[Article] McDowell wants outer ring road around Dublin

strassenwolf

A comparison of the population densities of the four local authority areas in County Dublin with the cities which hosted this summer's World Cup (as these would, in the main, be reasonably important cities in Germany - a country which, as noted above, has a considerably higher population density than Ireland). The figures show, in order, the population, the area of the city/council and the population density (people per square kilometre). The source of the figures is Wikipedia (German version for everything except Fingal, DLR and SDCC).


Dublin CC (505,739) (117.80 sq. km) =4293
Munich (1,305,522) (310.44 sq. km) =4205
Berlin (3,395,189) (891.82 sq. km) =3807
Stuttgart (591,528) (207.36 sq. km) =2853
N'mberg (499,797) (186.38 sq. km) =2682
Frankfurt (660,289) (248.31 sq. km) =2659
G'kirchen (269,972) (104.84 sq. km) =2575
Hannover (516,227) (204.01 sq. km) =2530
Cologne (983,347) (405.15 sq. km) =2427
Hamburg (1,745,997) (755.26 sq. km) =2312
Dortmund (588,168) (280.30 sq. km) =2098
Leipzig (504,642) (297.60 sq. km) =1696
DLR (193,688) (127.31 sq. km) =1521
SDCC (246,919) (222.74 sq. km) =1109
K'lautern (98,470) (139.72 sq. km) =705
Fingal (239,813) (448.07 sq. km) =535

Several of the cities in the above list have been mentioned on this board as models for how things could be done in Ireland, based on their "high density". Several of those cities also have well developed S- and U-Bahn systems, as well as tram systems.

Yet only two of them come anywhere near the population density of the Dublin City Council area. Which includes, as mentioned above, areas like Finglas and Harold's Cross, which are currently remote from any form of rail transport and are likely to remain so for a considerable time.

It's worthwhile also noticing the densities in the areas for which plans are already being made, like Sandyford to Bray and the Citywest link.

With a situation like this, increasing the density of DCC even further, by doing things like getting rid of the port, would not appear to be a priority.

mackerski

strassenwolf wrote:

Yet only two of them come anywhere near the population density of the Dublin City Council area. Which includes, as mentioned above, areas like Finglas and Harold's Cross, which are currently remote from any form of rail transport and are likely to remain so for a considerable time.

Intuitively, those figures look misleading. If I compare DCC area with Munich, the biggest comment I'd have is that a lot more of Munich's metropolitan area is included within the city boundary than Dublin's. On the U-Bahn network, for instance, only the Garching stations are outside the city. There are very few contiguous built-up areas that spill outside the city. Places like Ottobrunn and Unterhaching. Their suburbia, like ours, is a bit sparser, only they include it in the city - along with a whack of public parkland. Is the Phoenix Park in the city, BTW?

Dermot

strassenwolf

mackerski wrote:

Is the Phoenix Park in the city, BTW?

Yes. Part of the boundary between Fingal and DCC runs between the park and Farmleigh. The bit of Castleknock road that runs alongside the park also forms part of the boundary. The park is 7.09 square km large.

Metrobest

I think the PDs are right to propose a skyscraper district in the Port area. It would look terriffic.

Skyscrapers look lovely in clusters, especially around water. There's plenty of water around Dublin Port.

They look appaling when they are put up as "landmark" buildings - that's the mistake Dublin's been making as it stands.

The Port's perfect. It's got the infrastructure - the motorway, tram and suburban trains feeding into it.

It could easily become the city's prestige office district, something like the CBD of an Australian city. Primarily for business use, medium height apartment towers could surround the periphery of the site, maximising the use of the space. It would be a terrific place to live and work in.

And there's precious little "heritage" that would have the likes of Vincent Salafia holding up the project.

Look at these wonderful pictures of the skylines of Melbourne and Sydney. Note that Melbourne, with its European style historic core and labyrinth tram network, has managed to balance history with the need for high rise architecture in its core. You'll all surely agree the results are impressive?

My pictures are crystal clear evidence that skyscapers, built in the right setting, are beautiful. Only time will tell if Dublin has the vision to bring the Port plan to fruition...

Metrobest

Some more pictures. The first is of Sydney's CBD viewed from the harbour approaching the city; the second is Brisbane's CBD, viewed from across the river.

Brisbane's got the same population type as Dublin, the same suburban sprawl, yet somehow the high rise CBD gives it the feel of a city. Dublin's centre gives more of the feel of small town, with an eye to the past and not the future.

Low rise sprawling buildings were the future, once.

gjim

Many older suburbs, including ones which have densities appropriate for LUAS or metro lines can, apparently, forget it.

I agree that a development levy driven approach to public transport solutions is not ideal at all. The proof of that is the wierd shape of the green line extension and the fact that the result will be a capacity disaster - it will become useless as a rush hour commuting mode for anyone trying to get in to town from anyone on a stop closer than Milltown or even further out. It would be far better to position the 7km or so of tramline they are going to build as a parallel line into the city (covering areas like Harold's Cross, Kimmage, etc.) - doubling the capacity of the south side Luas in terms of the numbers of commuters it can bring in and out of the city centre.

Intuitively, those figures look misleading.

I agree. My experience of staying in some of these cities mentioned would make me believe that the figures for the area of these cities must cover far more than the cities themselves. There is no way that the city of Cologne, for example, covers four times as much land as Dublin.

murphaph

gjim wrote:

I agree.

Me too

gjim wrote:

My experience of staying in some of these cities mentioned would make me believe that the figures for the area of these cities must cover far more than the cities themselves. There is no way that the city of Cologne, for example, covers four times as much land as Dublin.

Agreed, having been in Cologne loads of times I couldn't believe Dublin City could have a higher population density and sure enough when you scratch the surface you find out more. Here's a link to Cologne City Council's website and it clearly states the 5 central quarters (now that's a paradox!) have a combined population of some 129,000 people covering an area of 16.4 square kilometres. This results in a population density of some 7866 people per square kilometre. This 'feels' more like it. There is no way on earth that central Dublin could rival the population density of central Cologne (or Munich) given places like Drumcondra and Ranelagh exist so close to the city centre, and these places have ample numbers of houses with gardens, something you'd rarely if ever see so close to a german city centre.

strassenwolf

murphaph wrote:

Agreed, having been in Cologne loads of times I couldn't believe Dublin City could have a higher population density and sure enough when you scratch the surface you find out more. Here's a link to Cologne City Council's website and it clearly states the 5 central quarters (now that's a paradox!) have a combined population of some 129,000 people covering an area of 16.4 square kilometres. This results in a population density of some 7866 people per square kilometre. This 'feels' more like it.

This is a feature which may very well be matched in the DCC area. That is, one might expect that the population density in the area "between the two canals" would be higher than outside that area. The density would be expected to drop as you move out from the city to the suburbs.

I don't have any figures for what the area "between the canals" is, as it's a little indefinable on the northside in particular. Obviously then I also have no figures for the population of this area, and no figure for the density. However, I would expect it to be higher than the 4,000+ figure of the DCC area generally. Whether it approaches 7866 people per square km, say in the most central 16.4 square km (as in Cologne), can therefore not be answered in the absence of further information.

The point is that most of the public transport projects currently receiving the most attention are being built through areas which we know have lower population densities than the DCC area. Sandyford-Cherrywood, Cherrywood to Bray, Citywest extension, etc. Even the LUAS extension to the Point is largely being built through an area which currently has a very low population density. A lot of the proposed metrowest route, almost all of which is outside the DCC area, appears to go through areas where there is currently no population at all.

Apart from the whole thing appearing to be developer-led, I wonder if the experience of the LUAS construction has meant that construction of projects in higher density areas is being put on the back burner. The proposed LUAS to Finglas, for example, is being shied away from for at least several more years, even though large chunks of it (Broadstone to the Royal Canal) could be delivered with almost no pain. As for gjim's suggestion above of a line heading towards the south-west of the city, well I unfortunately can't see that happening any time soon, excellent idea and all as it probably is.

Anyway, I suppose this has drifted off topic enough. We'd better get back to Michael McDowell and his feckin' ring road.:(

Victor

Density. The densest area of Dublin is the Rotunda ward at about 19,000 / km2.

GRrr can't upload images.

strassenwolf

Victor wrote:

Density. The densest area of Dublin is the Rotunda ward at about 19,000 / km2.

GRrr can't upload images.

That's quite high. Is there a link? Or some other figures?

(And can we put McDowell on the back burner?:p )

murphaph

strassenwolf wrote:

This is a feature which may very well be matched in the DCC area. That is, one might expect that the population density in the area "between the two canals" would be higher than outside that area. The density would be expected to drop as you move out from the city to the suburbs.

I'm not even sure it's so simple. Pick the very centre of Dublin city and you'll possibly find a drop in density-Trinity College occupies a big chunk of land with few dwellings, as does Dublin Castle and many other office blocks, both private and public. I'd love to see figures per ward, maybe Victor as that link?

strassenwolf wrote:

The point is that most of the public transport projects currently receiving the most attention are being built through areas which we know have lower population densities than the DCC area. Sandyford-Cherrywood, Cherrywood to Bray, Citywest extension, etc. Even the LUAS extension to the Point is largely being built through an area which currently has a very low population density. A lot of the proposed metrowest route, almost all of which is outside the DCC area, appears to go through areas where there is currently no population at all.

Apart from the whole thing appearing to be developer-led, I wonder if the experience of the LUAS construction has meant that construction of projects in higher density areas is being put on the back burner. The proposed LUAS to Finglas, for example, is being shied away from for at least several more years, even though large chunks of it (Broadstone to the Royal Canal) could be delivered with almost no pain.

I almost completely agree, major public transport infrastructure should NOT have it's alignment dictated by developer levies. The people living in these established areas have paid taxes too! Ultimately developer levies are passed onto the public who buy the units. Why not spread the cost to all taxpayers, afterall isn't that how the tax system is supposed to work? Where I disagree is that the likes of metroWest have an advantage over the city-no need for much tunnelling but at the same time still fairly certain of having good levels of population density alongside it in years to come (Adamstown nearby, Balgaddy etc.).

Victor

murphaph wrote:

I'm not even sure it's so simple. Pick the very centre of Dublin city and you'll possibly find a drop in density-Trinity College occupies a big chunk of land with few dwellings, as does Dublin Castle and many other office blocks, both private and public. I'd love to see figures per ward, maybe Victor as that link?

The big "problem" is Dublin 2 with the parks and offices and few people living there. However, Dublin 2 is a major destination, and a lesser origin.

Several hundred (at least) people live in TCD. The real problem through the city isn't so much the low density of housing, but the low average density due to the large amount of incidental underused land - derelict sites, open grassland, industrial sites, cemetaries, hospital and college campuses close to the city centre.

I almost completely agree, major public transport infrastructure should NOT have it's alignment dictated by developer levies. The people living in these established areas have paid taxes too!

A balance needs to be struck. Its cheap to build a metro in a greenfield / brownfiled site and you can build densely with relative ease. With existing development, its harder to increase densitites and more expensive to build both the metro and the infill development.

gjim

The real problem through the city isn't so much the low density of housing, but the low average density due to the large amount of incidental underused land - derelict sites, open grassland, industrial sites, cemetaries, hospital and college campuses close to the city centre.

I don't agree that this is the fundamental problem with Dublin. Lots of high density cities contain parks, hospitals, colleges, etc. A significant chunk of Manhattan is taken up with Central Park, for example. The problem with Dublin is the fact that within 750 metres of O'Connell bridge - in pretty much every direction - there are single story cottages and two-up/two-downs with little back yards or gardens. Within 2 km, you can find semi-detached housing estates with garages and front and back gardens. Try Google Earth and fly over the city. The urban centre is small relatively and so the underutilised parts of it are of little significance in the context of the land covered by the inner and outer suburbs. We haven't built new urban streets in this town for 100 years; everything built in the last decade has been low density suburban.

corktina

thank God for that!....

Metrobest

Dublin's inner suburbs are actually quite suitable for an urban mass transit system, as Luas has proven. Luckily, the inner suburbs were laid out, in the main, in the traditional grid system, with mixed use including shops, churches, schools and retail facilities. Ranelagh, Rathmines, Harold's Cross, Drumcondra, Glasnevin and Stoneybatter are perfect examples of this type of development. Ironically, the city planners of old recognised what was needed to create sustainable communities, indeed including the ability to sustain mass transit.

Contrast this with most of the outer suburbs like Blanch, Clondalkin, Tallaght.. we're looking at ribbon development, cul de sac style housing estates (residential ghettos), where the car is essential to access services that are found within walking distance in the inner suburbs. The outer suburbs are not sustainable and we need to look at better patterns of development, which must include better use of land close to urban areas.

Dublin Port area is perfect for a new wave of urban development.
North and South of O'Connell Bridge, as far as the Port, should become the city's high density quarter, mixing apartments with high denisty corporate headquarters of major international companies. Why not the Dublin World Trade Centre? Those IFSC groundscapers are so last century....;)

Another thing. Dublin is not unique in having low-height housing in its suburbs. Within the minutes of Sydney's skyscraping CBD, tiny bungalows dominate the landscape as far as the eye can see. Australian suburban sprawl is on a level far worse than Ireland's.

However, Australian cities, with all their sprawl, have the redeeming factor of their high density centres. The lifeblood of Sydney is its suburban CityRail network, connecting many of the spawling outer suburbs with an interconnector-style arrangement in the CBD. Wide streets and a network of tolls and tunnels also keep a lip on traffic levels that make the M50's look like that of a rural boreen.

However, what Sydney lacks, and what Dublin can have, is the sophisticated mass urban transit system linking its inner suburbs that you can find in the world's other great cities.

If Dublin wants to become a world class city, it needs to combine the best of an Australasian city (high quality modern skyscapers serviced by efficient suburban transport) combined with a high frequency European style metro system, linking the hubs of its inner core.

Victor

http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/vol1_entire.pdf

I think I converted the above to a spreadsheet and worked it out from there.

strassenwolf

Victor wrote:

http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/vol1_entire.pdf

I think I converted the above to a spreadsheet and worked it out from there.

What's a good way to do that conversion, if you can remember?

Capt'n Midnight

in this case you can import the text as fixed width instead of delimited

strassenwolf

Thank you very much, Skipper.


So on the basis of those figures, I'm taking the wards Arran Quay, Inns Quay, Mountjoy, North City, Rotunda, Mansion House, Merchants Quay, Royal Exchange, Usher's Quay and Wood Quay as representative of the most central wards. Is this reasonable?

Anyway, for those wards, we end up with a population of 81,274 in an area of 10.34 sq. km. A density of 7860.155 people per square km. Not all that far off the figures given above for central Cologne.

strassenwolf

And areas being completely ignored for the forseeable future include the wards in Finglas (4,229 per sq. km), Terenure (4,317 per sq. km), Crumlin (6200 per sq. km) and Kimmage (5523 per sq. km). Although there is a population density in the combined Rathmines wards of 6503 per sq. km, I suppose it could be argued that they aren't too far away from the LUAS, so their situation isn't so bad heading into the future.

Are the densities in the greenfield sites to which the Government is keen to bring the LUAS likely to match those figures?

Victor

Victor wrote:

http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/vol1_entire.pdf

I think I converted the above to a spreadsheet and worked it out from there.

I've done this for the whole country, a few reference numbers went askew, but I think I can fix that. I collated the current preliminary totals with the area in the final 2002 census.

PM me your e-mail address if it is of interest. Its over 2MB, but I can trim that down.