estate or private site?

pgj2015

lostgoat wrote: »

They aren't making anymore land, but yet the privileged want to use it wastefully to keep their privacy.
There's far more land inefficiently used in Ireland as large gardens for those that think they need it, than farmers producing beef efficiently and feeding people.

we don't live in a communist country, if i want to spend my hard earned money on a private 1 acre site, then i will.

Snow Garden

lostgoat wrote: »

And? What's your point? That you don't use pesticides?

No, you completely missed it.

Your strange point was that all those people on 1 acre sites are wasting arable land.

Does no one worry about the waste of land, building one off houses? How many people can be fed from an acre?

Note too that sites in Connacht are often built on rocky sites with very little soil. Too thin for crops.

Valhallapt

shesty wrote: »

And move back to the estate/town again when you get elderly and a big house on it's own is too much to handle.
Most definitely horses for courses.

Exactly.

Mitchell Greasy Spectroscope wrote: »

The vast majority of people have no interest in moving around like this.

I wasn’t aware of this fact.

lostgoat

pgj2015 wrote: »

we don't live in a communist country, if i want to spend my hard earned money on a private 1 acre site, then i will.

Is that what your say to your grand children? Sorry that all the land is built on and there's no land left for agriculture or food production. But we aren't commies and i wanted my privacy? Your shortsightedness is pity full.

lostgoat

Snow Garden wrote: »

No, you completely missed it.

Your strange point was that all those people on 1 acre sites are wasting arable land.



Note too that sites in Connacht are often built on rocky sites with very little soil. Too thin for crops.

That's not my point.
My point is that land. All land, is being aggressively taken up by housing. If someone builds a 3000 square feet bungalow house, why not build 10 stories high, house 10 families on the same land area. Better use of resources, one roof, etc.
Then, put the remaining land of every privileged 1 acre wannabe into a communal land mass. Better for biodiversity if that's what you are actually claiming to be claiming for.

Ursus Horribilis

Most people are moving into urban areas, not out into the countryside. Do you seriously think that we're all going to starve just because some people prefer to not to live on estates?

partyguinness

The greatest achievement of the Estate Agency industry is convincing the public that estate agents are actually relevant or needed.

Properties sell themselves and buyers know what they want.

lostgoat

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Most people are moving into urban areas, not out into the countryside. Do you seriously think that we're all going to starve just because some people prefer to not to live on estates?

Did you ever hear of this thing called climate change? If we produce less food from the land we have due to climate change, won't we need more land to keep the status quo??!

Urban areas are getting bigger and bigger. It's called urban sprawl. So land being used. Less land for food.

Lumen

lostgoat wrote: »

Did you ever hear of this thing called climate change? If we produce less food from the land we have due to climate change, won't we need more land to keep the status quo??!

It depends on which scale you're looking.

Climate change could well make Ireland more agriculturally productive due to increased soil temperatures and higher CO2 levels, at least before the effects from attempting to produce food with less greenhouse gas emissions.

Personally, I think that efforts to curb climate change will come to nothing, because humans are incapable of acting in their own long term collective self interest. There are well-researched psychological biases at play, as evidenced (for instance) by single-person stories generating more charitable donations than statistics about the plight of thousands.

Short of a benevolent global dictator, we're ****ed.

Ursus Horribilis

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. This thread has gone in very strange directions.

Snow Garden

lostgoat wrote: »

Did you ever hear of this thing called climate change? If we produce less food from the land we have due to climate change, won't we need more land to keep the status quo??!

Urban areas are getting bigger and bigger. It's called urban sprawl. So land being used. Less land for food.

You sound very hungry. Have a snickers.

lostgoat

Lumen wrote: »

It depends on which scale you're looking.

Climate change could well make Ireland more agriculturally productive due to increased soil temperatures and higher CO2 levels, at least before the effects from attempting to produce food with less greenhouse gas emissions.

Personally, I think that efforts to curb climate change will come to nothing, because humans are incapable of acting in their own long term collective self interest. There are well-researched psychological biases at play, as evidenced (for instance) by single-person stories generating more charitable donations than statistics about the plight of thousands.

Short of a benevolent global dictator, we're ****ed.

Unlikely we will get to benefit those higher soil temperatures and Co2 as they saturate quickly with no benefit. But the biggest problem for Irish ag (or any countries ah industry) isn't the increase or decrease in temperature or Co2. It's the weather swings. As a producer, you can adjust your farm system to a drier and hotter climate. Or the opposite. But you can't manage the downpour and floods in May, then the drought in June.

lostgoat

Snow Garden wrote: »

You sound very hungry. Have a snickers.

No, I'm not, and I don't want anyone reading my posts thinking there's a "tone" begin them. There isn't.

L1011

Thread is wildly off-topic

pgj2015

lostgoat wrote: »

Is that what your say to your grand children? Sorry that all the land is built on and there's no land left for agriculture or food production. But we aren't commies and i wanted my privacy? Your shortsightedness is pity full.

im not planning on having children so i dont really care about future grand children.:)

Electric Sheep

Mitchell Greasy Spectroscope wrote: »

I very much want to live close by to my parents also, very glad that it’s possoble in fact. If they were asking me “who was that car” I wouldn’t care, I’d be asking them the same . Also very happy to have someone watching the house and vice versa along with other neighboring relations keeping an eye out and a dead end road it’s a very secure place to live.

Your wife, on the other hand, is likely to get fed up of your family rather quickly.

pwurple

Lumen wrote: »

Also, what is your plan for our rural environment once you've successfully depopulated it? Turn it into a savage reservation while the hipsters fly around in taxicopters between games of centrifugal bumble-puppy?

Ah. Did I hit a nerve? Sorry McMansion. My utopia would be to let the environment return to native forest, bog, riverbed, valley, hill or whatever was destroyed when the concrete and grass with a shake of a seedpacket corn-field natives was imposed upon it.

No need for the hipsters to go near it, they can happily scoff all their protein balls and see the nice view from their village eatery nearby.

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Your wife, on the other hand, is likely to get fed up of your family rather quickly.

Not at all, not sure why you would think that as it couldn’t be further from the truth.

Graces7

Interesting thread.

I live now through choice in my old age on a small offshore island after decades of remote rural life. Lack for nothing needed.

We have access to medical care etc... and yes you have to be organised so never need to run out of milk. Broadband too with an excellent small local server. Yes to growing food and mainland shops deliver. Just emailing my list now and it will be brought to my door .

There are folk should I need them but peace and privacy also are precious .

A matter of personal choice always.

No way would I ever live in a town or on an estate.

Rural folk tend to be more resourceful and organised. I have lived remote rural for decades and it is second nature.

no.8

Rural living is sacred and should be respected / embraced. However, as an earlier poster pointed out... There is no more land going to be made here (the inverse is true), so rather than waiting for the country to be pock-marked with one-off houses in 50 years time, there needs to be strict legislation in place. Similarly, urban sprawl is just as damaging long term. Imo we need to look at our European counterparts to take on board their ideas of maintaining rural living / urban living without jeopardizing our countryside.

Lumen

pwurple wrote: »

Ah. Did I hit a nerve? Sorry McMansion. My utopia would be to let the environment return to native forest, bog, riverbed, valley, hill or whatever was destroyed when the concrete and grass with a shake of a seedpacket corn-field natives was imposed upon it.

No need for the hipsters to go near it, they can happily scoff all their protein balls and see the nice view from their village eatery nearby.

No nerves hit, I don't live in a McMansion. :pac:

Rewilding is an lovely idea but at scale it won't support a global population of 11bn people. Sustainable farming practices are the only way forward in the next century or so. Hopefully we'll manage to cling on to enough species until the population naturally declines to a level compatible with long-term human habitation. But I'm not hopeful.

Anyway, if you want to bring to zero the growth in rural homes you should be campaigning against local needs exemptions; as far as I know that's the only source of new builds in the countryside. More efficient farming requires fewer people, and yet we're still building more housing people for people who "need" to live in rural areas.

Ush1

Snow Garden wrote: »

Not really no. Kids make their friends at school and in local sports clubs. They find ways to hook up pretty easy. The problems happen when friends inevitably fall out with each other and yet cant avoid each other in the estate.

I coach underage teams and I have always noticed the country kids are generally fitter than the 'urban' estate kids. I guess they do more cycling and walking and mooching around the countryside. I even notice the estate kids are softer - for example I have had kids to my house who had never encountered nettles before!

I grew up in an estate but I now live in a house about 3 miles from a small town.

I've found the opposite in coaching kickboxing.

I see a lot of country kids are overweight, perhaps because they get driven everywhere? And the kids that are from the most densely populated council estates in Dublin go through the other kids for a shortcut in regards to toughness.

meeeeh

How heavy kids are has more to do with parents income and background than anything else. Low income estates probably have the most. Anyway country for me but only up to a point. When commute is too long or you are completely in the middle of nowhere I think it's more hassle than it's worth.

Another thing is that would also swing it for me it's quality of build. Draughty country house or estate house with thin walls are both equally unappealing.

Snow Garden

no.8 wrote: »

Rural living is sacred and should be respected / embraced. However, as an earlier poster pointed out... There is no more land going to be made here (the inverse is true), so rather than waiting for the country to be pock-marked with one-off houses in 50 years time, there needs to be strict legislation in place.

I dont buy that 'no more land being made' stuff. There is plenty of land.
Ireland had a population of 8.2m before the famine.

I live on a quiet country road and there are one-off houses dotted all along that road. I live on my 1 acre site. Now if I walk out my back door, I can keep walking straight on land for 2.5-3 miles, all farmland (pasture). Beyond that is roughly 2 miles of untouched bogland. After that is Lough Corrib. So my 1 acre of ground takes up a tiny fraction of the land around me. My point is that just because people occupy sites on a road does not mean the land behind them is unavailable.

Snow Garden

Mitchell Greasy Spectroscope wrote: »

Not at all, not sure why you would think that as it couldn’t be further from the truth.

so you have the only wife that likes to live next to her mother-in-law?

meeeeh

Snow Garden wrote: »

so you have the only wife that likes to live next to her mother-in-law?

I live next door to my parents in law. They is great and very handy for us if we need some help in the hurry or we are stuck about something. We could go a week without seeing each other but if they need someone to feed the cats I'll walk accross and they take care of our dog when needed.

I actually find those in law stereotypes a bit tiring, reasonable people will manage well, morons will fight.

Graces7

no.8 wrote: »

Rural living is sacred and should be respected / embraced. However, as an earlier poster pointed out... There is no more land going to be made here (the inverse is true), so rather than waiting for the country to be pock-marked with one-off houses in 50 years time, term. Imo we need to look at our European counterparts to take on board their ideas of maintaining rural living / urban living without jeopardizing our countryside.

see bolded. There is already very strict legislation in many areas. I keep watch on daft ie and many of the sites up for sale advise the issues re no planning permission, no building and many of the old ruins carry advice that rebuilding them is the way to live there without building.

lostgoat

Snow Garden wrote: »

I dont buy that 'no more land being made' stuff. There is plenty of land.
Ireland had a population of 8.2m before the famine.

I live on a quiet country road and there are one-off houses dotted all along that road. I live on my 1 acre site. Now if I walk out my back door, I can keep walking straight on land for 2.5-3 miles, all farmland (pasture). Beyond that is roughly 2 miles of untouched bogland. After that is Lough Corrib. So my 1 acre of ground takes up a tiny fraction of the land around me. My point is that just because people occupy sites on a road does not mean the land behind them is unavailable.

How can you not buy that. Where is the new land?

Snow Garden

Snow Garden wrote: »

so you have the only wife that likes to live next to her mother-in-law?

This mother-in-law and daughter in law battle is the stuff of pantomimes. Absolutely no basis in reality. Of course some mother in laws and daughter in laws don’t get on but no more than any other group of people don’t get on.

The vast majority get on just fine. I know lots living next door to in-laws with zero issue both friends now and family members over the years. My own house is next door to my grandparents house (both passed away now) and there was never any issue whatsoever between my mother and my grandmother (her mother in-law).

It appears to be assumed that living next door means things are overbearing, most parents aren’t like this while at the same time people not even living close can be at each other throats.

lostgoat wrote: »

How can you not buy that. Where is the new land?

The point is rural houses take up very little space. A few half acres gone is basically meaningless compared to farm sizes. Also you can only build along roads so the vast majority of land will remain untouched.

lostgoat

Mitchell Greasy Spectroscope wrote: »

This mother-in-law and daughter in law battle is the stuff of pantomimes. Absolutely no basis in reality. Of course some mother in laws and daughter in laws don’t get on but no more than any other group of people don’t get on.

The vast majority get on just fine. I know lots living next door to in-laws with zero issue both friends now and family members over the years. My own house is next door to my grandparents house (both passed away now) and there was never any issue whatsoever between my mother and my grandmother (her mother in-law).

It appears to be assumed that living next door means things are overbearing, most parents aren’t like this while at the same time people not even living close can be at each other throats.



The point is rural houses take up very little space. A few half acres gone is basically meaningless compared to farm sizes. Also you can only build along roads so the vast majority of land will remain untouched.

My question is not answered.
How many half acres are there?

Approximately half of all houses built every year are one off. That's about 5000-6000 houses. So half an acre each, with many here saying the want/need an acre, nearly 3000 acres a year being used for building one off houses. The average farm size is 32 hectares (80 acres)... Relative to farm size, your point is moot.