PDLL wrote:I was not suggesting that they should be permanently ruled out of consideration, merely that they should be 'momentarily' put aside for the sake of elaborating another possible element for consideration.
PDLL wrote:I still reject this simplistic view of Dubliner subsidizing one-off house country dweller argument. Lets consider other factors: take a working class high density housing estate in Tallaght or whereever and compare it to an area comprising 100 one-off houses in Co Mayo. Yes, the one-off houses cost a little more in terms of services (telephone cabling, postal deliveries etc). However, how much do you think the corpo houses in Dublin cost the irish tax payer, how much does the tax payer pay for the consequences of ghetto style housing areas in cities (higher crime rate, higher drugs rate, higher unemployment, increased cost of policing, increased cost of social workers, increased cost of maintanence due to vandalism etc. lets face it, take the whole thing as a package and the expense to the tax payer per head of capita is probably similar when comparing large urban areas to one-off housing.
PDLL wrote:people could argue that living in higher densities is not for the common good of the people - it often brings increased crime, drug abuse, unemployment and so on as noted above. All of these cost the tax payer in terms of policing, accident and emergency, lost productivity, unemployment money etc. Lets see the bigger picture.
PDLL wrote:Bureaucrats who think in a utilitarian robotic manner?
PDLL wrote:Thank you Thomond Park.
In examining any issue or argument it is usually possible to segregate certain elements for specific focus. That does not mean that the other elements do not have influence the entire argument or that they are not important â€“ it just means that one topic becomes â€˜momentarilyâ€™ (as specified) the focus of critical analysis.
PDLL wrote:In addition, they also tend to have significant problems with anti-social behaviour, vandalism, unemployment, car-related crime and so on. I am not saying that these things do not happen in rural Ireland â€“ of course they do. I am saying that it is a social fact that these phenomena tend to increase in extent and intensify in magnitude in areas of greater housing density. As a result, such urban manifestations bring with them a myriad of expenses to the tax-payer, including but not limited to the following:
- need for social workers]
It is more equitable to address the causes of social problems through investment in social supports than to keep every borreen with two bungalows with a road surface in a safe condition to collect a child on the heavily subsidised school bus. To strip every town in Ireland of its leaders and significant earner will in time lead to exactly what you have described above in many if not most small towns.PDLL wrote:Who has to cough up to pay for all of these invisible costs? Ya â€“ the Irish tax payer â€“ rural and urban alike]
http://www.adamstown.iePDLL wrote:If such observations are â€˜highly offensiveâ€™ then it is a good job you do not work as a sociologist in Dublin â€“ could be a bit upsetting.
Thomond Park wrote: if you want to talk about social engineering or psuedo sociology then an architecture / planning forum is hardly the place to do it.
Thomond Park wrote: no statistics to back them up and even declared that Tallaght had 'high density' local authority housing.
Thomond Park wrote: What experience do you have of urban living?
PDLL wrote:If 'social engineering' or pseudo-sociology' has nothing to do with planning, then is it any wonder things are in a mess. Oddly enough, I would have thought that the way we PLAN our society is very much related to planning - could be wrong on this of course.
PDLL wrote: Statistics - please go to Central Statistics Office website and the annual reports of the Gardai. You will find more than ample information there to support what I have stated. Of course, much of these statistics are based on 'generalizations', so I hope that doesn't put you off. Shameful, that, the way sociologiy bases itself on generalised statistics, especially when those statistics don't support the vision of the world that you might like to project. As regards 'high density' in Tallaght or anywhere elese for that matter - a housing estate with anything over 10 houses is arguably high density by Irish standards.
PDLL wrote: Not that it is relevant, I have lived in towns and cities both in Ireland and abroad for every single day of my life. I currently live in a city considerably bigger and better planned than Dublin. I have never lived in a rural one-off house, nor - oddly enough - would I like to. In the same way, however, that I would support the building of high-rise in Dublin, I support the retention of one-off rural houses as I believe that they have a place in Irish society and culture and have had since the very first settlers arrived here. To remove them from the countryside will leave the country looking like Britain. Urbanism is only one concept of human settlement and, in the broad span of human history, a relatively recent one. Trying to force everyone to fit the same concept of settlement sounds singularly communist to me.
PDLL wrote:That is the Garda Annual Report for 2004 - I should have mentioned this above.
jimg wrote:PDLL, your "bigger picture" is just a bunch of stereotypes of an idylic countryside existance. You make no mention of 2 and half hour commutes. You make no mention that children have to be driven everywhere in cars and have extremely limited social lives outside of school as they are not in a position to independently meet friends. You do not mention the extremely high rate of suicide and depression in the parts of Ireland which have the most dispersed pattern of settlement. Or the fact that sustaining a social life almost necessitates driving while under the influence of alchohol. I always liked this piece which while perhaps overly negative, tallies with some of my own experiences growing up in a once-off.
PDLL wrote: http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics/report2004/stats2004.pdf
This will give you all the statistics you could want and then some. No - it doesn't discuss societal patterns or settlement patterns and this is exactly my point. The consequences - good, bad or indifferent - of one-off houses can not be simply reduced to 'it costs a lot to tarmac a boreen or to deliver post to a house - therefore its cheaper to live in an estate on a bus route'. This is a simplistic and reductive understanding of how settlement patterns affect our society and economy.
PDLL wrote: The answer will not lie in one or two statistics or neat percentages, but collectively these might actually give a broader picture of how things really function. Yes, people see a boreen being tarmaced and the anti-one-off brigade start whining because it allegedly costs those living in somewhere like Crumlin a few extra tax euros. Perhaps, though, the owner of that house on the boreen is more comfortable living in the country, feels less stressed, is more family orientated, is more content with his/her existence and is, therefore, more productive in his job (personal contentment being a recognised pyschological factor underpinning productivity).
PDLL wrote: As he is more productive, he doesn't cost the state so much in unemployment allowances, in health care, etc, rather he can make a net contribution in taxes that will help subsidise some individual hooked on alcohol in a crappy overcrowded house in a decrepid estate in Tallaght. He doesn't feel imprisoned in a confined estate, he doesn't feel estranged from his neighbours, he doesn't feel like an anonymous unit because he has no relationship to the society around him. He doesn't therefore, feel the need to try drugs, to drink to excess, to commit acts of vandalism. Yes, all of these factors are interconnected and planners need to start thinking that way. It is not about shifting little boxes on a computer screen and labelling one 'shopping centre', the other 'recreational utility' and so on. It is, however, easier to wag the aggrieved finger at a boreen being re-tarmaced and come out with the old lines of begrudgery.
PDLL wrote: Yes, you will not get the answers by looking at one or two statistics, but by considering the whole picture, there are other issues at stake. Has anyone carried out a study of the socio-economic consequences of makingthe planning laws on one-off housing so restrictive that people who wish to live in the countryside can no longer do so? Theres a PhD topic for someone.
Is this a reasonable generalisation. I think not.
PDLL wrote:take a working class high density housing estate in Tallaght or wherever and compare it to an area comprising 100 one-off houses in Co Mayo. Yes, the one-off houses cost a little more in terms of services...However, how much do you think the corpo houses in Dublin cost the Irish tax payer, how much does the tax payer pay for the consequences of ghetto style housing areas in cities
Graham Hickey wrote:When was the last time a person in a lower socio-economic bracket built a one-off house? When was the last time a person on the dole with few prospects in life built a one-off house?
PDLL wrote:Ithis might mean some one living in such a house may cost the state a couple of extra euros to have a pot-hole filled now and then,
PDLL wrote: I have a feeling that the message is not getting across. No drug clinic in Sherriff Street is funded by a few euros either!
PDLL wrote: No statue to Phil Lynnott on Grafton Street or wherever is funded by a few euros either
PDLL wrote: - but the point is we all contribute to the central pool of exchequer funds. Sometimes the expenditures benefit us directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes not at all. Consider the bigger picture and stop bashing a few individuals who manage to benefit from the tax system in a way which you cannot and do not. I am sure you benefit in other ways from their tax euros that they will never.
Thomond Park wrote:The message is getting across you have no knowledge of Dublin whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!
Upper Sherriff St is a zone in transtion from industrial to new dockland mixed use featuring some of the most expensive medium density developments in the state whereas Lower Sherriff St has been regenerated to form part of the IFSC, a transport interchange rail/bus and a small number of three storey familly homes provided by Dublin City Council c 1997.
Many of those using Dublin drug clinics are those driven from small country towns and even one off houses who have no option but to migrate to large urban centres to recieve treatment.
PDLL wrote:I am talking generically. No I don't know each and every house in the Sherrif Street area, nor do I know the location of each and every drug clinic in Dublin. The point was not about geographical specificity. In the same way, I don't know if a pot-hole has been filled in a boreen somewhere near Kenmare in the last 100 years. I was trying to making an analogy to get a point across about the concept that tax-payers money goes in various directions, some of which may or may not directly benfit us.
PDLL wrote: Fantastic - I am delighted for the family of Phil Lynnot. I have a feeling though that the handfull of croonies that may actually have visited the statue at its unveiling is not an indication that it will become a premier tourist attraction in its own right. We should maintain some perspective on this. Thin Lizzy was not exactly the Beetles or the Rolling Stones, so I don't think Dublin tourism will benefit to the extent you might wish to imagine from this statue.
PDLL wrote: As regards angling, most river and lake pollution is caused by farming-related polution, and is not domestic in origin. By the way, where do you think the angling visitors stay - yip - one off houses serving as B&Bs - probably the mainstay of Ireland's tourism product.