New footbridge

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

Sarsfield House is due for demolition and the whole area around Arthur's Quay (both the park and the shopping centre) are to be remodelled under the Limerick 2030 plan, so with these changes happening there's plenty of scope to design and plan a walkway that doesn't compromise the river amenity.

The proposed 'footbridge' seems like a departure from Limerick 2030, and that is not good at all.

The 2030 plan is just a plan. There is nothing set in stone. The council recently bought the Cleeves site. This wasn't part of the plan, but now they're trying to see how they can fit it in. Other parts of the plans include demolishing privately owned Arthurs Quay and Dunnes Sarsfield St. Thats not happening without massive moneys.

squonk

Seems a bit stupid demolishing Arthur's Quay! it must be only about 25-30 years old? I'm still confused about how I'd exactly go to access the existing footbridge that's there. I'm genuinely interested in knowing! It looks like you've got to get round the back of Sarsfield House but I'm not sure!

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The 2030 plan is just a plan. There is nothing set in stone. The council recently bought the Cleeves site. This wasn't part of the plan, but now they're trying to see how they can fit it in. Other parts of the plans include demolishing privately owned Arthurs Quay and Dunnes Sarsfield St. Thats not happening without massive moneys.

The plan was pretty clear about remodelling that whole area. It was one of the central points about Limerick 2030.

Cleeves wasn't part of the plan. It's a completely separate issue. Limerick 2030 didn't touch on that site or even that side of the river, so 'seeing how they can fit it in' is basically double speak for saying we're going to put Limerick 2030 on a shelf and vaguely refer to it now and again in a vain attempt to justify anything we do. If Cleeves is to be part of Limerick 2030, then the current plan is redundant and needs to be revised. It's as simple as that.

Itsdacraic

squonk wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid demolishing Arthur's Quay! it must be only about 25-30 years old? I'm still confused about how I'd exactly go to access the existing footbridge that's there. I'm genuinely interested in knowing! It looks like you've got to get round the back of Sarsfield House but I'm not sure!

Yes, you can access it just by where Sarsfield House meets Arthurs Quay Park

zulutango

squonk wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid demolishing Arthur's Quay! it must be only about 25-30 years old? I'm still confused about how I'd exactly go to access the existing footbridge that's there. I'm genuinely interested in knowing! It looks like you've got to get round the back of Sarsfield House but I'm not sure!

About 25 years old, but poorly designed in itself, and also the site that it sits on would have much greater value to Limerick if it was knocked and the whole area remodelled.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

The plan was pretty clear about remodelling that whole area. It was one of the central points about Limerick 2030.

Cleeves wasn't part of the plan. It's a completely separate issue. Limerick 2030 didn't touch on that site or even that side of the river, so 'seeing how they can fit it in' is basically double speak for saying we're going to put Limerick 2030 on a shelf and vaguely refer to it now and again in a vain attempt to justify anything we do. If Cleeves is to be part of Limerick 2030, then the current plan is redundant and needs to be revised. It's as simple as that.

And I pointed out on the 2030 thread at the time, that they don't own half the buildings the plan to demolish. Dunnes don't want to sell the the Sarsfield St site.
As I said above, it's a plan. It's not set in stone. Why would the council buy Cleeves if they didn't plan to develop it as part of the 2030 plan?
And while there is a plan to demolish Sarsfield House, something else has to be built to rehouse the 800 staff. It's not going to be demolished this side of 2020.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

And I pointed out on the 2030 thread at the time, that they don't own half the buildings the plan to demolish. Dunnes don't want to sell the the Sarsfield St site.
As I said above, it's a plan. It's not set in stone. Why would the council buy Cleeves if they didn't plan to develop it as part of the 2030 plan?
And while there is a plan to demolish Sarsfield House, something else has to be built to rehouse the 800 staff. It's not going to be demolished this side of 2020.

But there's no way you can just make Cleeves part of 2030. So much of the plan was about remodelling the area around Sarsfield House and Arthur's Quay. You can't just say Dunnes won't sell so let's buy a site in a different part of the city and say it's part of Limerick 2030. That would completely undermine the report and those who wrote it.

It is great that the council purchased the Cleeves site, but let's not pretend it's part of 2030. The council have bought many properties and sites around the city, which also are not part of 2030.

I agree that it will be quite a few years to rehouse the Revenue Commissioners staff, but that's no justification for building an expensive and permanent piece of infrastructure such as the proposed footbridge now.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

But there's no way you can just make Cleeves part of 2030. So much of the plan was about remodelling the area around Sarsfield House and Arthur's Quay. You can't just say Dunnes won't sell so let's buy a site in a different part of the city and say it's part of Limerick 2030. That would completely undermine the report and those who wrote it.

It is great that the council purchased the Cleeves site, but let's not pretend it's part of 2030. The council have bought many properties and sites around the city, which also are not part of 2030.

Parts of the plan are very aspirational and vague. Including the line A renaissance of Limerick’s entire waterfront and the creation of an iconic destination building ‘The Limerick Cultural Centre’.
It doesn't say that the cultural center definitely has to be built at the Dunnes site and incorporating the Cleeves site to build the center would fit perfectly within the stated aim.

thesimpsons

squonk wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid demolishing Arthur's Quay! it must be only about 25-30 years old? I'm still confused about how I'd exactly go to access the existing footbridge that's there. I'm genuinely interested in knowing! It looks like you've got to get round the back of Sarsfield House but I'm not sure!

if you are standing in front of Sarsfield house there is a gateway to the left of the building beside the river. go through there, lovely little part there which you go through to the footbridge and into the market and easy access to St. Mary's Cathedral, Nicholas Street, etc. I only found it last summer as I'd always thought the gateway was lock. I was embarrassed not to have walked that way previously. Loads of tourists were using the walkway though - they all had maps.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Parts of the plan are very aspirational and vague. Including the line A renaissance of Limerick’s entire waterfront and the creation of an iconic destination building ‘The Limerick Cultural Centre’.
It doesn't say that the cultural center definitely has to be built at the Dunnes site and incorporating the Cleeves site to build the center would fit perfectly within the stated aim.

From the above, I suspect that you haven't read the full plan, but perhaps just the summary?

The 2030 plan is clear that the area around Arthur's Quay, Patrick Street and Sarsfield House should be remodelled.

The idea for the 'cultural centre' is directly related to the old Dunnes site. It's a case of here's a derelict, prominent site, and here's a suggestion as to what we should we do with it.

I can see how somebody might say Cleeves would be a good site for a cultural centre, and that's fine, but we'd still be left with a derelict Dunnes site and that's what Limerick 2030 was trying to tackle (among other things).

If the footbridge was a good idea, why wasn't it proposed in Limerick 2030 given that the plan looks at that very area? I just don't see how you can say that the footbridge isn't a departure from the plan. It clearly is.

By proceeding with the footbridge, the council is basically saying we have a plan which we spent a lot of money on and which we endorsed, and here's something totally different which we are actually going to do.

Vanquished

thesimpsons wrote: »

if you are standing in front of Sarsfield house there is a gateway to the left of the building beside the river. go through there, lovely little part there which you go through to the footbridge and into the market and easy access to St. Mary's Cathedral, Nicholas Street, etc. I only found it last summer as I'd always thought the gateway was lock. I was embarrassed not to have walked that way previously. Loads of tourists were using the walkway though - they all had maps.

Hang a left outside the potato market towards the courthouse and continue along the quayside promenade. It offers spectacular views of the river, Curragour falls, Sarsfield bridge, Thomond bridge, the castle etc etc.

https://maps.google.com/maphp?hl=en&ll=52.66833,-8.625546&spn=0.000943,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.66833,-8.625546&panoid=PJGHbXgBQKgAAAQXIZA3ZA&cbp=12,170.43,,0,0

squonk

Vanquished wrote: »

Hang a left outside the potato market towards the courthouse and continue along the quayside promenade. It offers spectacular views of the river, Curragour falls, Sarsfield bridge, Thomond bridge, the castle etc etc.

https://maps.google.com/maphp?hl=en&ll=52.66833,-8.625546&spn=0.000943,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.66833,-8.625546&panoid=PJGHbXgBQKgAAAQXIZA3ZA&cbp=12,170.43,,0,0

Looks lovely! Thanks for the link!

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

From the above, I suspect that you haven't read the full plan, but perhaps just the summary?

The 2030 plan is clear that the area around Arthur's Quay, Patrick Street and Sarsfield House should be remodelled.

The idea for the 'cultural centre' is directly related to the old Dunnes site. It's a case of here's a derelict, prominent site, and here's a suggestion as to what we should we do with it.

I can see how somebody might say Cleeves would be a good site for a cultural centre, and that's fine, but we'd still be left with a derelict Dunnes site and that's what Limerick 2030 was trying to tackle (among other things).

If the footbridge was a good idea, why wasn't it proposed in Limerick 2030 given that the plan looks at that very area? I just don't see how you can say that the footbridge isn't a departure from the plan. It clearly is.

By proceeding with the footbridge, the council is basically saying we have a plan which we spent a lot of money on and which we endorsed, and here's something totally different which we are actually going to do.

Where did I say it wasn't a departure from the plan? That's my whole point. It is a departure as the plan is not set in stone and it looks as if they've decided to include Cleeves and a new bridge in it.
Even you're own language as I've highlighted shows that it's what might happen, not what will happen.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Where did I say it wasn't a departure from the plan? That's my whole point. It is a departure as the plan is not set in stone and it looks as if they've decided to include Cleeves and a new bridge in it.
Even you're own language as I've highlighted shows that it's what might happen, not what will happen.

The plan is a load of ****e then and hardly worth the paper it's written on.

To think that they even costed the major infrastructural works on such a vague, meaningless plan.

:eek::eek::eek:

Edited for clarity: I do not think the plan is as shallow and woolly as you make it out to be. A lot of work went into it, and it drew on a huge amount of expertise. It was clear that the area should be remodelled. The cultural centre was a suggestion for what could go on the old Dunnes site. The main point was that the area should be remodelled.

cgcsb

Dear lord what a depressing collection of histrionic posts. A new bridge = 'tis a terrible ting that'll ruin our lives. Reminds me of the thread about Cork City being 'destroyed' by cycle lanes. I suppose revelling in misery and impending doom through objectively benign changes(normal people might call them improvements) to the built environment is part of the Irish psyche.

pigtown

Silentcorner wrote: »

My concerns are the following, Pigtown.

1 It will block the point of the River where the Shannon meets the Abbey, this for me is quintessential Limerick, the birthplace of the city. It also is unique in that it gives visitors and locals a vista of how it looked 800 plus years ago, that is why it is a sensitive spot for me.

According to Michael Noonan in today's Leader, the bridge will be built along the weir, from Shannon Rowing Club to Merchant's Quay. I suppose it will block this point and of course it is a beautiful vista at the moment. However you should know that this area has changed a great deal in the past 800 years ago; the Potato Market was originally the docks and so is an infill development, as is Arthur's Quay. And the weir itself is not that old.

Silentcorner wrote: »

2 The design has to look perfect, not just for the next ten years but for all time, that is going to be a challenge for any designer.

True. If it were me designing it I would keep it as low to the water as practicable.

Silentcorner wrote: »

3 I think building something such as this in that spot, where now you will have two footbridges in the space of 50 meters is too much.

Too much what? They will be very different beasts.

Silentcorner wrote: »

4 Building bridges should only ever be built for locals, it won't on its own attract tourists

I'm sure it will mostly be locals using it. The amount of people who do the three bridges loop regularly is surprisingly large. And not many attractions on their own attract tourists. It will contribute though.

Silentcorner wrote: »

5 The walkway from Revenue to King Johns Castle is actually quiet nice, it just needs a clean up, the courthouse is on the move and it leads right up beside the castle.

Apparently the bridge will only reach the courthouse so this walkway will still be in use. But since the closure of Castle Lane this part of the riverwalk is redundant. If you get to City Hall you need to turn around and go back again because the way is blocked.

Silentcorner wrote: »

6 It will divert tourists from The Hunt Museum and St Marys...if tourists then want to visit the either they need to either double back or walk down Nicholas St, which defeats the purpose of the bridge.

So let them double back. Anyone who visits a city should be prepared for a fair amount of walking, and if they're not able for it then they can avoid the bridge.

If you go to the Highline in New York or La Promenade Plantée in Paris you bypass whole swaths of the city. That doesn't mean that you don't return to see the attractions you missed, and they certainly don't negatively affect those attractions.

Silentcorner wrote: »

I can't see the upside of this one I'm afraid...a foot bridge from poor mans kilkee over to the boathouse would make more sense to me, stick in a nice cafe or bar...

Ya that would be lovely. I wonder if the buildings could be purchased by the council?

Vanquished wrote: »

I think you're the first person I've ever heard speaking in favour of that pathetic proposal to lob a boardwalk along the front of the castle! It's riverside setting has been untouched for hundreds of years but some clown in the council felt that a tacky, fairytale, Disney-esque walkway would be an appropriate addition to a centuries old national monument! It's no wonder this city has such an appalling record of protecting its heritage when absolute garbage like that is proposed! Give me strength!

Just to clarify, that proposal for the castle boardwalk is terrible and should never be given serious consideration. I do think a boardwalk would be nice here though. Just because the castle was built on the river 800 years ago doesn't mean we need to be stuck with that. Cities evolve and today's needs shouldn't be ignored (within reason obviously).

zulutango

Anybody got access to the article from the Leader?

How will boats go under it?

Silentcorner

cgcsb wrote: »

Dear lord what a depressing collection of histrionic posts. A new bridge = 'tis a terrible ting that'll ruin our lives. Reminds me of the thread about Cork City being 'destroyed' by cycle lanes. I suppose revelling in misery and impending doom through objectively benign changes(normal people might call them improvements) to the built environment is part of the Irish psyche.

Do you know what, you've changed my mind, just by suggesting I am revelling in misery and impending doom...good argument sir!

The castle has been abused by the local authority for decades there used to be local authority housing in the centre of it....we floored them and then put up a highly controversial "facade" around the entrance...the attraction was a poor mans Bunratty castle after that...they finally got it right with the recent renovation and information centre, it gives the visitor local or otherwise an excellent insight into the deep history of the castle, it is an excellent visitor attraction now...now they just need to leave it alone...they could easily spend that money on lighting up the entire riverfront in a very tasteful manner, or as we suggested do up Nicholas St, if this was about revelling in misery or impending doom we wouldn't bother suggesting alternatives.

zulutango

cgcsb wrote: »

Dear lord what a depressing collection of histrionic posts. A new bridge = 'tis a terrible ting that'll ruin our lives. Reminds me of the thread about Cork City being 'destroyed' by cycle lanes. I suppose revelling in misery and impending doom through objectively benign changes(normal people might call them improvements) to the built environment is part of the Irish psyche.

Objectively benign changes? Like the interpretive centre in King John's Castle, the proposed develoment of Limerick Boat Club from a few years back, or Sarsfield House in the 70's? You think these kinds of shoddy development are benign, let alone improvements to the built environment? Spare me.

zulutango

cgcsb wrote: »

Dear lord what a depressing collection of histrionic posts. A new bridge = 'tis a terrible ting that'll ruin our lives. Reminds me of the thread about Cork City being 'destroyed' by cycle lanes. I suppose revelling in misery and impending doom through objectively benign changes(normal people might call them improvements) to the built environment is part of the Irish psyche.

I've just looked over your post history and there's little if anything there about Limerick. Perhaps you'd have a different view if you actually knew the city and understood how an infrastructural development like this could affect it.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

Anybody got access to the article from the Leader?

How will boats go under it?

They won't need to if it runs on top of the weir. They would use the lock gates.

zulutango

zulutango wrote: »

How will boats go under it?

Cookiemunster wrote: »

They won't need to if it runs on top of the weir. They would use the lock gates.

Two points on this ...

1. I'd be very surprised if the weir is currently structurally capable of supporting this bridge. I would say that a lot of further structural works would be necessary, and these will be very time consuming and expensive.

2. It will effectively block the opening to Abbey River at high tide to boating traffic (and this is when all boats except kayaks are active on the river). Sending boating traffic via the lock gates when they can currently go over the weir is obviously going to be restrictive.

This is madness. I can see it getting passed the compliant council, but not passed An Bord Pleanála.

pigtown

zulutango wrote: »

Two points on this ...

1. I'd be very surprised if the weir is currently structurally capable of supporting this bridge. I would say that a lot of further structural works would be necessary, and these will be very time consuming and expensive.

Michael Noonan claims that as the wall is currently ''keeping in millions of tonnes of water and so is extraordinarily strong'' and would have no problem supporting a pedestrian bridge.

zulutango wrote: »

2. It will effectively block the opening to Abbey River at high tide to boating traffic (and this is when all boats except kayaks are active on the river). Sending boating traffic via the lock gates when they can currently go over the weir is obviously going to be restrictive.

This is madness. I can see it getting passed the compliant council, but not passed An Bord Pleanála.

Wait, boats are allowed go over the wall? That doesn't seem very safe. If this is going to be a problem then I'm sure Waterways Ireland and local boating clubs will let the authority know.

zulutango

pigtown wrote: »

Michael Noonan claims that as the wall is currently ''keeping in millions of tonnes of water and so is extraordinarily strong'' and would have no problem supporting a pedestrian bridge.

Michael Noonan, the structural engineer. That's ok so. As somebody more qualified than Michael, I'd say that it will probably need to be re-inforced significantly to carry the bridge and/or separate supports will be required.

pigtown wrote: »

Wait, boats are allowed go over the wall? That doesn't seem very safe. If this is going to be a problem then I'm sure Waterways Ireland and local boating clubs will let the authority know.

Boats are allowed go over at high tide to the best of my knowledge. I've gone over it myself. I would imagine that Waterways Ireland and various other stakeholders in the river will oppose this.

Vanquished

pigtown wrote: »

Just to clarify, that proposal for the castle boardwalk is terrible and should never be given serious consideration. I do think a boardwalk would be nice here though. Just because the castle was built on the river 800 years ago doesn't mean we need to be stuck with that. Cities evolve and today's needs shouldn't be ignored (within reason obviously).

We're not "stuck" with it! We're extremely fortunate to have such a significant historical landmark in this city! It has suffered enough vandalism at the hands of the city council over the years. Chief amongst them being the construction of a council housing estate in the courtyard in the 1930s! This abomination wasn't corrected until 1988! Lets just leave well enough alone.

It would be more in their line to investigate ways of bringing the large medieval cellar under the green area beside the castle in to active use!

pigtown wrote: »

Michael Noonan claims that as the wall is currently ''keeping in millions of tonnes of water and so is extraordinarily strong'' and would have no problem supporting a pedestrian bridge.

Noonan the teacher/structural engineer! So what this essentially entails is running a bridge along the top of the existing weir from Shannon rowing club over to the Curraghour boat club and possibly onwards to the courthouse?

Firstly, how feasible is this? The pier upon which the Shannon rowing club sits isn't even open to the public. Is it entirely in private ownership? How does this project affect the Curraghour boat club premises? Will they be CPOed? Primarily though I'd be concerned about the impact upon a sensitive riverside environment and the views towards Kings Island etc.

€6 million is the quoted price tag also if it hasn't already been mentioned.

Vanquished

A rough sketch of what appears to be on the table here.

zulutango

Vanquished wrote: »

A rough sketch of what appears to be on the table here.

My understanding is that it will connect with Arthur's Quay Park, and not Shannon Rowing Club. This will of course mean that it will be an obstacle to boating traffic that goes through the lock, as well as traffic that goes over the weir at high tide. I'm wondering now if this has even been properly thought through by anybody with half a brain!!!

If it connects with Shannon Rowing Club, it would be incredibly hard to justify, and I would imagine that the club would object very strongly (which they could well do anyway even if it connects with Arthur's Quay Park seeing as they were one of the principle objectors to the disaster that was planned for Limerick Boat Club across the road from them).

Johnny_BravoIII

It sounds like somebody in the council has gone boardwalk crazy!
Boardwalk on clancy strand....success!!
Boardwalk on bishops quay.....success?
Boardwalk on poor mans quay.....success!!

Fup....there's nowhere left to build boardwalks......wait a minute......

Johnny_BravoIII

Is it fair to say this idea won't work?

You can't just plonk a feckin footbridge across the abbey river and hope waterways Ireland doesn't notice?

But if one is to consider this seriously, then one would presume there would need to be some kind of bridge part for boat traffic? How high would it need to be for tides? I presume this is working towards a plan for a 3-bridge river walk within the city?
Super idea but...... would it not be easier just to open the gate at sarsfield house? Also, why are the gates to the side of John's castle closed after 6pm all year around?

With a little imagination, a bucket of paint, some lights you could really develop this route as a walkway without much hassle. After which, all you have to do is plonk a sign at the treaty stone with a route map informing tourists of the 60 minute walk and all the lovely history they can see. It's the perfect "stretch yer legs" location for tourists passing through.

It could easily be marketed as the "must do" thing when passing through limerick on the way to Kerry etc. The "Gateway" to the west coast of Ireland.
These simple steps would have an instant impact, require very little to deliver and generate commerce whilst showing off the best parts of the city.

Cookiemunster

@ zulutango I'm not quoting all your posts. If Noonan has come out saying that it's going over the weir from Shannon Rowing Cub to Mercants Quay, then that's where it's going, despite what your understanding may be. He won't come out with this stuff unless he's been told that this is the plan. And for the same reason he may not be a structural engineer, but he's obviously been briefed that it is feasable. Are you a structural engineer?