companies locating in the South East - e.g. Gatwick. I look forward to the day when Aer Lingus switch the Heathrow flights from Cork

SSE

fuzzy dunlop

dayshah wrote: »

Again, if you look at the brochure they are based on the population within a 15min, 30min, 45min and 1hour radius. They ignored the competition within that radius. There is probably demand enough for a more modest, City Square size development, but not for the proposed white elephant.

The unanticipated (by KRM) competition, withdrawal of taxbreaks, general decrease in the economy, massive increase in financing costs, and liquidation of a core partner all combine to make this project totally unviable.

Just try go to a bank and get a loan based on 'pride' rather than cash flow.

Listen read what your posting. Anyone can see your just a contrarian. Your like a catholic rangers fan.The reason the brochure uses these radii is because we are the regional centre and the largest urban area in the region where all the regional communications and transport links radiate from. Proper spatial planning dictates that the necessity of this development.This is the arguement the City Planners made and won on. KRM and the council have anticipated the competition and your assertions are just David Icke pseudo economic distortions. Fricatus has you bang to rights.Plus I see your back to the slogans and buzz words. Nobody gots a loan on pride.They get it on business plans. The only miscalculation KRM made was the corrupt attempts at political interference in the project by the tin foil hat brigade in Waterford.Modest meaning small won't work.Only in your head where we're still all "dancing at the crossroads"

dayshah

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Your like a catholic rangers fan.The reason the brochure uses these radii is because we are the regional centre and the largest urban area in the region where all the regional communications and transport links radiate from.

You mean communication links, like roads?

I suppose you want people to cycle to the Newgate Centre (you'd be in line with Brendan McCann there), or maybe carry a heavy bag of shopping back down to the bus on the quay. (Public transport is part of the solution, but not enough.)

The Newgate centre proposed about 600 new car spaces, but removes the New St car park, meaning far less car spaces. Given the more intense competition for customers from South Kilkenny KRM have to up their game.

An obvious solution would be to scrap the whole hotel and leisure centre, and put in more parking spaces. This would mean that people driving there would relax in the knowledge that they won't have to spend half an hour looking for a space. This could take some customers from Kilkenny. But with the current proposal it would be hell for someone from Thomastown to find a parking space.

Parking is a piece of infrastructure that retail is dependent on.

Its a shame that the application of some common sense is dismissed as a contrarian view.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

You mean communication links, like roads?

I suppose you want people to cycle to the Newgate Centre (you'd be in line with Brendan McCann there), or maybe carry a heavy bag of shopping back down to the bus on the quay. (Public transport is part of the solution, but not enough.)

The Newgate centre proposed about 600 new car spaces, but removes the New St car park, meaning far less car spaces. Given the more intense competition for customers from South Kilkenny KRM have to up their game.

An obvious solution would be to scrap the whole hotel and leisure centre, and put in more parking spaces. This would mean that people driving there would relax in the knowledge that they won't have to spend half an hour looking for a space. This could take some customers from Kilkenny. But with the current proposal it would be hell for someone from Thomastown to find a parking space.

Parking is a piece of infrastructure that retail is dependent on.

Its a shame that the application of some common sense is dismissed as a contrarian view.

So to get this straight. Are you arguing that Waterford cannot support a shopping centre of the scale of Donagh in Kilkenny, or maybe a bit bigger?

You do realise that there are as many people in the immediate environs of Waterford city than in the whole of Co. Kilkenny. In fact half of the population growth in Co. Kilkenny is within a stone's throw of the Ard Ri.