Ireland 2040 plan "will kill rural Ireland"

Middle Man

defrule wrote: »

Saw a very good video on cities recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvAvHjYoLUU

Very interesting and demonstrates the vital importance of cities up to now. However with technology rapidly changing our way of life, will very large cities be required if the internet and 3D printer evolve way beyond the capabilities of today. Of course, there will always be some form of mass production in the future (food etc), but it will probably be greatly reduced by way of volume and diversity thereby reducing (though not completely eliminating) the need for large cities.

BrianBoru00

I was just saying to herself that we hadn't had one of these threads since before Christmas..
Unfortunately having scanned through the 6 pages, the level of balanced posts has fallen below 10% :-(
The GAA is the bad guy for having built one of the best stadiums in Western Europe while the poor FAI cannot afford to save Dalymount park :rolleyes:

One off housing is a blight on the landscape . . Of course it is, most people agree.
Dublin is subsidising the rest of the country . . . .
No it isn't, lets be honest here - a LOT of posters are very confused between Dublin, Rural Ireland and Other Urban areas OUTSIDE dublin.
Dublin may be paying more in LPT that its getting in return but the Dublin centric location of state and semi state bodies is ridiculous when there is no need to do so.

cgcsb wrote: »

The solution is natural economics and fairer politics. Keep Dublin LPT in Dublin, stop all these 'rural broadband', 'rural renewal' schemes. Say no to calls for a vast CCTV network covering every boreen in the state. Say no public money maintaining roads that serve only one family. Ban one off homes for those not involved in farming/forestry etc.

Tax septic tanks to fund the inspection of same and boom you have at least some of the real cost of ruralisation being realized and the problem will fix it's self. As it is despite all the subsidies and schemes rural areas are still depopulating en mass, natural economic forces will take over, the subsidies and schemes only delay the process.

Thats actually one of the more well articulated posts . . .BUT. Rural and Urban broadband is a must and should be provided to every home in the same way water and electricity area - However I would agree that it costs more to provide for rural Ireland. We should be trying to balance things so an identical three bed house in Rathgar for example costs €500 000 but only €140 000 in Drumshanbo - the householder in Rathgar should have to pay a one off connection for Fibre Broadband of €100 whereas the Leitrim dweller should pay €500 - of course there would be complaints from them but its a fair way of subsidising same.

Secondly no one needs or wants CCTV on every boreen in the country - thats just daft. BUT put it at every junction on a motorway and then expand to national primary and secondary routes and approach roads to towns over 1000 population eventually - it would aid prevention of crime etc.

Create a strategic plan that removes 90% of government and semi state jobs from Dublin. There will be protests but we're talking about an efficient solution so we have to get over the "they don't want to argument" which in any case tends to come from those higher up the food chain not a young married couple who are both Executive officers in the department of Environment earning a combined €65000.

To take one single example. Irish Water signed a €16 million 10 year lease on its HQ in Dublin - There is no reason it has to be in Dublin - bring it to Edenderry or Newbridge or Tullamore or Athlone or another town within an hours drive of Dublin or on the rail line.
Advantages to DUBLIN in no particular order
1. Less pressure on school places
2. More housing stock released to the market
3. Less traffic on the roads
4. More office space (which is one of the major factors affecting Dublins international competitiveness and younger workers in tech firms tend to use more public transport)

Advantages to Rural ireland
1. Rural schools in danger of closing get 4-5 new pupils (as parents can commute to those towns from "Rural Ireland"
2. More people shopping in those towns therefore creating more business there
3. Removal of vacant / empty housing stock from "Rural Ireland" AND small towns and villages.

Now multiply that by 20 other state and semi state bodies and everyones a winner.
Don't give me the "best people want to stay in Dublin bolloxology either" . For a start look at all the scandals and tribunals as a result of general incompetence/lack of leadership shown by those "best people" working for the state, secondly change the culture of the public service to actually be of public service.

By giving "Rural Ireland" what it wants - i.e. jobs and people (and AGAIN let me state that "Rural Ireland" is quite happy that the jobs are in a large town within 20-30 minutes commute from the then DUBLIN can get what it needs which of course is better public transport and more housing and more school spaces. It doesn't have to be nor should it be a Dublin V the rest situation. But we should look at balancing our regional cities. Sligo for example should be targetted as a regional hub for the North west - no with the same amount of resources or finance as Dublin or Cork/Limerick/Galway but a certain amount for example a quality hospital offering services for he dispersed populations of donegal and North Mayo as well as Sligo/Leitrim.

But self interests in Dublin and Galway are every bit as bad as those in Rural Ireland. The national childrens hospital is a farcical location with loads of spin put on the "co-location" idea. If it truly is to be a world class childrens hospital then co-location with a training hospital would be way down the priority list -Is Great Ormondes street reliant on a training hospital.
Galways congestion is staggering but because "consultants " didn't want to move everything is being done on the Regional site as opposed to Merlin park (which isn't exactly in a remote location ) where there is over 100 acres of space which could be developed allowing patients and visitors to park . . .

LeinsterDub

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

.
Dublin is subsidising the rest of the country . . . .
No it isn't, lets be honest here - a LOT of posters are very confused between Dublin, Rural Ireland and Other Urban areas OUTSIDE dublin.
Dublin may be paying more in LPT that its getting in return but the Dublin centric location of state and semi state bodies is ridiculous when there is no need to do so.
.

Urban areas, mainly Dublin but also the south west are subsidising the rest of the country this is a fact and it's not just LPT but the entire tax base. Also this isn't a unique Irish issue. This is the way of the modern world. Unless your rural area is producing oil or similar it's being subsidised.

CarlosHarpic

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

I was just saying to herself that we hadn't had one of these threads since before Christmas..
Unfortunately having scanned through the 6 pages, the level of balanced posts has fallen below 10% :-(
The GAA is the bad guy for having built one of the best stadiums in Western Europe while the poor FAI cannot afford to save Dalymount park :rolleyes:

One off housing is a blight on the landscape . . Of course it is, most people agree.
Dublin is subsidising the rest of the country . . . .
No it isn't, lets be honest here - a LOT of posters are very confused between Dublin, Rural Ireland and Other Urban areas OUTSIDE dublin.
Dublin may be paying more in LPT that its getting in return but the Dublin centric location of state and semi state bodies is ridiculous when there is no need to do so.



Thats actually one of the more well articulated posts . . .BUT. Rural and Urban broadband is a must and should be provided to every home in the same way water and electricity area - However I would agree that it costs more to provide for rural Ireland. We should be trying to balance things so an identical three bed house in Rathgar for example costs €500 000 but only €140 000 in Drumshanbo - the householder in Rathgar should have to pay a one off connection for Fibre Broadband of €100 whereas the Leitrim dweller should pay €500 - of course there would be complaints from them but its a fair way of subsidising same.

Secondly no one needs or wants CCTV on every boreen in the country - thats just daft. BUT put it at every junction on a motorway and then expand to national primary and secondary routes and approach roads to towns over 1000 population eventually - it would aid prevention of crime etc.

Create a strategic plan that removes 90% of government and semi state jobs from Dublin. There will be protests but we're talking about an efficient solution so we have to get over the "they don't want to argument" which in any case tends to come from those higher up the food chain not a young married couple who are both Executive officers in the department of Environment earning a combined €65000.

To take one single example. Irish Water signed a €16 million 10 year lease on its HQ in Dublin - There is no reason it has to be in Dublin - bring it to Edenderry or Newbridge or Tullamore or Athlone or another town within an hours drive of Dublin or on the rail line.
Advantages to DUBLIN in no particular order
1. Less pressure on school places
2. More housing stock released to the market
3. Less traffic on the roads
4. More office space (which is one of the major factors affecting Dublins international competitiveness and younger workers in tech firms tend to use more public transport)

Advantages to Rural ireland
1. Rural schools in danger of closing get 4-5 new pupils (as parents can commute to those towns from "Rural Ireland"
2. More people shopping in those towns therefore creating more business there
3. Removal of vacant / empty housing stock from "Rural Ireland" AND small towns and villages.

Now multiply that by 20 other state and semi state bodies and everyones a winner.
Don't give me the "best people want to stay in Dublin bolloxology either" . For a start look at all the scandals and tribunals as a result of general incompetence/lack of leadership shown by those "best people" working for the state, secondly change the culture of the public service to actually be of public service.

By giving "Rural Ireland" what it wants - i.e. jobs and people (and AGAIN let me state that "Rural Ireland" is quite happy that the jobs are in a large town within 20-30 minutes commute from the then DUBLIN can get what it needs which of course is better public transport and more housing and more school spaces. It doesn't have to be nor should it be a Dublin V the rest situation. But we should look at balancing our regional cities. Sligo for example should be targetted as a regional hub for the North west - no with the same amount of resources or finance as Dublin or Cork/Limerick/Galway but a certain amount for example a quality hospital offering services for he dispersed populations of donegal and North Mayo as well as Sligo/Leitrim.

But self interests in Dublin and Galway are every bit as bad as those in Rural Ireland. The national childrens hospital is a farcical location with loads of spin put on the "co-location" idea. If it truly is to be a world class childrens hospital then co-location with a training hospital would be way down the priority list -Is Great Ormondes street reliant on a training hospital.
Galways congestion is staggering but because "consultants " didn't want to move everything is being done on the Regional site as opposed to Merlin park (which isn't exactly in a remote location ) where there is over 100 acres of space which could be developed allowing patients and visitors to park . . .

Spoken like a 'Real GAA' man from a 'traditional Fianna Fail background I bet.

pjohnson

CarlosHarpic wrote: »

Spoken like a 'Real GAA' man from a 'traditional Fianna Fail background I bet.

I cant help thinking you got dropped from your local panel and are just bitter now.

KOR101

Deleted User wrote: »

The rural > urban move has been going since the industrial revolution.

Short of the technology of the world ceasing to function, its not going to change

This may be changing.....

http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.ie/2018/01/why-has-us-regional-convergence-declined.html

Ben D Bus

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

If it truly is to be a world class childrens hospital then co-location with a training hospital would be way down the priority list -Is Great Ormondes street reliant on a training hospital.

Great Ormond Street IS a teaching hospital

https://www.londonmedicine.ac.uk/londons-landscape/national-health-service/london-s-nhs-infrastructure/

I'm really tired of the NCH argument at this stage.

D.L.R.

Deleted User wrote:

The rural > urban move has been going since the industrial revolution.

Which in Ireland case means since 1960.

BrianBoru00

Ben D Bus wrote: »

Great Ormond Street IS a teaching hospital

https://www.londonmedicine.ac.uk/londons-landscape/national-health-service/london-s-nhs-infrastructure/

I'm really tired of the NCH argument at this stage.

Thats my point.

Ben D Bus

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Thats my point.

It is? Then I'm afraid I'm missing it completely

BrianBoru00

Ben D Bus wrote: »

It is? Then I'm afraid I'm missing it completely

Without trying to segway to far from the topic:

The biggest reason given for building it at St. James was that it needed to be co-located in order to have access to expertise.
Yet we're being told that its is going to be one of the best of its type in the world which obviously Great Ormonde Street is . .
We should have been aiming to build the best and co locate with the new National Maternity Hospital . Why weren't we aiming to create it as a "teaching hospital" with the best available pediatric practitioners available. Its a quite frankly ridiculous decision ignoring a lot of basic requirements for the hospital.

Shurimgreat

You have to laugh at the fools who want to pile yet more people into Dublin.

The traffic, Luas and bus situation is a farce and leading to traffic standstill. What do you think will happen if you double the population of Dublin as some want?

That's not to mention that Dublin planners are ideologically against high rise and high density buildings basically anywhere in the city and seem very resistant to new residential developments in general.

I guess this will mean more urban sprawl. Not really increasing the population of Dublin, but instead increasing the populations of Meath, Kildare and the like with long commuter times for those unfortunate to be stuck there with no work-life balance.

Short-term idiotic thinking at its worst.

If Dubliners want to endure traffic chaos and rising and unaffordable housing then they are certainly going about it the right way.

cgcsb

nuac wrote: »

So why had Ballymun to be knocked?

It didn't have to be knocked, it was the best quality social housing in the world at the time of it's completion and remained high quality in the 2000s. Demolishing those towers was short sighted, emotional and anti-progressive and we are paying for it now with existing housing crisis while the tower sites remain derelict.

cgcsb

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Dublin is subsidising the rest of the country . . . .
No it isn't, lets be honest here - a LOT of posters are very confused between Dublin, Rural Ireland and Other Urban areas OUTSIDE dublin.
Dublin may be paying more in LPT that its getting in return but the Dublin centric location of state and semi state bodies is ridiculous when there is no need to do so.

Untrue, disregarding LPT entirely Greater Dublin and the South West are the only regions generating more tax revenue than they spend.

cgcsb

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You have to laugh at the fools who want to pile yet more people into Dublin.

The traffic, Luas and bus situation is a farce and leading to traffic standstill. What do you think will happen if you double the population of Dublin as some want?

The population of Dublin WILL double, it's irrelevant what you or I want, these are natural economic forces, we can plan for it or we can naval-gaze and come up with 'rural-renewal' schemes. Dublin's traffic situation wouldn't exist if a fair % of transport capital was spent there, and that's what I'd aim for, a rebalancing of the transport spend to where it is most urgently required.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

That's not to mention that Dublin planners are ideologically against high rise and high density buildings basically anywhere in the city and seem very resistant to new residential developments in general.

That has to change and will change in the very immediate future. ABP is about to issue DCC with a firm backhanded slap on the Tara Street 22 storey tower proposal. The 22 storey capital dock is nearing completion, the 17 storey Exo is going to construction now, Bolands quay will include 3 buildings of 15-16 floors(finished in 2019) and the Poolbeg West SDZ will include 3 buildings up to 16 floors all residential. Altogether this will finally make mid-rise buildings a common sight in Dublin and the wind will really be taken out of the anti-progress crowd's sails. Progress, at last.

Ben D Bus

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You have to laugh at the fools who want to pile yet more people into Dublin.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that Dublin is a pretty small city.

Population is not the problem, infrastructure is.

The real folly is suggesting we stick with a crappy infrastructure and depopulate the city instead.

marno21

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You have to laugh at the fools who want to pile yet more people into Dublin.

The traffic, Luas and bus situation is a farce and leading to traffic standstill. What do you think will happen if you double the population of Dublin as some want?

That's not to mention that Dublin planners are ideologically against high rise and high density buildings basically anywhere in the city and seem very resistant to new residential developments in general.

I guess this will mean more urban sprawl. Not really increasing the population of Dublin, but instead increasing the populations of Meath, Kildare and the like with long commuter times for those unfortunate to be stuck there with no work-life balance.

Short-term idiotic thinking at its worst.

If Dubliners want to endure traffic chaos and rising and unaffordable housing then they are certainly going about it the right way.

That's the whole point of this plan, to give a long term planning framework so that the infrastructural deficits of now and tomorrow are planned for and solved.

At the minute projects like the Metro and the DART Expansion are in limbo because they take so long to plan and build that the short term electioneering politicians ignore them due to their large capital cost and length of time taken to get into place. This is what they are proposing as a solution to the issue.

It's time we had a long term agenda rather than short term electioneering which gives us the watered down rubbish we've had over the last number of years.

Dublin could take 10x the population it currently does if it was planned properly. The low density sprawl with pathetic infrastructure is the reason for the current mess, not the volume of people living there.

cgcsb

Ben D Bus wrote: »

How many times does it have to be pointed out that Dublin is a pretty small city.

Population is not the problem, infrastructure is.

The real folly is suggesting we stick with a crappy infrastructure and depopulate the city instead.

The DeValera-ites think it's hong kong and has exhausted it's space resources.

cgcsb

It's gas listening to people argue for ruralisation still to this day. It's been the policy of successive Irish governments for almost 100 years it involved rural electrification at massive cost, tarmacking of every public(and not so public) road in the state, a vast network of little used post offices and telegraph poles, gardaí stations with a staff of 1 that didn't deliver any effective policing etc. All at the expense of creating livable towns and cities with modern infrastructure, and thus creating a modern economy.

A new technology comes out, high speed broadband and the Khmer Rouge brigade are convinced, that's it the silver bullet, the holy grail, that will make the continuous failure of ruralisation work, a heavily subsidized fiber optic network. scattering the population to bungalows in the wilds didn't work when there was no internet and it's not going to work now. I fear that if the Khmer Rouge win this broadband fight they'll keep going, they'll get a vast network of CCTV cameras to protect their oil tanks, when oil runs out they'll start demanding the piped gas network be stretched down every boreen. Heaven forbid if Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast rail routes get upgraded to high speed standard because then Achil will have to have the same level of service. Some folks just can't give up the dancing at the cross-roads, selling eachother arran sweaters for a living delusion that was sold to them 100 years ago.

Shurimgreat

Ben D Bus wrote: »

How many times does it have to be pointed out that Dublin is a pretty small city.

Population is not the problem, infrastructure is.

The real folly is suggesting we stick with a crappy infrastructure and depopulate the city instead.

Chicken and egg situation.

You can't or shouldn't increase the population of Dublin without putting in the infrastructure first.
We've seen lately the Luas has pretty much reached peak capacity. When it goes any further it stars choking up the rest of traffic such as bus traffic. There is a limit to the amount of transport infrastructure you can put overground in a city centre.

Dublin could easily double in population if it met some prerequisates:
Significant increase in high rise and high density.
Embrace the possibility of more underground transport infrastructure.

Only a fool would fail to recognise that Dublin at the moment is a failing model. Its time to go back to the drawing board and develop a city model for the 21st century not a low density one for the 20th or even 19th century.

When the majority of people recognise that the current Dublin model has failed abysmally, then maybe there is a chance. But when I hear people say lets just throw more people into Dublin and not change anything its just painful to listen to. As I said short termism at its worst.

My own belief is without an underground rail network, Dublin will struggle badly in future decades with traffic.

Shurimgreat

cgcsb wrote: »

It's gas listening to people argue for ruralisation still to this day. It's been the policy of successive Irish governments for almost 100 years it involved rural electrification at massive cost, tarmacking of every public(and not so public) road in the state, a vast network of little used post offices and telegraph poles, gardaí stations with a staff of 1 that didn't deliver any effective policing etc. All at the expense of creating livable towns and cities with modern infrastructure, and thus creating a modern economy.

A new technology comes out, high speed broadband and the Khmer Rouge brigade are convinced, that's it the silver bullet, the holy grail, that will make the continuous failure of ruralisation work, a heavily subsidized fiber optic network. scattering the population to bungalows in the wilds didn't work when there was no internet and it's not going to work now. I fear that if the Khmer Rouge win this broadband fight they'll keep going, they'll get a vast network of CCTV cameras to protect their oil tanks, when oil runs out they'll start demanding the piped gas network be stretched down every boreen. Heaven forbid if Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast rail routes get upgraded to high speed standard because then Achil will have to have the same level of service. Some folks just can't give up the dancing at the cross-roads, selling eachother arran sweaters for a living delusion that was sold to them 100 years ago.

Congrats on the strawman argument.
Most people on the other side of the argument are asking for effective urban counterbalances to Dublin which stop people having to commute from Naas, Navan, PortLaoise, Athlone etc to the centre of Dublin for employment.
This means encouraging large and small companies including multinationals away from Dublin city centre or alternatively providing something in the way of high density affordable accommodation in Dublin city centre (which of course is not exactly family friendly) and world class transport infrastructure including underground.

Dublin at the moment is a failing model and its planners have no clue how to proceed unfortunately other than to clog up the streets with short term solutions.

But hey, I don't live there thankfully and am glad I don't have to live through the daily commuting misery and high cost accommodation. Living to work seems to be the way its going in Dublin.

Shurimgreat

marno21 wrote: »

That's the whole point of this plan, to give a long term planning framework so that the infrastructural deficits of now and tomorrow are planned for and solved.

At the minute projects like the Metro and the DART Expansion are in limbo because they take so long to plan and build that the short term electioneering politicians ignore them due to their large capital cost and length of time taken to get into place. This is what they are proposing as a solution to the issue.

It's time we had a long term agenda rather than short term electioneering which gives us the watered down rubbish we've had over the last number of years.

Dublin could take 10x the population it currently does if it was planned properly. The low density sprawl with pathetic infrastructure is the reason for the current mess, not the volume of people living there.

We agree on that at least. Some people want the best of both worlds or rather are forced into that situation. They want to live in the countryside or commuter belts surrounding Dublin but work in Dublin city centre.
The planners meanwhile are reluctant to allow any residential buildings over 6 floors. And builders say they can't build high density cheaply either. The whole thing is a mess and can only get worse.

Ben D Bus

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The whole thing is a mess and can only get worse.

No, it CAN get better.

Shurimgreat

In my opinion, a detached or semi detached house within a couple miles of Dublin city centre is as least as unsustainable as a rural one off house in the countryside. City dwellers need to take equal blame for the low density mess that are cities like Dublin.

Shurimgreat

Ben D Bus wrote: »

No, it CAN get better.

Not when Dublin planners want to restrict the height of apartment blocks.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/government-urges-dublin-city-council-11766759

Once an apartment block goes up, that's it, you can't increase its height. Dublin planners are short termers and every bit as interested in parish pump politics as elsewhere.

Topgear on Dave

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Congrats on the strawman argument.
Most people on the other side of the argument are asking for effective urban counterbalances to Dublin which stop people having to commute from Naas, Navan, PortLaoise, Athlone etc to the centre of Dublin for employment.

I would agree that the other regions are important in helping end the sucking sprawl that Dublin has become.

However look at the bitter bunfights that happen when ever local politics gets into this stuff. Cork city vs Cork county councils fighting over the city limits.

Look how stupidly bitter the arguments are between Waterford and Kilkenny over the Waterford city boundary. These arguments are in everyones interest to be resolved in a proper planned way, instead Iv heard a lot of hot air involving GAA rivalries in that dispute.

When it goes wrong its "those boyos above in Dublin are against us"

bk

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Once an apartment block goes up, that's it, you can't increase its height. Dublin planners are short termers and every bit as interested in parish pump politics as elsewhere.

Actually that isn't true. Buildings all around the world are increased in height. It is happening at a massive scale in Paris at the moment where most 4 to 6 storey buildings are getting two more storeys added.

Having said that, your point is correct, that it is better to get it right up front and we should definitely be building higher and denser.

bk

defrule wrote: »

Saw a very good video on cities recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvAvHjYoLUU

This is a really great video and I suggest everyone interested in this topic to watch it.

For people asking why the Googles and Facebooks of the world open their offices in some of the most expensive cities in the world and not in cheap locations like rural Ireland and never will, watch from 6 min 30 seconds, it explains why very well.

Shurimgreat

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I would agree that the other regions are important in helping end the sucking sprawl that Dublin has become.

However look at the bitter bunfights that happen when ever local politics gets into this stuff. Cork city vs Cork county councils fighting over the city limits.

Look how stupidly bitter the arguments are between Waterford and Kilkenny over the Waterford city boundary. These arguments are in everyones interest to be resolved in a proper planned way, instead Iv heard a lot of hot air involving GAA rivalries in that dispute.

When it goes wrong its "those boyos above in Dublin are against us"

Dublin planners are probably the worst in the country so lets get away from the notion that Dublin is doing things right whereas the rest of the country are involved in petty parish pump politics.

Every politician in Dublin is in favour of high density until it comes to their constituency and then you see Nimbi-ism at its worst.

The Georgian heart of Dublin while nice to look at is a very inefficient way to house people and industry. At most you have one or two companies in each building or one or two families in each house. This is not sustainable. Unfortunately there is little you can do. But throwing more people into this situation is a recipe for disaster as it stands given the opposition among planners to high rise.

martingriff

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How do you figure that out