Old Cinema Patrick street

jayboi · 19-01-2013 7:14pm #1

Whats the story with it passed it there today hasnt changed in nearly 5 or 6 years? is it a nama place now?

Jason Todd · 20-01-2013 10:17am

jayboi wrote: »

Whats the story with it passed it there today hasnt changed in nearly 5 or 6 years? is it a nama place now?

Don't know, but if I had the money I'd love to do something with it.

Gadgie · 20-01-2013 2:56pm

As far as I can remember, it was closed down shortly after the Storm cinema (now Odeon) opened in Railway square, apparently to be refurbished and reopened in due course. That didn't happen though.

It was run by the Ward Anderson group, who operate the Omniplex and Cineplex cinemas around the country, as well as the Savoy in Dublin. Since those cinemas are still open, I can only assume that the company decided it wasn't worth their while trying to compete with Storm for a share of the Waterford market.

I don't know if they own the building on Patrick street, but I don't recall seeing any for sale/lease/rent signs on it since the cinema closed.

BBM77 · 20-01-2013 3:39pm

The owners of buildings that are left idle like that should be charged triple rates until they put them to some use. It is just unacceptable that they should be allowed to leave perfectly viable buildings in city centres go unused and become unsightly for their own selfish reasons. :mad:

jayboi · 20-01-2013 3:43pm

Can you apply for an unused building to be exempt from rates?

Sully · 20-01-2013 3:45pm

I assume they are not being charged rates at all if the building is closed.

BBM77 · 20-01-2013 4:26pm

Sully wrote: »

I assume they are not being charged rates at all if the building is closed.

I know they are not charged rates, sure that is the point I am making. They should not be allowed to leave buildings idle and be left of scot free. If they still had to pay rates that increased incrementally when they are empty it would discourage that kind of holding on to buildings. This kind of thing has nothing to do with the property crash it has always gone on and there is no reason why it should.

wellboytoo · 20-01-2013 5:16pm

You can get a refund of rates if you can prove the building was for let during the previous year. Ward Anderson are a cash rich company who do things their way only. They would happily leave that building sit there for twenty years until they are ready to do something again.
I agree whole heartedly on the triple rates idea as there are a few vulture capitalists buying prime property at tiny money at the mo with no intention of doing anything with it for ten years , just waiting for the building to increasein price. A small hotel in Dunmore being a case in point, this would be a diaster if allowed to continue.

jayboi · 20-01-2013 5:27pm

What does that mean for places like the old Waterford crystal or de la salle centre?

wellboy76 · 20-01-2013 5:40pm

Seems an ideal sized site for m&s

jennygirl · 20-01-2013 6:22pm

wellboy76 wrote: »

Seems an ideal sized site for m&s

i think City Council should approach nama and take the new st devolopment from them, get a good builder (Frisby/flynn) and get M&S, H&M, etc to find out what size they want, and build a smaller version of what was planned for new st, if it works (and it will with the right anchor tenants) build the rest of it!

Sully · 20-01-2013 6:26pm

jennygirl wrote: »

i think City Council should approach nama and take the new st devolopment from them, get a good builder (Frisby/flynn) and get M&S, H&M, etc to find out what size they want, and build a smaller version of what was planned for new st, if it works (and it will with the right anchor tenants) build the rest of it!

Doesn't M&S, H&M etc want to be outside of the City so they can get decent parking for their customers?

Speak Now · 20-01-2013 10:15pm

Isn't there a place across the road between the 2 "Thread" shops almost as big as the old cinema. Who owns that place?

wmpdd3 · 20-01-2013 11:07pm

Parnel St Arcade?

Speak Now · 20-01-2013 11:15pm

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Parnel St Arcade?

No I mean on Patrick street just up a bit across the road from the old cinema.

looksee · 20-01-2013 11:28pm

I think he means opposite the wool shop, I thought that was a row of houses?

Edit, no sorry I know the place you mean, was a clothes shop used to be a painting and curtain shop for a long time.

jennygirl · 21-01-2013 12:05am

Sully wrote: »

Doesn't M&S, H&M etc want to be outside of the City so they can get decent parking for their customers?

they would prefer very large city centre units with parking - if memory serves - New St had planning for 1200 cars

spankmemunkey · 22-01-2013 2:18pm

jennygirl wrote: »

i think City Council should approach nama and take the new st devolopment from them, get a good builder (Frisby/flynn) and get M&S, H&M, etc to find out what size they want, and build a smaller version of what was planned for new st, if it works (and it will with the right anchor tenants) build the rest of it!

Why did you write FRISBY after GET A GOOD BUILDER IN? :eek:

spankmemunkey · 22-01-2013 2:20pm

In fairness thats not a bad place for a cinema in the, go for a bite to eat then go see a movie! Isnt there a building accross from that thats empty also, it was just rebuilt and never finished, roughly accross from that!

Sully · 22-01-2013 2:33pm

jennygirl wrote: »

they would prefer very large city centre units with parking - if memory serves - New St had planning for 1200 cars

We currently don't have that and New St. is out the window.

iseegirls · 23-01-2013 11:31am

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Isnt there a building accross from that thats empty also, it was just rebuilt and never finished, roughly accross from that!

Whoever redeveloped that needs to back to college and do a bit more studying before ever going near a building again.

Horrible building and design, and the state of the outside is just horrible. I'm not surprised no-one has ever taken this place since been done up many years ago.

wellboytoo · 23-01-2013 5:14pm

iseegirls wrote: »

Whoever redeveloped that needs to back to college and do a bit more studying before ever going near a building again.

Horrible building and design, and the state of the outside is just horrible. I'm not surprised no-one has ever taken this place since been done up many years ago.

Look at the floor levels inside a total diaster!!! unlettable.

wmpdd3 · 24-01-2013 1:26am

Oh yeah,

http://goo.gl/maps/GYILH

Fewer Harrington and Partners its seems to blame....

Finnbar01 · 24-01-2013 6:19pm

iseegirls wrote: »

Whoever redeveloped that needs to back to college and do a bit more studying before ever going near a building again.

Horrible building and design, and the state of the outside is just horrible. I'm not surprised no-one has ever taken this place since been done up many years ago.

What place is that?

spankmemunkey · 24-01-2013 7:49pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What place is that?

Jaysus boiy! some people havent got a clue about Waterford when they go past City Square! Sorry some posters on here were rubbing off on me when i was asking about where something was!

As im not from here i dont know the name of the street, Where the old cinema is, accross the road from that up a bit, its an empty building that was being redeveloped and was just left. Theres alot of water inside it anyway so they didnt do a good job!

wellboytoo · 24-01-2013 7:53pm

Its on patrick street , used to be an old salt store and then Henry Molloy had a butchers shop there for years.

Finnbar01 · 25-01-2013 10:57am

wellboytoo wrote: »

Its on patrick street , used to be an old salt store and then Henry Molloy had a butchers shop there for years.

I yes I know where now thanks.

Tom_Cruise · 25-01-2013 10:24pm

BBM77 wrote: »

The owners of buildings that are left idle like that should be charged triple rates until they put them to some use. It is just unacceptable that they should be allowed to leave perfectly viable buildings in city centres go unused and become unsightly for their own selfish reasons. :mad:

If someone owns the building, they can do what they please with it.

Jason Todd · 26-01-2013 2:35am

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

If someone owns the building, they can do what they please with it.

Don't be ridiculous. So you'd think it would be perfectly acceptable for a landlord to plaster graphics with knobs on it all over the front of a building because "they should be able to do what they please with it"?

There should be some sort of basic upkeep maintained, particularly in prominent areas.

eiresandra · 26-01-2013 2:40am

I think one of the reasons for the lack of development on the site has been the longrunning and vicious row between the Ward and Anderson family. The Patrick St. cinema is owned by one of their companies.

Seems to have been finally resolved in court today, so we may see something happening with the cinema.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0126/1224329299430.html

mccarthy37 · 26-01-2013 12:48pm

eiresandra wrote: »

I think one of the reasons for the lack of development on the site has been the longrunning and vicious row between the Ward and Anderson family. The Patrick St. cinema is owned by one of their companies.

Seems to have been finally resolved in court today, so we may see something happening with the cinema.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0126/1224329299430.html

Very interesting story the Omniplex on Grand Parade in Cork has been an eyesore for a few years also.

Old Cinema Patrick street

Comments