Not a banking crisis, a lack of planning crisis

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

ardmacha

Zoning, single use houses on large plots, low density housing, urban sprawl, growing out rather than up, poor public infrastructure, poor regulation of developers and building standards, etc, etc, etc

Much of this is true. But much housing built in the this period was more dense than Irish housing, problem is that like Priory Hall it has crap construction standards. IMHO lax construction standards are as big a problem, no inspection, allowing crap like cavity blocks and no insulation.

robp

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To some extent you are right but I wonder how many lessons have been learnt. For instance one off housing is avoidable. Its so easy to use Google Maps to see how superior planning is elsewhere compared to Ireland but yet the political will necessary to rectify the issue is still lacking.

ardmacha

For instance one off housing is avoidable. Its so easy to use Google Maps to see how superior planning is elsewhere compared to Ireland but yet the political will necessary to rectify the issue is still lacking.

Ireland has a dispersed population. A conservative policy will retain this. There are significant improvements possible in planning, but there never seems to be advocates for improvements, only for Ceaușescu style concentration policies which can only be achieved by the government acting against its own people.

macraignil

Not sure I fully agree with your point. There has clearly been a banking crisis since the irish tax payer has been told they needed to invest billions of Euros in our larger banks. Your point about planning is interesting as you seem to take a list of questionable developments and implied that this has been the root of our economies stagnation over the last decade.

Zoning of land has been a problem with large developments in poorly serviced parts of the country appearing to have been standard practice. At the same time zoning was refused on land that was well serviced and closer to urban centers where it would most suit those employed there.

Single houses on large plots should not be a problem for a country with the population density of Ireland. We have a Common Agriculture Policy payments system that favors larger farm enterprises and the efficient business model these are run on has contributed to continued high levels of rural unemployment and reduced economic activity in rural communities. To allow environmentally considerate single house development could help provide rural employment and increase activity in rural communities. This type of development has been increasingly restricted in recent years with one friend looking to build a home on their own farm incurring thousands of euros in expenses and two years of a delay before the contract with the builder for the actual construction can be signed. While you seem to list single house on large plots as a problem I would see this type of development as vital to creating vibrant rural communities. From an environmental point of view a well landscaped garden around a single house creates much more opportunity for ecological diversity than another section of grass field feeding cows that seems to match the government rural development strategy.

Low density housing also should not be a problem in a country with the population density of Ireland. I like gardening and I do not see why I should be restricted to living in an apartment or an estate development where there is barely room to grow some fruit and cooking herbs for the kitchen.

Urban sprawl has seen some poorly planned developments. It still makes sense however to build houses near to employment centers and it should be possible to do this without devastating the environment.

Growing up rather than out. Again I can not see how our population density justifies forcing people to live in apartments.

poor public infrastructure, poor regulation of developers and building standards, etc, etc, etc

I agree this country is rotten to the core. The root of the problem in my opinion is not the planning but the fundamental government policy to restrict supply of affordable housing, because they earned so much tax from the inflating bubble they constructed. The media continues to harp on about the bankers and property developers who committed the unforgivable sin of trying to make money. The government response to increasingly unaffordable housing in the country was the affordable housing scheme that forced to developers to sell part of their new development to first time buyers who needed to show they were on earnings low enough to qualify for the scheme. The price charged by developers for these were high enough to allow them still make a profit and they could also simply pay off the local authority if they wanted to have no affordable housing units in their development. During this time construction of social housing stopped and thousands of relatively low paid workers are now tied into paying for government policy of maintaining high property values. The government seems to ignore the fact that to be economically competitive people need to be able to afford to live in the country even when they are not being paid as well as the politicians and civil servants that administrate the red tape that has choked the Irish economy.

robp

macraignil wrote: »

Single houses on large plots should not be a problem for a country with the While you seem to list single house on large plots as a problem I would see this type of development as vital to creating vibrant rural communities. From an environmental point of view a well landscaped garden around a single house creates much more opportunity for ecological diversity than another section of grass field feeding cows that seems to match the government rural development strategy.

Low density housing also should not be a problem in a country with the population density of Ireland. I like gardening and I do not see why I should be restricted to living in an apartment or an estate development where there is barely room to grow some fruit and cooking herbs for the kitchen.

Urban sprawl has seen some poorly planned developments. It still makes sense however to build houses near to employment centers and it should be possible to do this without devastating the environment.

The thing is though one off housing does exactly the opposite. It creates linear settlement that follows roads but each house is further away from the neighbour and discourage interaction compared to clustered settlements. One off housing also removes thousands of miles of hedgerows invaluable for wildlife and replaces them with concrete walls or fences.

Take a look at two pictures of different settlement types. One outside Galway that shows well the inefficient and anti social strips that develops.



This pic is near Cottus in Germany which compares well to Galway in size but look at how people live near eothers. Its far more vibrant.


To me its pretty clear the Germany example promotes stronger rural communities and has plenty of room for gardens. It also creates safer roads. It also maximises scenic value. No one is asking anyone to live in estates or apartments.

Dob74

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would agree that poor planning was a major problem.
But I have to disagree a the low density part. You can only build in the countryside if you are from there. So generally it's people getting site from there parents for free. Or they can pay redictuluce prices for a house in a high density estate with no services.
Instead of building apartments in villages, why not build medium density detached houses. Our planning policy was taken from England. A country that has a much higher population density.
We have ghost estates of semi d's that are part of every village in the country. Drive out the road there are new houses built by locals on parents land. People don't want to pay top dollar for estate houses.

Gumbo

ardmacha wrote: »

Priory Hall it has crap construction standards. IMHO lax construction standards are as big a problem, no inspection, allowing crap like cavity blocks and no insulation.

The thing about this, is that it is not allowed!
Builders scimped on the materials, then architects/engineers signed off on the build without fully checking it.

Our building regulations are actually quite good in my opinion, its the lack of adherence to them thats the problem.

Farmer Pudsey

kceire wrote: »

The thing about this, is that it is not allowed!
Builders scimped on the materials, then architects/engineers signed off on the build without fully checking it.

Our building regulations are actually quite good in my opinion, its the lack of adherence to them thats the problem.

I wonder who enforces them, nobody, maybe we should solve it by making a new QUANGO, this will be no nine hundred and something. Then this Quango will employ a few hundred people transfer the work to a private contractor and impose costs on everybody which will increase the prices of houses again

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Gumbo

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I wonder who enforces them, nobody, maybe we should solve it by making a new QUANGO, this will be no nine hundred and something. Then this Quango will employ a few hundred people transfer the work to a private contractor and impose costs on everybody which will increase the prices of houses again

So you have a problem with the way the private sector regulates itself?

This is why people have to do their homework when picking a builder, professional service and so on.

Who do you want to enforce them?

notharrypotter

Self regulation tends to favor the building community not the consumer.

We have a system that while the proposal may indicate that it intends to comply with regulations there is no mechanism to actually ensure what was built is actually what was proposed.

Some people employ an Architect to draw plans and ensure that the construction complies with said plans and also comply s with regulations.

Many don't.

The nature of construction here tends to be when there is a problem the mud starts slinging.

Its always someone else's responsibility.

It becomes too expensive to correct after the fact as oppose to doing it right first time.

Dob74

kceire wrote: »

So you have a problem with the way the private sector regulates itself?

This is why people have to do their homework when picking a builder, professional service and so on.

Who do you want to enforce them?

The local authourity is paid enough to have inspectors employed.
With council fees 10k plus for new homes, surely basic inspections should be carried out.

macraignil

robp wrote: »

To me its pretty clear the Germany example promotes stronger rural communities and has plenty of room for gardens. It also creates safer roads. It also maximises scenic value. No one is asking anyone to live in estates or apartments.

Yes I have heard the Germans are more efficient and while the development you describe sounds nice it has not happened in Ireland except in a place called Cloughjordan in Tipperary from what I have heard. The new residential developments in rural Ireland from what I have seen have not allowed much room for gardens. Many have also not included the services necesary for stronger rural communities.

There is legislation here about where new homes can have an entrance to a road with safety issues rulling out new homes having entrances onto busier roads and at points where there could be danger of an accident.

The scenic value of new developments is also strongly regulated with new homes not allowed to have bay windows or having to comply with a long list of features that are unsuited to the area. These rules even decide on acceptable colours and add to the cost and limit the imagination that can be applied to new homes. I do not see the scenic value of a countryside where people are not allowed live, and good landscaping of a one off home should allow it fit in the environments scenic value in a positive way.

We are asking people to live in apartments and estates as no other housing development is encouraged by the current planning ligislation in Ireland.

"The thing is though one off housing does exactly the opposite. It creates linear settlement that follows roads but each house is further away from the neighbour and discourage interaction compared to clustered settlements. One off housing also removes thousands of miles of hedgerows invaluable for wildlife and replaces them with concrete walls or fences."

The clustered developments have potential to be better for encouraging interaction but I have no confidence in Irish planners learning how to successfully encourage this type of development.

It is natural that new homes link onto roads that follow lines but I do not agree that these necesarily remove thousands of miles of hedgerows. New home entrances will often be able to be developed at an existing entrance to a field and while some hedge either side will need to be cut back to allow safe access to the road the loss of hedge should be easily compinsated for by new boundaries around the full perimeter of the new home. As fences and concrete walls are expensive traditional hedgerow development around one off homes is a much better option.

Knob Longman

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I wonder who enforces them, nobody, maybe we should solve it by making a new QUANGO, this will be no nine hundred and something. Then this Quango will employ a few hundred people transfer the work to a private contractor and impose costs on everybody which will increase the prices of houses again

That will probably be the solution alright, The Irish way.

I don`t think it is necessarily a good thing having the government plan every aspect of our lives for us.