Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Waterford North Quays

Options
15354555759

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,373 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    Height is more expensive, not cheaper.

    It's only financially viable where land is very expensive like Manhattan.



  • Registered Users Posts: 989 ✭✭✭azimuth17


    We all want the place to look super and magnificent, thats a given.

    What if hotel and apart hotel are two different suppliers? One may want a four star (minimum) hotel and the other may be a three star aparthotel. They will want separate identities and separate premises. Some contributors seem to think that because the plan does not contain what they personally want, that it is flawed. Planners wont look at it like that. In any event hotels are hotels (unless in Dubai or somewhere like that where money is no object) and form follows function, hence the current design. It will look like a bigger Fitzwilton and many people will think that's marvellous.

    The development is sequential as the quays in Dublin were. If things go well, the next iteration on the Cassin Wharf alows for signature development. No Irish developer is going to go for a whole site planning in Waterford(we're an unknown quantity and not a mature hotel, office or apartment market) until they see reaction to this phase of the development. I would like a design by Calatrava or some other starchitect, but its developer led in a small city in Ireland.

    A local developer, as happened in Cork, in Limerick and indeed in Athlone, might make a throw on an iconic structure, but we don't have someone prepared to do that at present,….



  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭Dum_Dum_2


    Breaking it down logically can help remove any subjectivity - off the top of my head:

    Identify, exactly, the landmark elements of the design?
    Which part signifies a gateway?
    What part of the design needs modification if the site was not adjacent the a river?

    I'd be impressed if anyone came up with intelligent answers based on the current proposal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭914


    Phase 2 and 3 will be purely based on the success of phase 1 and also what the economy demands at the time, so we won't see any future plans until phase 2 and 3 is ready for planning.

    I.e they could plan phase 2 and 3 now and load it with apartments, let's say demand for retail shifts that could result in phase 2 or 3 being largely a retail element.

    So it would be very difficult for them to release plans/ideas for 2 and 3. It was different with Falcon they were looking at the whole site in one go and that was pre covid



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,373 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    I doubt it'll be much more retail.

    I think it'll be offices and apartments again.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭914


    Most likely but I'd imagine phase 2 and 3 are some years off and who knows what the economy demands are then.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,373 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    Maybe SETU might want a small campus there. Not a bad idea.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭914


    I think the current president shot down that idea. It was put to her about placing a school of business there and her response was something along the lines of "we have to be careful about setting up willy nilly campuses around the city as it leads to increased costs by doubling admin/support staff and resources"

    Her argument, the same could be said about campuses all around the South East!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭914


    Image taking from Reddit

    The new train station is only two stories but is fairly substantial, granted ceiling heights might be higher than the norm but still substantial.

    If the new hotel is 9 stories with an 11 story block it would be substantial compared to current buildings in Waterford.

    Railway square possibly Waterford's tallest building at 7 stories?



  • Registered Users Posts: 392 ✭✭Valhalla90


    Yes currently Railway Square is the tallest building in Waterford. Second is Maritana Gate on Canada street.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭Asdfgh2020




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭JohnC.


    There's been comparisons between this hotel and Dundalks taller hotel. But this has more rooms than Dundalk as it is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,160 ✭✭✭fuzzy dunlop


    There are ways to dress up a car park…..

    https://sempergreenwall.com/news/from-grey-car-park-to-green-oasis/

    I have seen these in the Netherlands and they work extremely well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40 Kilkenny36


    The most concerning aspect of this planning permission is the temp car parks. They should be refused. If a developer spends money building car parks and charge people to use them they will never develop the site.



  • Registered Users Posts: 392 ✭✭Valhalla90


    Completely agree if these car parks go in you can forget about phase 2 & 3. So we will have car parks on both north & south quays! One step forward two back!



  • Registered Users Posts: 989 ✭✭✭azimuth17


    These comments are absolutely silly. If the first phase is successful, then the car park lands will be built on, most likely with car parking on the ground floor under a podium on which buildings will be constructed. The Cassin Wharf is the prime site on the whole development. The Tower Hotel was built on a surface car park, City Square was built on a surface car park.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭Asdfgh2020


    surely it’s better than just fencing the land off and letting the weeds grow and syringes accumulate….? The Planners won’t be long refusing it if it’s not allowed…..?



  • Registered Users Posts: 40 Kilkenny36


    Why build the car parks if it is going to be developed. It certainly means that there is no prospect of it being developed for at least 5-10 years after phase 1 is complete.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭Bards


    It would be better to put in something useful and less of an eyesore like temporary playing areas.. For example a Multi-sports area for the residents of apartments..playground etc...



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,956 ✭✭✭Deise Vu


    Yeah, put in something that requires maintenance and insurance with zero return and that will provoke outrage if and when they decide to build on it. Won’t someone think of the children?

    Or else put in car parking and charge for it until future development is worthwhile. Which would you do if you were the developer?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 989 ✭✭✭azimuth17


    You are obviously not familiar with the site. The "car park" site is mostly the old Frank Cassin wharf which is a large concrete and tarmac area. It is suitable almost as is, for car park use immediately. It is the prime site on the North Quays being directly opposite Reginald's Tower. Developer is as conscious of this as anyone else. Your 5-10 years horizon is misplaced in my view but its a large site like the Dublin NQ anyway and will require sequential development anyway. I dont understand why some posters want everything done now, altogether, in one go, immediately. Getting things started is the difficult bit, after that it will develop its own momentum.



  • Registered Users Posts: 402 ✭✭spaceCreated


    Pity to have car parks there but at the same time if you want to draw in people from the surrounding area it makes sense for them to not have to cross the bridge to park… if only we had some shops for them to actually spend money in 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭Flow Motion


    Hey didnt ya notice we have a huge offering of Charity Shops, Hairdressers/Barbers, Phone Shops and Nail Bars. Top of the range stuff there eh???🤔



  • Registered Users Posts: 989 ✭✭✭azimuth17


    The usual, followed by the usual gibberish, the running dowwn of your own place.



  • Registered Users Posts: 989 ✭✭✭azimuth17


    The usual, followed by the usual gibberish. The running down of your own place.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭914


    Yep but these will be surface carparks and not multi story (multi story would make no sense and you build it up to have to knock it down again), I guess they could be well dressed with trees and shrubs but then when development arrives we'd probably complain about cutting down trees removing shrubs etc so it's probably best just to be a plain old surface car park.



  • Registered Users Posts: 402 ✭✭spaceCreated


    If I see this joke one more time I think my eyes are going to bleed



  • Registered Users Posts: 402 ✭✭spaceCreated


    A small joke given the lack of retail proposed in the new development compared to what was on the cards not that long ago, no need to get worked up over it. More than likely the influx of people in to the centre of town should help attract and keep more retail units.



  • Registered Users Posts: 177 ✭✭Dexpat


    I've had a look at the plans and I think the renderings look good (see attached). The view from the city side is impressive and the hotel at one end and offices at the other end look clean, complement each other and bookend the site well. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I think they are skewed by a disappointment that what people wanted to see is not practical to deliver.

    In terms of design, the apartments and hotel were never going to be in an iconic style unique to Waterford, that's the reality. I think the whole project will deliver that iconic factor. The setting with the old city on one side and the new buildings on the other, joined by the new bridge, will do that. In time this will become an instantly recognisable view of Waterford City.

    I understand somewhat the frustration with the carparking in the sections earmarked for other phases. As has been started by others, if this phase is a success then they are easily removed or incorporated into subsequent plans. In the mean time there will be no need for anyone driving to the city centre from the north to to come across Rice bridge. This should reduce congestion on the south quays and might be a catalyst for a further reduction of carparking spaces on the south quay.

    I don't get the complaints that the plan deviates from the SDZ designation in terms of making use of the river setting. There is a promenade that runs the length of the site and the buildings are back from the river to allow for that. There is also a lot of greenery and relaxation space to enjoy the river.

    Looking at the plans as well, each block has a number of retail units on the ground floor. This will allow for bars/restaurants convenience retail in time.

    Ok the plans are not perfect, but for phase one, I'm happy that they are a good compromise and can give huge shot in the arm to the city. For people not willing to compromise based on the unavoidable constraints, then I'm sure disappointment will result. Later phases have scope for more height, iconic buildings etc. This has to be a success first though.

    I don't have the time to or the inclination to debate back and forth about this, but I know there are different takes on it. Hopefully construction won't be too far off but I think the middle of next year to start, is realistic.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭914


    This is a very good post. While I have been a little deflated with the lack of something iconic, the current plans are beginning to grow on me.

    I'm also hopefully phase 2 or 3 would have an iconic structure.



Advertisement