€300M Investment into Waterford City

Deiseen

alta stare wrote: »

Deiseen wrote: »

They have stores in the UK and why in the hell would they build anything new in the UK with Brexit heating up? In fact, as far as I know, part of this development will be geared towards capitalising on Brexit.

So you are saying because of Brexit they would not build in the UK? Can you tell me why and would that not mean they could possibly pull out of the UK altogether. Brexit or not the UK has a bigger population than Ireland witj bigger cities heck even some of their towns are bigger than our cities so it would still be viable for them to build and operate in the UK more so than Waterford.

So many reasons to go into so we will tackle an easy one - inflation. It's currently rocketing at the moment because of the crash in the pound meaning prices are going up and people have less money to spend. The UK has a lot of people but it also has a lot of development and every major town has a big shopping centre or at least has one under construction like the Lexicon in Bracknell. Why build something that's already been built?

JohnC.

Most people would be delighted with a big investment proposal. Not Waterford though. Maybe that's why it's been so rare. Even when someone wants to do something, all that happens is moaning.

Harry Palmr

Feels like that doesn't it? A psychological failing in the population - or moaning minnies online anyway

Wanderer2010

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Feels like that doesn't it? A psychological failing in the population - or moaning minnies online anyway

Failing? What about a lack of major political voices in Waterford over the past 30 years and hence why we are so forgotten about? Deasy couldn't care less about us, Halligan has no power and FG all but ruined us. I agree that people in Waterford can be negative at times but you cant put all the blame for our being forgotten about in terms of jobs and investment on the people.

alta stare

So people cant have a differing opinion without it being classed as moaning.....jesus wept.

Deiseen

alta stare wrote: »

So people cant have a differing opinion without it being classed as moaning.....jesus wept.

Any negative comments at this point about a massive €300 million investment is moaning.

alta stare

Deiseen wrote: »

Any negative comments at this point about a massive €300 million investment is moaning.

No it isnt its called being skeptical about it. That is surely allowed????!

Max Powers

I think we were all a bit surprised but delighted when we heard announcement, what's clear is, this is definitely on,the only big hurdle left is govt funding for infrastructure in the SDZ, we have excellent case for this infrastructure investment.obviously, who knows what could happen in future but that is same for absolutely everything, at this moment if we get our ducks in a row, we can be positive about brighter future.it is an excellent /rare/unique even site, river frontage, planning should not be an issue as approved in one and SDZ arrangements in north quays meaning should be relatively easy.we have numerous big retail chains saying they want sites and reports saying we can and need to expand our retail.it looks like win win for all.I'm particularly excited about office space on quays, very attractive for offices, city centre location.

buzzinfly83

It's not that people don't want it to happen. The negativity is more around the fact that people don't think it will happen and who can blame them when government funding is neccessary for the project to go ahead.

What amazes me is that if the Saudis have 300m to spend then surely they have enough to fund the whole peoject without the need for goverment funding.

Waterboy2014

My understanding is that the Council are currently working to complete a comprehensive submission for Central Government re funding for services on site (this is the €50 - €70 million mentioned that would build pedestrian bridge and sort out service roads etc.). Apparently they are completing designs for infrastructure and full cost benefit analysis. So while there aren't any announcements there is plenty of action going on in the background.

Sorry but there is a huge amount of negativity on this thread. Lack of information on a subject appears to provide the biggest moaners a breeding ground for negativity. IMO as a non Waterford native, I always thought this negativity (or sorry "cynicism") was Waterford's biggest problem. Any sniff of positivity or progress is almost immediately pi**ed on.

Max Powers

buzzinfly83 wrote: »

It's not that people don't want it to happen. The negativity is more around the fact that people don't think it will happen and who can blame them when government funding is neccessary for the project to go ahead.

What amazes me is that if the Saudis have 300m to spend then surely they have enough to fund the whole peoject without the need for goverment funding.

Well, it comes down to profit you'd guess,, plus developer generally doesn't pay for stuff off their site, within reason yeah thru development contributions but not much bridges and access roads, not on their site.I think if they're fronting up 250 to develop 2 sites, least we should do is help out with infrastructure, roads, services, etc.it's the opportunity of lifetime after all.

alta stare

Waterboy2014 wrote: »

My understanding is that the Council are currently working to complete a comprehensive submission for Central Government re funding for services on site (this is the €50 - €70 million mentioned that would build pedestrian bridge and sort out service roads etc.). Apparently they are completing designs for infrastructure and full cost benefit analysis. So while there aren't any announcements there is plenty of action going on in the background.

Sorry but there is a huge amount of negativity on this thread. Lack of information on a subject appears to provide the biggest moaners a breeding ground for negativity. IMO as a non Waterford native, I always thought this negativity (or sorry "cynicism") was Waterford's biggest problem. Any sniff of positivity or progress is almost immediately pi**ed on.

Look I hope this pans out i really do but because myself and many others are a bit skeptical about it doesnt mean im negative i mean Jesus can we not question the likelyhood of this going ahead without having our heads chopped off by the people on here who believe they are all things Waterford just because they believe everything they read or hear.

I dont shout negative things about Waterford in fact i think it is a great place to live but come on people have a right to have doubts and suspicion about this or anything else that may or may not happen and just because we dont sing from the same hymn sheet as you or others regarding certain things doesnt make us negative.

The negative argument is a lazy and easy way to have a go and pontificate at others its pathetic to be honest.

I personally wont believe this is happening until i see it rising from the quays, that isnt negative is it? Id say more skeptical with a touch of realism.

buzzinfly83

alta stare wrote: »

Look I hope this pans out i really do but because myself and many others are a bit skeptical about it doesnt mean im negative i mean Jesus can we not question the likelyhood of this going ahead without having our heads chopped off by the people on here who believe they are all things Waterford just because they believe everything they read or hear.

I dont shout negative things about Waterford in fact i think it is a great place to live but come on people have a right to have doubts and suspicion about this or anything else that may or may not happen and just because we dont sing from the same hymn sheet as you or others regarding certain things doesnt make us negative.

The negative argument is a lazy and easy way to have a go and pontificate at others its pathetic to be honest.

I personally wont believe this is happening until i see it rising from the quays, that isnt negative is it? Id say more skeptical with a touch of realism.

My feelings exactly. Not negativity just realism. I'm sure everyone will be more than happy if this goes ahead.

Waterboy2014

alta stare wrote: »

Look I hope this pans out i really do but because myself and many others are a bit skeptical about it doesnt mean im negative i mean Jesus can we not question the likelyhood of this going ahead without having our heads chopped off by the people on here who believe they are all things Waterford just because they believe everything they read or hear.

I dont shout negative things about Waterford in fact i think it is a great place to live but come on people have a right to have doubts and suspicion about this or anything else that may or may not happen and just because we dont sing from the same hymn sheet as you or others regarding certain things doesnt make us negative.

The negative argument is a lazy and easy way to have a go and pontificate at others its pathetic to be honest.

I personally wont believe this is happening until i see it rising from the quays, that isnt negative is it? Id say more skeptical with a touch of realism.

I agree... you are entitled to your opinion. And perhaps the North Quay plans won't come to light as planned. However, what I was referring to was all the posts that are criticising the council and Waterford CEO for making announcement re plans and then in "typical Waterford" fashion never pushing it forward. I was referring to this tendency to assume that no news implies that nothing is being done. Especially when the truth is actually the opposite. That is negative.

Your doubt that the plans won't come to fruition is perfectly understandable. I have doubt myself. However I also hope that this tine it will be different. Michael Walsh does appear to be a man with a force behind him... he delivered the Greenway and also pushed the Urban Regeneration plans... like them or not, they are both efforts to develop the city in a much needed way.

alta stare

The Greenway is fantastic and i say hats off to the council for doing such a great project. The North Quays, well we shall wait and see how that pans out.

BBM77

buzzinfly83 wrote: »

It's not that people don't want it to happen. The negativity is more around the fact that people don't think it will happen and who can blame them when government funding is neccessary for the project to go ahead.

What amazes me is that if the Saudis have 300m to spend then surely they have enough to fund the whole peoject without the need for goverment funding.

Because that is what we pay tax to the government for, to provide the infrastructure to allow private investment. It’s only €55 million spread over a couple of years that is nothing in terms of government spending. To put it in perspective the city by-pass cost €500 million, the M9 Motorway cost around €1 Billion. We need to start thinking differently in Waterford. We should expect to get things like this, Waterford is the economic driver of the South-East and the fifth largest city in the country. €55 million for infrastructure that will benefit the whole city centre not just the north wharf development is a reasonable request.

BBM77

Waterboy2014 wrote: »

My understanding is that the Council are currently working to complete a comprehensive submission for Central Government re funding for services on site (this is the €50 - €70 million mentioned that would build pedestrian bridge and sort out service roads etc.). Apparently they are completing designs for infrastructure and full cost benefit analysis. So while there aren't any announcements there is plenty of action going on in the background.

Sorry but there is a huge amount of negativity on this thread. Lack of information on a subject appears to provide the biggest moaners a breeding ground for negativity. IMO as a non Waterford native, I always thought this negativity (or sorry "cynicism") was Waterford's biggest problem. Any sniff of positivity or progress is almost immediately pi**ed on.

You are correct negativity is Waterford's biggest problem. I have been verbally attacked for taking positive about Waterford!

buzzinfly83

BBM77 wrote: »

Because that is what we pay tax to the government for, to provide the infrastructure to allow private investment. It’s only €55 million spread over a couple of years that is nothing in terms of government spending. To put it in perspective the city by-pass cost €500 million, the M9 Motorway cost around €1 Billion. We need to start thinking differently in Waterford. We should expect to get things like this, Waterford is the economic driver of the South-East and the fifth largest city in the country. €55 million for infrastructure that will benefit the whole city centre not just the north wharf development is a reasonable request.

True but when I hear government funding needed I get worried. I know we should expect it but there's no guarantee we will. I think it would be amazingly beneficial and I really hope it happens.

Deiseen

BBM77 wrote: »

Waterboy2014 wrote: »

My understanding is that the Council are currently working to complete a comprehensive submission for Central Government re funding for services on site (this is the €50 - €70 million mentioned that would build pedestrian bridge and sort out service roads etc.). Apparently they are completing designs for infrastructure and full cost benefit analysis. So while there aren't any announcements there is plenty of action going on in the background.

Sorry but there is a huge amount of negativity on this thread. Lack of information on a subject appears to provide the biggest moaners a breeding ground for negativity. IMO as a non Waterford native, I always thought this negativity (or sorry "cynicism") was Waterford's biggest problem. Any sniff of positivity or progress is almost immediately pi**ed on.

You are correct negativity is Waterford's biggest problem. I have been verbally attacked for taking positive about Waterford!

It's an Irish thing, lived in many places in Ireland and it's not unique to Waterford.

Onthatpoint417

What about the other two largely empty shopping centres in Waterford - the one in Ferrybank and the one in Railway Square. While Waterford is a fine metropolis of 50k people there's probably only room for one major shopping centre. More office space and apartments and an extra foot bridge sounds promising though.

One thing missing in conversations on shopping centres is how it's largely a zero sum game. There's little new economic activity generated. There's a fixed amount of shopping to be done in the country. It has to take from somewhere else, whether it's Cork or elsewhere in Waterford. It's not certain at all that the new shopping centre will be good for the city as a whole.

Road-Hog

Onthatpoint417 wrote: »

What about the other two largely empty shopping centres in Waterford - the one in Ferrybank and the one in Railway Square. While Waterford is a fine metropolis of 50k people there's probably only room for one major shopping centre. More office space and apartments and an extra foot bridge sounds promising though.

One thing missing in conversations on shopping centres is how it's largely a zero sum game. There's little new economic activity generated. There's a fixed amount of shopping to be done in the country. It has to take from somewhere else, whether it's Cork or elsewhere in Waterford. It's not certain at all that the new shopping centre will be good for the city as a whole.

'Zero sum game'......can you elaborate.

I don't think you could compare 'Ferrybank' and definitely not 'railway sq to the 18/20 acre north quay site.....the potential Saudi guys investing will be starting from a more or less blank canvas and will build the retail/commercial space to the size and scale to suit the stores that they have the links/licenses with (I did read the names of them in news and star/Munster but can't recall them). One can't imagine that they dont have some homework done on the whole thing. Surely it's all about getting people/footfall into the north quays and a certain amount of this footfall into the city itself. Some people will window shop only and buy duck all, others won't, others might wander to other parts of city/county. Those who enjoy the experience may return or spread the word to their friends/family etc and so it continues.

BBM77

Onthatpoint417 wrote: »

What about the other two largely empty shopping centres in Waterford - the one in Ferrybank and the one in Railway Square. While Waterford is a fine metropolis of 50k people there's probably only room for one major shopping centre. More office space and apartments and an extra foot bridge sounds promising though.

One thing missing in conversations on shopping centres is how it's largely a zero sum game. There's little new economic activity generated. There's a fixed amount of shopping to be done in the country. It has to take from somewhere else, whether it's Cork or elsewhere in Waterford. It's not certain at all that the new shopping centre will be good for the city as a whole.

The Ferrybank shopping centre is in Kilkenny, is not viable and should have never been given planning permission on that scale by KCC. How exactly is that a reason why Waterford should not build a new shopping centre in the city centre where there is demand for units is beyond me?

Railway Sq is hardly a shopping centre. There is a few units on the ground floor that is all.

MRnotlob606

I am sorry to be the purveyor of cynicism here. I knew this development was a little too good to be true and that there was a catch. The Cork Events Centre was pledged 20 million by the government to fund it, and BAM (Construction Company) is requesting a further 12 million.T he Sod was turned there by Coveney in February 2016 but has been dormant since. There still isn't much going on at the site even though it is due to open in 2018!.

Now I can see Waterford is not Cork! But I think the Government are going to be very, very cautious with developments that require some public funding. 55 million euro is a lot of money.

Max Powers

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I am sorry to be the purveyor of cynicism here. I knew this development was a little too good to be true and that there was a catch. The Cork Events Centre was pledged 20 million by the government to fund it, and BAM (Construction Company) is requesting a further 12 million.T he Sod was turned there by Coveney in February 2016 but has been dormant since. There still isn't much going on at the site even though it is due to open in 2018!.

Now I can see Waterford is not Cork! But I think the Government are going to be very, very cautious with developments that require some public funding. 55 million euro is a lot of money.

This is no catch, we always knew from the very start that gov't would need to put in money for infrastructure.the cork place is not a SDZ, where govt commits to aiding infrastructure, they have already committed to developing the site 'of national importance'in the capital investment plan.it is a lot of money but look at the plusses, its a SDZ, already committed in govt plan,a private investor forking in 250m...this is much bigger, will provide more jobs, more housing, better infrastructure, etc than a convention/concert centre in cork, our case is very strong, council are doing a lot of work on case so a lot to be encouraged about but yeah, do I have 100% faith in govt, probably not 100% but as said have a strong case.

MRnotlob606

Max Powers wrote: »

This is no catch, we always knew from the very start that gov't would need to put in money for infrastructure.the cork place is not a SDZ, where govt commits to aiding infrastructure, they have already committed to developing the site 'of national importance'in the capital investment plan.it is a lot of money but look at the plusses, its a SDZ, already committed in govt plan,a private investor forking in 250m...this is much bigger, will provide more jobs, more housing, better infrastructure, etc than a convention/concert centre in cork, our case is very strong, council are doing a lot of work on case so a lot to be encouraged about but yeah, do I have 100% faith in govt, probably not 100% but as said have a strong case.

I agree with you Max, but we have had strong faith in our government in the past to deliver on other issues (24/7 cardiac care for example) but they do not want to oblige us.

We probably need a Martin Cullenesque figure to do our bidding for us. I really respect your ambition and dedication to Waterford Max, Its just this one is going to be hard to get the government on board imo.

BBM77

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I am sorry to be the purveyor of cynicism here. I knew this development was a little too good to be true and that there was a catch. The Cork Events Centre was pledged 20 million by the government to fund it, and BAM (Construction Company) is requesting a further 12 million.T he Sod was turned there by Coveney in February 2016 but has been dormant since. There still isn't much going on at the site even though it is due to open in 2018!.

Now I can see Waterford is not Cork! But I think the Government are going to be very, very cautious with developments that require some public funding. 55 million euro is a lot of money.

This is not even comparing like with like. Everyone and their cat knows that Waterford city centre is under developed and not reaching its retail potential etc. What is happening in Waterford is not a punt at building a convention centre, there is a long-time demand that this will aim to meet.

I do understand people’s cynicism. God knows I have grown cynical about the government. I have seen a lot of plans over the years, seen ones that you know as soon as you read it that it will never happen but this one feels real.

Max Powers

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I agree with you Max, but we have had strong faith in our government in the past to deliver on other issues (24/7 cardiac care for example) but they do not want to oblige us.

We probably need a Martin Cullenesque figure to do our bidding for us. I really respect your ambition and dedication to Waterford Max, Its just this one is going to be hard to get the government on board imo.

Get writing/e-mailing our td's and relevant ministers.let them know.

Road-Hog

Max Powers wrote: »

Get writing/e-mailing our td's and relevant ministers.let them know.

Should we bother including John deasey in the above...!

Max Powers

Road-Hog wrote: »

Should we bother including John deasey in the above...!

Of course

Harry Palmr

Why we need the jobs this would bring, sorry it's a bit small



Nine unemployment black spots - 8 of them over 30%, second highest in the state.