IS ireland gone to hell

grumpytrousers

Aye - point certainly taken regarding the clusterf*ck that was the high density experiment in Ballymun, and obviously you need an element of political will* to make living in apartments (as opposed to 'flats', if you know what i mean!) a viable alternative to working for that dream house in Ballinasloe as you commute to Dublin...

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that most every other country in the world can handle well maintained high density accomodation, owned by the occupants, and it still mystifies me as to what the frig is so special about us Paddies that we just can't...

* Political Will. Oxymoron. See also Talented Boy Band,

Hagar

Gurgle wrote:

And thats why Irish people are buying second homes all over continental europe ?

Ireland is not part of continental Europe, and not all Irish people are buying. TBH buying in Eastern Europe and Turkey is very iffy in my opinion. I predict tears there for many people.

I suppose in time Irish people would accept/ become accustomed to living in flats/apartments under communal ownership but right now I don't think its part of the psyche. In my business I am in and out of all sorts of property over here but I still find it strange how people live like ants and pretend that they cannot hear the TV next door. Maybe it's just me.

bonkey

Hagar wrote:

It would appear that in continental Europe the average person cannot aspire to own the home he lives in. Most of the property is owned by either corporations or very wealthy landlords.

Home ownership in European mainland countries ranges from mid-80s to low-30s.

Its a bit of a stretch to say that "the average person" across continental Europe cannot afford his or her home given such a massive swing.

But again....I'll requote myself and remind you that I did not say, and am not saying, that it is the high degree of ownership which is the problem in ireland.

"One-off" housing is the only way a lot of people could ever own there own homes. What is so terrible about it? I wonder is the clampdown on "one-off" housing just a new way to force people into the developers hands?

Maybe you'd care to address DublinWriters assertion that its a lack of urban planning thats the issue, then, rather than my assertion that you simply cannot plan effectively even if you wanted to. After all, one-off is the antithesis of urban planning.

I haven't once suggested that our urban planning is good, that Balymun was the correct model of apartment-dwelling, or anything else that people seem to be taking out of my posts. Its amazing that I'm being so knocked on what I'm not saying...whilst what I am saying is that we do this knocking by focussing on the negative of one and the positive of the other...which is what seems exactly to be the case here.

I have suggested two main points:

1) That the population density from house-dwelling is simply too low to be able to fix the problem even if we dealt with the corruption/incompetence etc that exacerbates it,

and

2) We tend to blame all the problems on stuff like corruption etc. even when there are other causes that we're not willing to tackle.

You see a big conspiracy to kill one-off housing so people can't own houses. I see it as a necessary admission that beyond a certain point on the scale (which I believe has been passed), one-off housing is simply not a viable solution. For a start, it effectively makes long-term planning for anything like transport infrastructure impossible. How can you build roads when you can't predict where teh population densities will be over the coming years, as it will depend on where people decide to build their houses?

Perhaps if you charged all the one-offers the cost of running services to their houses and of the costs resulting from the disruption of long-term-planning...sure, I'd let them continue...but the resultant (and horrific) costs would no doubt be billed as yet another conspiracy to kill off the "right thing".....

And why is it right? Its right because people want to do it, not because its workable.

DW sees it otherwise - he sees it as a lack of planning...its allownig too many people to do what suits them, be that individuals and their one-offs or builders getting away with using building models we know have problems associated with them. After all...they manage not to avoid these problems on the continent...right? (Lets not mention that apartments are intrinsic to how they try and avoid the problems...we want houses)

And yet there is a staggering lack of evidence of somewhere we can point to and say "look - if we built our houses like these guys did....we'd be fine".

As I said...we focus on the negative of apartments, and the positive of hosues, and therefore come to the wrong conclusions - that its not what we're doing, but how its being done.

The fact that you use Ballymun as the counter to my population density only highlights that. There are no shortage of successful apartment complexes, which significantly raise population density without going to those extremes, nor have I ever suggested that a Towers-solution is the extreme we need to go to. After all...mainland Europe's cities don't consist solely of Towers....and thats where I started the comparison.

Hagar

I would agree that poor planning is at the heart of the problem. It would be wrong however to underestimate the effect corruption has on the planning process. If the decisions made are based on the criteria of "how can I make a buck out of this" rather than "what do the people need" things are not going to work out for society except by pure luck.

One-off housing can be planned for and must be unless we are going to all move to the 3 or 4 cities and leave the country empty. Don't the people building one-offs pay massive charges for connections to existing services even if they are only a few metres away? I don't think they get much for free.

Maybe thinking of the clampdown on one-off houing as a conspiracy is a bit strong but a healthy cynicism when dealing with Irish politicians is warrented.

Apartment complexes which are owned by the residents usually work out well. Complexes where the apartments are rented, in particular by council tenants*, seem to got to shit very quickly as there is a "it's not mine, why should I care?" mentality. Sad but true.

* cue moral indignation

jd

Hagar wrote:

They had seven 15 storey apartment blocks in Ballymun and even with all services being funded out of the bottomless taxpayers pocket it turned into a social disaster. They had to be pulled down. Are we really talking about developers providing services for the occupants of these buildings?*No offence to anyone living in high-rise developments intended I'm just quoting history

Ballymun was not high density housing. It was highish-rise/lowish density.
jd

Hagar

"Ballymun" did not just consist of the seven 15 storey blocks. There were also a significant number of 8 storey and 4 storey blocks. Don't forget the sprawl of houses that clustered around these towers.
For along time there were no facilities whatsoever. No schools or shops. Very poor public transport. The area was served by mobile shops. Some of which still operate from behind iron grills. Guys selling groceries out of the back of vans at high prices to people who had no alternatives. The nearest supermarket was a spar type shop a good bit down Ballymun avenue. A bloody long walk with shopping I can tell you. Ballymun shopping centre was only built a few years later.

It wasn't poor planning. There was no planning. It was criminal.

samb

Hagar wrote:

What is so terrible about it? I wonder is the clampdown on "one-off" housing just a new way to force people into the developers hands?

What is wrong with one-off houses.
1. Cause eutrophication of lakes and rivers, from nutrient leachate from septic tanks
2. Contribute to reliance on cars (costs of roads, CO2 emmissions)
3. Cause inceased costs or make unworkable public transport systems, public health services, public education systems and postal systems.
4. Visual impact on countryside (effects on tourism numbers) probably biggest issue IMO.
5. Bad for community cohesion. people work far from where they live.

I think FF in particular do not want to upset farmers on this issue. I agree that farmers should be able to build houses for themselves or for people who work nearby to built one-off, but certainly not as they are doing now.

Arguments such as 'in the past, everyone was leaving the countryside, we should be happy' are rubbish. Are we PLANNING on going back to the 1980's, NO. So yets not PLAN our housing as if we were.

Coruption in Planning has come from the system of rezoning that has not changed. The county councils should have the power to buy non-zoned land and then contract out building to developers (on advice from proffesional planners) instead of councillers decsion to rezone making someone millions for doing absolutely nothing.

So that everyone who wants to own thier own home can, I think some kind of smallish tax should be brought in on investment properties, not too big or it might cause problems. Capital gains tax was reduced from 40 - 20 percent, which has been great in some respects (encouraged investments) but should maybe be inceased for investment properties in Ireland so that people who want a house for themeslves to live in can.

Planners need more power to build in a coherent manner around small centres such as village centres. In larger towns and cities, higher density is needed, but ballymun is hardly the model to follow. We need German style housing units that are not high-rise, but are high density, with no individual gardens for example but excellent facilities such as parks, playgrounds, retail centres etc.

If Ireland loses its Green image and beutiful countryside, tourism will fall (as it is) and everyone will lose out.

samb

P.S what clamptown on one-off housing? it is a free for all now, look around, OUR country littered with them. The only people giving off about them that I know of is An Taise and the Greens, hardly the friends of developers.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hagar wrote:

"Ballymun" did not just consist of the seven 15 storey blocks. There were also a significant number of 8 storey and 4 storey blocks. Don't forget the sprawl of houses that clustered around these towers.
For along time there were no facilities whatsoever. No schools or shops. Very poor public transport. The area was served by mobile shops. Some of which still operate from behind iron grills. Guys selling groceries out of the back of vans at high prices to people who had no alternatives. The nearest supermarket was a spar type shop a good bit down Ballymun avenue. A bloody long walk with shopping I can tell you. Ballymun shopping centre was only built a few years later.

It wasn't poor planning. There was no planning. It was criminal.

Totally agree, I was brought up in Connolly Tower and then in the houses in Popintree. Sucessive governments and Dublin coporation did not give a flying duck about the people that they housed in Ballymun. I had some great times but my god, I would not want to bring up my children in a box 10 stories up in the air without lifts working and all sort of debris in the stairwells. I think this has blighted a lot of peoples view about apartment/flat living.

If apartment living is to be successful, the developers/government must ensure that the the facilities in the complex are good quality and are well maintained with a rapid response time for faults. Good quality recreational/park facilities are also needed for people.

A Dub in Glasgo

jd wrote:

Ballymun was not high density housing. It was highish-rise/lowish density.
jd

Ballymun was one of the higher density areas in Dublin!

oscarBravo

samb wrote:

1. Cause eutrophication of lakes and rivers, from nutrient leachate from septic tanks

Do you have figures that indicate a greater hazard to waterways from septic tanks than from farming?

samb wrote:

2. Contribute to reliance on cars (costs of roads, CO2 emmissions)

Poor urban planning is making those costs orders of magnitude higher in urban than rural areas. I generated a lot more pollution driving from Mullingar to Dun Laoghaire every day than I do now in Mayo.

samb wrote:

4. Visual impact on countryside (effects on tourism numbers) probably biggest issue IMO.

I really don't understand this. I keep hearing this ZOMG HOUSES R TEH UGLEH attitude, with a philosophy that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than one or maybe two thatched cottages.

Some of the more spectacular scenery in this country is in west Mayo. Areas like Killadoon and Mulranney are dotted with individual houses. For me, it's part of the scenery. If I want desolate emptiness, I'll go to Siberia (or parts of Erris ). A dispersed rural population is part of who we are.

samb wrote:

5. Bad for community cohesion. people work far from where they live.

Rural communities are, in my experience, much more cohesive than urban. I lived in an apartment building in Dun Laoghaire for two years - I only ever spoke to one of the neighbours in the building, and never to anyone else on the street. I lived in a housing estate in Mullingar before that, and there was a fairly limited degree of social interaction among those who made the effort.

Here in rural Mayo, there's a real sense of community. It's like a big family - sometimes you argue, mostly you're there for each other, but you're always mutually involved.

samb

Do you have figures that indicate a greater hazard to waterways from septic tanks than from farming?

No, and I am fairly sure that farming is a significantly greater polluter at present. This does not make pollution from septic tanks ok. Farmers are generally becoming more environmental with many joining REPS.

Poor urban planning is making those costs orders of magnitude higher in urban than rural areas. I generated a lot more pollution driving from Mullingar to Dun Laoghaire every day than I do now in Mayo.

Agreed, poor urban planning is making our towns and cities undesirable places to live generally, this is the main problem and is causing the desire to live in the country.

I really don't understand this. I keep hearing this ZOMG HOUSES R TEH UGLEH attitude, with a philosophy that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than one or maybe two thatched cottages.

Some of the more spectacular scenery in this country is in west Mayo. Areas like Killadoon and Mulranney are dotted with individual houses. For me, it's part of the scenery. If I want desolate emptiness, I'll go to Siberia (or parts of Erris ). A dispersed rural population is part of who we are

I agree to an extent. I am not saying we should tear down all existing one-off houses (I grew up in one), all I am saying is that as our population grows we should stop building so many of them. If we continue then Killadoon and Mulranney will be more than dotted with them.
Tourists will not want to come here if we keep building at this rate because the countryside will essentially be suburban.

Rural communities are, in my experience, much more cohesive than urban. I lived in an apartment building in Dun Laoghaire for two years - I only ever spoke to one of the neighbours in the building, and never to anyone else on the street. I lived in a housing estate in Mullingar before that, and there was a fairly limited degree of social interaction among those who made the effort.

Yes, In my experience also. Again this is partially due to poor urban planning. This social cohesion in rural communities will decline in the future if the people living there have little connection to the area.

I am not against rural communities, quite the opposite, but I fear that into the future they will lose the qualities you enjoy and will become more and more like chaotic suburbs.

jd

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ballymun was one of the higher density areas in Dublin!

Was it?

Ballymun is regularly cited by opponents of higher-density housing as a planning disaster. But they are confusing high-rise with high-density. In fact, the estate was built on a 359-acre site, so density worked out at just 8.5 units per acre, or about the same as the suburban norm.

from
http://www.constructireland.ie/news.php?pageNum_rsNewsHeadline=168&artID=1699&totalRows_rsNewsHeadline=1682

jd

oscarBravo wrote:

with a philosophy that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than one or maybe two thatched cottages.

Some of the more spectacular scenery in this country is in west Mayo. Areas like Killadoon and Mulranney are dotted with individual houses. For me, it's part of the scenery. If I want desolate emptiness, I'll go to Siberia (or parts of Erris ). A dispersed rural population is part of who we are. Rural communities are, in my experience, much more cohesive than urban. .

I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than a few thatched houses. But surely it makes more sense to build in clusters/villages, rather than a house every quarter mile or so? What is the point in that? If you go to Gweedore you can see dispersed housing taken to an extreme, and it harfdly adds anything to the landscape.

grumpytrousers

jd wrote:

I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than a few thatched houses. But surely it makes more sense to build in clusters/villages, rather than a house every quarter mile or so? What is the point in that? If you go to Gweedore you can see dispersed housing taken to an extreme, and it harfdly adds anything to the landscape.

oscarBravo wrote:

Some of the more spectacular scenery in this country is in west Mayo. Areas like Killadoon and Mulranney are dotted with individual houses. For me, it's part of the scenery. If I want desolate emptiness, I'll go to Siberia (or parts of Erris ). A dispersed rural population is part of who we are. Rural communities are, in my experience, much more cohesive than urban. .

Indeed. I was down in Mulranny only last weekend...(my Dad was from that part of the world), and would agree that the 'houses dotted around' are not unpleasant. But if you take this to its logical conclusion, where there are no limits placed on the amount of houses build as one offs, then at some time in the future, you'll be able to leave Newport and drive all the way to Achill Sound with a one off house every few hundred yards which isn't actually particuarly efficient. It's just another sodding housing estate with just bigger gaps, no semi-d houses, and shops you simply have to drive to.

One can, if one wishes, live in a one-off house, but for my money, once once chooses to do that, one loses the right to whinge about the fact that there are no facilities. One off houses make the provision of facilities much less economically viable.

oscarBravo

jd wrote:

But surely it makes more sense to build in clusters/villages, rather than a house every quarter mile or so?

In my experience, "one-off housing" tends much more strongly to the cluster/village than to the every quarter mile or so.

I guess it depends on your definition of "village". I live in what's locally described as a "village" called Derrygullinan, in which there are (to the best of my knowledge) five houses, with a sixth under construction. The same locally-designated area would have been called a "townland" where I grew up in Westmeath,

A "village" isn't always defined by a pub, church and post office.

oscarBravo

grumpytrousers wrote:

But if you take this to its logical conclusion, where there are no limits placed on the amount of houses build as one offs, then at some time in the future, you'll be able to leave Newport and drive all the way to Achill Sound with a one off house every few hundred yards which isn't actually particuarly efficient.

"Efficiency" isn't, and shouldn't be, the only criterion in the siting of a home.

grumpytrousers wrote:

It's just another sodding housing estate with just bigger gaps, no semi-d houses, and shops you simply have to drive to.

...as opposed to the housing estate I lived in in Mullingar, with smaller gaps, semi-d houses, and shops I simply had to drive to.

What was the problem again?

grumpytrousers wrote:

One can, if one wishes, live in a one-off house, but for my money, once once chooses to do that, one loses the right to whinge about the fact that there are no facilities.

You know what's funny? I rarely hear one-off dwellers whinging about the lack of facilities. Most rural people are aware of the limitations of distributed living, and adapt to it. Most of the complaints about lack of access to services I've heard about come from city-dwellers who are inventing objections to rural populations.

grumpytrousers

Sorry - I sound as if I have it in for people who live in 'the country' and nothing could be further from the truth - living as I do in a small town, which isn't too far removed; in other words, I'm not some Jackeen having a pop at culchies. I'm one meself.

You're dead right. 'efficiency' as I so clumsily put it should not be the only criterion for deciding on where one wants to live. But I would contend that it should be an important criterion for the purposes of the granting of planning permission when you *ask* to build where you'd like to live. Coming from, and living in, a 'small-town-in-the-west-of-ireland' I have to admit I find it rather incongruous to see any sort of apartment development going on. I'm used to the local skyline being 'butcher shop, mart, church, pub' and having 'apartment complex' shoved in there IS a bit strange.

But surely isn't that how towns and villages should grow - from the inside and out. Not that village one, village two and village three each comprising of a pub and a school each get joined up by a series of houses and thereafter no attendant services within.

(BTW, and slightly OT) I'm all for there being plenty of 'Rural populations'. And more importantly 'Young Rural Populations''; it breaks my f*cking heart that when i go into my local newsagents that the only magazines on display are either aimed at teenagers or else old biddys. You want a copy of Empire (yeah i know it's sh!te, but you get my drift!) then you have to order it. There's damn all folks between 20 and 35 living about!)

My point on the 'housing estate' notion of the road to (say) Mulranny was that surely it would make more sense if the land was zoned such that houses could only be build in the (ahem ) urban area of either Mulranny or Newport..which allows each village/town to grow in the way that villages and towns should grow...


Lookit - i'll shut my yap at this point. I'm not ducking out of a debate as such...but we might be veering off the topic of whether the country has gone to hell...i'm sure there's a 'one off housing is bad' debate knocking around these parts. Might see you there!

BrianD

oscarBravo wrote:

In my experience, "one-off housing" tends much more strongly to the cluster/village than to the every quarter mile or so.

Unfortunately, this is not the case and you only have to take a short drive to see this.

Plus rural dwellers are always whinging about the state of their laneway, price of the bin collection etc. The problem is that those in sustainable developments are subsidising one-off houses to the tune of an estimated €30,000 a year (a figure that came out of some planning conference).

Most of the complaints about lack of access to services I've heard about come from city-dwellers who are inventing objections to rural populations.

It doesn't matter what objections a city dweller invents or otherwise. An objection has NO INFLUENCE on a planning decsion. These decisions are made by professional planners. No planning application has ever failed because of an objection raised by a local or otherwise. There may be some terms applied because of objections or observations. Either the application is valid or its not. It's a simple as that.

The one off rural dwellers lobby like to use these objections from the likes of An Taisce as a scapegoat to avoid the issue that application can be passed because it would simply be bad planning.

Gurgle

BrianD wrote:

The problem is that those in sustainable developments are subsidising one-off houses to the tune of an estimated €30,000 a year (a figure that came out of some planning conference).

Total bull tbh.

BrianD wrote:

These decisions are made by professional planners.

Now you're just trolling.
Nobody could actually believe that.

BrianD

Pardon me gurgle, trolling?

1) Subsidy - when you think about all services provided to one off housing from the provision of telecoms, power and utility services and the maintenance of these services then you can see how a figure of €30K is probable. Inefficient use of resources as compared with a sustainable development.

2) You obviously know nothing about the planning process. No objection will prevent a proper planning application succeeding full stop. Who makes the decisions? The planning department of each local authority. These people are professional planners and make a decision based on planning law, local guidelines/byelaws and precedent in the area not on who happens to objects. An objection by any party will not affect the fundamental decision to grant or on not to grant because it is based on set of rationale. In the only thing that an objection may do is put some conditions on the permission that is granted.

Most one off applications fail simply on the basis that to grant planning permission would be wrong and not in compliance with the planning regulations for that area. Objections have nothing to do with it and many of these applications are rejected without even a single objection being made.

You need to understand how it actually works not what local myth would have you think how it works! Of course, there is political meddling in the process in many parts of the country and we are all to aware that some of this meddling is as a result of corruption.